Fr. Charles Belmonte versus "The Dissenter" (Fr. Joaquin Bernas): Round 2!

For part 1: Fr. Charles Belmonte on the dissent of Fr. Joaquin Bernas

The following is from Fr. Charles Belmonte's Facebook page. He published this yesterday, Sept. 24, 2012. The picture (Cimabue's The Treason of Judas) is part of the post. 

THE DISSENTER wrote…:

“Let me illustrate this through the teaching on contraception. The teaching of the Church on contraception is found in various documents. But Church teaching is not accepted by a vast number of people.” 

I SAY: Being an “eminent constitutionalist” he should know that “acceptance by the people” is not a necessary requirement for the validity or lawfulness of a law; at least in Canon Law. Moreover, “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator” (CIC, 16), not by any Dick, Tom or Harry.

THE DISSENTER: “Persons who adhere to Humanae Vitae, etc. and act in the sphere of the relation of man to God are expected to plan their family according to the principles of the Church teaching. 

I SHOULD ADD: Right so. These “persons” are officially called “christifideles” or simply, Catholics.

THE DISSENTER: “But these same persons should not be faulted if in the sphere of constitutional law they do not oppose a state plan that is not in accordance with Humanae Vitae, etc." 

I SAY: I contemplate tree possible motives for which they do not oppose a state plan that is not in accordance with their faith (using the legal resources they may have):

(a) They don’t oppose an evil law because they cannot do so, materially. Possible reasons: All the media are against them; the machinery of the State impedes them from intervening; they have no representation in the assembly, etc.

(b) They don’t oppose an evil law because they have two wills, instead of one, as all human beings have. We should not discard the possibility of aliens possessing two wills.

(c) They don’t oppose an evil law because of duplicity in their character. They are not fully determined in favor of Truth and Good; thus, they harbor in their hearts a certain love for truth and, at the same time, a personal inclination to evil not fully conquered (due to vanity, pride…, whatever). 

THE DISSENTER: “Religious liberty in the constitutional plane does not simply mean freedom to choose what to believe but also freedom to act or not to act according to one’s belief.”

I SAY: I really don’t know, or care, what “liberty in the constitutional plane” implies. 

But “liberty in the moral plane” –definitively and emphatically– does not mean what the Dissenter avers. 

“To act according to one’s belief” is usually called “sincerity,” or “authenticity,” or “having personal responsibility and maturity,” or “being coherent with one’s faith.”

On the other hand, “Not to act according to one’s belief” is usually called “duplicity,” or “insincerity,” or “betrayal of one’s faith.”

Faith is not a “hat” that one can take off when one enters the Congress and then put on when one enters the church; that is, properly speaking, having a “double life”… nakakasuka.

Sin of omission

Too harsh, perhaps, but expressive of the righteous anger and frustration of many long-suffering Catholic pro-lifers with clerics who are either ambiguous or are for all intents and purposes supporting the RH bill:

From The Pinoy Catholic:

A Message to Fr. Joaquin Bernas

Admit it Fr. Bernas.

That is what you have been trumpeting all along.

You keep on saying that a person cannot be coerced to follow a law when his rights are protected by the Constitution, isn't it?

Yes, we all know you are a Constitutionalist.  You had been telling us that since day 1.

Yes, we also know that you are dean emeritus of the Ateneo Law School.  You keep on telling us that.

You just told us that you support Humanae Vitae, which is the first time you ever wrote about.

Now when will you ever tell that the State cannot force a person to disobey his religious convictions?

When?

You did not write about it.

All you ever care about is to tell that Catholics cannot force others to follow their law.

Is that what the bishops are talking about when they oppose the RH Bill?

Did you even write why the bishops are against the RH Bill?  Did you even write about the teachings of the Church against contraception?

Check your works.  You write more for the protection of the Constitution rather than the Laws of the Church.

Yes, we know you are a lawyer, a constitutionalist.  We all know that.

What we do not know is that you are a Catholic Priest.  You cannot even prove that, other than insisting that you are a Jesuit priest!

You have been so ambiguous, we just want to forget to respect you that you are even a priest!

"I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:15-16)

Jemy Gatdula's responses to Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Fr. Ranhilio Aquino

Again, Fr. Bernas is mistaken. Same with Fr. Aquino

(September 24, 2012)

By this article Fr. Joaquin Bernas (and those from whom he gets his advice) is again sadly mistaken. It is very evident that he compartmentalizes his reasoning, distinguishing the theological, philosophical, and constitutional points from each other. This is wrong. The arguments are actually unified and one. They are all constitutional arguments (and philosophical, and theological). The fact that he can't seem to see that is unfortunate.

His arguments on taxation, the nature of legislation, and the application of natural law are also myopic and, at times, quite fallacious.

Ultimately, how one understands the law, the nature of law, the nature of rights, and the nature of human beings would be determinative of how one ultimately views constitutional law. Though there would be occasions to properly discuss 'pluralism' and 'tolerance', there is still that point when one has to make a consideration of what is the objective standard (or else admit the lack of one) in determining what is constitutional or not and what what is right from wrong.

Far from helping achieve clarity on the issue, Fr. Bernas, I am grieved to say, continues to feed confusion to it.

I still stand on my previous comments on the issue, noting that Fr. Bernas has said nothing new that would give me cause to revise it. For a further exposition on natural law and how contraception violates it, see Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation & Defense.

Lamentably, another priest, Fr, Ranhilio Aquino, also seems to not "get" natural law (see The Trouble With Natural Law). One can point to so many reasons why this is so. Suffice to say, however, that the fact that he does not seem to grasp that the very authority he mentions (i.e., John Finnis) is actually quite clear on his position that contraception violates natural law (see "Every Marital Act Ought To Be Open to New Life': Toward a Clearer Understanding"; co-written by John Finnis with Germain Grisez and William May) points to his inadequate depth on the matter.

Fr. Charles Belmonte on the dissent of Fr. Joaquin Bernas

(UPDATE: For Fr. Belmonte's second response to Fr. Bernas, see this:  Fr. Charles Belmonte versus "The Dissenter" (Fr. Joaquin Bernas): Round 2!)

From Fr. Belmonte's Facebook page:

Conversing with a Dissenter

(Sept. 10, 2012)

Or where the Dissenter went off the road

To have a meaningful dialog, it should be on a level ground.

The Dissenter uses the Philippine Inquirer as his sounding board. The Bishop of the Diocese of Antipolo, writing under the stationery of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, had to pay to publish an ad in the newspapers. Is this a symmetric dialog?

The Dissenter voices his “opinion;” the Bishop reminds him of the definitive pronouncements of the Church. The Dissenter can change his points of view as he wishes; the Bishop can only be faithful to the Truth. The dialog the Dissenter proposes is flawed because there is no “symmetry.” 

These two individuals are not at the same level. The Bishop is a part of the Magisterium of the Church (when he declares united with the pope and the College of Bishops, which is the case, please, check the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the pronouncements of the pope). The Dissenter is not a part of the Magisterium. If he were a sound theologian, he should talk “within” the Church, not “against” the definitive pronouncements of the Church. The theologian’s work should be “ecclesial” not “purely rationalist,” without any reference to Revelation or to the guidance of the Church. Pope John Paul II reminds us:

“It is necessary truly to distinguish the attitude of some theologians who, with spirit of collaboration and of ecclesial communion, present their difficulties and questions, from the attitude of some others, who publicly oppose the Magisterium; this should be qualified as ‘dissent.’ While the first attitude contributes positively to maturing the reflection on the deposit of the faith, the second one tends to institute a kind of counter-Magisterium, formulating positions and alternative ways of behavior for the believers” (On the Authority of the Church in Doctrinal Questions, Nov. 24, 1995).

If he is priest, he should know that priests are collaborators of the bishops. They must be attuned to their bishop “like the strings of a sitar are tuned up to compose a symphony,” not really engaging their spiritual father in a cacophony of despondency, as if the bishop were the enemy. Thus, any dialog should be between a Bishop and a Priest. Unless, of course, the Dissenter wants to force the Bishop to give up his condition (the full expression of ministerial priesthood), so that he can engage him on even terms. But, I muse, should the Bishops give up his being a bishop? or should not rather the Dissenter give up his opposition and critique to the definitive pronouncements of the Church? 

There could be a real dialog, nevertheless, between a Bishop and a Dissenter when the latter has some objection to the explanation given of the truth, I guess. But in this case, the dialog should be realistic, not illusory. It would be realistic if it were a dialog between a Bishop and a theologian, not between two buddies. Bishop Reyes is not “your buddy,” I am afraid; he is more like a spiritual father. The Dissenter may as well have challenged him to a public boxing match in Araneta Coliseum with Manny Pacquiao as referee, to see what theological view is the right one. I am sure the Dissenter would have won. If so, would it mean that contraception was no longer “intrinsically evil”?

This dialog should be “indoors” not making the ordinary people take sides (pro-Bishop or pro-Dissenter; pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic). The Christian faithful should not be invited to be “against” the unequivocally announced Magisterium of the Church. Well, yes, unless someone has been baptized “in the name of the Dissenter” instead of “In the Name of the Father…”

What is a theological question or a misunderstood theological issue should not be brought to the public forum, presumably to solve the question by public vote. 

The root of the problem, as I see it, is a certain inability from the Dissenter to understand the essence of the Magisterium of the Church, rejecting what is expressed in the Code of Canon Law, number 749 #2 and Catechism of the Catholic Church 891 and 892. The Dissenter sticks to the reductionist theory that “only what has been declared ex-cathedra” should be fully accepted by a Catholic. The Bishop is reminding him of what is expressed in the law of the Catholic Church.

From the Ateneo: 3 brave lay theology teachers speak out in defense of the authentic Catholic teaching on conscience

This declaration is the response of three theology teachers of the Ateneo De Manila to the erroneous understanding of conscience that underpins the public support recently given to the RH bill (or at least to the alleged moral right of Catholics to publicly support that bill) by 192 Ateneo professors and by Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ.

These three teachers also condemn the bitter hatred of the Church that has been unleashed in the aftermath of the statements of support for the RH bill given by the pro-RH Ateneo professors.

Mr. Rafael Dy-Liacco took his Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R) in Yale Divinity School, Mr. Markus Locker has a Ph.D in Philosophy from Monash University in Melbourne, and Josemaria Roberto V. Reyes, whose Bachelor's degree is in Management (from ADMU), is currently a candidate for MA in Theology from Loyola School of Theology.

Statement of Catholic Theology Teachers on Conscience and Faith

Are you really on the side of the Church, Fr. Bernas?

From the I Oppose the RH bill Action Group in Facebook:

An Open Letter to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ

Prof. Marvin Julian L. Sambajon Jr. 

Your Reverence:

Peace.

This is in reference to your article posted at the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) last Monday, May 23rd, 2011. But, first and foremost, I would like to sympathize with you if ever a high-ranking ecclesiastical authority labeled you as ‘Judas’ and that you were considered by others a heretic. I understand your position and from that understanding, I am addressing this open reaction letter to Your Reverence for the sake of those who have been listening to your discourses and/or reading your write-ups.

In the same article, you embodied your first position this way:

“First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!”

Your Reverence, how do you adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception? When we adhere to certain teaching, we devote ourselves in the observance of such teaching. Moreover, said teaching is made manifest in our gestures, in our dealings, in our principles, and in our advocacy. If we say, we adhere but not observe it, then, adherence is devoid of what it truly means. We become like a “tingling cymbal”. And as a priest adhering to the teaching of the Church on contraception, even common sense dictates that you are one with the Church in teaching that contraception is evil and in enabling people to understand what makes it evil. Are you, truly, one with the Church in this crusade, Your Reverence?

Catholic bishop of Antipolo responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ

Published on the CBCP for Life website:

Defense of the Stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill)

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Catholic Church is against the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill) is that the bill directs the government to promote contraception and to give free contraceptives to people. According to Father Bernas, SJ (Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 23, 2011), this opposition of the Church is against religious freedom. He says that, because of religious freedom, “the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.”

A lay Catholic response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas' article "My Stand on the RH Bill"

Feedback to Fr. Bernas' "My stand on the RH Bill" Sounding Board column article

Manuel Abejo

Dear Fr. Bernas,

This is in reaction to your article "My stand on the RH Bill" in your PDI-Sounding Board column.

I wish to comment on your second point.

To my understanding, you wish to raise at the same level of respect and public esteem the conviction of some people that "artificial birth control is a good method for spacing births" to that of "spacing births through the use of infertile periods" recommended by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. The ground for raising such demand is your alleged perception that we are living in a "pluralist society".

Atty. Joe Sison responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas

A response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas' column, My Stand on the RH Bill

More questions

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Updated May 27, 2011

In taking a stand on difficult issues, it is always advisable to have an open mind and to consider all angles. The better attitude is to think that there are wiser and more intelligent people who are experts on certain fields and whose views are much respected and often cited. One of them is of course Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ. His opinions are really persuasive and count a lot to us who are still learning and trying to grasp the correct meaning and answer to certain constitutional questions especially those arising from the highly controversial RH bill that is now being heatedly discussed.

It is thus very fortunate that Fr. Bernas has categorically declared that he “adheres to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception” even if he is “aware that it is not considered an infallible doctrine by those who know more theology” than he does. This means therefore that to Fr. Bernas, contraception or “any action taken before, during or after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the process or the possible fruit of conception”, is morally wrong. It is morally wrong because it “separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act.” In other words it is like the spouses telling each other, “I love you as long as we do not give birth.” (Catechism on Family and Life (CFL) December 27, 2009).

Another very helpful clarification from Fr. Bernas is his unequivocal stand that “sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation” so that “there is already abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled” because the “Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected from conception”. This is very important because the principal authors of the bill anchor its legality on an entirely different and contrasting concept that life begins at implantation. Following Fr. Bernas’ pronouncement to which we adhere as we highly value his opinion on this issue, the consolidated bill (HB 4244) entitled “An Act for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, Population and Development” is therefore inherently unconstitutional.

It is inherently unconstitutional because its main purpose as reflected in its title is to depopulate our country by promoting, distributing and making available to the people especially the poor, a full menu of modern artificial methods of family planning that prevent the implantation of the fertilized ova based on the belief and concept espoused by its authors that life begins only at implantation. But in the light of Fr. Bernas’ explanation that is diametrically opposed to the authors’ concept of when life begins, the bill will in effect legalize the expelling of fertilized ova which is nothing but mass murder of innocent babies.

On this specific point alone, the RH bill should be junked. It is not necessary anymore to go into other constitutionally objectionable features of the bill like the provision on the mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents which is clearly against the constitutional provision recognizing the sanctity of human family and the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character as Fr. Bernas said.

We really look up to Fr. Bernas for guidance on this controversy but perhaps because of our limited understanding and intelligence, several questions still came up as we try to discern his stand on the RH bill, more specifically the following:

1. Can the RH bill nevertheless be enacted into law even if its underlying premise – that life begins at implantation – is clearly contrary to the Constitution mandating the State to protect the life of the unborn from conception or, as he said, from fertilization not implantation? This question still cropped up because of his statement that “if we have to have an RH law”, he intends “to contribute to its improvement as much as (he) can”.

2. Is it alright to have an RH law initiated by and originating from foreign countries and International organizations trying to impose a population control (“development”) policy designed to protect their own interest? This question also crops up because up to now the alleged foreign connection and intervention has not been denied or rebutted.

3. Since the bill prohibits abortion because it is an assault against the right to life, should the “question of scientific fact” on what are the abortifacient pills and devices be settled first so that the bill could already specify them or at least set guidelines in determining them before delegating this function to the Food and Drug Administration? How does the bill define abortion? Is it expulsion of fertilized ova at any time or only after implantation?

4. Are not the bill’s “valuable points in its Declaration of Principles and Policies that can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of the poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service” already part and parcel of existing laws promoting public health and welfare which are, or should be, given by the various departments and government agencies particularly the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare and Development?

5. Is it in accordance with the Constitution to spend public money for the promotion of “reproductive health” that entails the use of contraceptives just to have “a safe and satisfying sex” even if it runs counter to the religious beliefs of some sects like the Catholic Church? Can Congress appropriate public money to enforce the use of birth control pills and other contraceptives which is against the religious beliefs and moral convictions of some religious groups?

6. Is the Church or the people of God who merely voice their objection to the RH bill particularly to President Aquino in the exercise of their freedom to act on their religious belief really “compelling the President to prevent people from acting according to their own religious belief”? Are not other sects favoring the bill also doing this?

Indeed this RH bill has only caused deep division and serious rift among our people including some clerics. Our country will be better off without it. It is not so necessary after all. There are more effective and less divisive ways of licking poverty here.

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

A lay Catholic's response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J.'s column "A war of religions"

This was published by Manuel Abejo on his Multiply blog:

Dear Editor,

I am very grateful for stumbling-upon the article of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., "A war of religions" (posted May 2, 2011) for two (2) reasons.

The first reason is that Fr. Bernas enumerated some of the changes RH Bill proponents have made to the draft bill to allegedly make it acceptable to those opposing it. The enumerated changes are as follows:

1) Local government units will "help implement this Act", instead of "give priority to family planning work". (in Section 13 of HB4244)

2) "Parents shall have the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education." (in Section 16 of HB4244)

3) Deletion of the section on employers' responsibility on reproductive health. (Section 21 of HB4244)

4) Deletion of the specific enumeration of allowable contraceptive devices and methods. It will be replaced with the proposal for the allowance of contraceptive methods that are in general safe and legal.

These changes, I believe, are still to be declared and incorporated to the draft bill during the second-reading sessions at the House of Representatives.

I agree with Fr. Bernas that these changes are not enough to stop the opposition of the bishops of the Catholic Church to the bill. The bishops have been insisting from the very beginning that the bill is an attempt to legalize the use of artificial contraception. The bishops have been exhorting the faithful, and the nation at large, that artificial contraception is contrary to the moral law as declared by Pope Paul VI in 'Humanae Vitae'. The bishops have been reminding the nation that something immoral, or against the Ten-Commandments, cannot be legalized or be established in human laws. The bill despite the latest changes still contains provisions that promote artificial contraception and there is no way for the bishops to agree with it.

The second reason for being grateful to Fr. Bernas is his attempt to encourage both sides of the debate to view the issue in the light of religious freedom and respect for human dignity as enunciated in the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCPII), the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and 'Dignitatis-Humanae'.

In my opinion, the only way for both sides to respect each other's freedom and dignity is for RH Bill not to be enacted into law at all, given that artificial contraception is immoral! It is timely to remind ourselves of the exhortation in 'Dignitatis Humanae' to political authorities that "government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will." (Dignitatis Humanae, 6)

There are other options available for the government to reduce maternal mortality other than legalizing artificial contraception.

Though I am grateful to Fr. Bernas for his article, I am also disappointed by the vagueness of his position on the RH Bill. He could be of great service to the ordinary faithful if he will be more categorical and direct in his position.

During World War II when ordinary foot-soldiers were in the midst of a gun-battle and artillery barrage, these soldiers (who were mostly young, uneducated, rural boys) greatly appreciated and were extremely grateful for the concrete, simple, and direct tactical directions of their front-line commanding officers.

I believe, we are in a great spiritual battle in this RH bill debate. The more concrete, simple, and direct our declared position in this issue, the better we can serve the simple flock we are shepherding.

Thank you for this chance to write. Should you decide to publish this letter, please show only my email address. Thank you and more power to PDI!

Author's Note:

This letter was submitted by website feedback form on May 3, 2011 (Manila time).

Fr. Julio Penacoba responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas

The following letter is a response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ's latest column, entitled "My stand on the RH bill". This response has been published on the following blogs: Primacy of Reason and Jemy Gatdula. The following version includes all the italics in the version sent by Fr. Penacoba himself via email.


Fr. Julio Penacoba is a spiritual writer and a priest of Opus Dei.
.

SOME COMMENTS TO FR. BERNAS' STAND ON THE RH BILL

by Fr Julio Penacoba. frjuliop@gmail.com 1046 Dos Castillas St., Sampaloc, Manila

As I understand it, Fr Bernas attempts to explain why it would be possible to accept the teachings of the Church (that says that contraception is wrong) and yet to support the RH Bill that promotes contraception.

His line of argument may be put like this: The rules of the Church apply to Catholics but should not be imposed on others.

In my understanding, that line of argument is very valid for religious issues, that is for matters related to faith and worship. For example, the Church has rules for its worship such as the obligation of attending Sunday Mass, or the prohibition of eating meat on Ash Wednesday, or the obligation to follow canon law provisions regarding marriage. The Church should not demand that the State impose those obligations to non-Catholics.

However, Fr Bernas' line of argument is not applicable on ethical issues. In those matters, the Church does not have ethical rules for Catholics only, but declarations of the ethical values inherent to the dignity of any human person. Thus, when the Church speaks against corruption, bigamy or drunkenness she is not stating rules for Catholics only. Neither is she imposing limitations on the goods of others. She is simply offering a moral evaluation of certain behaviors for all men of good will who mind the dignity of the whole person including his ethical dignity.

In my perception, Fr Bernas' position seems to treat contraception as a religious issue (a Church rule) rather than an ethical issue. For example, the first quotation that he cites in his Second point (Compendium of Social Doctrine, n.423) belongs to the section entitled Religious Freedom and not about morality or ethical issues. Any intelligent reader can see that it is talking of rights and privileges on the area of practicing one's religion --clearly not applicable to ethical issues.

Regarding the second quotation from the same Compendium (n. 169), it belongs to a discussion on how the State should seek the effective good of all and not only of the majority but of the minorities as well. To apply that text to the discussion on contraception would assume that everybody agrees that contraception is an ethical good and therefore it should be given not only to the majority but to the minorities as well.

Since both quotes are from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, may I now quote from the section (n.234) where that document refers directly to the on-going debate:

All programs of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead by sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions.

Second Response to Fr. Bernas on "A War of Religions"

War of religions?
Resty Odon

Re: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110502-334122/A-war-of-religions

The above article caused me to issue a major groan. I think Jesuit priest and constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas went overboard this time by wrongly framing the RH Bill debate as a war of religions. We prolife and anti-RH Bill advocates are against which religion exactly? We oppose this bill not to impose our own faith on others and with conscientious respect for religions other than ours. We've been opposing this bill since the start careful not to use the religious angle, using the angle only to show how the bill will be onerous to us who want to simply practice our faith. What are you up to, Fr. Bernas?!? You're unbelievable, to put it mildly.

As far as I can see, people have been opposing the bill from the standpoints of: common sense; the law/constitutionality and long-term legal implications; media coverage, mythmaking, and PR wars; basic human rights (including female/women's rights and more specifically, religious freedom (and not the right to religious arrogation); medicine, especially embryology, obstetrics/gynecology, and pharmacology; sociology, including the family; economics; demographic science (statistics, mathematics); ecology/environmental science; linguistics; basic education; psychology including developmental psychology and human sexuality; taxation and public spending; accounting, public administration, local politics and the culture of corruption; the workplace; Third World studies, Western hegemony and the foreign funding trail; and racism, eugenics and social engineering.

Granting we use Catholic theology and religion to back up our arguments, like I've said before, remove this aspect, and we will still oppose the bill because it is fundamentally flawed on ALL THE ABOVE LEVELS. How?

1 - Common sense

People have been freely contracepting themselves since the '60s. Contraceptive mentality is already deeply embedded in the culture that there is hardly a need to reindoctrinate. Notice the vulgar ads. Just visit any health center and hospital and see how doctors and nurses conduct their affairs. Existing laws and DOH regulations already have provisions for maternal health care, so why the redundancy?

2 - The law, constitutionality, and long-term legal implications

Some, or many, contraceptives are abortifacients, making these automatically illegal because abortion still means murder of the unborn according to our constitution. Other legal loopholes have been noticed by legal experts pertaining to freedom of religion, freedom of expression/censorship, freedom of choice (ironic, since RH supporters call themselves pro-choice), etc. Additionally, the term 'reproductive right' sounds too uncomfortable, possibly opening the floodgates to new invented rights in the future.

3 - Media coverage, mythmaking, and PR wars

Manipulative headlines, inaccurate and out-of-context quotes to embarass or shame prolife sources, biased journalists and columnists, and the questionable silence on other aspects of the Bill all point to a politicking of truth that makes one wonder what's in the agenda other than what we read at face value. All this makes the RH Bill all the more suspect.

4 - Basic human rights (including female/women's rights and more specifically, religious freedom (and not religious arrogation)

The effrontery of the crafters of the Bill to even attempt to infringe on basic human rights, with nary a hue and cry from the usual suspects (the hypervigilant liberal and/or leftist camp): freedom of expression, freedom of religion, right to life of the unborn, right of families to determine size, right of parents to educate children on sexual matters, the right of the individual or any group not to use contraceptives at all if it is against their belief! By fighting for religious freedom, we are, in fact, protecting all other religions. Is this a war of religions?

5 - Medicine, especially embryology, obstetrics/gynecology, pharmacology

The Bill turns a blind eye on the fact that life begins at fertilization, and certain contraceptives can kill a human being, cause breast cancer, and pose other high health risks due to other serious side effects.

5.1 Healthcare

The Bill coerces hospitals, doctors, and nurses/medical caregivers into automatically providing 'RH services' even when it is against their will, that is why this Bill is called fascistic (and this is just one reason why).

6 - Sociology, including the family

Supporters cite the popularity of population control/family planning through contraceptive use through survey upon survey, as though right and wrong, and human rights and human wrongs, should be determined by popularity. They confuse democracy with basic law precepts.

Meanwhile, the family, the basic unit of society, has been attempted to be redefined in terms of size, as in China's one-child policy.

7 - Economics

The Bill presupposes in an appallingly reductionist thinking that population is a burden that must be minimized or a problem that must be eliminated to maintain a wasteful, terribly inequitable status quo. Other glaring factors are not even considered: the mismanagement of the economy, high-level corruption, etc.

8 - Demographic science (statistics/mathematics) and geography

The Bill wrongly assumes that overpopulation is an established fact rather than more of a perception, as though people have never taken an airplane ride or climbed mountains. It turns a blind eye on the sure and certain and irreversible demographic winter that is to come blighting all nations that have adopted a zero population growth policy.

9 - Ecology/Environmental science

The Bill assumes man as a disrupter of ecological balance, without considering the difference between human population and man's environmentally abusive/destructive practices. Rabid environmentalists never consider nature's built-in capacity to restore balance, if there is indeed a dire need, through pandemics, apocalytic natural calamities, localized famines, world wars, and the like. They turn a blind eye on the fact that technological knowhow/advances enable global food production to more than exceed human consumption, and all forms of food shortages are staged to maintain or jack up prices.

10 - Linguistics

Especially irsksome is the use of specious wording and phrasing by lobbyists and the Bill itself, not realizing that the Bill has been framed from questionable assumptions about population, human rights, and human sexuality. The sheer amount of creative euphemisms used in the debate would have been so ridiculously laughable if it were not too heartbreaking: pregnancy as disease; contraceptives as essential medicine; sex as a danger to be protected against with condom as protection; contraception as safe motherhood, family planning, responsible parenthood, sexual health, and now reproductive health right; conception as embryonic implantation; and so on. What's next? Abortion as fetal reduction, euthanasia/assisted suicide as advanced directive, homosexuality as sexual preference or, worse, gender identity?

11 - Basic education

The Bill proposes secular sex education on children even in their tender nonsexual stage! If you have been a child or has ever had a child, this is simply unbelievable.

12 - Psychology and human sexuality

The Bill's presuppositions on human sexuality and management is too secular and utilitarian, reducing sex to a dangerous recreation and men and women as objects of entertainment, instead of the intention of sex (as originally interpreted by various faiths) as a sacred, intimate act between a man and a woman in marriage. Alternately, the sexual act is reduced to its procreative and economically theatening nature, entirely divorced from its other more important context (the unitive aspect). The Bill will, in fact, legalize all these aberrant views of human sexuality.

Also, have pro-RH people heard of post-abortion survivor syndrome among both the surviving mother and the child? Is there a special provision for them? How about the effect on women's self-esteem of their objectification on a massive, legalized scale?

13 - Taxation and public spending

The Bill appropriates tax money for projects whose philosophical core is offensive to Catholic teaching and Catholic followers who are also taxpayers. If pro-RH people and their foreign sponsors are really after combating poverty, why not use the funds instead on infrastructure modernization, technology transfers, personnel training, job creation, etc.?

If all these people are really against poverty, then where are they on issues that may yet be the real causes of poverty (which ironically may be the cause of 'overpopulation,' which is really overcrowding in city and town centers)? Where, oh, where are their vociferous opposition and vehement manifestos (and tweets and posts) on patronage politics, culture of impunity, culture of corruption, monopolies or cartels and other unacceptable business practices, social inequity and inequitable legislations, vastly landed oligarchy, unfair labor laws and employment practices? Where are they in the fight against homelessness, street children, the grinding subhuman poverty among urban dwellers, other marginalized sectors of society, where? -- apart from their effort at intensive condom distribution, that is?

(And where am I?, I might be asked. Well, I'm the middle of it, suffering in pain.)

14 - The workplace

The Bill requires all employers to provide 'RH services' to all employees regardless of the employer's or employee's choice. Again, fascistic, onerous, oppressive.

15 - Third World studies, Western hegemony and foreign funding trail

Supporters of the Bill refuse to see how this Bill, through subtle pressure from outside, is really a precondition for foreign aid -- in aid of population control, that is.

16 - Accounting, public administration, local politics and the culture of corruption

Is there a system in place to see whether every centavo spent is spent in really advancing the supposedly good aims of the Bill? Supporters of the Bill can't see how foreign aid could be another chance to line political pockets at the expense of the poor. Exhibit A: Maguindanao and the Ampatuans.

17 - Racism, eugenics and social engineering

Supporters of the Bill turn a blind eye on the implicit message of foreign funders who make no secret of their aim to reduce colored 'races,' to stop them from further burgeoning and threatening to be their competitors for the world's finite resources. Isn't the RH Bill based too much on fear?

First Response to Fr. Bernas on " A War of Religions"

From Wilfredo Jose's blog Random Thoughts and Musings:

A war of religions(?)

[and my comments]

A war of religions

By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

Philippine Daily Inquirer

Posted 05/02/2011

THE CONTROVERSY over the RH Bill is becoming or has become a war of religions. Pitted against each other are, on the one hand, “good” Catholics, and, on the other, the Iglesia ni Cristo, Protestant denominations, Muslims and “bad” Catholics. By “bad Catholics” I mean the kind of Catholics whom “good” priests supported by their “good” bishop consider unworthy to enter a Catholic church. And since I myself do not see the various issues as clear black against white, I have been urged by some “good” Catholics to leave the church before I say anything more on the issue. It is a sad day for the Catholic church which I love.

[I don't approve of the word "bad" Catholics either. It is too negative and judgmental upon the person. I would rather use the term "dissenting" Catholics, which more objectively defines the action. However, dissenting Catholics would generally fall into two categories, one who dissents out of lack of catechetical formation, and one who dissents willfully, with full knowledge and consent. I would leave it to the readers if the last category of Catholics means "bad".]

When I heard about the priest who told those who accept the RH Bill to leave the church, two passages from the New Testament came to mind. I refer, first, to the driving of money changers out of the temple premises. Jesus fashioned a whip out of cords, and drove the “bad guys” out of the premises. But unlike the driven out “bad Catholics,” the “bad guys” in the New Testament story were not there to pray; they were there to make money. And they were not even in the inner portion of the Temple. Jesus had every right to say that his Father’s house was not meant to be a marketplace.

[I never heard of that sermon of the priest "who told those who accept the RH Bill to leave the church". It is probably worthwhile to appreciate the sermon in its entirety, and understand the message in its whole context. I am note sure if the priest in question likened Catholic pro-RH supporters to money changers at the temple. For one thing, the money changers displeased Jesus. On the other hand I wonder if pro-RH Catholics do not displease Jesus for disobeying His Church.]

Another incident is the story of the woman caught in adultery. She was dragged before Our Lord by “good” people. And the Mosaic law was clear: a woman caught in adultery must be stoned. “Let him who has no sin cast the first stone,” Jesus said. And he bent down to scribble on the ground, to scribble perhaps the names of the accusers. One by one the “good” guys slunk away.

[I always hear of this passage whenever talk about tolerance occurs in religious circles. I notice time and again that the last statement of Jesus in that story is almost always left out: Go and sin no more.]

The moral of the story is, which I like to tell those who ask me why I continue to teach “bad guys” in the Ateneo Law School: Christ came to save sinners, even defenders of the RH Bill.

[Right. But what exactly do you teach them, Father? Rather, what understanding to they internalize and how do they act upon it after imbibing your teachings? How many of your students come out of your classes convinced or otherwise that the RH bill should be opposed?]

The debate on the RH Bill started in 2008, or perhaps even earlier, but it was interrupted by concern about the coming elections. When the debate resumed in 2009, it was difficult for many, myself included, to be totally for or totally against the RH Bill because it had many facets. I believe that the complexity of the issues presented by the bill is the reason that, while some priests and bishops have been vocal against the bill, others have largely remained silent. And I often wonder how many of them have bothered to study the Bill.

Since 2009, the proposal in the House has undergone some very substantial changes. The original proponents of the Bill have agreed to tone down or eliminate some of the provisions being objected to. Let me enumerate some.

The original bill said that local government units should “give priority to family planning work.” What is now being proposed is that local government units will “help implement this Act.”

With regard to mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education, the proposal now says “Parents shall have the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.” Moreover, the provision on the ideal family size has been deleted.

Deleted also is the section on employers’ responsibility on reproductive health which merely amplifies what is already provided for in the Labor Code.

Likewise deleted was the specific enumeration of allowable contraceptive devices and methods. Instead, the proposal is for the allowance of contraceptive methods that are in general safe and legal. This would mean a prohibition of contraceptive methods that are abortifacient once they have been scientifically identified. This is what the government did after Postinor was identified as abortifacient.

[Father, the allowance of contraceptive methods that are "in general safe and legal"? The deletions and rewordings does not give us any comfort. It is not any secret that the pro-RH legislators have insisted on their own definition of what is "safe and legal". For example, it is common knowledge that they insist that life starts at implantation, not at fertilization that science as well as the Catholic doctrine asserts unequivocally. The core issue of the Church's disagreement with the RH bill stays, even with the amendments.]

Will these proposed changes, even if all of them become part of the law, put an end to the debate? Definitely it will not. Very much at the heart of the debate is the teaching on methods of family planning. I do not see the Catholic Church or the other churches yielding on this issue. In the light of this insoluble division, how then should the debate be conducted?

The Catholic Social Teaching on this may be found in what the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II) under the CBCP states: “The public defense of gospel values, especially when carried into the arena of public policy formulation, whether through the advocacy of lay leaders or the moral suasion by pastors, is not without limit ... It needs emphasizing, that, although pastors have the liberty to participate in policy debate and formulation, that liberty must not be exercised to the detriment of the religious freedom of non-communicants, or even of dissenting communicants. This is a clear implication of Vatican II’s ‘Dignitatis humanae.’ This is not just a matter of prudence; it is a matter of justice.”

Of special application to a country where Catholics are a majority is the teaching of the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Church, which says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” This, too, is the teaching of “Dignitatis Humanae.” (No. 6)

[The Catholic Church have not yielded the absolute truths contained in Divine revelation as well as Holy tradition. The reason is straightforward: the Church does not reverse the truth nor does it have the power to do so. Its mission in the temporal sphere is to reveal the truth and propagate it. This does not mean we can not or should not collaborate with people of good will from all walks of faith in the pursuit of common good. In doing so, the Church does not and should not coerce. Father is right there, but perhaps he focuses too much on the latter in his comments on Dignitatis Humanae. While Fr Bernas excerpted select passages to make his point come across, I am afraid he does not do justice to the entire document. The same doctrinal declaration also states: (emphasis mine)

"The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood- having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith. All is to be taken into account - the Christian duty to Christ, the life-giving word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith.".

NOTE: "never-be it understood- having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel". In other words the principle of religious tolerance does not mean that we surrender our faith. "All is to be taken account". I trust Fr Bernas did not intend to convey otherwise, but his article may be read to imply that we surrender our faith. He is a widely-read constitutionalist, a popular columnist in a popular newspaper, and most of all: a priest. I foresee the pro-RH side gleefully pouncing on Fr Bernas' article to attack the anti-RH side. I foresee the anti-RH Catholics do double-time in their defense of the Catholic position. I fear that the flames of the 'religious war' (assuming there is one), may further be fanned contrary to the good Father's intentions. Lastly, for the faithful and casual reader, it might spell a disaster in pastoral care.]

A lawyer responds to Fr. Joaquin Bernas regarding the RH Bill

The following is a response to Fr. Joaquin Bernas' article of February 14, 2011 entitled, Burn the RH-Bill house to roast a pig?

Dear Fr. Bernas,

I was your student in constitutional law many moons ago. To this day, I continue to regard myself as one and accord with deep academic reverence your opinions on constitutional matters. At the risk of revealing my "intellectual bankruptcy" to an eminent profes:sor, please allow me to share my thoughts on the RH Bill which is now designated as HB 4244.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I will confine myself to the current version of the bill and not venture into the dark unknown by second-guessing what our legislators may decide to do in the future.

Your fearless forecast that RH bill will become a law through the exercise of police power has made me shudder in disbelief.

Police power is that attribute of sovereignty that enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. It has the most comprehensive embrace among the inherent powers of the State extending as it does to whatever it is that fosters the "common good." To be valid, its exercise must have a valid public purpose and the means employed to accomplish such purpose must be reasonable, not oppressive nor arbitrary.

Does that mean that the State, through its agencies, can justifiably interfere with the exercise of the basic human rights to life and liberty and the constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom under the guise of "general welfare?" Instantly, a glaring discord is obvious here. For how can one claim to champion the common good when the rights so firmly enshrined in the Bill of Rights are trampled upon and sacrificed? As jurisprudence puts it, has the existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent been clearly established to warrant the infringement of these rights?

But before I get accused of putting the cart before the horse, let me attempt to engage in a 'herculean task' of pointing out some major points.

While the Declaration of Policy of the bill may be replete with defensible objectives, it is simply that -- a statement of objectives that are expectedly noble and laudable. But this behooves us to examine the meat of the bill and determine if the provisions are faithful to the avowed policies.

The Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to "equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection at and from conception. And conception here refers to fertilization since these terms were used interchangeably during the deliberations of the 1980 Constitutional Commission. And this protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and death ---not only actual but also any risk or threat thereof. For under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth of a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right not only to be born, but to be born well. This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother's womb.

An issue has been raised with regard to certain contraceptives that interfere with uterine implantation of the developing embryo and precipitate its destruction and expulsion from the uterus which in medical parlance are known as abortifacients. Scientific data and findings have been proffered in this regard. This issue has been dismissed by some medical doctors who claim that this action is possible only when there is fertilization which does not occur precisely because of the contraceptives. In the same breadth, however, they admit that breakthrough ovulation docs occur in women taking contraceptives and such incidents have in fact been documented; however, they add that these are very rare.

This denial-admission cannot be recklessly ignored or blithely dismissed because this puts the life of the unborn child on the line and strikes at the very core of the issues heaped against the bill. The adverse effects of contraceptives on the mother's health which have been supported by data and personal testimonies of victims and their. families are serious enough to be summarily dismissed. While the bill vows to protect the health of the mother and the child, it shows no respect for life and t:he fundamental right to life. With the aggressive promotion and widespread dissemination of contraceptives, the bill, in effect, allows and promotes abortion.

Family planning is a matter that concerns and affects the spouses and their families. They have the constitutional right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Part of this right is for them to receive correct, complete and clear information not only about the "availability" of family planning methods and reproductive health services but more importantly, about their nature arid effects. There has to be full, honest, and transparent disclosure and disseminationof information and thorough and widespread discussion about tlnese methods and services. As a result of this exercise, and not privately, the "safe, effective and legal methods" of family planning should be judiciously and prudentlydetermined and identified. This constitutes the essence of free and informed choice. And considering the far-reaching consequences, this exercise should be undertaken before the passage of the bill, not after.

The issue of disregard of religious freedom is no less important. A healthcare service provider who refuses to provide information or perform health care services on account of religion will nonetheless have to refer the person seeking such care to another provider who is willing to provide the same service or information. Employers are 1ike:wisemandated to provide reproductive health services to their employees, without mention of religious or ethical considerations.

There is also imposition on the freedom of speech for a healthcare provider who knowingly withholds information or restricts dissemination thereof, for any reason.

By making reproductive health and sexuality education mandatory for all public and private schools from grade five to fourth year high school, with a common curriculum formulated by designated agencies, the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character is supplanted by the government which is supposed to assume only a suppoirting role.

In light of all this, there is no public purpose that justifies the appropriation of public funds for the implementation of the law. Surely, the government should find better use of my hard-earned money.

Will the Bill undergo an upheaval to pursue a true and genuine public purpose and adopt means that are reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose, neither coercive nor authoritarian? I wish I knew, but I will be bold enough to state that only if and when ou:r legislators come to regard life as the greatest and most precious gift of their Creator to humanity can they sincerely claim to serve the common good.

I am proud of and grateful for my eight years of Ateneo education. I am particularly edified by its exhortation for Ateneans to be "men for others." With Life at the very core of the issues involved in RH bill, the advocacy to defend and protect it, I believe, is a singular opportunity to respond meaningfully to that call. For indeed, LIFE is more than just a pig!

Respectfully yours,

Maria Concepcion S. Noche