Yesterday or was it the day before?; Ateneo de Manila professors got important news space for the 15 October position paper they issued on the Reproductive Health Bill. The professors support the bill and the blurbs have it as “Ateneo profs defy bishops, back family planning bill”. Ateneo’s President, Fr Bienvenido Nebres later issued this statement which should be construed as the university’s official stand.
Poor Father Ben. I know and admire this good Jesuit for his kindly demeanor but now he is placed between the Rock and a hard place! (forgive me for the pun!)
This development goes beyond the RH bill itself. More important it now deals with to what extent can Catholic universities and their professors can go with dissent; whether it is subtle, moderate or immoderate on what the Magisterium teaches. And I am not surprised that something like this would arise in Loyola Heights.
On 15 August 1990, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic constitution “Ex Corde Ecclesiae” or from the heart of the Church. The constitution’s title speaks well of John Paul’s appreciation of the university in Catholic life. After all he was a university professor. However the papal decree generated a lot of controversy worldwide, especially in the USA. Among the constitution’s controversial articles are those 1) giving diocesan bishops a say in university affairs, and 2) requiring professors to have a mandate from the Church in order to teach. Father Ted Hesburgh of NotreDame once said that if a university loses its autonomy in seeking for the truth, it ceases to be a university.
These are the most controversial articles in Ex Corde Ecclesiae (Article 4: The University Community). I hightened in bold these.
3. In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfil a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
4. Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University. In order not to endanger the Catholic identity of the University or Institute of Higher Studies, the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic.
In the US, these are considered affronts to academic freedom. For example, the local bishop is not part of the university as understood. Why should he have a say on academic matters? Also, is there a Catholic way of teaching Chemistry, Biology or Engineering? How different can “Protestant” Chemistry be? Also do ALL Catholic Professors really toe the Vatican line? John Paul may have missed the point that some non-Catholics like High Church Anglicans are more faithful to his teachings than many “looney’ Catholics!
For those of us alums of the UP who can’t connect, its like Gloria Macapagal Arroyo having a direct say on how the UP is run. Her subalterns approve academic appointments and how Chemistry should be taught!
This is quandary that Father Ben Nebres is in. As I earlier wrote, it is not surprising that this issue would be focused on the Ateneo. The Ateneo is probably the most American of our Catholic universities. Unlike in UST, the American Jesuits completely took over the running of the school when the Spanish were kicked out of the Philippines.
Ateneo developed along American liberal Catholic lines. For example, no student or professor in Ateneo is required to attend Mass although the school suspends classes for such activities. Ateneo professors (and some priests!) are outspoken for issues that give the Pinoy hierarchy headaches like 1) contraception, 2) women’s ordination, 3) liberation theology etc. The profs are what gives the Ateneo its prestige and teaching reputation. Father Nebres can’t just kick them out on grounds of conscience and belief.
In a sense Ateneo is the Catholic mirror image of the secular University of the Philippines. No professor in either university can be kicked out for speaking out his/her mind.
What needs to be seen with CBCP President Archbishop Angel Lagadameo’s clarification letter that was sent to Father Nebres is whether the CBCP’s conservatives are ready to exercise their Ex Corde Ecclesiae powers on the Ateneo.
The Domincans on Espana Avenue don’t have this problem yet but even there students and professors are known to speak their minds.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Bencard,
If something you call eck-eck is “uncaused” why does eck-eck have to be God. Why can’t the Universe be uncaused?
A belief in cause and effect does not logically result in a first cause.
More’s your illogicality if you then claim that eck-eck not only caused everything else, but that eck-eck listens to your prayers, watches over you even in your sleep, cares how who where and when you fuck and will burn and torture you for all of eternity in case those prayers aren’t fervent enough or directed at the right group of men in skirts and funny costumes.
There’s no arithmetic I know of that leads to a First Cause. Especially one whose will and intentions reveals in some transparently man made fables and dogmatic pronouncements maintained by spaced-out Italians.
DJB: If men were moral before they were religious, then why is religion even necessary for men to be moral now? Isn’t the concept of GOD a religious invention and therefore superfluous to morality?
Why is art necessary? Let’s get rid of it! It’s a human thing, that is, it’s what makes us human. The atheist philosopher George Santayana continued to go to Catholic mass even after becoming an atheist because he feels something in the rituals, a poetry he calls it. Religion and Art probably had a common ‘ancestor’ in the human need for meaning. Youre falling into the same reductionism that afflicts Dick Dawkins and ilk, who quite frankly are beneath you, IMO. The same verificationism that afflicted the Logical Positivists whom the ‘new’ atheists are trying to emulate.
Once again, I give you Camille Paglia:
By the way, Dick Dawkins has declared:
“A serious case could be made for the deistic God.”
The deistic God, the God of Thomas Jefferson and Antony Flew. With Dawkins’s usual caveats of course. He wants you to know that he hasnt abandoned the faith so you can rest easy. He’s not going to leave you nor forsake you. :-D
Ahoy there! I just came back from a coffee chat with my mates from Ateneo. The latest chismis from them is that Fr Nebres had to respond quickly on the profs statement because some supercalifragilisticexpialidocious conservative parents of Ateneans rang the CBCP about some profs who had expressed their personal stands on the RH bill in class! (theo? and philo?,I suremise!) Usually they said that Ateneo wouldn’t do damage control that quickly unless there is a real threat.
So there is a sort subtle gag on the profs today. One prof called it a virtual CBCP interdict. He said that if the Ateneo is declared no longer Catholic, parents may withdraw their kids for the 2nd sem!
So Father Nebres seems to have reacted to where it hurts, the Ateneo wallet!
So I asked my friend to where would the parents move their kids? From Katipunan Road to Pearl Drive? My good friend just smiled!
What a predicament. Allowing a free and honest discussion of the RH Bill in class wouldve been acceptable had it not been for the professors’ dragging the Ateneo’s name into it into some manifesto, but the proverbial die has been cast.
But the debate in these parts has focused on the rather useless quibbling over Catholic dogma, when the RH Bill itself contains dangerous provisions that could affect us all. The criminalization of ‘malicious disinformation’ against the bill for example, a truly insidious provision. Granted that the authors of the bill are angels, but this provision opens the door to malignant authors of future bills, and as we all know, Congress isnt exactly populated by saints. The Arroyos and their band are still there, just waiting to tack a ‘malicious disinformation’ provision into their own bills and ‘persuading’ the members of Congress to pass it. What prompted the authors of HB 5043 to include this escapes me. Get the debate out of the realm of Catholic dogma and into the realm of the Constitution and what it stands for.
The Ateneo profs call for the ‘immediate passage in Congress’ of this bill. Immediate passing! Not a true and honest debate in Congress with the welfare of the people in mind, but the immediate passing. Wadapak!
Let me reiterate that Im for what the RH Bill intends to do: give our countrymen informed choices, but some of its provisions are just distasteful.
If my Ateneo sources are telling me what really happened, the Ateneo profs had to issue the statement since they already had been dobbed to the CBCP!(oooops Australianism!, Dob means to make “sumbong”)
They had nothing to lose now since an “interdict” would have been issued anyway!
So I really pity poor Father Nebres!
BTW, at least one grad student in philo likens the profs statement to Martin Luther’s 95 theses! Well they should have nailed it to the door of the Church of the Gesu for dramatic effect! (ooooops, the church has glass doors,so only masking tape can do the job!)
I think the statement means more for Ateneans than the rest of us. It’s some sort of declaration for Reformation,whether it is in their university or outside. The grad student wants the Roman Church to be disestablished in the country.
Jeg,
Why is art necessary? Why for precisely the reason you state. It is about something quintessentially human.
I agree completely.
Of course, Religion is allegedly about the supernatural and the divine creating and causing the natural and the human (in the latter case involving elaborate rituals such as prayers, sacraments and icons.)
However I am elated to see you attest to my own belief that Religion is as necessary as Art, because indeed, it IS Art. Man as the Artificer of God, In HIS own image.
Jeg! There must be a name for this heresy of yours!
Here is a link to the news item.
The drama effect is breathtaking. Blackshama, the title of your post is truly apt.
“So I really pity poor Father Nebres!” – me too.
djb @ 2:54am:
your problem is that your mind is limited to comprehending finite concepts, i.e. things that are subject to time and space constraints.
if you are a scientist (physicist) worth your salt, you should know that the expanding universe is not infinite; that under the generally accepted “big bang” theory, it begun as a tiny atom (cf, the mustard seed Jesus referred to in one of his parables) that expanded to cosmic proportions and exploded, giving birth to a mind-boggling number of galaxies, one of which is our own “milky way” which contains our relatively miniscule solar system. with the help of the “bubble” telescope, true scientists theorize that there’s not only one universe but several, if not an infinite quantity of them. how can you possibly equate a finite universe with an infinite GOD?
contrary to your homespun doctrine, the FIRST CAUSE is not a result of the “belief” in cause and effect principle. as i previously said, it exists whether or not you believe.
@Bencard (at 12:39 am), let me try to understand what you said…
First you say that scientists ‘worth their salt’ should know that an expanding universe is not infinite.
Then you say that ‘true scientists’ theorize that there’s not only one universe but several, if not an infinite quantity of them.
So, going by your logic, does that mean that scientists worth their salt are not true scientists and that true scientists are not worth their salt?
BTW, it’s ‘Hubble’ telescope (not ‘bubble’).
cvj, i didn’t think you were paying attention to this kind of thing. anyway, i was referring to this known “universe”, that djb was obviously talking about, being finite. one proof of this finiteness is that it is still expanding. the other universes that “true scientists” theorize are themselves obviously not infinite since there are supposed to be several, if not infinite NUMBER, of them. note: it’s the number (quantity), not the universes, that i said may be infinite, theoretically. i don’t think its my fault that you cannot discern the clear import of what i said.
yeah, hubble, not bubble. thanks. my fingers are too fast for my eyes. good proofreading – i can use someone like you in my office.
Bencard, i see – an infinite number of finite universes. Thanks for the explanation. How would an infinite number of finite universes support the position that there has to be a first cause?
Actually, an infinite number of finite universes may be evidence of eternal life.
In such a structure, ALL events and permutations and combinations with NON-ZERO probability of occuring WILL occur.
So the very structure of your brain and the sequence at which your neurons are firing at this very moment will repeat itself again in an IDENTICAL manner sometime in the infinite future (and in one of the infinite number of universes) an infinite number of times. Which means the consciousness it generates will be identical and therefore something that will be experienced again and again (maybe by the same entity you consider your self).
benigno, i’ve heard of that belief before in relation to the subject of re-incarnation which is acknowledged by all the major religions of the world. among others, buddhism and hinduism, believe in unceasing process of death and re-incarnation until the final enlightenment when they become worthy of joining the Creator.
However I am elated to see you attest to my own belief that Religion is as necessary as Art, because indeed, it IS Art. Man as the Artificer of God, In HIS own image.
Jeg! There must be a name for this heresy of yours!
Haha. This heresy as you call it is called humanism, DJB. I’d like to think we’re both humanists, though we differ on the narratives undergirding our humanism. My humanism comes from the Creator; your humanism comes from, well, the primordial ooze.
By the way, here’s how the Bible defines religion: If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. That’s in James chapter 1.
cvj, finite universes has to be caused by SOMETHING. quit trying, cvj. i don’t think this topic is for you.
Bencard (at 10:42pm), if as you say, finite universes ‘has to be caused by SOMETHING’, and that ‘something’ is what you consider ‘God’, given that, as you also say, there are infinite such finite universes, does that mean that there are infinite ‘Gods’?
there you go again with your childish wordplay, cvj. read again my post. why can’t the same infinite God create ALL the “finite universes” that i said may (theoretically) exist?
If there are an infinite number of universes, then how can there be a first cause with respect to all of them?
how can there be not?
While an individual finite universe can have a First Cause (setting aside the argument on whether such ‘first cause’ can be called ‘God’ or just simply physical phenomena), you cannot apply the same principle to the Set of all universes which is infinite. The property of the element (i.e. a finite universe) cannot be applied to the entire set (the infinite set of universes). St. Thomas Aquinas brought up this ‘first cause’ in order to arbitrarily put an end to such infinite regress.
I think your argument in favor of God’s existence is closer to the God of the Gaps Argument rather than Aquinas’ First Cause.
cvj, is it impossible that your so-called “set of all universes” which is infinite is, or at least part of, the infinite FIRST CAUSE? there cannot be two infinites, you know. your problem here is that you are concentrating on the FORM, not the concept.
Does that mean that you consider the set of all universes, instead of being God’s [aka the 'First Cause'] creation, is instead the First Cause, meaning that the set of all universes is ‘God’?
As a matter of fact, the mathematician G. Cantor proved that there is more than one kind of infinity, each with different sizes.
cvj, call IT whatever you want. IT is what IT is, will be, and ever has been – the Alpha and Omega. btw, an infinite BEING is not created.
there you go again with obscure authorities – a
theoretician with mental/psychological infirmities.
I find it funny the way we refer to God as a “being” — considering he is supposedly something we cannot fathom.
benigno, you disappoint me. “being” means something that exists. God exists infinitely, ergo He/She/It is a Being and we can discern it through faith.
btw, i sure don’t find anything “funny” about it.
Bencard, for those who study Infinity, Cantor is by no means an ‘obscure authority’. Far from it.
The best popular treatment of the subject that i’ve so far come across is the late David Foster Wallace’s Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity. It’s balanced in the sense that it is not too superficial (unlike other popularizations) nor is it too technical and it gives you an appreciation of Cantor’s (among others) achievement.
…and if you read that book, you’ll see where you contradict St. Thomas Aquinas (on page 93):
You mixed up infinity with first cause (which presumes that there is no such thing) which is not in keeping with Aquinas’ formulation.
infinity is an attribute, and essential part of, FIRST CAUSE. where is the incompatibility? i think all that st. thomas is saying is that no more than one FIRST CAUSE can exist.
o.k. as far as i’m concerned, i don’t care what cantor, wallace or any of your “authorities say, my faith is my faith and, when it comes to GOD or FIRST CAUSE, i consider the subject not debatable.
when you talk of infinity, you really need a simply mathematical function 1/x=y(one-over-ex-equals-wye)…the beauty of its method is that it can be easily grasped without whacking your brains…
thats also the reason why einstein easily wrote the ‘theory of relativity’ with the use of ‘differential equations’…