Some quotes from Church sources relevant to the RH Bill Debate

Note: There are discrepancies between the teaching and the practice of what is preached by leaders or the community in general. But the teachings are normative. The lives of all, the leaders and the community, are judged as right or wrong (or needs nuancing and modification) according to these norms. So it is good to know what the Church teaches; so one is guided accordingly when leaders or lay leaders or members speak. One can also check what the media says so that embellishments from those who have little knowledge on what the Church teaches will also be corrected justly, eg. The Inquirer.

Pair this article with the previous posts on:

1. Talking Points for Dialogue on RH Bill 96 (filed 1 July 2010);

2. The Ability to Make Good Choices (from Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes)

3. Steps in Making an Informed Choice (from Conscience in Gaudium et Spes, and Spirituality on the Discernment of Spirits)

—————————————–

Some quotes from Church sources relevant to the RH Bill Debate

1. The PCP II (2nd Plenary Council of the Philippines) warned against harsh rhetoric in public debate by lay leaders and clergy:

“The public defense of gospel values, especially when carried into the arena of public policy formulation, whether through the advocacy of lay leaders or moral suasion by pastors, is not without limit.” (PCP II #358)

2. PCP II also warned strongly against violating the religious freedom of non-Catholics and even dissenting Catholics:

“It needs emphasizing, that, although pastors have the liberty to participate in policy debate and formulation, that liberty must not be exercised to the detriment of the religious freedom of non-communicants, or even of dissenting communicants. This is a clear implication of Vatican II’s Dignitatis humanae. This is not just a matter of prudence; it is a matter of justice.” (PCP II #358)

There may even be some Catholic believers who in all honesty do not see the truth the way the Church’s magisterium discerns, interprets, and teaches it. In such a situation, the Church must clearly and firmly teach what it believes is the truth and require its members to form their consciences accordingly. Yet the Church must also, with all charity and justice, hold on to its doctrine on religious freedom — that the human person is bound to follow his or her conscience faithfully, and must not be forced to act contrary to it. (PCP II, #362-363)

3. Pope Benedict XVI is against Church actions that imposes on the State and to non-Catholics

Faith enables reason to do its work more effectively and to see its proper object more clearly. This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgement and attainment of what is just. (Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI)

4. The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority religion that is discriminatory of the rights of minority religions.

Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups.” (Compendium #169):

“Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all members of the community, including the minority. (Compendium #422)

5. Social Teachings of the Church deny the existence of a Catholic vote or a Catholic party

“There is generally no such thing as a ‘Catholic vote’ or ‘the Bishops’ candidates’. This is simply a myth. The Bishops do not endorse any particular candidate or party but leave the laity to vote according to their enlightened and formed consciences in accordance with the Gospel.” (CBCP Catechism on Church and Politics 1998)

To claim that one party or political coalition responds completely to the demands of faith or of Christian life would give rise to dangerous errors. (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #573)

Talking Points for Dialogue on RH Bill 96, filed 1 July 2010

NOTE: This post is intended to stimulate meaningful and thoughtful dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96). Please post, discuss, and pass on. I intentionally highlighted in bold letters the intention of this article so that those who might sensationalize the issue (like the media, especially the Inquirer) will NOT miss it. In addition, the RH Bill we are talking about here is RH 96 filed on 1 July 2010. We are not talking about the others. Thanks.

_______________________

Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.

Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1 , 2010)

The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.

The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:

The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution

• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.

Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.

Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.

Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.

Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?
• Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?

Employers’ Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.

Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.

Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.

Implementing Norms
• Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill’s implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.

The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.

Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.

Steps in Making an Informed Choice

PART II: The Ability to Make Good Choices

Before all else, we have to be aware that we are approaching this topic with a presupposition and a challenge: that the reader is educated and capable of research. Having said this, we proceed.

First, return to the primary source. Information usually reaches us from ‘secondary’ sources. They can come from gossip, opinion, sensational reporting, biased and prejudiced articles that agitate us. Many times we find studies about the topic at hand but not the source document itself.

A primary source is original and uninterrupted information before it is interpreted or analyzed. In making decisions, it is important to actually read the article that is the source of controversies. This is the very root of all decisions. If we do not begin with this step, our opinions on matters will be less credible and decisions will be colored and lopsided. That is why in the academic field, all research puts primary importance on the root source itself. In Philosophy, we read Plato’s The Republic, Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, David Hume’s A Treatise on Human Nature, or Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus. In Christianity, the primary source is the bible; In Islam, the Koran.

I remember there were a lot of university students who approached me about Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code. Their parents and pastors said that one sins reading it. I disagreed. In high school, we were taught to critique books; why can’t it be applied now? Because honestly, I read and enjoyed both Angels and Demons and Da Vinci Code. I gain credibility because I read the primary source. So my advice: read and see for yourself. Make your own judgment.

Second, gather data from secondary sources. Secondary sources interpret, analyze or summarize primary sources. In many researches, this is called data-gathering. In making an informed choice, we consult others after knowing the primary source extensively. In data-gathering and discernment, we draw from credible sources so that our decisions will not be colored by our own feelings, likes and dislikes. We are often dissuaded by our emotions and thus we can be easily fooled by others.

There is a hierarchy of sources in data-gathering. The opinion of our teenagers is not at the same level with the opinion of our parents.

In secondary sources, Catholics put primary consideration to the teachings of the Magisterium. Catholic religious orders will have the way and charisms of their founders. For Jesuits, St. Ignatius’ autobiography, the Spiritual Exercises, and the Constitutions are important for our way of life. Other faith traditions as Protestants and evangelicals will return to the teachings of their founders or prominent writers as well. It is important to remember that there is a wide spectrum in the Catholic Christian world as political affiliations are categorized as belonging to the left or the right or somewhere in between. Wherever you belong within that spectrum, you remain a member.

Secondary sources will also include reflections on our life in general, so that we can situate what we are deciding on concretely. We consider how we were shaped and inspired by the values of our parents, our community and the people we admire. How did our favorite saints, heroes, family members, and significant persons tackle our present dilemma? Did they have an approximate experience of what we are undergoing?

We can also dialogue with people who are different from us, so that we can view the issues from other people’s perspectives. We know that the truth lies in all people; no one monopolizes the truth.

Why is this “thorough” research important? Because, we should be constantly aware of our human capacity to make rationalizations for our actions. Therefore, we constantly need to sincerely and honestly challenge ourselves: Have I done everything that is within my power to know the issue at hand, and at the same time, resolve to do what is good? We also come to realize that we need the help of others in discerning what right action to choose.

Third, bring it to prayer. This is the most important thing. The objective is always to follow God’s will. In prayer, these might help.

1. Pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. Look into your heart so that it desires only what God wants.

2. Imagine you are now consulting God. You put everything you know on the table. You explain to God your situation. You tell Him about the various things you now know. You can do a “pros and cons” in prayer and think about possible consequences should you decide on the matter.

3. Weigh each side and imagine yourself deciding on it. Let God touch your life.

4. Choose that side which makes you more at peace. The evil spirit can give us happiness and pleasure, but not peace. Peace is not Satan’s nature.

Finally, choose and act on it. Be sure that you can live with it; die for it; and face God with it.

The Church acknowledges the primacy of our conscience. The Church document, Dignitatis Humanae 16 says:

“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 life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.”

Dignitatis Humanae, therefore says that when we say “I am free to follow my conscience,” it does not mean that we can ignore our obligation to properly form our conscience and just allow our whims and emotions to dictate our actions. It means that our human dignity demands that we should be allowed to follow the decision of our formed conscience.

It also entails a warning to the self-righteous, the “Pharisee” in our midst. We need to be careful in judging the conscience decision of others; we need to acknowledge the complexity and uniqueness of each person’s journey in the formation of his/her conscience leading to a particular act.

To end, we remember that one must always follow one’s formed and informed conscience. Some moral theologians would even include, our ‘responsible’ conscience. The Church respects a person’s decision to follow his/her conscience even if that conscience is erroneous because of invincible ignorance.

Thomas Aquinas maintains that one sins if one does not follow one’s conscience; it is better to risk excommunication rather than violate it.