By Raïssa Robles
The most hilarious argument I have heard on this is that contraception is attempted murder! Whoever said that deserves a medal for I know not what.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas
Former Dean, Ateneo Law University
The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it.
Nereo Odchimar
President, Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
Behold – two senior Catholic clerics, both learned in Theology, but saying very opposite things.
Whom shall ordinary Catholics like me believe?
I cannot recall a time in the recent history of the Catholic Church in the Philippines where senior priests openly contradicted each other. Many are understandably distressed by this dramatic turn of events. But this, for me, is a refreshing change.
I have for many months refrained from writing about the proposed Reproductive Health Bill. Fr. Bernas’ recent columns have given me a handle on my thoughts on the matter.
For decades, the Catholic Church in the Philippines has always quashed any opposition to – okay, let’s keep the matter simple and start this discussion on the use of condoms.
Without uttering the word “condom”, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has condemned its use in its pastoral statement this January 2011 entitled Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill. Here, CBCP states that:
Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life.
It also states that:
We believe in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning for which character building is necessary which involves sacrifice, discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse.
Since condoms are one of the forms of “artificial obstacles” and are not a “Natural Family Planning” method, it is safe to say that the CBCP is against their use even by married couples. Because the CBCP has branded their use as “immoral” and “anti-Life”.
Bishop Odchimar’s pastoral statement also seems to imply there is nothing to debate about. He is in effect saying, “Trust us on this matter.”
Why should we trust the Church on this matter?
His reply is –
Twenty five years ago in 1986 we Catholic Bishops made a prophetic moral judgment on political leadership. With this prophetic declaration we believe that we somehow significantly helped open the door for EDSA I and a window of political integrity.
Frankly, when I look back on Edsa 1 which I was covering extensively as a reporter before, during and after, I can’t recall the Church making any “prophetic moral judgment on political leadership.” It did make a moral judgment but not in a prophetic manner the way the prophets of the Old Testament predicted a future event.
The CBCP also states that in the case of the RH Bill,
We hold that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of one’s faith.
And of course, for the CBCP, it is its group that should inform, guide and teach the conscience to reject this “post-modernist” bill.
I recall my late dad always telling me whenever we argued that I should always define my terms. He was a Theologian (maybe one of the few Filipinos who knew the Summa Theologica like the back of his hand) and he used to teach priests at University of Santo Tomas and the Dominican seminary. I believe one of his students was Fr. Sonny Ramirez.)
When I was reading the CBCP statement, a phrase stuck out that made me feel queasy. That phrase is “post-modern spirit” which the CBCP statement repeated thrice in the text:
Unfortunately, we see the subtle spread of this post-modern spirit in our own Filipino society.
Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.
Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers women with ownership of their own bodies. This is in line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women have power over their own bodies without the dictation of any religion.
The CBCP did not define what it meant by the phrase “post-modern” but I can guess frowns on this “post-modern spirit”.
Since I can’t live in the Middle Ages even if I want to, I cannot understand what the CBCP really means when it says “post-modern spirit.”
Father Bernas’ “shocking” stance on the RH Bill
Now I would like to examine what Father Bernas has just posted this weekend in the light of what the CBCP earlier said.
I must confess that Fr. Bernas’ column is quite meaty and very highfalutin – meaning, you have to have a high level of knowledge of the Constitution, Law and Religion in order to understand it.
And so, from the little I understand, I would like to extract several things that struck me in Fr. Bernas’ latest column.
First of all, despite being a priest, he examined the RH Bill from the constitutional angle. Basically, I think what he meant was, the 1987 Constitution (which President Corazon Aquino pushed for ratification) prohibited the establishment of a state religion.
He says the implications of this are the following:
Historically for the Philippines, it means the denial to the Catholic church of the privileged position it occupied under Spanish sovereignty. Corollary to the cutting down of the privileged position of the Catholic church has been the recognition of the equal position of other religions.
Simply, he means that the Catholic Church is not THE state religion. No religion is, because the Philippines is not a theocracy where the teachings of one religion are embedded in the state laws. (This is what you see in Iran for instance where wearing the veil by women is enforced by the state itself.) Fr. Bernas called this the “non-establishment clause” of the Constitution.
This clause, he says, allows the following:
The use of public money, for instance, for making safe contraceptive devises (sic) available to the poor falls under this aspect of the non-establishment clause. Whichever way the RH debate is concluded, since the RH Bill’s avowed purpose is secular, it can be accommodated within the non-establishment clause.
Then Fr. Bernas makes an even more controversial statement. He says:
But the more delicate issue is the free exercise clause (of the Constitution).
It means the freedom to act according to one’s religious belief and the freedom from being compelled to act contrary to one’s religious belief. But there are those who argue that the RH debate is not about religion but about ethics and natural law. Even assuming that this is so, one must still ask, “Whose natural law? Whose ethical principles?” The constitution also protects “natural law” belief or disbelief, if not through the religion clause, then through the free speech clause, where speech is involved, and through the due process and equal protection clauses when action is involved.
Let me repeat what Fr. Bernas just said – our Constitution protects anyone’s “belief or disbelief” of natural law.
By implication, this means Filipinos are free to believe or disbelieve what the Catholic Church tells us about natural law.
He even went further and said:
But I myself hold that protected religion in the Constitution includes beliefs that are not traditionally theistic such as Buddhism, ethical culture and secular humanism. I view protected religion in the Constitution as encompassing beliefs and views which illuminate the “very ground of one’s being” and which give life meaning and direction.
Fr. Bernas takes the raging bull by the horn
Like many Catholics I would like to know when life begins. Fr. Bernas tackles this issue head on. He says:
Another constitutional issue (in this raging controversy over the RH Bill) is the right to life. It involves trying to identify when life begins and when there is contraception and when abortion.
He says:
The most hilarious argument I have heard on this is that contraception is attempted murder! Whoever said that deserves a medal for I know not what.
Fr. Bernas does not stop there. He opens up for Catholics a long-forbidden avenue for discussion by expounding on what he calls “pharmacological issues”. This is what he says:
There are claims, for instance, that there are contraceptive drugs in the market that cause abortion or are carcinogenic. What I would like to see is an authoritative identification of the drugs that are said to be abortifacient or carcinogenic so that they can be withdrawn from the market or their use subjected to medical regulation. So far I have seen only one drug identified as
abortifacient, namely postinor. This was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug and Administration. But the identification of drugs claimed to be abortifacient or carcinogenic should be authoritative in a manner that is fair to drug manufacturers and to those who rely on them for legitimate medical purposes.
Recall that the CBCP said in its January pastoral statement:
The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it.
To the CBCP there is no discussion on the matter. Contraceptives are “fatal” – which means life-ending or deadly or murderous. Period.
But Fr. Bernas now says – wait a minute. Let’s ask scientists about this. And let’s look at this issue from the constitutional angle, too. You know, the Constitution that President Corazon Aquino caused to be approved 24 years ago. And Mrs. Aquino was a very devout Catholic whose presidency seemed to have been ordained by God. Hmmmm.
____________________________
Here is a link to the CBCP’s pastoral statement
Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill
Here is the link to Fr. Bernas’ latest column entitled
Levels of Discourse on RH Debate
____________________________
My previous stories on the issue
Strange bunch of Church champions to stop gov’t from distributing condoms
Will Father Bernas be cowed by higher authority & fall silent on the RH bill?
Father Bernas gives Catholics wiggle room to support controversial RH bill
vander anievas says
maybe we don’t need this RH bill for now, if corruption is arrested in our system. if all those opposed to it can come up with a concrete solution to raise the level of standard of living among us poor citizens to a decent one.
jjvillamor says
Fr Bernas is just saying i8t the way it is, not the way some priest’s wants us to believe by concocting stories or teachings.
Juan Hernandez says
Raissa Robles is doing Father Bernas a disservice and even getting him into trouble by reading Father Bernas’ comments according to her biases, prejudgments, misconceptions, and lack of adequate understanding on the Catholic Church’s position on contraception
and other ethical issues related to family planning. Comments like Raissa’s are proofs that very highly nuanced opinions like Father Bernas’ had better be kept to himself because they are bound to be misinterpreted by superficial thinkers who are non-theologians searching for respected cleric to dispute the pronouncements of the CBCP. Father Bernas is allowing himself to be misread and used to undermine the authority of the CBCP. I don’t think St. Ignatius likes it. (I could be wrong.)
raissa says
You don’t know because I did not write this out.
For much of my adult life, I lived with a philosopher and a Catholic theologian who used to teach Theology at the University of Santo Tomas and to Dominican seminarians. In fact he named me after Raissa Maritain, one of his favorite Catholic writers.
And I did not know it then. But I imbibed Theology while listening in our living room to my father debate with the late UST Prof. Ariston Estrada and the late De La Salle University Physics Prof. Salvador Roxas-Gonzales.
So, I’ve had more than the average dose of Theology than the average Filipino. My father once tutored me in trying to understand the basics of Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.
I am well aware of the Catholic Church official position on contraception. Simply put, it is – natural family planning, YES.
All other forms of trying not to get pregnant during intercourse including withdrawal and condoms – NO.
But behind that official position, you must be aware yourself of the great debate within the Catholic hierarchy whether that official position is justified.
You must also be aware that the Church has erred in the past in such questions as – the divine right of kings and whether the sun revolves around the earth or is it truly the other way around.
Just don’t call my opinions “superficial”.
Prove it.
And by the way, Fr. Bernas CHOSE to get into trouble by publishing those pieces. He could just have kept quiet.
El Supremo says
I just thought of something while reading your rebuttal to one reader… Dominicans and Jesuits were never compatible “paramours” inside the Roman “Prelature”…This point may not be important about anything pertinent to RH Controversies but historically those groups in trying to enact Orders from the Papacy were always at cross purposes. I just hope this is not just about money like Tito Sotto was trying to imply. Never the less, I figure at the end of the day following our conscience may better give us inner peace then following the dictates of the Opinion of “nose-bleed professors” like Joaquin Bernas.
It would be pleasant to hear some “face time” between Edcel Lagman and Joaquin Bernas. That would be very interesting!
raissa says
Yes, it would be.
Just curious. Why do you call Fr. B a nosebleed professor?
Mark Anthony Bolivar Andrade says
The purpose of RH Bill if it becomes law is to educate the people to be responsible, accountable and be informed of the advantages so as the consequences of giving birth and raising a family without any plan. . . Just few days ago world population reached the 7 billion mark and counting. The resources are limited and consumers are increasing, so what does it mean..? Philippines has 94 million population, 15 million or more are living under 2 dollars a day… Isn’t it logical to educate many of our irresponsible parents and young single parents to plan a productive family and help them get through with it..? RH Bill has all the good intention yet the church opposing it as if they hold answers to the current and increasing problems of over population….
By the way, the catholic church is using the Bible as their basis for their faith… Murder is a sin, and to take one’s life is murder…. Contraception is to prevent life to take place. . . Life starts when egg cell and sperm start to unite and that usually happen several hours after sexual intercourse… If you use contraceptives life condoms, life will never start between sperm and eggs cell unless there is another definition that preventing egg cell and sperm to unite is a form of murder. . .
———————————————————————————————————————-
I am not gonna support RH Bill if the church can come up with a solution to increasing poverty and unemployment that usually result to increasing crimes like murder, kidnapping, robbery, prostitution and many more. . .
____________________________________________________________________
The church has it’s own problems that they can’t even take care of,…..
jjvillamor says
Have they cited specific biblical verses that prohibits “artificial obstacles” that prevent the sperm and egg from meeting?
Philip Lozano says
If contraception is considered attempted murder, is masturbation another form of attempted murder? It’s a big waste, but it’s fun and quite relaxing. I much rather engage in the natural order of things.
jjvillamor says
Just artificial obstacles preventing fertilization. maria palad is natural daw so OK lang. RAPE, based on the Church’s view is also OK. But if the rapist wears a condom then it is not OK.
People who without planning, and without any means of raising or educating their Children, is OK. But if the poor couple decides to use a condom, because they may not be able to control themselves and forgot to withdraw in the heat of the moment, are no OK. Maybe this(no condom) is how a growing number of priests are found to live a double life. Some even have 2 families.
But if condom is an artificial obstacle wouldn’t masturbation be an artificial waste? Waste as in millions of sperms are ejaculated but only 1 is needed for fertilization. Is masturbation OK with the Church? If not, maybe that accounts for some priests doing it with a live recipient giving life to a poor fatherless child. Or some just decide to do it with boys the “natural” way because condoms is not needed.
I really hate all this hypocrisy and the Church’s attempt to impose a minority’s decision on the majority.
then priests
Norman Sison says
Had Father Bernas lived during Jose Rizal’s time, he probably would’ve ended up on the garrote. Padre Jose Burgos of the Gomburza fame irked the establishment for his dissident views. Bernas also demonstrates why the Jesuits were expelled by the other Catholic orders from the Philippines. Also take note that Rizal studied in the Jesuit-run Ateneo Municipal de Manila, today’s . . . you guessed it.
rejtatel says
In his capacity as a cleric, I think Fr. Bernas had just compromised his Church’s teaching on regulation of birth as clearly set out in Humanae Vitae (III 28) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html.
However as a true academician, scholar and legal expert, Fr. Bernas had clearly set out and brought the issue of RH Bill in its proper perspective devoid of his religious affiliation.
This should enlighten the minds of some congressmen who, in their effort to please the Bishops of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, have even quoted the bible in their discourse against the the RH Bill, without considering the fact that as public servants they are also beholden to constituents who do not believe in the teachings of the Church of Rome.
Lucio says
Fr. Joaquin Bernas says “The most hilarious argument… is that contraception is attempted murder!”
I know right? like the host REALLY becomes christ’s body during holy mass. Preposterous.
El Supremo says
it does. Don’t take my word for it. It Does!
Rebecca Koomans says
According to scripture, the only issue to do with this is the MURDER Laws of The 10 Commandments; and the Laws in Leviticus which show that a spontaneous abortion caused by a man-made incident can be subject to COMPENSATION. This displays that since a foetus is actually still a HUMAN being, and has a life of it’s OWN, although requires to suckle nourishment from it’s protector, the mother. The RH BILL is problematic in not what you SEE now, so much as that many countries who have done that similarly, and ended up with an ABORTION law, because of similar “bills” – which have similar “loopholes” in them to allow Genocidal Murder of babies… usually done in such Abominable fashion like chopping up babies while still ALIVE! – BUT – the PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE, BY REFERENDUM – not by some group of utterly unprincipled, lobby-group affected INDIVIDUALS who presume to represent their electorate, yet actually only represent probably as much as 10% of those who actually voted for them!