By Senator Miriam Defensor
Santiago
(Keynote speech at the program
sponsored by the Catholics for Reproductive Health, on15 September 2012, at the
UP College of Social Work and Development)
REASON ONE
The Catholic Church Does Not
Consider
Anti-RH Teaching as Infallible
Theology consists of critical
reflection on faith. St. Anselm of Canterbury gave to us the classic definition
of theology as: “Faith seeking understanding.” But theology is the result not
only of faith, but also of certain normative rules which fall into two
categories: doctrines and dogmas. Doctrines consist of beliefs or teachings
which receive the official approval of the Church.
But by contrast, dogmas, which
literally mean “what is right,” are doctrines that are taught definitively and
promulgated with the highest solemnity. In other words, dogmas are the
definitive rules of faith. If you reject a dogma, you become a heretic.
Parenthetically, it is very strange that our Church has failed to enumerate
what are the Catholic dogmas.
A teaching which is dogma is
infallible; but a teaching which is mere doctrine is not infallible. A doctrine
can change over time. Thus, the 1973 Mysterium Ecclesiae, a declaration issued
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states: “The expressions of
revelation are historically conditioned, and therefore the meaning is not
always self-evident to those in some other historical setting. The meaning in
dogmatic language may change from one historical period to another. The truth
itself may be expressed incompletely.”
In his classic bestseller, the
1994 revised edition of the book entitled Catholicism, Richard P. McBrien of
the University of Notre Dame, said: “The Church has never explicitly claimed to
such infallibility on a moral question.” The RH issue is a moral question. The
Catholic Church has never claimed that any pronouncement on the RH issue is
infallible.
And in the 1996 book Christ
Among Us, Anthony Wilhelm said that on the question of contraception: “The
large majority of theologians agree that no question of infallibility is
involved.”
REASON TWO
The Catholic Enjoys Freedom of
Conscience
Every Catholic, like any
citizen, enjoys freedom of conscience. In fact, modern theology now recognizes
the primacy of conscience over mere doctrines formulated by certain clerics. In
1965, Pope Paul 6 issued an encyclical letter entitled Dignitatis Humanae, also
known as Declaration on Religious Freedom. The Pope wrote: “Man perceives and
acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of
conscience. In all his activity, a man is bound to follow his conscience in
order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of living. It follows that
he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.”
In 1967, the same Pope Paul 6
issued another encyclical entitled Populorum Progreso, also known as “On the
Development of Peoples.” The Pope said: “It is for the parish to decide, with
full knowledge of the matter, on the number of their children . . . in all
these they must follow the demands of their own conscience.”
The 1971 statement by the US
Sacred Congregation for the Clergy states: “Conscience is invulnerable and no
person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his (or her) conscience.”
Years later, in 1993, Pope John
Paul 23 issued his encyclical entitled Veritatis Splendor, also known as
Splendor of Truth. The Pope said: “The authority of the Church, when she
pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience
of Christians. The Church puts herself always and only in the service of
conscience.”
And in 1996, in the book Christ
Among Us, which I have already cited, Anthony Wilhelm wrote that some “500
American theologians, in concert with many theologians throughout the world,
asserted that for grave reasons Catholics may follow their conscience this
matter even though the Pope has spoken.”
Quoting Andrew Greeley, both a
priest and socialist, Wilhelm reached the following conclusion: “It is a clear
teaching that, while erroneous decisions might be made in following one’s
conscience, one who has tried to inform one’s conscience must then follow it.”
REASON THREE
RH Observes the “Preferential
Option for the Poor,”
Under Liberation Theology
Liberation theology is the
theory which interprets liberation from social, political, and economic
oppression as an anticipation of eschatological or post-death salvation. The
following are the basic principles of liberation theology:
It is the Church and not merely
the Catholic hierarchy, which is a sacrament.
By Church, we mean the whole
People of God, not just the hierarchy.
The whole People of God
participates in the mission of Christ, and not just in the mission of the
Catholic hierarchy.
The mission of the Church
includes service to those in need, and, parenthetically, service to the women
of the poor. The mission of the Church is not limited to the preaching of the
gospel or the celebration of the sacraments.
In his 1988 book, A Theory of
Liberation, Gustavo Gutierrez wrote that the preferential option for the poor
is central in liberation theology. He advocated giving “preference to the
poorest and most needy sectors.” He reminded Catholics of the statement made by
Pope John Paul 23 just before the opening of Vatican 2 that the Church is
called upon to be a church of the poor. Gutierrez said: “Let me say only that
we have here two aspects of the church’s life that are both demanding and
inseparable: universality and preference for the poor.”
REASON FOUR
RH is Part of Today’s Sense of
the Faithful,
Also Known as Sensus Fidelium
Literally, sensus fidelium
means “the sense of the faithful.” It refers to doctrinal truth recognized by
the whole body of the faithful. In theology, the sense of the faithful belongs
to the individual believer within the community of the faithful. In other
words, God teaches us not only through the priests and the bishops, but also
through the laity, to whom God gives understanding of the faith.
In opposing the RH bill,
certain members of the Catholic religious fail to listen effectively to the
sense of the faithful. The Catholic clergy have a moral duty to take into
consideration the experiences and consciousness of the laity. The religious
should descend from the pulpit and consult with parishioners on RH. Today we
find some of the male religious issuing their orders and directives from the
pulpit, or in other words using the bully pulpit. Some of them manage only to
appeal to blind faith, instead of participating in a consultative process with
the Catholic laity, particularly the poor and the underprivileged.
REASON FIVE
Surveys Showing Catholic
Support for RH is
“A Sign of the Times”
The majority of Filipinos are
Catholics. A nationwide survey therefore serves as a basis for assuming that
the results of the survey reflect the thinking of Catholics. At the most recent
survey conducted last August 2011 by the Social Weather Stations, the results
produced “Yes” answers to the following questions:
“The choice of a family
planning method is a personal choice of couples, and no one should interfere
with it.” – Yes, 82%
“If a couple wants to plan its
family, it would be able to get information from government on all legal
methods.” – Yes, 73%
The government should fund all
means of family planning, be it natural or artificial means.” – Yes, 68%
In other countries like the
Philippines, which are predominantly Catholic, many are using family planning
programs, including contraception, using public funding. Some of these
countries and the percentage of Catholic for each are as follows:
Italy, 97% Catholic
Poland, 94%
Paraguay, 90%
Portugal, 90%
Ecuador, 90%
Argentina, 89%
Spain, 88%
This explains why that in these
Catholic countries, the population growth rate is very low, hovering between
.02 to .05% population growth rate. By contrast, the Philippines, without an RH
law, has a population growth rate of 2.01%.
REASON SIX
Since God is Love, RH is Proof
of Love for the Poor
And Therefore is Proof of Love
for God
The Catholic concept of God as
love, is diametrically opposed to the fact that everyday, 15 Filipino mothers
die from pregnancy and childbirth complications. When I last read my Bible, I
came across the passage describing Jesus surrounded by disciples. As students,
they decided to raise this question with Jesus, who acted as their teacher:
“Master, what is the greatest law of all?” and Jesus answered: “The first law
is that you should love God with all your heart and with all your mind and with
all your soul. And the second law is that you should love your neighbor as
yourself.”
In the Catholic Church, what has
happened to the concept of love as the moral force of the universe? The
Catholic religious, particularly the clerics, insist quite loudly that we
should all obey the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, also known as “On the
Regulation of Birth,” issued by Pope Paul 6. This encyclical was the result of
a Special Papal Commission established by Pope John 23 and concluded during the
term of Pope Paul 6.
The Papal Commission was split
into two. The majority proposed that contraception should no longer be condemned.
By contrast, the minority proposed that the Pope should continue to condemn
contraception. Perversely, Pope Paul 6 decided to adopt the minority view.
Unfortunately, the Pope
rejected the majority view supporting artificial contraception, based on the following
arguments:
The teaching of the Catholic
Church evolves over time.
The problem with some of the
religious is that they view the conjugal act as an isolated reality. But today,
under the principle of totality, the conjugal act is viewed in the broader
context of human love, family life, education, etc.
The majority opinion
specifically stated that instead of viewing sex as a mere physical act designed
to perpetuate the human race, instead: “In some cases intercourse can be
required as a manifestation of self-giving love.”
I very humbly submit that in
their blind allegiance to the encyclical Humane Vitae and ignoring that it
embodies the minority opinion of the Special Papal Commission, the Catholic
religious in this country, particularly the priests and bishops, continue the
obsolete notion that the Church is an authoritarian structure. The Filipino
Catholic religious should now accept that they do not constitute the Church.
Instead, the Church is primarily constituted by the whole people of God. The
Filipino Catholic religious should engage all members of the Church in
dialogues.
Filipino Catholics should now
insist that priests and bishops in our country are no longer a special caste in
Philippine society. The Catholic Church does not consist of the priests and
bishops alone. Instead, the Church consists of the whole faith community.
I very humbly submit that since
the priest is no longer a special person in Catholic theology, many Filipino
priests are suffering from a sense of confusion about RH.
REASON SEVEN
Anti-RH is Cruelty to the Poor
On the RH issue, the Church
hierarchy insists upon what it chooses to call morality, as if they have
exclusive jurisdiction over morality. In the name of morality, the Church
strongly opposes RH, thus inflicting upon the poor people undeserved and
unnecessary suffering. In this aspect, the Church appears to be the opponent of
progress and of improvement that would otherwise diminish suffering in the
world. The Church chooses to label as morality a certain set of rules of
conduct, which have nothing to do with human happiness.
Does the Church love and care
for the Filipino poor? They are miserable, because among other reasons, they
have so many children. Without reproductive knowledge and information, the poor
are just condemned to a vicious cycle of poverty, from generation to
generation.
I very humbly submit that in
its methodology, the Catholic religious is unconsciously basing our religion on
fear. Bertrand Russell, the famous writer and philosopher, and also one of the
great heretics in morals and religion, has attacked religion with this passage
which applies squarely to the campaign against RH: “Religion is partly the
terror of the unknown and . . . partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of
elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is
the basis of the whole thing – fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of
death.” And he urged his readers as follows: “Conquer the world by
intelligence, and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that
comes from it . . . A good world needs knowledge, candidness, and courage.”
REASON EIGHT
The RH Bill is Over Ten Years
Old; It is Cowardly
to Keep Postponing the Decision
It appears that in Congress,
the first precursor to the RH bill was filed in 2001. The bill is now 11 years
old. If the present efforts to delay the bill by means of a filibuster in the
House of Representatives and in the Senate, then this will be proof that
legislators are afraid of the Catholic vote. We do not even know whether there
is such a thing as a Catholic vote. But any reasonable person would immediately
reach the conclusion that some of our legislators refuse to face the facts
squarely. Perhaps they think that if they are anti-RH, they will automatically
go to heaven; while the pro-RH legislators will automatically go to hell. I
repeat my belief that there is no hell; but if there is, there is nobody there
because God is everlasting love.