The Galileo 14
October 31st, 2008 by blackshamaProf. MIke Tan gives a much needed reassessment on “pro life” and “pro choice” issues in his op ed “Common Good” today. He links our own reproductive health debate with the US Presidential elections debate on the issue, especially how American Catholics view what it means to be pro life or pro choice. Americans seem to view their stands on the issues based on a wider social and environmental context. Whether they are for “life”or for “choice”, Americans sems to have intelligently weighed the issues. Thus mudslinging Obama as “pro death” or McCain “pro life” have barely made a dent on these candidates chances for the White House.
A similar development is happening in the Philippines. Many FIlipinos whether they are devout Catholics, lapsed Catholics, heretical Catholics, ”binyag, kasal, burol” Catholics or non-Catholic have made an intelligent assessment of the issues. I have heard it among the urban poor to the Greenbelt 5 and Bonifacio High Street crowd ( I have good friends from both ends of the socio-econ spectrum). What we can conclude is that the stereotyped “pro lifers” and “pro choicers” are left in the cold, like those in the US. Whatever the fate of the RH bill will be, Philippine society and the Church will never be the same again. Some Ateneo grad students say that even if the RH bill is vetoed by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Roman Church in the Philippines will still end up as a loser. It will be well on the road to disestablishment. In the USA, these stereotypical groups will be further marginalized in the almost sure Obama presidency unless they can reinvent themselves.
Now academic circles have likened the Ateneo professors as the “Galileo 14″. When Galileo is brought out in Church related debates, expect fireworks. The Galileo affair is the apex of Roman Catholic silliness with regards to theology and the real world. To his credit one of Pope John Paul II’s first things he did as pope in 1979 is to reexamine the Galileo case. He apologized for the shortcomings of the Church in 1992.
I won’t dwell on the details of the Galileo affair but the damage that did on the Church’s intellectual reputation is immense. Stillman Drake has written books on the subject and that can be accessed in no other than Ateneo’s Rizal Library. Many Church historians says its damage is worse than that wrought upon by the Protestant Reformation.
But while having our own Pinoy Galileos on Katipunan Road may be significant, the other side is to put it kindly ridiculous. None of the Catholic bishops or theologians we have I believe have an intellect that matches Bellarmine. I don’t think they have that on Pearl Drive too! :-)
So it may be premature to label the professors as the “Galileo 14″ except if they taught like Galileo did, by example through experiment. Galileo had been dobbed to his university’s rector because of teaching and composing ribald, and bawdy verses in class as to keep his math students from falling asleep! Thus Galileo became the ultimate cultural rebel of the last millenium rivalled only by Michelangelo. He kept a common law wife, visited taverns and whorehouses but his daughters became saintly nuns!
But nonetheless that Pinoy profs could take a courageous intellectual stand based on science deserves accolades! Our academics have come of age and live up to Galileo’s broadside against the simple minded Church.
“It is surely harmful to souls to declare a heresy what is proved.”
November 1, 2008 at 10:12 pm
“I agree that the education is a prime responsibility of parents. But how can parents teach about sexuality when they don’t know what sexuality is all about?”
This is why more emphasis and efforts need to be poured into this — assisting and empowering parents instead of taking over their responsibilities. There are programs that address this need already — community-based, Church-based, handled by NGOs, and the beneficiaries are varied.
If there is a will, there is a way.
November 1, 2008 at 11:28 pm
posting side by side with sunnyday i feel like Chow Yun-Fat fighting side by side with Michelle Yeoh.
: )
November 1, 2008 at 11:50 pm
cvj, who applies FIRST CAUSE inconsistently? you cannot throw motherhood statements like that without specifying the factual basis for them, which you are, incorrigibly, in the habit of doing.
again, theories are not evidence. the FIRST CAUSE is not subject to mathematical computations. you cannot prove something infinite by finite means and methods. even einstein’s relativity equation is limited and he humbly acknowledged it.
November 1, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Bencard, my explanation on your inconsistency is in the previous thread. (See my comment at November 1st, 2008 2:15 pm.)
BTW, you’re second paragraph above is also an inconsistent usage of First Cause for the same reason.
November 2, 2008 at 2:16 am
before you thump your chest, read my response to your “explanation” on that thread.
in view of that, there’s nothing inconsistent with my usage of the term at anytime.
November 2, 2008 at 2:45 am
bencard and cvj are the two bloggers i admire most not only in this blog but in others. its amusing to to find them at loggerheads. :)
November 2, 2008 at 2:48 am
and i am waiting for my feisty “leytenian” to join the fray.. :)
November 2, 2008 at 3:05 am
jcc, bencard and i are almost always at loggerheads. i think it’s the generation gap.
November 2, 2008 at 3:17 am
Bencard:
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was evidence that Newton was wrong about mass and energy.
The first cause is certainly capable of logical manipulation, as are the second, third and further causes and effects.
School children the world over prove “something infinite by finite means and methods” all the time. For example the proof that there are an infinite number of prime numbers is a classic elementary proof.
But whatever did you mean by Einstein humbly admitting a limit to his equation? Does it not contain the Secret of Stars?
November 2, 2008 at 4:10 am
djb, i suggest you read stephen hawkings, “a brief history of time”.
November 2, 2008 at 10:24 am
“and i am waiting for my feisty “leytenian” to join the fray” jcc
:)
The State has no business in personal decisions if a woman is going to bring a child into her world.
Smaller families and slower population growth are decisions by choice and OPPORTUNITIES, not coercion and controls.
Women should make their own decisions. Overpopulation is a myth. In fact, evidence is plentiful that POLICYMAKERS and population controllers, with billions at their disposal, have ignored their own multiple FAILURES.
http://www.quezon.ph/1964/the-secular-ideal/#comment-983636
November 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm
leytenian,
as you saying then that you are comfortable with Roe v. Wade and Planned v. Casey as far as they ponticate on the absolute right of the woman what to do with her body? ( the first trimester period, that is).
is the fetus in her still part of her body or that fetus has assumed some mystical moral right to be born?
if the argument is that we have less resources to sustain uncontrolled population, should we not aim for a perfect match-up with resources to people ratio, and thus allow us to kill more people including adults, especially irresponsible parents who keep bearing kids to a number they could not afford to raise so we can align our resources to the number of our people?
are we not arguing indirectly that only the rich people are entitled to live?
we always apply the law of the jungle whenever we try to jettison our extra baggage by conveniently looking at the helpless and the defenseless, (the unborn now but the poor later), so the strong or the rich can conveninetly live.
November 2, 2008 at 11:16 pm
jcc,
RH bill requires consultation among women’s group. Why is it , there’s too many men discussing what a woman should do for her body and her well being. Yes, I agree … it’s my secular ideals.
The role of government is to provide choices and opportunities for a woman to become independent in an economic sense.
I believe that Overpopulation in our country is a failure of policymakers. There are plenty of strategy out there to bypass the Church.
November 2, 2008 at 11:31 pm
leytenian,
you have rather skipped my query if it still a woman’s right after not wanting a baby and yet so careless enough not to undertake the necessary precaution and gets pregnant to simply pull that fetus out of her because her right is superior that of the unborn.
November 3, 2008 at 12:19 am
jcc,
Roe and Wade remains to be a big debate. I am pro-life. The US is more concern about the after effects such as health issues, human rights and well being. In the Philippines, we are still in the process of implementing and managing human rights violation, well being and overpopulation. It’s totally a different world.
November 3, 2008 at 1:16 am
leytenian,
The Roe v. Wade case is not a health issue. It is a privacy issue read in the context of “liberty” issue.
The privacy issue in the US constitution is covered by Amendment 4, (search and seizure issue) but the Supreme Court has expanded privacy principle by attaching it to a “liberty issue”, and further read it as one of the fundamental rights of a citizen like “marriage”, and “procreation”, which the State cannot prohibit or control. Thus the right of the woman to abort is absolute, being a freeman or freewoman, the right to abort is in line with the principle of one’s “pursuit of happiness”. If the woman is happy aborting a fetus year in and year out, that is not the concern of the State.
Same sex marriage is being read in the context also of “liberty” or pursuit of happiness, and thus State with laws prohibiting same sex marriages are being contested in the US Supreme Court. In California, the California Court considers same sex marriage prohibition by the State as unconstitutional thus paving the way for marriage of same sex in this State.
You know the world is getting upside down because the Court continues to pervert the constitution and the politicians continue to remain demagouges and charlatans without regards to the vision of the founding forefathers.
The vision that the Great USA is under God with Liberty and Justice for all. But this belief in God is being eroded by liberal politics that believe that abortion is a constitutional issue instead of a moral issue the same with same sex marriage. And that reference to God in a political landscape is an abomination.
November 3, 2008 at 1:50 am
jcc,
I understand where you coming from. I’m not too concern about US liberty issue. I am more concern of Philippines ” no liberty” issue. check out manolo’s the secular ideal.
November 10, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Help support the “Galileo 14″ by going to this online petition and adding your name.
Statement of Support for the Ateneo Faculty and the Passage of the Reproductive Health Bill
http://www.petitiononline.com/admu4rh/petition.html
November 11, 2008 at 12:14 am
“Galileo 14″ is a misnomer. The professors’ position on aligning the population to resources, is hardly comparable to the polemics of Galileo on heliocentricity theory which is much intense and involved scientific discourse. The name is a type of a marketing “misbranding or mislabelling” of cheap imitations product for the genuine product.
December 6, 2008 at 11:44 am
The analogy to Galileo’s case is incorrect. The church clearly had overextended its teaching authority on an unknown subject then – natural science. The debate today is still within the Church’s teaching authority.
December 6, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The debate should be left by the Church to the Teaching Authority of Science.
The Magisteria of the Church and Science are autonomous and equal.
December 6, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Church and Science are not just the basis for solution of overpopulation. If we have to assess our economic structure, it’s all about women. :)
when majority of women in our country ( catholic, baptist, muslim, atheist, or whatever) are working, they don’t have time to flirt. they will be busy with work , gain confidence from employment and sex may not be her priority or even children of more than 2. :)
Our policymaker may have overlooked the structure of “resistance and support” for overpopulation. The most valuable resistance to overpopulation is employment and empowering women’s rights. The most valuable support for overpopulation are the church and science. so why would people put emphasis on church and science where there’s a bigger picture to look at?
There’s a bigger picture to blog that may remind our policymaker about “resistance and support”