On Pro-RH Catholic educators

When "commonly-shared values" are not enough: A diocesan priest's response to Ateneo De Manila

From Katolikong Pinoy:

Sept. 23, 2012
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ATENEO MEMO ON THE PRESENT RH BILL
by Fr. Neil Gavan Tenefrancia

Full text of the MEMO here: 

https://www.facebook.com/ateneodemanila/posts/10152037439845153

“Together with our leaders in the Catholic Church, the Ateneo de Manila University does not support the passage of House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill). As many of these leaders have pointed out, the present form of the proposed bill contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values.”

CHURCH OBJECTION: BASED ON DOCTRINE

I think, it is best to add to the reasons cited above (threats to constitutional rights & to commonly shared human and spiritual values) the non-negotiable basis of the Church’s objection to the present form of the RH Bill: it is objecting based on DOCTRINAL reasons to a proposed public policy that will significantly impact the freedom of its constituents with regard to their Christian moral witnessing.

This DOCTRINAL ground is the area where the Church is most competent to speak on, namely- the objective immorality of artificial contraception (aside from the questionable mandatory sex education in schools which is contrary to the inalienable, immediate, and primary right of parents to the upbringing of their children).

Basing the objection to the RH Bill on “commonly shared human and spiritual values” (aside from the constitutional implications) can be misleading. This is because “commonly-shared values” can be understood to be founded on, mediated by, or a result of CONSENSUS which can never be, according to the Catholic understanding of divine Revelation, the infallible and immutable foundation of moral and existential certainty.

In the Church, we receive God’s will as REVELATION which is faithfully transmitted and interpreted by the Teaching Office of the Church (the Magisterium), itself gifted by the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. All of us will not want to follow a blind and erroneous guide.

God’s will, therefore, cannot be based on human CONSENSUS or on “commonly-shared values” if these values are understood as arising from CONSENSUS.

“In connection with this, I call attention to the 192 members of our faculty who have grappled with the underlying issues in the context of Catholic social teaching, and who have spoken in their own voice in support of the bill. Though the University must differ from their position for the reasons stated above, I appreciate their social compassion and intellectual efforts, and urge them to continue in their discernment of the common good.”

SOCIAL COMPASSION OF INTELLECTUALS VS. SOCIAL COMPASSION OF THE CHURCH?

I wonder how the “social compassion” of intellectuals can lead themselves to positions contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Church, herself a world-expert in organized charity, cannot be accused of being insensitive to and ignorant of the various human forms of physical and spiritual poverty.

I think the questions to be asked are: Can Catholics innovate for themselves their own understandings and practices of CHARITY and do them outside the mission of the Church? Can we set up our own understanding of MINISTRY within the Catholic Church which is contrary to the very nature of the Church, to the nature of divine Revelation, and exercise them outside the supervision of our Church leaders?

Operare sequitur esse. The Church’s mission necessarily flows from its specific identity. You cannot tinker, therefore, with matters relating to the Church’s MISSION without inevitably tinkering with the Church’s very own IDENTITY.

The proper and healthy alliance of FAITH and REASON, a source of “strength and compassion in our often tortuous journey as persons in community toward the greater glory of God and the service of God’s people,” should imply that ‘intellectual liberalism’ will be employed at the service of the integrity of the Church’s identity and mission and not be used to relativize the truth claims of its doctrines nor to create cleavages and gray areas in matters that are non-negotiable.

“As there is a spectrum of views on this ethical and public policy issue, I ask all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done.”

TEACHING THE CATHOLIC POSITION ALONGSIDE OTHERS

I think there is a need, so as to avoid misunderstanding, to emphasize the nature of the CATHOLIC POSITION alongside the other views. All Catholics should know that the truth-claims of Catholic doctrines on matters of faith and morals are essentially different from that of the others. They are expected to be infallible and binding on all who claim that they are Catholics. And here, intellectual liberalism cannot be considered a virtue. Yes, let us teach the Catholic position but let us also teach the infallible and necessarily-binding nature of this Catholic position.

—————————–

Finally, some words from St Ignatius of Loyola:

“Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgment of one’s own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy…

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same.”

[RULES FOR THINKING WITH THE CHURCH, From the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola in Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Henry Bettenson, ed., pp. 364-367.]

More responses to the 192 pro-RH Ateneo professors

For more on this ongoing story, please see the following:

* Former Rector of UST slams Ateneo's pro-RH professors

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

* Partial text of the August 29, 2012 statement of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines against the RH bill

* Ateneo De Manila University's Memo on the Pro-RH Declaration: Text with Commentary

* An open letter, a petition, a statement of the obvious, an appeal to common sense and a call for fidelity: the first five responses to the latest stunt pulled by pro-RH Ateneo professors

****

(It should be noted that a majority of the responses in this post come from alumni of the Ateneo De Manila University.)

Following on his petition to reclaim the Catholic identity of the Ateneo De Manila University, Ateneo alumnus and Catholic blogger and apologist Dr. Ricardo Boncan came up with two more responses to the 192 pro-RH Ateneo professors and those who have defended their actions on the basis of 'academic freedom'. 

The first is an article entitled It Appears We Have to Burn the House Down to Roast the Pig. The title alludes to an article written by Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ ("RH bill: Don’t burn the house to roast a pig") where he defended the RH bill from some of its critics. 

It Appears We Have to Burn the House Down to Roast the Pig 

Aug 22, 2012

The very same day that Fr. Jett Villarin came out with an official letter to quell the fire of dissent started by the 190 or so professors who publicly and surreptitiously used the Ateneo’s name to push their ideology in support of institutionalized contraception espoused in the RH Bill, hordes of Ateneo students, graduates and faculty, started beating on the drums in support of their president and in support of these dissenting faculty members and their cause. I was amused (and baffled) at the “drum beating” because Fr. Villarin explicitly said that the Ateneo rejects the bill and supports the position of the Catholic Church on the matter of rejecting the bill and the teaching on contraception, which means (not sure if they got this) that the Ateneo is dissociating themselves from these faculty members. Did the drum beaters’ clouded minds miss this fact totally or was there a cryptic message that the ADMU president sent to them that the rest of us, including the Bishops, didn’t know about? 

While many welcomed the letter, including me (tiny woohoo, what could I do, sigh  ), in reality, Fr. Vilarin merely repeated the perfunctory, mild dissociative statement issued by Fr. Ben Nebres three years ago when 14 faculty members made their first stand. Would those 14 abscess into 190 if that letter was stronger in tone and if reprimands were given and enforced, I wonder, hmmm. Looking at the statement in detail, one cannot miss the double-speaking style that pseudo-orthodox dissenters are so fond of employing. The letter, in my opinion, serves one purpose and one purpose alone and it is to satisfy (and douse) the Bishop’s warning that Catholic schools who do not tow the Catholic line may be stripped of their “Catholic” status. 

The Jesuits, it appears, are so very fond of doing the finger wagging with the left and patting the back of dissenters with the right hand. It is the “Ateneo magisterium’s” interpretation of Christ’s words, “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” Without going into details, the letter appears to be an adaptation of Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ idea that we can accept the bill if we remove the “problematic” provisions in them. He penned this in his blog with the title “Do not burn the house down to roast a pig.” Strange for a priest to essentially say, yes we can accept contraception for society but as Catholics we should obey Church teaching and shouldn’t…huh?? You mean artificial contraception has no negative societal effects and is only applicable to Catholics, really? 

Oh my dear Bishops I am afraid you no longer have to do any canonical sanctions to the Ateneo because they themselves are jumping out the window committing spiritual suicide. They had already started to cut themselves off from the vine a long time ago and fortunately for them it is a rather thick vine from which they are still hanging on by a mere strand! They hardly realize they are at the edge of a cliff and see their worldly prestige, honor and accolades, their social justice activism and their championing the causes of the poor as their new “life line.” They no longer understand the meaning of the passage “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul for it.” A long time ago the Jesuits of the Ateneo had started this by inventing for themselves, an imaginary, separate Catholic “magisterium” devoid of any real accountability to Rome (brings me back memories of Fr. Tanseco and his famous alternate magisterium hypothesis). They say one thing and do another, that’s the trick, the official stand and the de facto stand which no one hears about except if you are an insider within the halls of the institution. 

This is diabolical because of its insidiousness. It seems that Ateneo students really think that what they are being taught, this alternative, dissenting “magisterial” teaching, is what the Catholic Church teaches and that the CBCP and everyone else is, well, just too stiff, orthodox and not cool (they should get all the coolness they can for where they’re headed!). Could this be the “Catholic position”,  that “…continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done” that Fr. Villarin refers to in his letter? I only ask because based on my exchanges with Ateneans in that Facebook page, there is not a single iota of evidence I have seen that is reflective of this “Catholic position”, that corroborates the claim of Fr. Villarin, that the Ateneo teaches what the Church authentically teaches. Instead, you see students with an utter hatred for the Bishops and their requirement for the Ateneo to adhere to the Church’s line against the RH Bill. It appears that the dissent is alive and healthy within the House of Ignatius and it will be for many more years to come! 

If that is the case my dear Ateneans, I believe that what Fr. Bernas said was wrong, it appears that we DO have to burn the house down to roast that pig!

The second is a radio interview on DXND, a Catholic radio station in Mindanao:

Former Rector of UST slams Ateneo's pro-RH professors

Fr. Rolando De La Rosa OP was the Rector Magnificus of the University of Santo Tomas from 1990 to 1998 and again from 2008 to 2012. He was, at one point, Chairman of the Philippines' Commission on Higher Education. 

In Defense Of The CBCP
Through Untrue
By FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P
September 8, 2012

MANILA, Philippines — A Few years ago, when the former Archbishop of Jakarta visited Manila and stayed in the University of Santo Tomas, I asked him jokingly: “Your Eminence, since you are a Jesuit, why do you choose to stay in UST, and not in Ateneo?” He smiled and said: “You are very naughty. Well, to be honest, I choose to stay here and not there because I am a Catholic.” At that time, I assumed that the good Archbishop was joking.

The widely publicized opinion of the 192 Ateneo teachers that goes against the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the RH Bill reminded me of the Archbishop’s comment. Was he insinuating something?

In the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope John Paul II declared categorically that every Catholic university, without ceasing to be a university, has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity.” In other words, “Catholic” is not just a label given to a school. It is a badge of identity that sets it apart from other schools and which endows a university a special bond with the Catholic Church “by reason of service to unity which it is called to render to the whole Church.” It is clear from this that a Catholic university has the mission, not only to instruct, do research, and perform community service, but to maintain UNITY within the Church.

This task is quite crucial today when the faithful are torn by conflicting issues, parties, ideologies, beliefs, and causes. The principle of private judgment which John Henry Newman calls the principle of disunion when conceived in opposition to the judgment of the teaching office of the Church has been popularized by media as the norm for expressing one’s opinion. Catholic universities do not render their service to unity by allowing their members to widely publicize, in the name of academic freedom, opinions that run contrary to the official stand of the Catholic Church on controversial moral issues. Once ideas are written and published, they acquire a life of their own, regardless of the good intentions of the authors.

Ex Corde Ecclesiae continues: “One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the Catholic university to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.” More importantly, the document obliges members of the university community to manifest a personal fidelity to the Church, and this implies adherence to its teachings. Every Catholic university worth its name teaches that part of the teaching function of the bishops is precisely to make pastoral judgements on doctrinal and moral issues. It is, therefore, never enough for a Catholic university to declare its adherence to the CBCP position on the RH Bill. It must see to it that its teachers do not uphold the contrary position.

After Ateneo, teachers from another Catholic university were emboldened to do the same. They must have thought: “The bishops may denounce this bill with all their might, but we can safely ignore them. We are above any sanction. The bishops will in fact invite us to a dialogue.”

Already, one newspaper labeled this state of affairs as the separation of the Church and the academe. Just like the people who love to parrot the dictum: “separation of Church and State” to justify their contention that the Church should stay away from politics, now self-styled advocates of the RH bill use the same dictum to redefine the bishop’s teaching function in the Church. They do not want bishops to denounce, but simply adapt. They want the bishops to bow to politicians and intellectual midgets who steal religious phrases to decorate their crackpot policies.

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

Partial text of the August 29, 2012 statement of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines - a qualified rejection of the RH bill

What is the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines? According to its official website:

CEAP is the national association of Catholic educational institutions in the Philippines. Founded in 1941, it now has 1,252 members, which include universities and colleges offering academic and continuing education programs that are at par with foreign schools in the USA and Europe. Majority, however, of its members numbering around 700 are mission schools offering basic education to the country's poor and the marginalized. 

CEAP is a voluntary organization which operates through regional educational associations located in the 16 regions of the country. It represents the interest of Catholic educational institutions in national and international fora, fosters unity of action with other organizations in educational matters, and assists members, particularly those in mission areas, to achieve common and specific aims.

Therefore, the CEAP represents far more academics and teachers than the "Ateneo 192" plus the pro-RH professors in De La Salle University who are now said to be circulating at least two petitions imitating the Ateneo professors in their rebellion versus the bishops. While I don't make the claim that everyone else who teaches in CEAP-affiliated institutions of higher education is anti-RH bill, the declaration published yesterday (August 29, 2012) by CEAP would not have been possible without a significant number of administrators, professors or teachers in these institutions being actually opposed to the RH bill. As I point out further below, it is equally true that the statement also bears the marks of a strong pro-RH bill lobby.

Although the text as we have it does not explicitly refer to the Ateneo 192, the references to Ex Corde Ecclesiae and to the bishops' desire to 'dialogue' with those who object to the CBCP's stance on the RH bill  (a dialogue that has been offered only to the Ateneo dissenters) make it clear that this statement was written with an eye to the continuing controversy caused by the pro-RH teachers. 

From the blog of Fr. Joel Tabora (CEAP, PH Bishops and the RH Bill):

CEAP supports the bishops in their opposition to any law which contains provisions for abortifacient control of birth. Killing of human life is absolutely proscribed. It is prohibited by the Philippine Constitution which protects life from the moment of conception. It is also prohibited by the Fifth Commandment. It supports the bishops in their opposition to any provisions of law that force any Catholic believer to act against his/her conscience in the discharge of his/her duties as a doctor, health worker, employer or employee. It supports the bishops in their opposition to any provision that usurps the right of parents to take full responsibility for sexual education of their children.

CEAP supports the bishops in their official teaching, binding on all believers, concerning the dignity of the human life, the need to “choose life” and to support a culture of life, the sacredness of sexuality, the unity in principle of the unitive (“for love”) and procreative finalities of acts of sexuality, recognizing God to be the author of life. It supports the bishops in their pointing to the danger of human love being eroded into lust and the danger of “moral corruption” in reducing life’s choices for a meaningful life to choices for superficial pleasure, even though in all of these issues there is ongoing theological reflection (esp. in Catholic Universities and Catholic theological faculties).

Unfortunately, the CEAP statement also gives space to statements that de facto gives cover to those academics in Catholic schools who invoke academic freedom and pluralism in order to support the RH bill. 

CEAP supports the bishops in their dialogue with objectors to this teaching, preserving in their schools “the institutional fidelity of the Catholic Universities to the Christian message…” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 27).

CEAP supports the bishops in contributing to the discussion on the demands of the common good in a plural society on the basis of which legislation and new legislation or revisions of legislation are deemed imperative.

Here one must carefully distinguish between:

The authority of the bishops binding believers to obedience in faith to a Catholic moral order;

and

The authority of discerning reason within the civil (profane) society, especially in discernment articulating demands of the common good or social justice, binding on reasonable persons based on compelling rationality.

Within a Catholic University “whose privileged task is to unite existentially by intellectual efforts two orders of reality that too infrequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the knowledge of already knowing the font of truth’” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 1), academic freedom is guaranteed by the Church: “The Church, accepting ‘the legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially of the sciences,’ recognizes the academic freedom of scholars in each discipline in accordance with its principles and proper methods and within the confines of the truth and the common good” (ibid 29).

Ateneo De Manila University's Memo on the Pro-RH Declaration: Text with Commentary

The following is the memo published by Fr. Jose Ramos "Jet" Villarin, President of ADMU, regarding the pro-RH declaration of 192 members of its faculty. My commentary comes right after this. 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

20 August 2012

Memo to: The University Community

Subject: HB 4244 

Together with our leaders in the Catholic Church, the Ateneo de Manila University does not support the passage of House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill). As many of these leaders have pointed out, the present form of the proposed bill contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values.

Now that the period for amendments is about to begin, I enjoin all in the Ateneo community to continue in-depth study of the present bill, and to support amendments to remove provisions that could be ambiguous or inimical from a legal, moral or religious perspective.

In connection with this, I call attention to the 192 members of our faculty who have grappled with the underlying issues in the context of Catholic social teaching, and who have spoken in their own voice in support of the bill. Though the University must differ from their position for the reasons stated above, I appreciate their social compassion and intellectual efforts, and urge them to continue in their discernment of the common good. As there is a spectrum of views on this ethical and public policy issue, I ask all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done.

Should the bill with whatever amendments be passed, we should neither hesitate to bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have nor cease to be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation.

If there is no easy answer to the concerns that the proposed bill raises or no facile unanimity among divergent views, this only proves the complexity, depth, and sensitivity of these concerns. Nevertheless, Catholic tradition has always taught that reason and faith are not enemies but allies in the service of God’s truth. From this tradition, we can draw strength and compassion in our often tortuous journey as persons in community toward the greater glory of God and the service of God’s people.

Jose Ramon T Villarin SJ

President

Now, for my commentary:

This blog is thankful that Fr. Villarin declares that the Ateneo De Manila University "does not support the passage of House Bill 4244." This blog also thanks the Ateneo De Manila University for coming out with this public adhesion to the Catholic stand versus the RH bill, something that too many Catholic colleges and universities have not (yet) done in their own name. Nevertheless, there are also some things in Fr. Villarin's memo that need to be discussed and brought under scrutiny; on these we cannot be silent. 

The first thing (or rather, the first absence of a thing) that seizes our attention is the lack of any reference to fidelity to Catholic doctrine, and the absence of any allusion to doctrinal investigations, as demanded over this past weekend by Msgr. Leonardo Medroso, Bishop of Tagbilaran. Those who signed the pro-RH declaration are even praised for their "social compassion and intellectual efforts". (May we remind everyone that this is an acknowledgment of intelligence and good intentions that the pro-RH side, for all its self-proclaimed tolerance, has scarcely reciprocated towards the opponents of the RH bill?) While the memo goes on to urge the signatories to "continue in their discernment of the common good", this can mean almost anything; it does not necessarily point to the need to think with the Church. However, the call to think with the Church is precisely what needs to be explicitly heard from the Jesuit Fathers right now. Ateneo, after all, continues to call itself a Catholic university. 

Some might object that at this stage, the dialogue between the leaders of the Church and of the Ateneo and the pro-RH section of its faculty has to be of a purely positive and persuasive nature, without any threats or commands to mar it; the shepherds must not shake their rods at the sheep, but only call to them with soothing words. Perhaps it can be argued that things have gone down so far in the Ateneo de Manila that the most that the voice of Catholic orthodoxy should hope for is to be allowed to have a say -- as but one among many voices -- within its walls. However, this is not a situation that is worthy of any Catholic university worthy of the name, even if it might be the reality in not a few Catholic institutions of higher education worldwide. As for the idea that heterodoxy must be fought with the rod, it is an unpopular and rarely-heard notion even within the Church, but it remains part of the Church's own thinking. As Pope Benedict XVI declared to the priests of the world on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in 2010, " The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented. As if it were no longer God’s gift, the precious pearl which we cannot let be taken from us." To ask the Church to cease to exercise any discipline is to tell the Church that it should not protect its own identity. 

Second, the memo's language is insufficient regarding the true nature of the Catholic Church's opposition to the RH bill. While the memo rightly states that the leaders of the Catholic Church do not support the passage of House Bill 4244, and that this bill "contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values", it also calls upon Ateneo faculty to "support amendments to remove provisions that could be ambiguous or inimical from a legal, moral or religious perspective". Here we come upon a briar patch: naturally, an RH law with amendments that will prevent it from impeding the freedom of the Church and the conscience of Filipinos is better than an RH law without such amendments. Nevertheless, it should be made clear that any support for such amendments are of a purely pragmatic character; the stand of the Church continues to be that the RH bill, as it now stands and even with all the amendments currently proposed, remains too poisonous to the Filipino nation to be passed. As for the "positive elements" of the RH bill, these should be enacted into law separately, or be supported through the enforcement of already existing laws.

Last but not the least, the memo pleads that "all those who are engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done." We confess to being skeptical about the efficacy of this plea. The memo also claims that the Catholic position on the RH bill is being properly taught in Ateneo, but if this true, the overall silence of both Ateneo students and faculty in the struggle against the RH bill (with a very few honorable exceptions) belies it. On the contrary, some of the worst, most anti-clerical, and most insulting language and rhetoric against the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church in this whole debate has come from Ateneo's faculty and students, not to speak of alumni. It is a scandal not only to those who come from other Catholic schools, but also to those pro-lifers who come from secular schools such as the University of the Philippines (which, despite its secularist and anti-religious reputation and its own very large contingent of RH supporters, is also the alma mater and academic home of a disproportionate number of anti-RH and pro-life teachers, speakers, writers and activists, and the home to what is currently the largest student group devoted to fighting the RH bill). What have the Jesuits done about this? Perhaps they have done something about this privately, but given the nature of things they need to be heard publicly about this.

If the situation in Ateneo is such that Fr. Villarin cannot call upon its pro-RH contingent to reverse its support for the bill, could he not at least publicly and openly rebuke the shameful anti-Catholic rhetoric that is coming from some of them? If even this cannot be done, then how could the Ateneo "bring to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have" about the RH bill, and "be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation"?

I have no doubt that there are Ateneans who love the Church, who are faithful to the Magisterium, who will stand by the Church even as it is publicly mocked. Dear Ateneans, please, speak out! We need to hear your voices!

Fr. Charles Belmonte reminds us of the politically incorrect fact that to be rightfully called Catholic, one must be... Catholic!

In these days when the most obvious things need to be re-stated again and again and defended, Fr. Charles Belmonte provides us with a simple but comprehensive lesson on who or what exactly has the office of distinguishing something as Catholic as opposed to what is not Catholic. Although the following paper is not directly concerned with the RH bill, it is certainly relevant to the debate raging around that bill because it directly answers those who would declare that one can be Catholic, and use (or rather, abuse) the name "Catholic", and yet openly rebel against the basic teachings of the Catholic Church. 

I am publishing this paper with the blessings of Fr. Belmonte.

Who Should Say What is Catholic? - Fr. Charles Belmonte

An open letter, a petition, a statement of the obvious, an appeal to common sense and a call for fidelity: the first five responses to the latest stunt pulled by pro-RH Ateneo professors

UPDATE 8/21/12 @ 8:00 PM Manila time: I've posted the text of a memo from Fr. Jet Villarin, President of Ateneo De Manila University, regarding this issue. My post includes my commentary on the memo. Ateneo De Manila University's Memo on the Pro-RH Declaration: Text with Commentary

UPDATE 8/21/12 @ 5:00 PM Manila time: Fr. Charles Belmonte has penned a longer follow-up to his original note on what is "Catholic": Fr. Charles Belmonte reminds us of the politically incorrect fact that to be rightfully called Catholic, one must be... Catholic!

UPDATE 8/20/12 @ 1:50 PM Manila time: a FIFTH response, a short note from Dr. Quirino Sugon, has been added to this post. I've inserted it between Ricardo Boncan's petition and the CBCP News article on Archbishop Palma's recent remarks on this matter. 

The recent declaration of 192 (and counting) college-level Ateneo faculty members in favor of the RH bill is not surprising to anyone who is remotely familiar with the actual state of  much of 'Catholic' higher education in the Philippines. In too many Filipino Catholic colleges and universities there is open dissent against the Magisterium, ridicule and hatred directed at the very Church that nurtures them, and a refusal to actually try to know what the Church teaches, in favor of an "academic freedom" that one-sidedly favors 'free-thinking' and  often elevates childish propaganda against Catholicism to the level of protected academic speech. I do not deny that there are many good Catholic teachers and students even in the most 'secularized' of 'Catholic' schools, but their presence only makes the existence, and oftentimes the dominance, of theological dissent in Filipino Catholic institutions of higher education all the more glaring. Unfortunately, many Filipino Catholics -- clerics and laypeople alike -- had refused to acknowledge the existence of the problem. With this recent incident, it is no longer possible for Filipino Catholics to pretend that the problem does not exist. 

Meanwhile, I have the honor of presenting the first four public responses by Catholics to the Ateneo professors. I present them in no particular order. 

The first is an open letter by Ed Sorreta, Chairman of Pro-Life Philippines, that is now being circulated as a Facebook note. This is the full text of this letter:

To say out front, I am against the RH bill for reasons that are very real and personal to me.  But I do not intend to delve into these because there has been enough talk on the pros and cons of this bill.  It is now time to make a stand. That is why I respect their opinions, no matter how flawed they are to me.

What is beyond me is how they can group themselves together and make a public statement against the pronouncements of the Church of which their university is a part of.  What model of respect for authority can they impart to their students when they themselves do not live it?  I can be more forgiving with UP, a government university or any other non-sectarian educational academy if they support the RH bill.  But for Ateneo, a recognized Catholic institution, to publicly declare their support is something that is inappropriate and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Therefore, I challenge these renegade professors to stand their ground and resign from the Ateneo.  If they do not have the decency to do that, I call on the Jesuit community running the Ateneo to mete out sanctions against them.

If the Jesuits refuse to do this out of their principle of intellectual liberalism, I ask them to have the propriety of reclassifying Ateneo from being a Catholic institution to a non-sectarian university.  This is a call not only for the Ateneo but for other Catholic schools who defy the teachings of the Catholic Church.

EDGARDO SORRETA

Chairman

Pro-Life philippines

The second is an online petition launched by Catholic pro-lifer and blogger, Dr. Ricardo Boncan, who is an alumnus of ADMU. The following is the full version. A shorter version is coming out today (August 20, 2012) on the column of Antonio Montalvan II in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. As of the publication of this blog post (c. 4:00 AM on August 20 in Manila) this petition, less than 2 days old, has garnered 214 signatures. 

Re-claim The Catholic Identity of the Ateneo de Manila

Petition published by Ricardo B. Boncan on Aug 18, 2012

Petition Background (Preamble): 

In August 2012, 160 Ateneo faculty members abused their position and misused the name of the Ateneo de Manila University, a Jesuit-run university with a Catholic mandate, to express their personal stand and agenda in favor of the Reproductive Health Bill.  

http://www.theguidon.com/1112/main/2012/08/160-ateneo-professors-push-for-rh-bill/ 

The administrators of the Ateneo have not done anything to answer these dissenters nor to defend Catholic teaching on the matter.  

This petition is to precisely ask the Jesuit Fathers for accountability. 

Petition: 

August 15, 2012 

Written on the Solemnity of Our Ladyʼs Assumption

Father Jose Ramon T. Villarin, S.J

President  

and  

The Jesuit Fathers of the Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City

Dear Fr. Villarin and the Jesuit Fathers of the Ateneo de Manila University, 

Over the past 3 years, we, concerned alumni, family and friends of the Ateneo de Manila University have stood idly silent as some Ateneo faculty members abused their position and misused the name of this Catholic university to express their personal stand and agenda in favor of the RH Bill. The memo released against this by then ADMU President Fr. Ben Nebres was one of perfunctory, mild dissociation against the, then only 70 or so, faculty members who signed on. 

While declaring the official Jesuit stand against contraception as being consistent with the Church, Fr. Nebres, defended their actions by defaulting to what he claimed to be, “academic freedom”, that supposedly allowed them to express their personal views as faculty members of this Catholic University. As a result of that token denouncement and “academic freedom” excuse, these faculty members have become emboldened and have come out in bigger numbers to espouse an agenda and political ideology contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, confidently using the good name of our school, a Catholic school, to give credence to their voice. 

Academic Freedom in the proper context of allowing academicians to explore the ethical and moral limits of their chosen field and teach the good that comes out of it, is a praiseworthy principle. But what has happened in this case is clearly not that! Many of these faculty members are using the name of our university, its Catholic mandate, its Catholic ties to their own ends in the disguise of academic freedom. It gives the impression to many of us Catholic alumni, friends and family of the Ateneo that our Jesuit Fathers condone this action and have abandoned their calling to fight for Catholic truths. 

My dear Jesuits, THIS IS NOT FREEDOM, this is ACADEMIC TYRANY. Among those held hostage by these tyrants and dissenters are the many other faculty members who have chosen to be silent for fear of being ostracized by their peers, for holding contrary views on the issue. However, the biggest and greatest casualty here are those who were entrusted to be under your intellectual and spiritual care, the STUDENTS of the Ateneo de Manila University. 

As Catholic priests of a canonically formed order, founded by a great saint, Ignatius of Loyola, we find this unacceptable! These students are being made collateral damage by ideologically driven faculty members who freely “educate” them with things contrary to their Catholic upbringing. We, the parents of these students have spent years bringing them up, espousing love of Christ, His Church and obedience to Catholic teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality and sending them under your care, confident in the thought, that the Ateneo would do the same and even strengthen them. All that effort, only to be undone by these anti-Catholic principles being espoused by faculty members, under your employ, teaching under the name of this great school. 

Calling to mind Blessed John Paul IIʼs encyclical, Ex Corde Ecclesiae (ON CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES), ... 

Article 2, “Catholic teaching and discipline are to influence all university activities, while the freedom of conscience of each person is to be fully respected(46). Any official action or commitment of the University is to be in accord with its Catholic identity.” 

Article 4, “The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself. While this responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/ or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body), it is shared in varying degrees by all members of the university community, and therefore calls for the recruitment of adequate university personnel, especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and able to promote that identity. 

The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.” and lastly, “Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University. 

We therefore; 

1. denounce the continued misuse of the Ateneo de Manila Universityʼs name by these 160 faculty members for their statement and stand for institutionalized contraception as it is contrary to Catholic teaching. 

2. ask our Jesuit Fathers, especially those in the administration, to publicly settle this matter unequivocally and strongly for the benefit of Catholic students under their care. 

3. ask that an explanation to all students of the Ateneo, on the clear and unwavering position of our Catholic school and our Jesuit fathers, on the matter of artificial contraception should also be sent to parents and alumni of the university. 

4. ask that a clear, strong and resolute reprimand be given to those who willfully signed that statement and made use of their position in order to voice their dissent to Catholic teaching. 

Inspired by this and the Ignatian motto “Lux In Domino” we pray that you, our dear Jesuit Fathers, take this letter as a show, of nothing more, than our love and concern for the school that nurtured our growth and made us what we are today, Men For Others. 

“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides” St. Ignatius of Loyola, Founder of the Society of Jesus, AMDG

(See update at the top of this post.) The third response I am placing here is Dr. Quirino Sugon's short note on the Facebook page of the Ateneo Latin Mass Society. He had signed Dr. Boncan's petition and was explaining his signature:

I signed the petition below in response to the 160 Pro-RH Ateneo professors who signed the petition in support of the RH Bill, in defiance of the Catholic Church teaching on contraception. I hope you and your other Atenean friends will also sign below. This is now a battle of the Two Standards. We need to reclaim the Catholic identity of our beloved university. Fidelity to Mary is fidelity to the Catholic Church. It cannot be otherwise.  

“We stand on a hill between the earth and sky. Now all is still where Loyola’s colors fly. Our course is run and the setting sun ends Ateneo’s day. Eyes are dry at the last goodbye; this is the Ateneo way. 

"Mary for you! For your white and blue! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, constantly true! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, faithful to you! 

"Down from the hill, down to the world go I; rememb’ring still, how the bright Blue Eagles fly. Through joys and tears, through the laughing years, we sing our battle song: Win or lose, it’s the school we choose; this is the place where we belong! 

"Mary for you! For your white and blue! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, constantly true! We pray you’ll keep us, Mary, faithful to you!"

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Quirino Sugon Jr.

Coordinator

Ateneo Latin Mass Society

The (fourth) is the following 'statement of the obvious' of the President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines regarding Catholic schools that waffle on the RH issue, as reported by CBCP News:

Schools defying Church teachings may lose Catholic status

MANILA, August 17, 2012— The Catholic hierarchy may strip a school of its affiliation with the church if they go against its teachings particularly on life issues, a ranking archbishop said. 

Archbishop Jose Palma, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president, said this is possible if a Catholic school and other institutions violated ethical and religious directives of the church. 

“If we are a Catholic school, we should not teach anything contrary to the official teaching of the church,” Palma said. 

Amid the debate on a controversial artificial contraception measure, he admitted that there is a clash of beliefs between the church and teachers of some Catholic schools. 

However, the Cebu archbishop said they are trying to solve the problem through a dialogue. 

“In some places, we first talk to them because some teachers may have some misunderstanding of what they think of freedom of conscience or academic freedom,” said Palma. 

“In some of the universities, we say that if you want to teach that idea, do not do it in a Catholic school because we are confusing the students… do it in other universities,” he said. 

The CBCP head stressed that the motive why parents send their children to Catholic schools are for reasons of faith formation. 

“They are hoping that their children will learn the Catholic teaching and also the Catholic formation,’ he said. 

“It will be a contradiction if we will bombard them with ideas which are against the official teachings of the Catholic faith,” added Palma. 

Around 160 professors of the Ateneo De Manila University (ADMU) have openly expressed their support for the passage of the reproductive health (RH) bill opposed by the Church. 

The professors first released this statement in 2008, and reiterated their stand recently as the House entered into the period of amendments on the RH measure. 

They also stated that they are not speaking for the entire Ateneo institution and only expressing their personal position. 

The ADMU, however, as a Jesuit and Catholic university, clarified that it still stands with the CBCP and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus. 

Only last month, the Vatican has withdrawn the Catholic identity of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, because some of its policies are “not compatible with the discipline and morals of the church.” 

The Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium has also come into question in recent years as the Vatican probed the embryonic stem-cell research conducted at Leuven and its sister institution, Louvain. [RL/CBCPNews]

And, last but not the least, the following little Facebook note from Fr. Charles Belmonte that is now being shared by many pro-lifers, which explains in common-sense terms why an institution that refuses to teach Catholic tenets shouldn't be calling itself Catholic:

If you have a shop which exclusively sells pan de sal, ensaymada and mamon, don't call it "Hairdresser salon" because it is not. No insult. It's just a matter of sincerity and decency. 

If you have a university which hardly teaches the Catholic faith (irrelevant whether this faith is true or false), don't call it "Catholic" or "Pontifical" because it is not true. 

I don't know what is to be a Muslim, but I can tell you what is to be a Catholic: to be baptized, to profess the faith which the entire Catholic Church professes and has professed from the time of the Apostles (as taught by the pope and bishops) and to obey the legitimate pastors (the hierarchy). 

I don't think it is matter of academic freedom, but of sincerity and decency.

Our situation is best summarized with the following quote from George Orwell: We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.

What Fr. James Reuter SJ had to say about Ateneo's pro-contraception dissidents

From Minyong Ordonez's tribute to Fr. James Reuter SJ: "Ang Heswitang orig", published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer about 2 months ago:

Four years ago, I wrote the Catholic stand on the RH Bill, but couldn’t secure the space. I ran to Father Reuter, who wrote a weekly column in the Philippine Star. Happily, he gave way to my article in his column.

I confided to him my disenchantment with Ateneo philosophy professors who published their position papers arguing for the use of contraceptives in the government’s proposed law on birth control. 

          ...

In a sad voice, Father Reuter said, “Minyong, it ain’t the same anymore. Ateneo today is different from the Ateneo in your time.” 

As priest friend, he was fatherly and highly spiritual. I felt his profound and personal kindness inside the confessional box. His homilies during Mass were not only literary sounding, but eloquently and succinctly doctrinal. He was a terrific retreat master. His anecdotal meditation on sin, death and hell was guaranteed to keep you wide awake even in the sleepy hours of mid-afternoon. 

His sermon on Jesuit blind obedience (or “What it Means to be a Jesuit”) is classic. He delivered it on the feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola in July 1953 in front of many of his fellow Jesuits. 

Father Reuter officiated at my wedding in 1991, and his steady admonitions on the sanctity and indissolubility of matrimony still ring in my ears. 

Father Reuter’s Catholic orthodoxy is a breath of fresh air, a gust of divine truth in a world enraptured by relativism and unbelief. True to the teachings of his church and obedient to his vows, Father Reuter is the classic and original Jesuit in the authentic mold of the Ignatian spirit laid down by the Jesuit founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola.

On the 14 Ateneo Professors -- an essay in two parts

On the 14 Ateneo Professors (originally a two-part essay) by Wilfredo Jose. This is a continuation of On the 14 Ateneo professors, Conscience, Reality and the Truth.

Part 1 (labeled Part 3 in the original blog post)

ODD SITUATION

I think there are many ways that the 14 professors could have expressed their personal opinions without dragging the Ateneo name with it. In the light of Fr Nebres assertion on point #5 — It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity., these professors must realize that they find themselves in an odd situation (specially the Theology professor) where they may be required to teach something in class that do not conform to their "well-formed conscience". Their position is simply not compatible with the institution they work for. As they search their "well-formed conscience" on how to act in this tricky situation that poses a dilemma to their professional integrity, it certainly must lead them to seriously think of teaching elsewhere, where they won’t cause an embarrassment to themselves and to the school officials.

EMBARRASSMENT

Put yourself in the shoes of the theology professor. Just look at a likely situation where you are directed by the University to read and explain to your class an official statement that upholds the Church’s opposition to the bill. Refer to item #5 above in Fr Nebres’ statement again. The statement you are supposed to explain and uphold happens to run counter to your "well-formed conscience". Your class is aware about your contrary position. If you read and explain the official position, you compromise your moral and professional integrity. On the other hand if you refuse, you open yourself to a reasonable charge of insubordination, as you realize that you are being paid by the University to teach according to its standards. And before you invoke academic freedom, it must be made clear here that a professor is also an employee. There is a substantial difference between a secular university and a Catholic university. A theology professor in a Catholic school cannot take a position in faith or ethics that is contrary to the magisterial teaching any more than you could espouse as fact in a secular university that one and one is three. Check out Fr Charles Curran’s celebrated case here. Either way, it is embarrassing for the dissenting professors, not because of the opinions they took, but because of the tight fix they put themselves into.

***

Part 2 (labeled Part 4 in the original blog post)

Actually the title of this post should have read: On the 69 Ateneo professors, as it was reported here that 55 Ateneo professors have joined the fray. This post contains the comments of reader TE in the last thread. Here goes...

***

I was finally able to read the whole paper by the professors. The paper contains a statistic-heavy discussion on the women who had abortions. My understanding of the discussion was that the major cause was economic. Not knowing how to plan pregnancies seems to be a small contributing cause but the major reason is economic. They simply could not afford more children. However, the professors chose to make the conclusion that:

"Thus, for these women, abortion has become a family planning method, in the absence of information on and access to any reliable means to prevent an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. The fact is, our women are having more children than they desire, as seen in the gap between desired fertility (2.5 children) and actual fertility (3.5 children), implying a significant unmet need for reproductive health services (NSO and ORC Macro 2004, 2003 NDHS)."

It seems to me that the conclusion is not consistent with the discussion that went before it. It also seems to me that if we look at this whole thing as a process, abortion comes at the end of the process with pregnancy right before it. The implied solutions seems to focus on the results of the process rather than on the causes of it. The statistics they presented do not bear out the conclusion - they point to a cause much earlier in the process: economics and the faulty decision-making that allowed couples to choose to have sex in the first place. I can't help thinking that if families were economically well off, having more children than the national average would not be a problem, regardless of whether they have access to information and the means to do effective family planning. In later pages, the professors repeat this in the following: "The inability of women in the poorest quintile to achieve the number of children they want stems from their high unmet need for family planning, which, at 26.7 percent, is more than twice as high as the unmet need of women in the richest quintile, at 12.3 percent (ibid.)." And again several pages later "In summary, poor households typically have more children than they aspired to have, as a result of a high unmet need for family planning."

I believe there is a danger here to simplify the problem and jump to an erroneous conclusion. It is all too easy to think that the problem is one of providing information and the know-how to planning. I believe a more fundamental issue lies in the individual value system and the way people make their decisions. You can't teach an old dog new tricks as the Americans would say. You can bombard people with family planning techniques and provide them with tons of information but if their value system, how they set priorities and how they make decisions are still the same, they will still make the same choices they did before. As Socrates said: "If you do what you always did, you get what always got." And the definition of insanity is when you do what always did, over and over, but expect different results.

Statistics-wise the program would look good - hospitals for every 500,000 people, mobile vans to spread the news, thousands of training programs. But the key to behavioural change remains the same: the internal value systems and decision makig process in people. How does the RH bill propose to legislate this? Punishing conscientious objectors will not do it.

A few pages later the professors came up with this: "the right to choose is meaningful only if women have real power to choose." They present a very good case for choice. And indeed, the right to choose is meaningful only when one has the power to do it. But does this mean the professors do not consider the unborn child to have any such rights because they obviously cannot voice their choice? In fact, the whole paper does not have a single sentence anywhere on the rights of the unborn.

This next one struck me as a bit weird. I have highlighted the "offending phrase" below. "Poverty is a multi-faceted phenomenon caused by inter-related factors: the weak and boom-and-bust cycle of economic growth; inequities in the distribution of income and assets and in the access to social services; bad governance and corruption; the lack of priority accorded to agriculture including agrarian reform; the limited coverage of safety nets and targeted poverty reduction programs; and armed conflict." How does unequal access to social services cause poverty?

The professors proclaim their stand thus: "We therefore support the RH Bill because we believe that it will help the poor develop and expand their capabilities, so as to lead more worthwhile lives befitting their dignity and destiny as human beings...To recapitulate, the RH Bill does not only safeguard life by seeking to avert abortions and maternal and infant deaths. It also promotes quality of life, by enabling couples, especially the poor, to bring into the world only the number of children they believe they can care for and nurture to become healthy and productive members of our society." The highighting is mine. I do not discount the possibility that the thread of logic has completely escaped me but how does the bill DO all that? It seems to me that the capabilities to lead a more worthwhile life means more than just being able to plan families, use contraceptives and know a hell of a lot about sex, STIs and reproductive hygiene. It takes more than hospitals and vans and adult education. It also takes the cultivation of life-affirming values, discipline and a spiritually guided belief system. Or do they know something I don't?

Will the bill really enable couples to limit their children? My read of the whole thing is that the most the bill can do is help to create the conditions for couples to make an informed choice. The enablement comes from an internal change in priorities and values. It seems to me the sentences above claim benefits of the bill that MAY result IF the bill is effective. Given the government's record, I have grave doubts on how effective the bill will be implemented.

Serious professors they may be but I found a bit of humor in this one: "Comparatively, protection was higher among the males (27.5%) than the females (14.8%), rendering the latter extremely vulnerable to unplanned pregnancy (Raymundo and Cruz 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3)." Do you any idea what kind of males they're talking about?

To be fair, I think parts of the bill are beneficial. I think the Church opposes only certain provisions of the bill NOT ALL of it. Problem is you can't pass some parts and not pass others. I also believe the bill proposes solutions that address the results while making only provisions to address the causes. It does not address at all the economic causes. It does not address the fundamental problem of values formation and the correction of internal process such as decision making and priority setting. I personally know some poor people, former tenant farmers, who did not go beyond the 3rd grade but were able to keep their family small. They didn't know whit what family planning is and haven't encountered the word contraceptive their entire lives. But they have good heads on their shoulders and exhibit a probably higher discipline. I suspect the method they used is simple abstinence and are now in their sixties with 2 grown children.On the whole the professors did not convince me that as a Catholic I can support the bill in GOOD CONSCIENCE. There are open issues which still impinge on the conscience such the rights of the unborn, the curtailment of freedom and the discriminatory provisions regarding conscientious objectors. By giving their support the professors are saying they are accepting these limits on our freedoms. Given the track record of the government, they will probably be more effective in enforcing these limits than in implementing the "benificial" provisions of the bill. Values are ignored. The bill would rather train a couple how to avoid a pregnancy than to instill in them the values of discipline and responsibility. Its like closing the barn when all the horses have gone. This impinge on my conscience because I can see that the bill proposes for us to pay with our freedoms a solution that addresses an effect, a result while the causes are ignored. Would you sacrifice your freedom to pay for alleviating a symptom?

***

My postscript: Ever wonder how much its going to cost us taxpayers? TE does the math here.

On the 14 Ateneo professors, Conscience, Reality and the Truth

On the 14 Ateneo professors, Conscience, Reality, and the Truth
By: Wilfredo Jose
October 25, 2008

I once had an argument with my previous boss over a computerized system that we planned on developing. I needed funding for the planned system that will be designed for on-line monitoring of parts shortages. My proposed system will quickly highlight what components are delaying the production lines.

He asked: ”Why do we want to spend our money and energies tracking those shortages? Why not prevent them in the first place?”

He had a very good point there. Be proactive, strike at the root cause, and not at symptoms of problems. My boss had this effective method of asking a succession of “whys” until we got to the root of the problem.

I suddenly remembered this encounter with my old boss as I read the statements of the 14 Ateneo professors who came out with a position paper supporting HB5043. Among other things, they said that giving women access to other “medically safe, legal, affordable and quality” family planning methods would prevent “unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies, which are the root cause of induced abortions.”

So according to the professors, “unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies” are the root cause of induced abortions. But what is the root cause of “unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies”?

“We are thinking of women who find it impossible to predict their infertile periods...”

Ah, if there is one word that my old boss hates, it is the word “impossible”. Obviously, the professors are referring to NFP and I wonder what are their presumptions by claiming that women find it impossible. I take it that these professors are more steeped than us ordinary mortals in scientific, facts-based analysis that substantiates their statements empirically. Does their studies/references (assuming they cited an NFP study) conclude that it is impossible to predict infertile periods? Is a system designed into nature itself, impossible? A study of NFP in China (check out this link), says otherwise, and in fact concludes: “The BOM (NFP) is simple and easy to comprehend; almost all the women, including the illiterate, can successfully learn the method and identify their own mucus symptoms.”Impossible?

“We are thinking... of couples who see each other on an irregular basis, or women who are trapped in abusive relationships with men who demand sex anytime they want it,”

Please professors, think harder. You are implying that these couples have an irresistible urge to copulate on sight. You said you were speaking for yourselves :-), so please do not make an unfair assumption on all these couples. Furthermore, if women are trapped in abusive relationships, then these women should be counseled and assisted, as no woman deserves to endure those “abusive relationships”, where men “demand sex anytime they want it”. Do you mean we turn a blind eye to the abuse as long as those women are “protected” by contraceptives? You give them contraceptives and the abuse goes on. Is that your idea of women “protection”? Think of the larger abuses of social inequity, of corruption, disrespect for the poor, and general apathy and tolerance of abuses committed at large to society.

“Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities."

The professors seem to imply that their well-formed conscience trumps more than 2,000 years of Church history and teaching tradition. Primacy of conscience does not guarantee rightness and the objective TRUTH in ones subsequent actions. As is usually the case, when one finds himself in conflict with the Church’s teachings, the problem is with the person and not with the teaching, a direct consequence, naturally, of a selective reading(?) of Catholic (social ?) teachings.

While the professors continue to think more along the lines of “well-formed consciences”, they might consider not dragging the Ateneo name the next time they feel an irresistible urge to voice out their personal opinions. It would also do them well to read the Compendium of the Social Doctrines of the Church (all 361 pages, with NOT A SINGLE PAGE of it expounding on the PRIMACY of CONSCIENCE); study NFP first DILIGENTLY, without making “impossible” conclusions; rethink their concept of ROOT CAUSES; ask a succession of “WHYS” on the problems of women at hand; and investigate more deeply the real meaning of “WELL-FORMED CONSCIENCES”.

And if they want a professor to teach them through it all, I will gladly refer my old boss.He also says that some solutions are worse than the problem.

AN INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESPONSE TO SOME ATENEO DE MANILA PROFESSORS’ STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

AN INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESPONSE TO SOME ATENEO DE MANILA PROFESSORS’ STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

OPEN LETTER

House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development” has occasioned intense debate in the Philippines and was recently the subject of a position paper drafted by 14 members of the faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University. In their statement, these faculty members stated their belief that the bill adheres “to core principles of Catholic social teaching: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, integral human development, human rights, and the primacy of conscience.” They believe these conditions of Catholic social teaching are met in Bill 5043. We, the undersigned Catholic academics, assert, however, that these Ateneo faculty are gravely mistaken in their presentation of the Church’s teaching.

The primary reason for these Ateneo faculty members´ support of the bill seems to stem from their deep commitment to the Church’s long-held “preferential option for the poor.” Their position paper describes, heart-wrenchingly, the situation of the poor in the Philippines. High maternal mortality rates, inadequate and uneven provision of basic health care, lack of birth attendants, and lack of reproductive health information: such situations place an undue burden on the poor, and in particular on women. These women, like all women, desire to determine the number and spacing of their children, and ensure that proper nutrition, health care, and education can be provided for each member of their families. As Catholics, we have a clear obligation to ensure that all persons, particularly the poor, have the ability to exercise these basic freedoms.

As Catholic academics, we agree that we must support civic and governmental initiatives that can aid the poor. Nevertheless, a Catholic cannot support the Reproductive Health and Population Development bill in good conscience, because the primary provisions of the bill not only fail to recognize and support the dignity of the poor, but also stand in direct opposition to Catholic social teaching. The bill focuses primarily on providing services to curb the number of children of the poor, while doing little to remedy their situation, provide necessary health care or establish the grounds for sound economic development.

A few citations will serve to show how clear and unambiguous is the Church’s care for the dignity of the person, and in particular the poor, and how critical it is for us to heed her teachings in addressing the circumstances facing the Philippines today.

Rerum Novarum opens with the powerful reminder that “Man precedes the state” and for that reason should not be subject to the state’s regulation of his private matters. Populorum Progressio reiterates this sentiment, stating: "No solution . . . is acceptable which does violence to man's essential dignity; those who propose such solutions base them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life. The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values."

Perhaps no document speaks more powerfully in opposition to the main ideas in this bill than Humanae Vitae: “Therefore we base our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.”

In reply to the claim that reproductive rights, contraception and sterilization are required in order to help the poor limit their family size and thus aid the poor by reducing the numbers of mouths to feed, Humanae Vitae states: “Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question we must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.”

Artificial contraception can never be accepted by the Church as an action in conformity with the dignity of the human person because “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” Further, it is never valid to argue, “as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, ” as the authors of the position paper seem to suggest. While applauding efforts in the bill to provide information on both artificial and natural forms of family planning, the position paper then asserts that provision of contraceptives as essential medicines and fully covered sterilizations for indigent patients are measures that promote quality of life. This statement directly contradicts Catholic teaching, which recognizes the use and promotion of artificial contraception and sterilization as intrinsically evil. Such actions can never be promoted or justified. “It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it – in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, or a family or of society in general. Consequently it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. ”

The Church does not hold these positions to punish the poor, but rather because she recognizes that the poor have the same inviolable dignity and rights that all human persons share. What the poor need is not contraception and sterilization, but to experience authentic solidarity with those who, in responding to their innate dignity, work with the poor to enable them to develop their skills, improve their circumstances and cultivate lives that are marked by both interior and exterior freedom. This places a much more radical demand on those of us to whom much has been given (Luke 12:48); we must live and work with the poor in order to identify and enable the resources they require to live lives of authentic freedom.

Finally, Humanae Vitae warns us that "[c]areful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”

These statements of the Church and Magisterium have been retained in all subsequent documents and reiterated in documents too numerous to cite here. These few, but clear, passages make it abundantly clear that no Catholic can in good conscience support Bill 5043. This Bill violates the Church’s teachings in the gravest manner.

Maternal and ObGyn health. Finally, it must be emphasized that there are two sections in the bill that should be applauded and expanded. Both Section 6 and Section 7 call for the expansion of midwives and birth attendants, as well as greater access to obstetric care. Such measures are critical to reducing maternal mortality and making progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDG 5 (maternal health) and MDG 4 (infant health). Healthy mothers are the critical factor in assuring infant and child health.

Unfortunately, these two sections are the weakest in the bill. Most of the reproductive health proposals of the bill are mandatory and supported through financial means, as well as through the creation of new government agencies to assure implementation. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill - and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching - has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee its implementation.

A bill that responds to the situation of the poor requires us to respond to their full range of needs in order to facilitate integral improvement in their quality of life. This necessitates the creation of laws that guarantee the adoption of measures, at the national and local levels, that will lead to improved access to authentic development including the provision of basic health care and access to quality education. It is measures such as these that will enable the poor to develop and thrive, and that will affirm and respect the dignity of each and every human person. This bill stops short of assuring implementation of needed medical care, while emphasizing the adoption of measures that deny the dignity and freedom of the poor. As Catholics we have a moral duty to defend and support the poor; we must demand more from our legislators and from ourselves, placing ourselves at the service of poor, ready to commit to the necessary work, sacrifice and solidarity needed to establish and build societies that will respond to authentic needs while respecting the dignity and freedom of every human person.

Signatories as of Nov 12, 2008

1. Prof Janet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, MI.

2. Robert G Kennedy, PhD
Professor and Chair
Department of Catholic Studies
Co-Director, Terrence J Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy
University of St Thomas
Mail #55-SSt Paul, MN 55105

3. Richard S. Myers
Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2550

4. Romanus Cessario, O.P.
Professor of Theology
Saint John's Seminary
Boston, Massachusetts

5. Rev. Joseph W. Koterski, S.J.
Department of Philosophy
Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458 USA

6. Theresa Notare, PhD
Assistant Director
Natural Family Planning Program
Secretariat for Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 3211 4th St., N.E.Washington, DC 20017

7. Fr. Basil Cole, O.P.
Dominican House of Studies
487 Michigan Ave NE Washington DC 20017
bbcole@dhs.edu

8. E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil.
Associate Professor of Moral Theology
Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary
Denver, Colorado 80210, USA

9. S.C. Selner-Wright, PhD
Acting Chair, Philosophy Department
Acting Director, Pre-Theology Cycle
St. John Vianney Theological Seminary
Denver, Colorado USA

10. Dr. Mary Healy
Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture
Sacred Heart Major Seminary 2701 Chicago Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48206

11. Ångela Aparisi Miralles
Philosophy of Law Professor
Directora - Instituto de Derechos Humanos
Universidad de Navarra

12. Michael Rota
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN

13. Michael Scaperlanda
Associate Dean for Research
Edwards Family Chair in Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law

14. Richard Stith J.D.(Yale), Ph.D.(Yale)
Professor of Law
Valparaiso University School of Law
656 South Greenwich St. Valparaiso, IN 46383-4945
USA

15. Patrick Quirk
Associate Professor
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2550

16. Fr. Earl Muller, S.J.
Kevin M. Britt Chair in Theology/Christology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI, USA

17. Professor David Paton
Chair of Industrial Economics
Nottingham University Business School
Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB
United Kingdom

18. Dr. Eduardo J. Echeverria
Professor of Philosophy
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Blvd, Detroit, MI 48206

19. Jane Adolphe
Associate Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 48105

20. Teresa S. Collett
Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law
MSL 400, 1000
LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015

21. David Braine,
Honorary Research Fellow,
Department of Philosophy,
University of Aberdeen, UK.


22. Dr. Helen Watt
Director
Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics
London

23. Ligia M. De Jesus
Assistant Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2550
USA

24. Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley
Professor of Law
Director, ADR & Conflict Resolution Program
Fordham Law School
140 W. 62nd Street, New York, New York 10023

25. William E.May
Michael J.McGivney Professor of Moral Theology
John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
Washington DC

26. Evelyn (Timmie) Birge Vitz
Professor of French, New York University
Affiliated Professor of Comparative Literature,
Medieval and Renaissance Studies, and Religious Studies
19 University Place, #623,
New York, NY 10003

27. Mary M. Keys
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA

28. Mark E. Ginter, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Moral Theology
Saint Meinrad School of Theology
200 Hill Drive St. Meinrad, IN 47577

29. Father Daniel J. Trapp
Professor of Sacramental Theology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48206

30. Maria Fedoryka
Philosophy Department of Ave Maria University
Ave Maria, FL.

31. Dr. Dermot Grenham
Graduate Teaching Assistant
London School of Economics
London

32. Dr. Michael Pakaluk
Professor of Philosophy
Institute for the Psychological Sciences
Arlington, VA 22101

33. Timothy Flanigan MD
Professor of Medicine
Brown University Medical School

34. Gerard Bradley
School of Law
Notre Dame University

35. Adrian J. Reimers
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Philosophy
208 Malloy HallNotre Dame, Indiana 46556574-631-7384

36. Daniel Philpott
Associate Professor, Political Science and Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
University of Notre Dame

37. Aneta Gawkowska
Assistant Professor, Sociology
University of Warsaw

38. Tom D’Andrea
Philosophy
Cambridge University

39. Peter Kreeft
Philosophy
Boston College

40. J. Budziszewski
Departments of Government and Philosophy
University of Texas at Austin


41. Habib Malik
Department of History,
Lebanese American University
Beirut

42. Nicholas Eberstadt
Political Economy
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.