Prof. 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.”
Popularity: 1% [?]
‘Galileo 14′ – cool name!
Could be the name of a new rock band!
@blackshama
dont u think the national situations are a little different?
Specifically, there was Roe V Wade, which legalized abortion. Now women’s rights to her body is engrained as part of the national landscape. The situation in the US is the recognition that abortion in america is here to stay, and if overturned for some reason, would be heavily fought for to be re-instated.
In the philippines, abortion is illegal, there is a constitutional protection for the unborn, and the church is (rightly or wrongly) influential. They are fighting to maintain the status quo, because, once acceptable practices change (abort or no, pills or no, etc), it is practically impossible to go back. Once the genie is out, u can’t force it back.
In the US, i sense a growing willingness by some leaders in the prolife movement to acknowledge that a repeal of roe is not likely. The next logical step is to work with the people on the other side, to convince the other than fewer abortions are better for everyone.
Note that some (perhaps most?) in the prochoice camp, i think, believe that conceding this point is still risky, because of possible weakening of a woman’s right to choose. They too are still afraid to rock the boat, so they can protect/fortify the status quo in the US.
Ahem. But how would the Galileo 14 react to a new proposition: That abortion be decriminalized in certain cases. (As the camel’s nose appears…)
I beg to disagree. I’ll reserve my further comments for later.
Uh-oh. I smell one of those ‘school wars’ that pop up here from time to time.
I had to google who that ‘Bellarmine’ fellow is. I thought he was one of the professors.
fellow fv bloggers who’ve known me awhile should easily pick out which one i am. we’re actually 69 now. at the rate we’re going we’ll have to publish a new declaration statement every other day from the number of people who still want to be included in the list!
that’s a good number, Galileo 69 sounds catchier.
Robert Cardinal Bellarmine is a saint and doctor of the Roman Church, well admired by theologians and scientists. Actually he really trumped up the egotistical Galileo! I still hold that NO ONE on Pearl Drive, Katipunan or on Espana Blvd can match Cardinal Bellarmine. But they say someone who taught theology in Regensberg did! :-)
Historically abortions and willful termination of pregnacies are part of Philippine culture. If someone gets apoplectic about my statement, I would direct him/her to the Boxer codex translations. Abortion has been with us, Roman Catholicism or no Roman Catholicism. Abortions were the norm among Visayans who lived on small islands. The Tagalogs more influenced by Islam considered this unacceptable. Nonetheless contraception was practiced. Visayans practiced both as well noted by the friars simply because they lived in small resource strapped island ecosystems.
GabbyD I think the genie is amongst us, so large but still some people refuse to notice him/her!
Abortion is criminalized in our society but society hasn’t done much to lessen abortions. This is the real tragedy.
As for the Galileo 14 if they want to see abortion decriminalized under certain conditions, they will have to take it one step at a time.
I see. So Cardinal Bellarmine was the Inquisitor who had Giordano Bruno, an early proponent of parallel universes (among other heretical ideas), burnt at the stake.
Did the Pope apologize for this as well?
Please disgregard that question, the answer is in the wikipedia entry…
Nevertheless, the Jesuit Bellarmine remains a ‘Saint’.
blackshama, not to be political or partisan about it, but, with all due respect and reverence for bellarmine, your view that no one among catholic theologians could match his intellect is a bit hyperbolic.
i’m pretty sure that he (belarmine) would not buy that, and i’m sure he would agree that, if anybody deserves such an accolade, that would be st. thomas aquinas.
i’m sure, though, that both would argue that what intellect they have did not spring from their own nature but from God.
Bencard, it is in your interest to criticize Bellarmine because, as you stated in this thread, just like Giordano Bruno (and contra-Thomas Aquinas), you believe in multiple universes as well. Your professed belief in God would not have spared you from the consequences of such heresy. That you can freely state such a belief today and not suffer the same fate as Bruno is because successive generations of liberals have taken on the conservatives of their day.
cvj, for the umpteenth time, go and read again what i posted. i said “true scientists theorize” the existence of multiple universes. where did i say i believe that as a fact?
who says that is “heresy”? is blackhole heresy?
So quick to recant.
In Bruno’s day, yes the concept of a black hole (in space) would have been heretical.
quickt to recant what? again, it’s the same problem of comprehension.
btw, in st. thomas and bruno’s days, there was no “hubble” telescope, in case you don’t know that.
bencard, the existence of black holes was theorized as far back as the 19th century, long before the Hubble telescope. Moreover, the knowledge that the earth is round, it’s size and it’s position in the solar system has been understood almost two thousand years before Aquinas during the time of Archimedes. Unfortunately, the Romans and then Christendom got in the way and further scientific advances had to wait until the Renaissance. Without such delay, humanity could have been exploring the stars by now. What held back progress was not the lack of telescopes but lack of scientific and mathematical curiousity (in the case of the Pagan Romans) and religious dogma (in the case of the Christians who took over).
cvj, theories are different from empirical evidence. only the telescopes (along with the rudimentary stage of space exploration), so far, have provided the latter.
“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!
Simply because there was no Galileo along Katipunan drive or on Pearl Drive.
The Galileo 69 are not scientists of Galileo’s stature but are professors who happened to disagree with the CBCP’s position on abortion. In Galileo, the controversy revolves around the Copernican principle or moving earth around the sun theory (heliocentric) and other polemical writings: The Assayer, Dialogue on the Tides, in which he discussed the Ptolemaic and Copernican hypotheses in relation to the physics of tides.
The dissent of the Galileo 69 is too parochial yet too flashy in its analogy that such dissent is comparable to the intellectual works of the genuine Galileo.
The “first in possession first in right” is a dichotomy of the “law of the jungle principle” where the fittest survives and the weak dies. We love to argue that because we were born ahead we alone can determine who will be born next. The fitness of the next generation of babies have yet to manifest and will never become manifest because the pragmatist “Galielo 69” would determine now that they are unfit to live or will not live longer if allowed to live. We love to preach the leveling of the playing field, but in the case of the unborn, we are not even prepared to allow them to play in any field.
We try to make a humanly possible posture that more babies will just suffer indignation and poverty because our resources are limited and parents are not prepared to raise kids to hide our own selfish motive that the unborn might finally take our piece of a pie and we might die. Thus we might as well pull them out of every mother’s womb now and write off the next generation of children so we can preserve our own pie.
We are so vicious in our position that we called those who speak for the unborn as being out of touch and stereotypical who will be marginalized and we label their views against those who are in favor of abortion as “mudslinging”.
We are really in a big bind here for we can no longer distinguish whether our right to hold unto our own piece of a pie is more important than the right of another human being to be able to share with that pie, or for that matter, the ability of the unborn to look for his own piece of a pie.
Blackshama said:
“Abortion is criminalized in our society but society hasn’t done much to lessen abortions. This is the real tragedy.”
What is your basis for stating that society hasn’t done much to lessen abortions? I believe that when a person declares something like this, it means (in some cases) that the statement applies only to him/her.
Abortions may still be taking place, but to say that society hasn’t done much to solve that problem is somewhat like ignoring the efforts that those who actually do something, have done. The people of Pro-Life Philippines have been at it for many years; many volunteers and counselors who are at the front lines dealing with these women (many of them poor but not limited to impoverished ones) have made many saves over the decades and guided women and families to a better life.
Nurses, doctors, and other professionals have been doing their part, sometimes by directly dealing with patients who are in difficult situations, sometimes in giving talks to further equip non-medical professionals about the issues involved.
There are numerous ordinary people whose names may not be splashed on the pages of newspapers and who may not be prolific bloggers who, because of their presence, efforts and conviction, have rejuvenated a woman’s (or a couple’s) spirit and led her/them to allow their very own baby to live.
They are numerous, but maybe they need more help from us.
Hence, I think it is very unfair to say that society has not done much to lessen the number of abortions happening. Probably “You and I have not done much to lessen the number of abortions” is more accurate.
Now, where do we take it from here? :-)
Sunnyday,
The penalty for voluntary abortion is prison coreccional–six years in jail maximum. Not quite first degree murder but also the number of prosecutions is zero per year on average.
Yet the World Health Organization estimates 500,000 to 800,000 abortions per year in the Philippines, compared to 1.2 million in the US.
So our “per capita” abortion rate is 3-4 times that of the US, given the difference in population.
dean bocobo,
what is the basis in saying that there is zero per year prosecution for abortion and for what range of year? when I was a practising lawyer, I prosecuted a doctor and a father for abortion but the corrupt fiscal dismissed the case. certainly there are other cases of abortion filed in the fiscal’s office or the court – that’s why i want to know the basis for the zero prosecution statement.
DJB,
Please spell out what specific idea you really wanted to express but instead delved on jail terms and WHO estimates.
to dean bocobo again,
the fact that the WHO record indicates that there are 500,000 to 800,000 abortion in the Philippines we might as well decriminalized it.
next you will argue that inasmuch as we cannot control drug trafficking we might as well legalize it, that we cannot control prostitution, we might as well legalized it, that we cannot control bribery and corruption, we might as well legalized it, that we cannot control carnapping, we might as well legalized it, etc. etc.
jcc,
You forgot euthanasia. One possible scenario (which is not far from what the people in some parts of the US now have to contend with) would be inasmuch as a number of terminally ill individuals and elderly people are experiencing depression and have requested that they be euthanized, we might as well legalize euthanasia. Then launch a media campaign to gradually get the public accustomed to the notions of “right to die,” “compassionate end,” “dying with dignity.”
Then publicize instances in other countries where medical professionals are giving in to patients’ requests for assisted suicide because these professionals fear being prosecuted for denying patients’ their right to die.
Disastrous consequences can result when the innate dignity and value of each human being is ignored. When we regard a person (or a sector) as a burden to others, as incapable of being productive members of society, as unfit to raise a family… we sure can lose our way.
But! I still believe in our people and in our ability to sift through all the elements and tell apart truth from mere baseless propaganda — despite deep-seated biases that may cloud our judgment.
JCC,
Okay you got me. I just estimated it to be zero percent. What do you think it is? one percent? ten percent? 50 percent or 75% (half a million prosecutions) if we accept the WHO estimate of 800,000 abortions?
IIRC, Bellarmine trumped up Galileo because Galileo couldnt offer scientific proof for his theory, whereas the prevailing Ptolemaic paradigm offered predictions and observations. It would be several years later when scientific findings would vindicate Galileo. So it’s not entirely true that the Church at that time censured Galileo exclusively on dogmatic grounds. Bellarmine was using the requirements of science, that is, ‘Where is your evidence?’ Galileo couldnt provide any. (The threat of excommunication of course is a bit much.)
The same could be said for the problem of Philippine population. The Church asks the pro-RH Bill people, ‘Where is your evidence?’ But like I said in a previous comment, the problem isnt a scientific one, that is, it won’t be solved by scientists.
Sunnyday
How then can you justify that the number abortions have been increasing? Also do these women who seek these services go to health professionals? The precolonial Filipinos may had it better.
I am doing my bit for reducing abortions by supporting the RH bill and explaining its pros and cons to students as long as this respects individual conscience.
Bencard
Papa Ratzinger probably has equalled Bellarmine!
(as commented…)
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 seem 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 highlighting 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 “beneficial” 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 impinges 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?
The bill would rather train a couple how to avoid a pregnancy than to instill in them the values of discipline and responsibility.
But that’s all a bill can do. Instilling values is the responsibility of society, not the State. The public schools can teach values of course, but it takes society for those values to take root.
Would you sacrifice your freedom to pay for alleviating a symptom?
Unfortunately, as shown by the Ateneo profs, yes, Filipinos would rather ‘give up our rights to move this country forward’. The call is for the immediate passage of the bill in Congress. As you have probably observed, the debate on the RH bill ignores the individual rights and freedoms aspect of the bill. The Ateneo profs’ statement totally ignores how this bill could give too much power to the State.
The Ateneo professors seem to have missed out the root cause of the problem. They seem to confound the unmet need for family planning, for the more profound UNMET NEED FOR EDUCATION.
Many of us have the power to choose since we have been educated. The power to choose is premised on education. The RH bill “expands the capability of the poor?” This is a bit incongrous. How can contraceptives expand the capability of the poor? Isn’t more equitable access to education more effective? The UN has tons of data to show that empowement follows and a consequent decline in fertility rates.
As for inequitable acccess to social services, as long as these are doled out as political carrots then there will always be a problem. Think of what happened in with the previous Mayor of Manila?
Ironically,it would be the Roman Church in the Philippines that could provide the services sans much partisan politicking. Unfortunately the Church is beholden to Caesar too!
Sometimes this kind of argumentation comes out of Loyola Heights. That’s why even their statements have to be reviewed.
Bencard (at 7:18 am), i was not arguing against empirical evidence. The Ancient Greeks correctly established the shape and size of the earth based on their observations of how the Sun casts its shadow at noontime in different locations. Likewise, Galileo supported his Heliocentric (sun-centered) view when he used a telescope to observe that Jupiter had its own moons and that the supposedly perfect Sun (as per Church dogma) had spots. The thing is, Scientific Theory is usually accepted ahead of observational evidence because the former is supported by mathematics, which Galileo made use of.
BTW, in the previous thread, when Jester challenged you to provide empirical evidence of God’s existence, you did not give any. Instead, you relied on St. Thomas Aquinas philosophical argument of ‘First Cause’ (albeit inconsistently applied).
Jeg, in the case of Galileo, what made dogma the crucial factor was that Holy Scriptures (as interpreted by the Church and informed by Aristotle’s world view) became the arbiter between contending theories. Whichever of the these world views (sun centric vs. earth centric) the Church thought was in conformity with Scripture was then accepted as fact. Likewise, in the R.H. Bill debate, the Biblical admonition Be fruitful and multiply is the dogma subscribed to by those who oppose population control. (That, plus their ignorance of evidence based on mathematics.)
This view ignores the Carrying Capacity of the earth. Ten well-off children sired by Opus Dei couples consume more resources (e.g. they have a larger carbon footprint) than ten children born in shantytowns.
Jeg, in the case of Galileo, what made dogma the crucial factor was that Holy Scriptures (as interpreted by the Church and informed by Aristotle’s world view) became the arbiter between contending theories.
Perhaps, but we would never know. The age in which Galileo lived was an age of the flowering of modern science and the Church at the time encouraged scientific pursuits. What wouldve happened, for instance, if Galileo had presented conclusive proof that the sun is the center of our solar system? If youll recall, Galileo was highly regarded by the Catholic hierarchy, his scientific theories respected. He was even a friend of the pope. But, according to this:
Bellarmine wrote:
This would indicate that the Church then was willing to change its mind if scientific proof was available. This they eventually did.
In the end, Galileo offered a retraction. Whether this was because he knew he didnt have the necessary proof or because he was pressured, we’ll never know for sure.
I meant to write:
[Bellarmine] pointed out that…
Jeg, how can you say that ‘we will never know’ [that dogma was a crucial factor] when the evidence that such was the case is right before you? In the link you provided, and as quoted by you above, it explicitly narrated…
…? The Church adherence to what was the established interpretation of Scripture and the need to reinterpret it in light of the Copernican viewpoint (as advocated by Galileo), was the contentious point. That means that implications to Church Dogma was a major consideration.
Blackshama,
First, whether the rate of abortion prevalance goes up or down, does this matter to you? As I mentioned, if indeed the fact is that more abortions are happening nowadays, I take it as an indication that we need to do more to address the root of this problem. But I think it unfair to say that society is not doing much to address the problem because I know for a fact that since 1974 — the year after the Roe v. Wade decision — many people and groups have been working to maintain a culture of life (some would call it a civilization of love) on our shores. That’s more than 30 years of pursuing this cause.
As you know, being pro-life involves more than defending the right of each individual to be born. But I suppose because abortion is something so horrific, it tends to be the focus whenever talk about pro-life issues ensues.
If indeed there are more cases of abortion nowadays, as with other problems there is no single cause. But I do know that many of the young women’s serious consideration of abortion or going against their better judgment as regards intimacy and relationships, can be explained partly by this: When a young person is not given the love and understanding he/she needs at home, he/she looks for it elsewhere.
This is one reason why many of them get into something in the first place that may result in a pregnancy and then have them resort to getting rid of the baby.
Another factor that has contributed to abortion is the promotion of a contraceptive way of thinking. Hence, how can people even begin to be infused with character-building values when from the outset they are bombarded with ideas like “a small family equals happiness, more food for oneself, no need to share, a better life” and “a big family equals unhappiness, hunger, the ‘burden’ of sharing, a life of inconvenience.” If that’s not enough, in a few years they’ll be bombarded with the message that they don’t need to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Couple that with advertising, print and broadcast media that reinforce practically the same general message over and over.
Better stop here for now because your question on how I can justify (frankly, “explain” would be more accurate) the increasing number of abortions — if this is true — involves many issues. I suppose you see that what I’m driving at is this: the people behind the RH bill and those who are advocating it say that the bill aims to be part of the solution. But if we look at things objectively, and also learn from the experience of other countries who have gone down the same route, we’ll see that the RH bill, instead of being part of a solution, will create more problems.
And as someone in this thread already pointed out, once you let the genie out of the bottle, it will be impossible (or very difficult) to put him back inside.
We’ll never know what the Church wouldve done if Galileo offered proof. Bellarmine provided an inkling, but he wasnt the Pope. Who knows, maybe the pope wouldved condemned Bellarmine too if he recommended that Galileo had proven the heliocentric solar system and that Church teachings need to be changed.
I think youre looking at the 16th century with 21st century eyes. Which is understandable but not entirely an accurate way of looking back. But even back then, the crucial point was evidence. Bellarmine wrote that had Galileo provided evidence, they would reinterpret Church teaching, not the other way around, that is, suppress the proven theory in favor of the official teaching.
Jeg (at 3:09pm), but the fact that the Church used Scripture (and the Pope) as an arbiter is what made it dogmatic. To simplify…
With Dogma as a consideration:
Step 1. What is your theory?
Step 2. Does it conform to Scripture? If yes, check with the Pope. If no, go to step 3.
Step 3. What is your evidence? If yes, ok then. If no, see the Inquisitor.
Without Dogma as a consideration:
Step 1. What is your theory?
Step 2. What is your evidence?
Without dogma, the question of Does it conform to Scripture? will not have been there as a consideration in the first place.
(Side Notes: (1) The pursuit of Science being a social endeavor, what replaces Scripture as per Thomas Kuhn is prevailing scientific orthodoxy against which any novel scientific theory must contend with. (2) The above discussion does not preclude the legitimate role of belief systems, whether it be religious or secular, in debating the normative aspects and implications, if any, of such scientific findings. It only requires that such discussion be informed by science and math.)
Correction to the above, ‘if yes check with the Pope’ should be in ‘Step 3′ instead.
Dear Sunnyday
Of course the increasing rate of abortion matters to me! After all I am father too. If you are trying to bait me and judge my spiritual standing, I am sorry to say that no one except God (who made biological evolution possible :-) ) has windows to my soul.
Nonetheless the genie has been amongst us before Catholicism was introduced into our country. If the Roman Church had adequately catechized the faithful then the rate of abortions should have gone down. But it hasn’t. A Bible is given to each catechumen as a sign that the faith has been handed down and received. How many Pinoy Catholics own a Bible? The CBCP biblical apostolate and the PBS estimates this at less than 50%. (That’s why I collect unwanted Bibles and give them away to Protestants and Catholics and non-believers!)
The RH bill just gives options for choice which is a necessity in a multireligious society. Catholics can continue to promote their idea of family planning while other people may promote theirs as long it is lawful. I find it very silly and unCatholic and even UnChristian for a Roman Catholic bishop in the USA that choice is a “tyranny”! Doesn’t he knows that being Catholic is a choice?
The root cause is really the destruction of the family unit. Catholics do defend the family and even non Catholics too. But can you say that the Catholic way is the right one?
Even I look at this with my spiritual eyes and not those of a scientist’s, I would say the RH bill should force the hierarchical Catholic Church to do more charity. The Church lives on charity not temporal power. The Catholic Church is so far from its Master!
Blackshama,
I’m a little uncomfortable with the metaphor you’ve created involving Galileo. For some reason I think that Darwin is at least as relevant. In this way…Darwin proved that human beings are an integral part of the animal kingdom. We are not set apart from other life forms on earth, with our DNA surprisingly close to that of other animals and even plants.
The Catholic Church teaches that the value of human life lies in the fact that human beings, unlike other living things. have an immortal soul. If this assertion were not true, the Catholic Church teaches, then human life would not be worth any more than chicken, or porcine or bovine life. Or indeed of microbial life, none of which life forms are deemed worthy enough to have been endowed by the Creator with immortal souls.
Is this an accurate description of Catholic belief?
DJB
Galileo, the faithful Catholic has a shot of becoming the first layman scientist-saint. Darwin the agnostic-Anglican, hasn’t! So it is proper to have Galileo as a metaphor. He taught in a Catholic university.
BTW the Church as canonized scientists as saints, but they were ordained priests first.
Even St Augustine knew that humans are part of the Animal kingdom. Darwin just supplied the evidence for the theory. St Augustine is really the father of our concept of evolution. Andc yes the Church teaches that we have an immortal soul. However it declares as incompatible with faith if we hold that this soul is an epiphenomenon arising from living matter. (JP II, 1996 On Evolution)
Catholic theology hasn’t developed to an extent that places a more wholistic understanding of animals in salvation history. The first pope to teach that animals do have a soul is none other than John Paul II who said in an audience
“also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren”
John Paul II is hinting that the rest of creation is on an equal footing with man and is linked with the Redeemer. John Paul based his reflection on Psalm 104,where God renews creation with his breath. BTW the same Psalm I reflected on when I was writing my doctoral thesis on biodiversity.
Thus animals have souls but lack the faculty of reason. But reason may be product of evolution itself and we cannot deny that other species may achieve the same. The lack of reason isn’t excuse to exploit animals for gain.
Benedict XVI I think is heading towards a more radical interpretation that links environment and salvation.
The question that theology and science will have to deal with in the 21st century is whether consciouseness itself (a probable epiphenomenon of the brain) is what immortality is. Does consciousness arise from the soul?
“If the Roman Church had adequately catechized the faithful then the rate of abortions should have gone down”.– Blackshama.
We always blame the church for our own shortcomings and inadequacy. If one has seen the movie the Matrix where Keanu was made to choose between the blue pill and the red pill and he choose one color in favor of the other look at it as free choice. The “church” is represented by Fishburn and the “faithful” by Keanu. When the faithful chose to be unfaithful why blame the Church.
The Church through the pulpit has not been remissed in its spiritual duty to remind the faithful but if they choose to be unfaithful we still blame the Church because we expect the church not just to remind us of our spiritual calling but also of our material needs. The latter is the duty of every faithful, and I must add, the duty of the government.
Blackshama,
What I had in mind when I asked if the rate of abortion prevalence mattered to you is that of course numbers are crucial, but that whether the number of cases reaches millions or plummets to being few and far between does not in any way (or should not) in any way influence notions or decisions to legalize abortion. The numbers don’t change the fact that abortion is wrong. I assume we agree on this :-) (Your spiritual standing is none of my business and was nowhere near my mind until you mentioned it)
We also agree on another thing — that part of the root cause of people’s resorting to abortion is the destruction of the family unit. And this is what comes to mind when I dwell on the notion of “responsible parenthood.” The way I see it, a lot in this bill foster irresponsibility. How?
For one thing, we know that the education of children is primarily the responsibility of parents. Anybody knows that education goes way beyond roughhousing with the kids, introducing them to colors and numbers, and taking them to parks and activity centers. Teaching one’s children about the beginning of life and about educating the emotions are a crucial part of the kind of education that each child needs, and parents are naturally tasked with this. Besides, they are the ones equipped for this since it is they who would know the personality, the level of maturity and the unique qualities of their child.
But this crucial aspect of educating the child is transferred from the parents to the school, courtesy of the RH bill. What a relief for parents who are hard-pressed for ways and means to explain to their kids concepts such as love, self-giving, guarding the heart, respecting the woman, the meaning of commitment and monogamy, and where sex figures in all this. Even though the key lies in educating parents to empower them for this responsibility, the government ends up promoting irresponsible parenthood.
Another thing: anybody who has been part of the academe knows perfectly well how it is with 1 teacher per 40, 50 students in a class. Do we honestly think that a teacher would have the capacity to tackle lessons on sexual development, the how-to’s of the various contraceptive devices, and STD prevention with consideration for the personality and level of maturity of each of the 40 students (and that’s only 1 class)?
If some parents would like their children to learn about these things, let THEM teach it to their own children. That, and not relying on the school to teach one’s kids what these parents should be teaching their kids themselves, is part of being responsible parents.
I also say that the bill promotes irresponsibility because of its emphasis on providing easy access to the full range of contraceptive drugs and services, to the point of even coercing employers to do the same for their employers. What are the implications? With contraceptives easily available, anyone can engage in sex at wala siyang pananagutang responsibilidad.
As I already mentioned in another thread, husbands who come home drunk or stoned night after night and force themselves on the wife have one less reason to shape up — they can get it whenever they want it; the wives in such situations, too, have less of a reason to up and leave even if their lives are in constant danger because anyway, the pills they’re getting for free will keep them from getting pregnant.
I still wonder why you keep bringing up the Church in this discussion. Why are you mentioning the Bible, the CBCP and catechumens when in all my comments (I believe), I delve on practical points. I think the problem with this is that we will end up going the route of thinking “the Church must do this, the Church is remiss in that…” and we may even fall into the error of making judgments against the Church or its ministers based on what we THINK we know about the Church and the deposit of Faith.
Blackshama said:
“If the Roman Church had adequately catechized the faithful then the rate of abortions should have gone down.”
You understand choice already. Anybody can make a choice that is contrary to the values imparted to him and even contrary to his better judgment. The Church cannot be blamed for the mistakes committed by those who choose not to heed Her. There’s a saying that goes something like “A teacher opens the door, but the student enters by himself.”
Even parents are not to blame if their children (especially if already of age) go against the will of the parents despite the patience, gentle and clear but firm explanations and understanding shown toward the children, right?
Sunnyday
We agree on many things with regards to the Church’s teachings. I am not a cradle Catholic but somebody who came home from Anglicanism.
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? I was a tutor on a course on evolution of sex and critically read Darwin on the matter. Sexuality constitutes the whole of biological life and not limited to sexual functions. If there is something wrong on the RH bill, then it may objectify people, their sexuality and in the end the whole person.
Our postmodern society has done that. That is why the Catholic Church has a hard time getting the responsibility message across.
Inasmuch it is extremely difficult to teach about sexuality is a class of 40, I have to try but the ground rule is that sex is something never to be laughed about, taken as a joke, or trivialized. It has to be studied objectively. Any student I have that does that is free to drop the course. The students have told me after they have their classcards that they are now able to talk about sex more openly.
And I do not see the logic that sexuality cannot be taught in school and that parents should have a monopoly on it. If the teachers are well trained in the science and culturally sensitive and if in Catholic school,theologically oriented,why not? Is sex something unspeakable? If some schoolteachers can teach religion,why not sexuality? I’m sure you agree with me that parents should be first in teaching the Catholic faith and not Sister or Father!
Hi Blackshama,
“And I do not see the logic that sexuality cannot be taught in school and that parents should have a monopoly on it. If the teachers are well trained in the science and culturally sensitive and if in Catholic school,theologically oriented,why not? Is sex something unspeakable? If some schoolteachers can teach religion,why not sexuality?”
Perhaps I failed to emphasize it enough — it’s the the kind of sex education that the government is bent on implementing that matters. It’s method-based, not values-oriented. And it is all in the context of population control. (You’ve probably heard of this but I’ll point it out anyway because to me it is the kind of brainwashing done on children that I detest: I suppose you’re familiar with the textbook pages which compare a big family with a small family? If not, well, it shows a drawing of a family with a brood of 1 or 2, and next to it is a drawing of a family with a bigger brood. The smaller family is always depicted as happy and neat while the bigger family is shown as sad and unkempt (kind of “gusgusin”) and not having enough food. It’s very subtle yet very powerful.)
Then you have the implementation in both private and public schools. For six years, and injected in 5 (if I remember correctly; the literature is not with me at the moment) different subjects. That’s a long time.
Then you said it yourself — IF the teachers are well-trained. And IF they are culturally sensitive. It goes without saying that I believe in the capabilities of educators and in their noble intentions; it’s the question of them being given adequate and expert training that I allude to.
But I must point out something you said: “Sexuality constitutes the whole of biological life and not limited to sexual functions.”
In fact, sexuality goes beyond biological life; it affects all aspects of the human person as he is not only body, but body AND soul.
I’m heartened to know about the standard you maintain in your own classes :-)