CATHOLICS CAN SUPPORT THE RH BILL IN GOOD
CONSCIENCE
(Position
paper on the Reproductive Health Bill by individual faculty* of the Ateneo de
Manila University)
(Note:
The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of other faculty. Neither do they represent the
official position of the Ateneo de Manila University nor the Society of Jesus.)
Catholic
social theology since Vatican II has evolved, on the one hand, from the
emphasis on order, social cohesiveness, the acceptance of some inequality, and
obedience to authority to the recognition, on the other, of the centrality of
the human person, and the concomitant need for human freedom, equality, and
participation (Pacem in Terris 1963, Octogesima Adveniens 1971). In the same
way that Vatican II was a council for aggiornamento (renewal) for the universal
Church, so too did the 1991 Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II)
aim at the renewal of the Church in the Philippines. After a month of
collectively studying and praying to discern the “signs of the times,” PCP-II
declared: “As we approach the year 2000, Christ bids this community ourselves,
the laity, religious and clergy of the Catholic Church in the Philippines to be
a Church of the Poor” (PCP-II Acts, no. 96).
As
Catholics and Filipinos, we share the hope and mission of building a Church of
the Poor. We are thus deeply disturbed and saddened by calls made by some
members of the Catholic Church to reject a proposed legislation that promises
to improve the wellbeing of Filipino families, especially the lives of women,
children, adolescents, and the poor. Being a “Church of the Poor” urges us to
be with and listen to the poor, so that their “joys and hopes… griefs and
anxieties” become ours as well (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 1). We therefore ask
those who denounce the RH Bill as “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” “anti-women,”
“anti-poor,” and “immoral” to consider the economic and social conditions of
our people, as borne out by empirical evidence, and to recognize that the bill
is, in fact, “pro-life,” “pro-women,” and “propoor.”
The Realities of
Women and Their Children
No
woman should die giving life. Yet, in the Philippines, 10 women die every 24
hours from almost entirely preventable causes related to pregnancy and
childbirth (POPCOM 2000). Our maternal mortality rate continues to be
staggeringly high, at 162 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births
(National Statistics Office (NSO), 2006 Family Planning Survey (FPS)). More
lives would certainly be saved if all women had access to good prenatal,
delivery, and postpartum care.
The
reality, however, is that 3 out of 10 Filipino women do not have the
recommended number of prenatal care visits (at least 4); and 6 out of 10 women
still deliver at home, where they rarely have access to a skilled birth
attendant, or to quality obstetric services in case complications arise (NSO
and ORC Macro 2004, 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS)).
Moreover, because a woman’s life and wellbeing are inextricably linked to that
of her child’s, it is not surprising that the country’s infant mortality and
under-five mortality ratios remain also worrisome: for every 1,000 live births,
24 children die before they reach the age of one, and 32 children die before
they reach the age of five (NSO, 2006 FPS).
Aside
from poor maternal care, our alarming maternal mortality rate also stems from
the high incidence of induced abortions. The silence on this topic shrouds the
tragedy of many Filipino women who have resorted to it in desperation. An
estimated 473,400 women had induced abortions in 2000, translating to an
abortion rate of 27 abortions per 1,000 women aged 14-44, and an abortion ratio
of 18 abortions per 100 pregnancies (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh and Hussain 2005).
Abortion not only terminates the life of an unborn child but also imperils the
life of the mother, especially if performed in unsafe clandestine clinics by
untrained personnel, or induced by the woman herself, as is the case of poor
women who cannot afford a surgical abortion, or the services of a traditional
practitioner (hilot). Of the nearly half a million women who had abortions in
2000, 79,000, or 17 percent, wound up in hospitals as a result of abortion
complications (ibid.). Induced abortions accounted for 12 percent of all
maternal deaths in the Philippines in 1994 (ibid.), and is the fourth leading
cause of maternal deaths.
Studies
show that the majority of women who go for an abortion are married or in a
consensual union (91%), the mother of three or more children (57%), and poor
(68%) (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh 2005). For these women, terminating a
pregnancy is an anguished choice they make in the face of severe contraints.
When women who had attempted an abortion were asked their reasons for doing so,
their top three responses were: they could not afford the economic cost of
raising another child (72%); their pregnancy occurred too soon after the last
one (57%); and they already have enough children (54%). One in ten women (13%)
who had attempted an abortion revealed that this was because her pregnancy
resulted from forced sex (ibid.). 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)
The
importance of family planning to the lives of women and their children cannot
be emphasized enough. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA n.d.) asserts
that women’s access to effective contraception would avert 30 percent of
maternal deaths, 90 percent of abortion-related deaths and disabilities, and 20
percent of child deaths. In the Philippines, however, women sorely lack
adequate access to integrated reproductive health services. This stems mainly
from an inconsistent national population policy which has always been dependent
on the incumbent leader. For example, studies have pointed out that former
President Fidel V. Ramos and then Health Secretary Juan Flavier showed strong
support for family planning initiatives. In contrast, President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo appears to have an incoherent national population policy, because while
she recognizes the need to reduce the country’s population growth rate, on the
one hand, she relegates the responsibility of crafting, funding, and
implementing population and reproductive health programs to local government
units (LGUs), on the other. Thus, we are witness to uneven reproductive health
and family planning policies and programs across LGUs: Whereas Aurora and the
Mountain province, and Davao, Marikina, and Quezon Cities have put in place
commendable RH policies and programs, a metropolitan city like Manila teeming
with informal settlers had banned modern artificial methods of family planning
under the administration of Mayor Joselito Atienza.
From
the foregoing, it is easy to understand why the contraceptive prevalence rate
of the Philippines is only 50.6 percent (NSO, 2006 FPS). This means that only a
little over half of married women use any family planning (FP) method, whether
traditional FP (14.8%), modern natural or NFP (0.2%), or modern artificial FP
(35.6%). And yet an overwhelming majority of Filipinos (92%) believe that it is
important to manage fertility and plan their family, and most (89%) say that
the government should provide budgetary support for modern artificial methods
of family planning, including the pill, intra-uterine devices (IUDs), condoms,
ligation, and vasectomy (Pulse Asia, 2007 Ulat ng Bayan survey on family
planning). In another survey, the majority (55%) of respondents said that they
are willing to pay for the family planning method of their choice (Social
Weather Stations, 2004 survey on family planning).
The
evidence is clear: Our women lack reproductive health care, including
information on and access to family planning methods of their choice. Births
that are too frequent and spaced too closely take a delibitating toll on their
health, so that many of them die during pregnancy or at childbirth. Some of
them, despairing over yet another pregnancy, seek an abortion, from which they
also die and along with them, their unborn child too.
The sanctity of
human life and the dignity of the human person
The
Catholic Church proclaims that every human person is created in the image and
likeness of God, as well as redeemed by Christ. Therefore, each person’s life
and dignity is sacred and must be respected. “Every violation of the personal
dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offense
against the creator of the individual,” according to Christifideles Laici
(1988, no. 37). Indeed, we should measure every institution by whether it
threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person whether that
individual is a woman agonizing over her ninth pregnancy, or an unborn child in
a mother’s womb.
The RH Bill as
pro-life and pro-women
We
support the RH Bill because it protects life and promotes the wellbeing of
families, especially of women and their children. Contrary to what its
detractors say, the RH Bill is not “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” or
“anti-women.” With “respect for life” as one of its guiding principles (sec.
2), the bill unequivocally states that it does not seek to “change the law on
abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable” (sec. 3.m). It can be
argued, in fact, that in guaranteeing information on and access to
“medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” natural and modern family
planning methods (sec. 2), the bill seeks “to prevent unwanted, unplanned and
mistimed pregnancies” (sec. 5.k) the main cause of induced abortions. The RH
Bill is also pro-life and pro-women because it aims to reduce our maternal
mortality
rate, currently so high (at 162 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) that
the government has admitted that it is unlikely to meet the Millennium
Development Goal target of bringing it down by three-fourths (to 52 maternal
deaths per 100,000 live births) by 2015 (NEDA and UNCT 2007). For example,
section 6 of the bill enjoins every city and municipality to endeavor “to
employ adequate number of midwives or other skilled attendants to achieve a
minimum ratio of one (1) for every one hundred fifty (150) deliveries per
year.” Section 7 instructs each province and city to seek to establish, for
every 500,000 population, “at least one (1) hospital for comprehensive
emergency obstetric care and four (4) hospitals for basic emergency obstetric
care.” Section 8 mandates “all LGUs, national and local government hospitals,
and other public health units [to] conduct maternal death review.”
Moreover,
the RH Bill’s definition of “reproductive health care” goes beyond the
provision of natural and modern family planning information and services, to
include a wide array of other services (sec. 4.g). These include: maternal,
infant, and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; prevention
of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; adolescent and youth
health; sexual and reproductive health education for couples and the youth;
prevention and management of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmittable
infections (STIs); treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other
gynecological conditions; fertility interventions; elimination of violence
against women; and male involvement and participation in reproductive health.
We therefore ask, How then can the RH Bill be violative of human life and
dignity?
To
reiterate, because reproductive health is central to women’s overall health,
fundamental aspects of women’s wellbeing are compromised when reproductive
health is ignored. The conditions under which choices are made are as important
as the actual content of women’s choices: the right to choose is meaningful
only if women have real power to choose.
The Conditions of
Poor Families
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. However, there is no question that poverty in the
Philippines is exacerbated by our rapid population growth (Alonzo et al. 2004,
Pernia et al. 2008), which, at 2.04 percent, is one of the highest in Asia. A
close association exists between our country’s chronic poverty and rapid
population growth, as the latter diminishes overall economic growth and blights
the prospects of poverty reduction. Curbing our population growth rate is thus
a requisite of sound economic policy and effective poverty reduction strategy,
and needs to be undertaken with the same vigor we would exert in fighting
corruption, improving governance, or redistributing resources.
Turning
once again to the conditions of our people, surveys have established the strong
association between household size and poverty incidence. Women aged 40-49 in
the poorest quintile bear twice as many children, at six children per woman,
compared to an average of three children for women in the richest quintile (NSO
and ORC Macro 2004, 2003 NDHS). The same pattern is seen when one considers the
woman’s educational background: women aged 40-49 with no education (invariably
because they are extremely poor) give birth to an average of 6.1 children,
whereas women with college or higher education have three children on average
(ibid.)
The
sad fact is, whereas women in the richest quintile, who have three children on
average, are able to achieve their desired number of children (2.7 children), the
poorest do not. Women in the lowest quintile, who bear an average of six
children, have at least two children more than their ideal number (3.5). 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.).
In
addition, studies have noted an inverse relationship between family size and
household wellbeing. In particular, an increase in family size is accompanied
by a decrease in per capita income, a decrease in per capita savings, and a
decrease in per capita expenditures on education and health. Applying standard
statistical techniques to indicators of household wellbeing in the 2002 Annual
Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS), Orbeta (2005) notes that small families with
four members enjoy twice as much income per capita, at P18,429 per annum,
compared to large families with nine or more members, at P8,935. Annual savings
per capita also declines from P2,950 for a four-member household, to P1,236 for
a nine or more-member household.
Expenditures
on education and health are good indicators of a family’s investment on the
wellbeing of its members. Based on the 2002 APIS, small households with four
members spend 2 ½ times more on the education of each child in school, at
P1,787 per student, compared to large households with nine or more members,
where annual education expenditure per student is only P682. Similarly,
four-member households spend nearly thrice as much on the health of each
member, at P438, in contrast to nine or more-member households, where annual
health expenditure per capita is only P150. These figures reveal that as
household size increases, a family needs to spread its resources more thinly,
thus investing less on the education and health of each member. This has
deleterious consequences on human capital and income-earning potential (Orbeta
2005).
Moreover,
as family size increases, school attendance of its members drops. The
proportion of school-age members 6 to 24 years old who attend school declines
from 67.9 percent for four-member households, to 65.6 percent for nine or
more-member households (2002 APIS survey, cited in Orbeta 2005). The prevalence
of child labor is also associated with household size. Working children’s
families tend to be larger (7-11 members) than those of nonworking children
(2-5 members) (Del Rosario and Bonga 2000).
In
summary, poor households typically have more children than they aspired to
have, as a result of a high unmet need for family planning. A large family size
strains a poor family’s capacity to earn, save, and provide education and
health care for its members. This diminishes children’s human capital and
income-earning potential, and explains why poverty tends to be transmitted and
perpetuated from one generation to the next.
The preferential
option for the poor and integral human development
Scripture
teaches us that God has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable.
Similarly, the Church calls on all of us, followers of Christ, who was himself
poor, to take on this preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. This is
eloquently expressed in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium
(1964): “Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and
oppression, so the Church is called to follow the same path…. [T]he Church
encompasses with her love all those who are afflicted by human misery and she
recognizes in those who are poor and who suffer, the image of her poor and
suffering founder. She does all in her power to relieve their need and in them
she strives to serve Christ” (no. 8).
Embracing
the preferential option for the poor asks us to look at the world from the
perspective of the poor, and create conditions for them to be heard, defended
against injustices, and provided opportunities for their empowerment and
attainment of the fullness of human life. An interrelated principle of Catholic
social teaching is that of integral human development, which asserts that the
whole person, and every person in society, must be allowed to develop to his or
her full potential. As Pope Paul VI says in Populorum Progressio (1967):
“Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be
authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is, it has to promote the good
of every man and of the whole man” (no. 14). This is imperative because “[i]n
God’s plan, every man is born to seek fulfillment…. At birth, a human being
possesses certain aptitudes and abilities in germinal form, and these qualities
are to be cultivated so they may bear fruit” (no. 15).
The RH Bill as
pro-poor
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. It is unconscionable that
while the richest in our society are able to attain the number of children that
they desire and can support, the poorest, on the other hand, are left
struggling to break the chain of intergenerational poverty caused partly by a
large family size that impairs their capacity to feed, educate, and take care
of their children.
The
RH Bill has a number of provisions that are explicitly pro-poor, such as
section 11 mandating each Congressional District to undertake the “acquisition,
operation and maintenance” of “a van to be known as the Mobile Health Care
Service (MHCS) to deliver care, goods and services to its constituents, more
particularly to the poor and needy [italics ours], as well as disseminate
knowledge and information on reproductive health.” However, we would like to
focus our attention on the pro-poor benefits offered by section 1, which states
that “[t]he State… guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal,
affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices,
supplies and relevant information thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of
women and children, among other underprivileged sectors [italics ours].”
In
relation to the above, section 8 of the RH bill defines contraceptives as
essential medicines, in recognition that family planning reduces the incidence
of maternal and infant mortality. By placing “hormonal contraceptives,
intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products
and supplies” under the category of “essential medicines and supplies,” they
shall thus be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and
supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units.
Moreover, section 9 of the bill guarantees hospital-based family planning for
contraceptive methods requiring hospital services. These include tubal
ligation, vasectomy, and intrauterine device insertion, which shall be made
available in all national and local government hospitals. For “indigent
patients,” these services “shall be fully covered by PhilHealth insurance
and/or government financial assistance.”
Treating
contraceptives as essential medicines and guaranteeing hospital-based family
planning will make family planning products, supplies, and procedures available
at all national and local government hospitals. This is a decidedly pro-poor
measure, in view of the fact that the majority (58.1%) of Filipinos who use
modern artificial family planning methods rely on the government for their
supply of contraceptives (NSO, 2006 FPS). Thus, by expanding Filipinos’ access
to the family planning method (whether modern NFP or modern artificial FP,
“with no bias for either”) that is best suited to their needs and personal
convictions, the RH Bill has the real potential to make safe and reliable
family planning available to all Filipinos, and not only to the 50.6 percent
practicing it in one way or another (ibid.). This becomes more important in
light of the government’s acknowledgment that it has a “low probability” of
meeting the Millennium Development Goal target of raising the country’s
contraceptive prevalence rate from 50.6 percent in 2006 to 80 percent in 2015
(NEDA and UNCT 2007).
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 Situation of Our
Youth
As
parents and guardians of our 15.1 million youth aged 15-24 (Ericta 2003), our
greatest challenge is to provide them a safe and nurturing environment where
they can study and learn, forge friendships, develop their innate talents, and
be guided into responsible citizenship. It might therefore cause us some shock
and sadness to know that our youth are increasingly becoming involved in sexual
risk-taking behavior. This includes premarital sex and unprotected sex, which
may result in unintended pregnancy, or in contracting HIV-AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Comparing data from the Young Adult
Fertility and Sexuality surveys of 1994 (YAFSS2) and 2002 (YAFSS 3) involving
youth aged 15-24 reveals that the prevalence of premarital sexual activity
increased by 5.6 percentage points, from 17.8 percent in 1994 to 23.4 percent
in 2002. Even more dramatic was the change over time among youth who said that
they have friends who have engaged in premarital sex. In 1994, only 42.5
percent of the youth claimed that they have sexually-experienced unmarried
friends. Eight years later in 2002, more than half (53.8%) reported having such
friends (Marquez and Galban 2004, citing the University of the Philippines
Population Institute (UPPI) and the Demographic Research and Development
Foundation (DRDF), 1994 YAFSS 2 and 2002 YAFSS 3).
The
2002 YAFS survey also shows that 11.8 percent of the youth had their first
sexual encounter within the ages of 15 to 19, compared to only 8.1 percent in
1994 (Raymundo and Cruz 2003, citing the 1994 YAFSS 2 and 2002 YAFSS 3).
Moreover, the average age for the first sexual encounter of the youth declined
from 18 years in 1994, to 17.5 years in 2002. Thus, it appears that more of our
youth are getting initated into sex at increasingly younger ages.
What
is particularly worrisome is how the majority of our youth who have had
premarital sex did not intend to do so during their first sexual encounter. Of
the youth who have had premarital sex, only 43 percent wanted their first
sexual experience to happen. The rest of the 57 percent either said that they
did not plan for their sexual encounter to occur but went along with it anyway
(55%), or revealed that their first sexual experience happened against their
will, which is tantamount to rape (2%) (POPCOM and UNFPA 2003, citing the 2002
YAFSS 3). Because the first premarital sex act is usually unplanned, it is
typically unprotected. Nearly four in five (79%) youth who have had premarital
sex did not use a contraceptive during their first sexual experience, compared
to only one in five (21%) who did. 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).
Even
more alarming is how the youth continue to fail to use any form of
contraception in their subsequent sexual encounters. Of the sexually-active
unmarried youth, three in four (75.1%) did not have any protection during their
most recent premarital sex act, as against only one in four (24.9%) who did
(Raymundo and Cruz 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3). The reasons mentioned by the
youth in 2002 for not using contraceptives, in declining order of importance,
are: lack of knowledge on contraception; the belief that contraception is
either wrong (against one’s religion) or dangerous to one’s health; objection
of the partner; and the view that sex is not fun with contraception. And yet
when female respondents who had already engaged in sex were asked in the 1994
YAFS survey if they were willing and prepared to become parents, an
overwhelming 94 percent of them said that they were not (POPCOM 2002, citing
the 1994 YAFSS 2).
From
the foregoing, it is apparent that much of our youth’s risky sexual behavior
stems from their lack of knowledge on sex. Although 70 percent of our youth are
aware that a woman could get pregnant only after she begins menstruation, the
vast majority (80%) of young females do not know the fertile period of their
menstrual cycle. Close to half of our youth are unaware that it is possible for
a woman to get pregnant after only one sexual encounter (POPCOM and UNFPA
2003). In addition, our youth have many misconceptions about HIV-AIDS and
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), such as: AIDS is curable (72.7%); AIDS is
a punishment from God meted on people who had sex outside of marriage (35.1%);
and AIDS is contracted only by those who have multiple sex partners (27.8%)
(Laguna 2004, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3). Our youth’s increased sexual activity,
notwithstanding their insufficient understanding of reproductive health and
their sexual rights and responsibilities, can lead to adverse outcomes, such as
unwanted pregnancy and contracting sexually transmitted diseases. The life
script of a female who had early sex is invariably written as a plot of early
marriage, aborted schooling, curtailed work opportunities, frequent
pregnancies, and sometimes separation, abortions, and even early death. The
2003 National Demographic and Health Survey reveals that 26 percent of young
women aged 15-24 years have begun childbearing, of whom 8 percent are teenagers
aged 15-19 years. Many pregnancies among females in the 15-24 age bracket are
unintended, resulting in abortions for some. Based on a 2004 nationwide survey
of married and unmarried women aged 15-49, 46 percent of abortion attempts
occur among young women, of which 30 percent are attempted by women aged 20-24,
and 16 percent by teenagers aged 15-19 (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh 2005).
Moreover,
because early pregnancies are high-risk cases, many young women and adolescents
die in pregnancy, at birth, or shortly after birth. Young women including
teenage mothers accounted for 25.4 percent of the total 1,833 maternal deaths
reported in 2004, of which 18.4 percent were deaths of young mothers aged
20-24; 6.6 percent, adolescent mothers 15-19 years old; and 0.4 percent, teenage
mothers under 15 (NSO 2004). In addition, almost a third, or 30.4 percent, of
the total 10,351 fetal deaths recorded in 2005 were experienced by young women
24 years old and below, of whom 22.8 percent were aged 20-24, 7.6 percent were
15-19 years old, and 0.01 percent were under 15 (NSO 2005).
From
whom should our young people learn about reproductive health, sexuality, and
responsible sexual behavior? Socialization agents such as the family, peer
group, church, religion and the media are crucial to the youth’s development,
as they impart the values and norms of behavior acceptable to one’s society.
However, officials of the Catholic Church have strongly opposed the inclusion
of sex education in the curriculum of public schools, arguing that doing so would
arouse young people’s curiosity about sex, encourage them to try premarital
sex, and promote their promiscuity.
It
is important to note that as early as 1972, the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS) already had a module for sex education in elementary
and high school called Population Education (POPED). Over the years, this
module has been revised to adapt to changing times. However, in 2006, Catholic
bishops assailed the introduction of a new module on adolescent reproductive
health being developed by the Department of Education (DepEd), causing the
Arroyo administration to back off from its trial run of the revised RH module.
The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that the instruction of sex and
sexuality to children should be the primary responsibility of the family, and
of parents, in particular.
While
it would certainly be ideal for families and parents to be their children’s
most important source of information on sex and sexuality, this is hardly the
case. Studies show that children are not very comfortable talking to their
parents about it and vice versa. Based on the Catholics can support the RH Bill
in good conscience: Position paper on the RH Bill 10 2002 Young Adult Fertility
and Sexuality survey, only 15.7 percent of the youth aged 15-24 freely talk
about sex at home with their family (Marquez and Galban 2004, citing the 2002
YAFSS 3). And if sex is even discussed by parents with their children, it is
usually to admonish the latter not to do “it.” However, young people need to
raise their questions and feelings about sex and their sexuality. If they are
ill at ease doing this with their parents or other family members, they then
turn to their peers, who are not the most reliable sources of information on
sex, even as a considerable number of them engage in it. In addition, the youth
seek information on sex from the media, which has been described as young
people’s “surrogate parents.” The 2002 YAFS survey reveals that the youth learn
about sex from pornographic materials. The majority (55%) of the youth have
viewed x-rated films, whereas 39 percent have accessed pornographic reading
materials (POPCOM and UNFPA 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3).
In
sum, although our youth are having their sexual debut at increasingly younger
ages, they do so bereft of sufficient knowledge on reproductive health,
particularly the consequences of early and unprotected sex. Curious and eager
to know more about sex, they seek information from unreliable sources like
their peers and pornographic materials, unable as they are to get that from
socialization agents like their family or school. Worse, some of them learn
about sex from actual experience, without fully knowing how one could get
pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases. Access to accurate and
appropriate information and services on many aspects of sexual behavior,
reproductive health, and sexuality is thus needed by our adolescents and youth,
in light of increasingly risky sexual behavior among a significant number of
them.
The right to be
informed
Recent
Catholic social theology has recognized the centrality of the human person,
and, relatedly, has declared the “identification and proclamation of human
rights [as] one of the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the
inescapable demands of human dignity” (Dignitatis Humanae 1965, no. 1). Pope
John XXIII, in Pacem in Terris (1963), was the first to articulate a set of
human rights, foremost of which is the “right to bodily integrity and to the
means necessary for the proper development of life, particularlly food,
clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social
services” (no. 11).
One
human right that has received abundant attention in Catholic social teachings
is the right to be informed and to form opinions. The Second Vatican Council
and the popes since Pope John XXIII have all stressed this right to information
as essential for the individual and for society in general. In Pacem in Terris
(1963), Pope John XXIII says, “[Man] has a right to freedom in investigating
the truth” (no. 12). Similar to Pacem in Terris, the Second Vatican Council, in
its document, Gaudium et Spes (1965), identifies a set of rights as necessary
for a truly human life, including “the right to education… to appropriate
information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own
conscience… and to rightful freedom even in matters religious” (no. 26). Pope
John Paul II, in Centesimus Annus (1991), likewise calls attention to “the
right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the
truth” (no. 47).
The RH Bill as
supportive of the youth’s right to information
Being
educators, we are in favor of the RH Bill’s intent to offer “age-appropriate
reproductive health education” to our children and youth. We affirm that this
is key to providing young people the information and values they would need,
not only to take care of their reproductive and sexual health, but also to
arrive at sound and responsible decisions regarding their sexuality, sexual
behavior, and family life, whether now or in the future.
In
asserting the need for reproductive health education in schools, we are not
negating the primary role of parents in educating their children on sex. We
believe that families should provide the environment where children can raise
their questions, feelings, and needs regarding sex. However, we also recognize
that such discussions, in reality, rarely happen, with only, at best, one in
five of the youth (15.7%) saying that they can talk about sex at home (2002
YAFSS 3). Given this, reproductive health education in schools becomes all the
more imperative.
We
share neither the view nor the fear that discussing sex in schools will make
adolescents prurient and promiscuous. Rather, we trust that our youth have the
capacity to make intelligent and value-driven choices regarding their sexuality
and sexual behavior. As teachers, we believe that knowledge is empowering, and
thus uphold our youth’s right to information and education on sex and
reproductive health. We would like to empower them to make responsible
decisions now and in the future, first by providing them correct and sufficient
information on reproductive and sexual health, and second, by helping them
identify, articulate, and deal with their issues and sentiments regarding sex
and their sexuality.
An
examination of section 12 of the RH Bill shows that reproductive health
education, as envisioned, will promote values espoused by Philippine society in
general, and Catholicism, in particular. “Responsible sexuality” (sec. 12.i.)
and “abstinence before marriage” (sec. 12.g) and not sexual promiscuity will be
encouraged, even as RH education seeks to create opportunities for young people
to air out their “attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual
behavior and sexual health” (sec. 12.c). Respect for the sanctity of life will
be stressed by the RH education’s “proscription [against abortion]” and lessons
on the “hazards of abortion” (sec.12.d). “Responsible parenthood” (sec. 12.e),
another key Filipino value, will likewise be emphasized, through, among others,
discussions on the “use and application of natural family planning methods to
promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted,
unplanned and mistimed pregnancies” (sec. 12.f).
And
who can argue against the need to instill in our children the value of
“reproductive health care” (sec. 12.b), or the importance of their
“reproductive health and sexual rights” (sec. 12.a)? Will our youth not benefit
from being taught about the “prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other
STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other
gynecological disorders” (sec. 12.h)? Will our young women not become more
prepared for motherhood as a result of being educated on “maternal, peri-natal
and post-natal education, care and services” (sec. 12.j)? And in case we are
worried that our children in elementary school will be taught sex lessons
beyond the grasp of their tender minds, we can lay our fears to rest. The RH
Bill provides for “age-appropriate reproductive health education” starting from
Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School, to be taught by “adequately trained
teachers.” This implies that preteeners will study only such topics as the
parts of the reproductive system, and proper hygiene and care of one’s body.
In
sum, we believe that by upholding our youth’s right to information and
education on reproductive health, we are contributing to their development into
adults who will exercise their reproductive health and sexual rights, and plan
their future families, with great responsibility. We close with this reassuring
quote from the United Nations Population Fund: “It has been repeatedly shown
that sex education leads to responsible behaviour, higher levels of abstinence,
later initiation of sexuality, higher use of contraception, and fewer sexual
partners. These good effects are even greater when the parents can talk
honestly with their children as well” (UNFPA 2008).
A Call of
Conscience: Catholics in Support of the RH Bill
After
studying the provisions of House Bill 5043 in the light of the realities of
Filipino women, poor families, and our youth, we, individual faculty of the
Ateneo de Manila University, speaking for ourselves and not for the University,
have come to conclude that the Philippines urgently needs a national policy on
reproductive health and population development. We therefore strongly support
the RH Bill’s immediate passage in Congress.
We
further believe that it is possible for Catholics like ourselves to support HB
5043 in good conscience, even as we recognize, with some anguish, that our view
contradicts the position held by some of our fellow Catholics, including our
bishops. We are aware that they have denounced it as “pro-abortion,”
“anti-life,” “anti-women,” “anti-poor,” and “immoral.” However, our reason,
informed by our faith, has led us to believe and say otherwise.
We
assert that RH Bill is pro-life, pro-women, pro-poor, pro-youth, and
pro-informed choice. By giving couples, and especially women, information on
and access to “medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” family planning
methods (whether modern natural or modern artificial), the RH Bill seeks to
avert unwanted, unplanned, and mistimed pregnancies, which are the root cause
of induced abortions. In that sense, the bill is not only pro-life but also
pro-women, because it helps them to plan the number and spacing of their
children, so as not to experience frequent and closely-spaced pregnancies that
take a toll on their health and wellbeing. Moreover, the RH Bill seeks to
improve maternal and infant health by enjoining cities and municipalities to
provide an adequate number of skilled birth attendants as well as hospitals
rendering comprehensive emergency obstetric care.
HB
5043 is pro-poor because it makes contraceptives (including those requiring
hospital services) more accessible and cheaper for Filipinos, especially for
the poorest 20 percent, who have the highest unmet need for family planning
(26.7%), and 2.5 children more than they desire and are able to feed, clothe,
and send to school. The bill is also pro-youth, because it seeks to provide our
young people the information and values they would need in taking care of their
reproductive health, and in making responsible decisions regarding their
sexuality, sexual behavior, and future family life.
Furthermore,
the RH Bill is pro-informed choice. In seeking to promote both modern natural
and modern artificial methods of family planning (with “no bias for either”), HB
5043 recognizes that couples, especially women, have the right to choose the
family planning method that they consider to be the safest and most effective
for them, provided that these are legally permissible. Although natural family
planning (NFP), which the Catholic Church promotes, offers many benefits, it is
important to realize that pursuing an NFP-only population policy will be a
disservice, if not a grave injustice, to women and couples for whom NFP simply
cannot work. We are thinking of women who find it impossible to predict their
infertile periods; or couples who see each other on an irregular basis; or
women who are trapped in abusive relationships with men who demand sex anytime
they want it. Why is it morally wrong for such women and couples and even
others not encompassed by the above situations to use a modern artificial
family planning method that has been pronounced safe and non-abortifacient by
health authorities, if their discernment of their particular situation has led
them to conclude that such a method will enable them to fulfill the demands of
marital love and responsible parenthood?
At
his trial, Thomas More stressed the sacredness of conscience when he said:
“[I]n things touching conscience, every true and good subject is more bound to
have respect to his said conscience and to his soul than to any other thing in
all the world besides.” Catholic social teachings similarly recognize the
primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from
political and religious authorities. Gaudium et Spes (1965) tells us: “In the
depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon
himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good
and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do
this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is
the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged” (no. 16).
We
respect the consciences of our bishops when they promote natural family planning
as the only moral means of contraception, in adherence to Humanae Vitae (1968),
which teaches that married couples who want to control and space births should
“take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and
engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile” (no.
16). In turn, we ask our bishops to respect the one in three (35.6%) married
Filipino women who, in their “most secret core and sancturary” or conscience,
have decided that their and their family’s interests would best be served by
using a modern artificial means of contraception. Is it not possible that these
women and their spouses were obeying their well-informed and well-formed
consciences when they opted to use an artificial contraceptive?
We
therefore ask our bishops and fellow Catholics not to block the passage of HB
5043, which promotes women’s and couples’ access to the full range of safe,
legal, and effective modern natural and modern artificial family planning
methods, from which they can choose the one most suitable to their needs and
personal and religious convictions. To campaign against the bill is to deny our
people, especially our women, many other benefits, such as maternal and child
health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; adolescent and youth health;
reproductive health education; prevention and management of gynecological
conditions; and provision of information and services addressing the
reproductive health needs of marginalized sectors, among others. In pursuit of
the common good, or the “sum total of social conditions which allow people… to
reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no.
26), we call on the Catholic Church to let the RH Bill pass in Congress, and to
consider forging a principled collaboration with the government in the
promotion of natural family planning which Humanae Vitae deems morally
acceptable, and in the formation of consciences with emphasis on the value of
responsible sex and parenthood.
To
our fellow Catholics who, in good conscience, have come to conclude, as we
have, that we need a reproductive health law: we ask you to declare your
support for HB 5043.
Finally,
we call on our legislators in Congress and in the Senate to pass the RH Bill.
Doing so upholds the constitutional right of spouses to found a family in
accordance with their religious convictions; honors our commitments to
international covenants; and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive
rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this
issue our women, poor families, and youth.
15
October 2008
References
Alonzo,
Ruperto P., Arsenio M. Balisacan, Dante B. Canlas, Joseph J. Capuno, Ramon L.
Clarete, Rolando A. Danao, Emmanuel S. de Dios, Benjamin E. Diokno, Emmanuel F.
Esguerra, Raul V. Fabella, Ma. Socorro Gochoco-Bautista, Aleli P. Kraft, Felipe
M. Medalla, Nimfa F. Mendoza, Solita C. Monsod, Cayetano W. Paderanga, Jr.,
Ernesto M. Pernia, Stella A. Quimbo, Gerardo P. Sicat, Orville C. Solon, Edita
A. Tan, and Gwendolyn R. Tecson. 2004 (Dec.). Population and poverty: The real
score. University of the Philippines School of Economics (UPSE) Discussion
Paper No. 0415.
Del
Rosario, Rosario, and Melinda A. Bonga. 2000. Child labor in the Philippines: A
review of selected studies and policy papers. Manila: University of the
Philippines, Australian Agency for International Development, and United
Nations Children’s Fund.
Ericta,
Carmelita. 2003. The Filipino youth: A statistical profile. Paper presented at
the 5th National Social Science Congress, Diliman, Quezon City, 15-17 May 2003.
Juarez,
Cabigon, and Singh. 2005. Unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines: The route to
induced abortion and health consequences. Paper presented at the 25th
International Union for the Scientific Study of Population General Conference,
Tours, France, 18-23 July 2005.
________,
Cabigon, Singh and Hussain 2005. The incidence of induced abortion in the
Philippines: Current level and recent trends. International Family Planning
Perspectives 31 (3) (September): 140-149.
Laguna,
Elma P. 2004. Knowledge of HIV/AIDS and unsafe sex practices among Filipino
youth. Paper presented at 2004 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of
America, Boston, Massachusetts, 1-3 April 2004.
Marquez
and Galban. 2004. Getting hotter, going wilder?: Changes in sexual risk-taking
behavior among Filipino youth. Paper presented at the 7th International
Conference on Philippine Studies, Leiden, The Netherlands, 16-19 June 2004.
National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the United Nations Country Team
(UNCT). 2007. Philippines midterm progress report on the Millennium Development
Goals. Philippines: NEDA.
National
Statistics Office (NSO). 2003. 2002 Annual poverty indicators survey: Final
report. Manila, Philippines: [NSO].
________.
2004. Number of maternal deaths by age group and cause of death: 2004.
Available at http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2004/md0402.htm;
Internet; accessed 28 September 2008.
________.
2005. Number and percent distribution of fetal deaths by legitimacy status and
age group: 2005. Available at
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2005/fd0501.htm; Internet; accessed 28
September 2008.
________.
2007. Prevalence rate for modern methods unchanged at 36 percent (Results from
the 2006 Family Planning Survey). Available at http://www.census.gov.ph/ data/
pressrelease/2007/pr0730tx.html; Internet; accessed 19 September 2008.
________
and ORC Macro. 2004. Philippines national demographic and health survey 2003. Manila,
Philippines: NSO, and Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro.
Orbeta,
Jr. Aniceto C. 2005. Poverty, vulnerability and family size: Evidence from the
Philippines. ADB Discussion Paper No. 29 (June).
Pernia,
Ernesto M. Stella Alabastro-Quimbo, Maria Joy V. Abrenica, Ruperto P. Alonzo,
Agustin L. Arcenas, Arsenio M. Balisacan, Dante B. Canlas, Joseph J. Capuno,
Ramon L. Clarete, Rolando A. Danao, Emmanuel S. de Dios, Aleli dela Paz-Kraft,
Benjamin E. Diokno, Emmanuel F. Esguerra, Raul V. Fabella, Maria Socorro
Gochoco-Bautista, Teresa J. Ho, Felipe M. Medalla, Maria Nimfa F. Mendoza,
Solita C. Monsod, Toby Melissa C. Monsod, Fidelina Natividad-Carlos, Cayetano
W. Paderanga, Gerardo P. Sicat, Orville C. Solon, Edita A. Tan, and Gwendolyn
R. Tecson. 2008 (11 Aug.). Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive
Health Bill. University of the Philippines School of Economics.
Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace. 2004. Compendium of the social doctrine of the
Church. Intramuros, Manila: Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines,
and Makati, Metro Manila: Word & Life Publications.
Population
Commission (POPCOM). 2000. State of the Philippine population report, 1st
issue: Time to act: Needs, options, decisions. Philippines, Mandaluyong City:
POPCOM.
________.
2002. Philippines Country Report: Fifth Asian and Pacific Population
Conference. Held in Bangkok, Thailand, 11-17 December 2002. Philippines,
Mandaluyong City: POPCOM.
________
and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2003. State of the Philippine population
report, 2nd issue: Making choices, building voices. Philippines, Mandaluyong
City: POPCOM and UNFPA
Pulse
Asia. 2007. March 2007 Ulat ng Bayan survey media release on family planning.
Available at http://pulseasia.com.ph/pulseasia/story.asp?id=545; Internet;
accessed 25 September 2008.
Raymundo,
Corazon M. and Grace T. Cruz. 2003. Dangerous connections: Substance abuse and
sex among adolescents. Philippine Population Review 2 (1) (Jan. – Dec.): 23-42.
Social
Weather Stations. 2005 (24 Feb.). SWS 4th Quarter 2004 survey report on family
planning for the Department of Health (DOH). Available at http://www.sws.or.ph;
Internet; accessed 25 September 2008.
United
Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). n.d. No woman should die giving life. Facts
and Figures 1.
________.
2008. Adolescent sexuality. Available at
http://www.unfpa.org/intercenter/reprights/ self.htm;Internet; accessed 28
September 2008.
University
of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI) and the Demographic Research and
Development Foundation (DRDF).1994. Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality survey
2 (YAFSS 2).
________.
2002. Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality survey 2 (YAFSS 3).
Vatican
official website (for accessing Catholic social doctrine).
*
Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies), Raymond B.
Aguas (Department of Theology), Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology),
Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics), Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of
Philosophy), Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy), Elizabeth Uy Eviota
(Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Roberto O. Guevara (Department of
Theology), Anne Marie A. Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Michael
J. Liberatore (Department of Theology), Liza L. Lim (Department of
Sociology-Anthropology), Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology),
Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), and Agustin Martin G.
Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy)
***
RESPONSE
"House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development” has occasioned intense debate in the Philippines and was recently the subject of a position paper drafted by 14 members of the faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University. In their statement, these faculty members stated their belief that the bill adheres “to core principles of Catholic social teaching: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, integral human development, human rights, and the primacy of conscience.” They believe these conditions of Catholic social teaching are met in Bill 5043. We, the undersigned Catholic academics, assert, however, that these Ateneo faculty are gravely mistaken in their presentation of the Church’s teaching.
“In reply to the claim that reproductive rights, contraception and sterilization are required in order to help the poor limit their family size and thus aid the poor by reducing the numbers of mouths to feed, Humanae Vitae states: “Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question we must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.”
"Artificial contraception can never be accepted by the Church as an action in conformity with the dignity of the human person because “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” Further, it is never valid to argue, “as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, ” as the authors of the position paper seem to suggest. While applauding efforts in the bill to provide information on both artificial and natural forms of family planning, the position paper then asserts that provision of contraceptives as essential medicines and fully covered sterilizations for indigent patients are measures that promote quality of life. This statement directly contradicts Catholic teaching, which recognizes the use and promotion of artificial contraception and sterilization as intrinsically evil. Such actions can never be promoted or justified. “It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it – in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, or a family or of society in general. Consequently it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. ”
“The Church does not hold these positions to punish the poor, but rather because she recognizes that the poor have the same inviolable dignity and rights that all human persons share. What the poor need is not contraception and sterilization, but to experience authentic solidarity with those who, in responding to their innate dignity, work with the poor to enable them to develop their skills, improve their circumstances and cultivate lives that are marked by both interior and exterior freedom. This places a much more radical demand on those of us to whom much has been given (Luke 12:48); we must live and work with the poor in order to identify and enable the resources they require to live lives of authentic freedom.
“These statements of the Church and Magisterium have been retained in all subsequent documents and reiterated in documents too numerous to cite here. These few, but clear, passages make it abundantly clear that no Catholic can in good conscience support Bill 5043. This Bill violates the Church’s teachings in the gravest manner. ”Maternal and ObGyn health
“Finally, it must be emphasized that there are two sections in the bill that should be applauded and expanded. Both Section 6 and Section 7 call for the expansion of midwives and birth attendants, as well as greater access to obstetric care. Such measures are critical to reducing maternal mortality and making progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDG 5 (maternal health) and MDG 4 (infant health). Healthy mothers are the critical factor in assuring infant and child health.
"Unfortunately, these two sections are the weakest in the bill. Most of the reproductive health proposals of the bill are mandatory and supported through financial means, as well as through the creation of new government agencies to assure implementation. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill - and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching - has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee its implementation.
“A bill that responds to the situation of the poor requires us to respond to their full range of needs in order to facilitate integral improvement in their quality of life. This necessitates the creation of laws that guarantee the adoption of measures, at the national and local levels, that will lead to improved access to authentic development including the provision of basic health care and access to quality education. It is measures such as these that will enable the poor to develop and thrive, and that will affirm and respect the dignity of each and every human person. This bill stops short of assuring implementation of needed medical care, while emphasizing the adoption of measures that deny the dignity and freedom of the poor. As Catholics we have a moral duty to defend and support the poor; we must demand more from our legislators and from ourselves, placing ourselves at the service of poor, ready to commit to the necessary work, sacrifice and solidarity needed to establish and build societies that will respond to authentic needs while respecting the dignity and freedom of every human person.”
Signatories as of Nov 12, 2008
1. Prof Janet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, MI.
2. Robert G Kennedy, PhD
Professor and Chair
Department of Catholic Studies
Co-Director
Terrence J Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy
University of St Thomas
Mail #55-S
St Paul, MN 55105
3. Richard S. Myers
Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2550
4. Romanus Cessario, O.P.
Professor of Theology
Saint John's Seminary
Boston, Massachusetts
5. Rev. Joseph W. Koterski, S.J.
Department of Philosophy
Fordham University
Bronx, NY 10458 USA
6. Theresa Notare, PhD
Assistant Director
Natural Family Planning Program
Secretariat for Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th St., N.E.
Washington, DC 20017
7. Fr. Basil Cole, O.P.
Dominican House of Studies
487 Michigan Ave NE
Washington DC 20017
bbcole@dhs.edu
8. E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil.
Associate Professor of Moral Theology
Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary
Denver, Colorado 80210, USA
9. SC Selner-Wright, PhD
Acting Chair, Philosophy Department
Acting Director, Pre-Theology Cycle
St. John Vianney Theological Seminary
Denver, Colorado USA
10. Dr. Mary Healy
Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48206
11. Ångela Aparisi Miralles
Philosophy of Law Professor
Directora - Instituto de Derechos Humanos
Universidad de Navarra
12. Michael Rota
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
University of St. Thomas
St. Paul, MN
13. Michael Scaperlanda
Associate Dean for Research
Edwards Family Chair in Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law
14. Richard Stith J.D.(Yale), Ph.D.(Yale)
Professor of Law
Valparaiso University School of Law
656 South Greenwich St.
Valparaiso, IN 46383-4945
USA
15. Patrick Quirk
Associate Professor
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2550
16. Fr. Earl Muller, S.J.
Kevin M. Britt Chair in Theology/Christology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI, USA
17. Professor David Paton
Chair of Industrial Economics
Nottingham University Business School
Jubilee Campus
Wollaton Road
Nottingham NG8 1BB
United Kingdom
18. Dr. Eduardo J. Echeverria
Professor of Philosophy
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Blvd
Detroit, MI 48206
19. Jane Adolphe
Associate Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
Ann Arbor, Michigan
USA, 48105
20. Teresa S. Collett
Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas School of Law
MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015
21. David Braine,
Honorary Research Fellow,
Department of Philosophy,
University of Aberdeen, UK.
22. Dr. Helen Watt
Director
Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics
London
23. Ligia M. De Jesus
Assistant Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2550
USA
24. Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley
Professor of Law
Director, ADR & Conflict Resolution Program
Fordham Law School
140 W. 62nd Street
New York, New York 10023
25. William E.May
Michael J.McGivney Professor of Moral Theology
John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
Washington DC
26. Evelyn (Timmie) Birge Vitz
Professor of French, New York University
Affiliated Professor of Comparative Literature, Medieval
and Renaissance Studies, and Religious Studies
19 University Place, #623, New York, NY 10003
27. Mary M. Keys
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
USA
28. Mark E. Ginter, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Moral Theology
Saint Meinrad School of Theology
200 Hill Drive
St. Meinrad, IN 47577
29. Father Daniel J. Trapp
Professor of Sacramental Theology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48206
30. Maria Fedoryka
Philosophy Department of Ave Maria University
Ave Maria, FL.
31. Dr Dermot Grenham
Graduate Teaching Assistant
London School of Economics
London
32. Dr. Michael Pakaluk
Professor of Philosophy
Institute for the Psychological Sciences
Arlington, VA 22101
33. Timothy Flanigan MD
Professor of Medicine
Brown University Medical School
34. Gerard Bradley
School of Law
Notre Dame University
35. Adrian J. Reimers
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Philosophy
208 Malloy Hall
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
574-631-7384
36. Daniel Philpott
Associate Professor, Political Science and Joan B. Kroc Institute
for International Peace Studies
University of Notre Dame
37. Aneta Gawkowska
Assistant Professor, Sociology
University of Warsaw
38. Tom D’Andrea
Philosophy
Cambridge University
39. Peter Kreeft
Philosophy
Boston College
40. J. Budziszewski
Departments of Government and Philosophy
University of Texas at Austin
41. Habib Malik
Department of History, Lebanese American University
Beirut
42. Nicholas Eberstadt
Political Economy
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.
***
RESPONSE
AN INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESPONSE TO SOME ATENEO DE MANILA
PROFESSORS’ STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
AN INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESPONSE
TO SOME ATENEO DE MANILA PROFESSORS’ STATEMENT ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
‘THE PRO-RH FACULTY MEMBERS ARE GRAVELY MISTAKEN --- NO CATHOLIC CAN IN GOOD CONSCIENCE SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 5043.’
--- 42 theologians, philosophers, and professors of law, economics, demography, sociology, medicine and political science in 17 universities, six major seminaries and centers of theological studies, and one international think tank in the United States, Britain, Spain, Poland and the Middle East
OPEN LETTER
‘THE PRO-RH FACULTY MEMBERS ARE GRAVELY MISTAKEN --- NO CATHOLIC CAN IN GOOD CONSCIENCE SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 5043.’
--- 42 theologians, philosophers, and professors of law, economics, demography, sociology, medicine and political science in 17 universities, six major seminaries and centers of theological studies, and one international think tank in the United States, Britain, Spain, Poland and the Middle East
OPEN LETTER
"House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development” has occasioned intense debate in the Philippines and was recently the subject of a position paper drafted by 14 members of the faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University. In their statement, these faculty members stated their belief that the bill adheres “to core principles of Catholic social teaching: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, integral human development, human rights, and the primacy of conscience.” They believe these conditions of Catholic social teaching are met in Bill 5043. We, the undersigned Catholic academics, assert, however, that these Ateneo faculty are gravely mistaken in their presentation of the Church’s teaching.
"The primary reason for these Ateneo faculty members´ support of the bill
seems to stem from their deep commitment to the Church’s long-held
“preferential option for the poor.” Their position paper describes,
heart-wrenchingly, the situation of the poor in the Philippines. High maternal
mortality rates, inadequate and uneven provision of basic health care, lack of birth
attendants, and lack of reproductive health information: such situations place
an undue burden on the poor, and in particular on women. These women, like all
women, desire to determine the number and spacing of their children, and ensure
that proper nutrition, health care, and education can be provided for each
member of their families. As Catholics, we have a clear obligation to ensure
that all persons, particularly the poor, have the ability to exercise these
basic freedoms.
"As Catholic academics, we agree that we must support civic and
governmental initiatives that can aid the poor. Nevertheless, a Catholic cannot
support the Reproductive Health and Population Development bill in good
conscience, because the primary provisions of the bill not only fail to
recognize and support the dignity of the poor, but also stand in direct
opposition to Catholic social teaching. The bill focuses primarily on providing
services to curb the number of children of the poor, while doing little to
remedy their situation, provide necessary health care or establish the grounds
for sound economic development.
"A few citations will serve to show how clear and unambiguous is the
Church’s care for the dignity of the person, and in particular the poor, and
how critical it is for us to heed her teachings in addressing the circumstances
facing the Philippines today.
"Rerum Novarum opens with the powerful reminder that “Man precedes the
state” and for that reason should not be subject to the state’s regulation of
his private matters. Populorum Progressio reiterates this sentiment, stating:
"No solution . . . is acceptable which does violence to man's essential
dignity; those who propose such solutions base them on an utterly materialistic
conception of man himself and his life. The only possible solution to this
question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of
individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes
true human values."
"Perhaps no document speaks more powerfully in opposition to the main
ideas in this bill than Humanae Vitae: “Therefore we base our words on the
first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are
obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative
process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic
reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number
of children. Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has
affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of
the woman, whether permanent or temporary.”
“In reply to the claim that reproductive rights, contraception and sterilization are required in order to help the poor limit their family size and thus aid the poor by reducing the numbers of mouths to feed, Humanae Vitae states: “Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question we must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.”
"Artificial contraception can never be accepted by the Church as an action in conformity with the dignity of the human person because “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” Further, it is never valid to argue, “as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, ” as the authors of the position paper seem to suggest. While applauding efforts in the bill to provide information on both artificial and natural forms of family planning, the position paper then asserts that provision of contraceptives as essential medicines and fully covered sterilizations for indigent patients are measures that promote quality of life. This statement directly contradicts Catholic teaching, which recognizes the use and promotion of artificial contraception and sterilization as intrinsically evil. Such actions can never be promoted or justified. “It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it – in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, or a family or of society in general. Consequently it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. ”
“The Church does not hold these positions to punish the poor, but rather because she recognizes that the poor have the same inviolable dignity and rights that all human persons share. What the poor need is not contraception and sterilization, but to experience authentic solidarity with those who, in responding to their innate dignity, work with the poor to enable them to develop their skills, improve their circumstances and cultivate lives that are marked by both interior and exterior freedom. This places a much more radical demand on those of us to whom much has been given (Luke 12:48); we must live and work with the poor in order to identify and enable the resources they require to live lives of authentic freedom.
"Finally, Humanae Vitae warns us that "[c]areful consideration should
be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public
authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a
government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire
country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married
people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent
public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they
consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even
impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when
people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the
inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they
may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the
most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”
“These statements of the Church and Magisterium have been retained in all subsequent documents and reiterated in documents too numerous to cite here. These few, but clear, passages make it abundantly clear that no Catholic can in good conscience support Bill 5043. This Bill violates the Church’s teachings in the gravest manner. ”Maternal and ObGyn health
“Finally, it must be emphasized that there are two sections in the bill that should be applauded and expanded. Both Section 6 and Section 7 call for the expansion of midwives and birth attendants, as well as greater access to obstetric care. Such measures are critical to reducing maternal mortality and making progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDG 5 (maternal health) and MDG 4 (infant health). Healthy mothers are the critical factor in assuring infant and child health.
"Unfortunately, these two sections are the weakest in the bill. Most of the reproductive health proposals of the bill are mandatory and supported through financial means, as well as through the creation of new government agencies to assure implementation. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill - and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching - has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee its implementation.
“A bill that responds to the situation of the poor requires us to respond to their full range of needs in order to facilitate integral improvement in their quality of life. This necessitates the creation of laws that guarantee the adoption of measures, at the national and local levels, that will lead to improved access to authentic development including the provision of basic health care and access to quality education. It is measures such as these that will enable the poor to develop and thrive, and that will affirm and respect the dignity of each and every human person. This bill stops short of assuring implementation of needed medical care, while emphasizing the adoption of measures that deny the dignity and freedom of the poor. As Catholics we have a moral duty to defend and support the poor; we must demand more from our legislators and from ourselves, placing ourselves at the service of poor, ready to commit to the necessary work, sacrifice and solidarity needed to establish and build societies that will respond to authentic needs while respecting the dignity and freedom of every human person.”
Signatories as of Nov 12, 2008
1. Prof Janet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, MI.
2. Robert G Kennedy, PhD
Professor and Chair
Department of Catholic Studies
Co-Director
Terrence J Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy
University of St Thomas
Mail #55-S
St Paul, MN 55105
3. Richard S. Myers
Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2550
4. Romanus Cessario, O.P.
Professor of Theology
Saint John's Seminary
Boston, Massachusetts
5. Rev. Joseph W. Koterski, S.J.
Department of Philosophy
Fordham University
Bronx, NY 10458 USA
6. Theresa Notare, PhD
Assistant Director
Natural Family Planning Program
Secretariat for Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211 4th St., N.E.
Washington, DC 20017
7. Fr. Basil Cole, O.P.
Dominican House of Studies
487 Michigan Ave NE
Washington DC 20017
bbcole@dhs.edu
8. E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil.
Associate Professor of Moral Theology
Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary
Denver, Colorado 80210, USA
9. SC Selner-Wright, PhD
Acting Chair, Philosophy Department
Acting Director, Pre-Theology Cycle
St. John Vianney Theological Seminary
Denver, Colorado USA
10. Dr. Mary Healy
Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48206
11. Ångela Aparisi Miralles
Philosophy of Law Professor
Directora - Instituto de Derechos Humanos
Universidad de Navarra
12. Michael Rota
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
University of St. Thomas
St. Paul, MN
13. Michael Scaperlanda
Associate Dean for Research
Edwards Family Chair in Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law
14. Richard Stith J.D.(Yale), Ph.D.(Yale)
Professor of Law
Valparaiso University School of Law
656 South Greenwich St.
Valparaiso, IN 46383-4945
USA
15. Patrick Quirk
Associate Professor
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2550
16. Fr. Earl Muller, S.J.
Kevin M. Britt Chair in Theology/Christology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI, USA
17. Professor David Paton
Chair of Industrial Economics
Nottingham University Business School
Jubilee Campus
Wollaton Road
Nottingham NG8 1BB
United Kingdom
18. Dr. Eduardo J. Echeverria
Professor of Philosophy
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Blvd
Detroit, MI 48206
19. Jane Adolphe
Associate Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
Ann Arbor, Michigan
USA, 48105
20. Teresa S. Collett
Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas School of Law
MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015
21. David Braine,
Honorary Research Fellow,
Department of Philosophy,
University of Aberdeen, UK.
22. Dr. Helen Watt
Director
Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics
London
23. Ligia M. De Jesus
Assistant Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2550
USA
24. Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley
Professor of Law
Director, ADR & Conflict Resolution Program
Fordham Law School
140 W. 62nd Street
New York, New York 10023
25. William E.May
Michael J.McGivney Professor of Moral Theology
John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
Washington DC
26. Evelyn (Timmie) Birge Vitz
Professor of French, New York University
Affiliated Professor of Comparative Literature, Medieval
and Renaissance Studies, and Religious Studies
19 University Place, #623, New York, NY 10003
27. Mary M. Keys
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
USA
28. Mark E. Ginter, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Moral Theology
Saint Meinrad School of Theology
200 Hill Drive
St. Meinrad, IN 47577
29. Father Daniel J. Trapp
Professor of Sacramental Theology
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
2701 Chicago Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48206
30. Maria Fedoryka
Philosophy Department of Ave Maria University
Ave Maria, FL.
31. Dr Dermot Grenham
Graduate Teaching Assistant
London School of Economics
London
32. Dr. Michael Pakaluk
Professor of Philosophy
Institute for the Psychological Sciences
Arlington, VA 22101
33. Timothy Flanigan MD
Professor of Medicine
Brown University Medical School
34. Gerard Bradley
School of Law
Notre Dame University
35. Adrian J. Reimers
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Philosophy
208 Malloy Hall
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
574-631-7384
36. Daniel Philpott
Associate Professor, Political Science and Joan B. Kroc Institute
for International Peace Studies
University of Notre Dame
37. Aneta Gawkowska
Assistant Professor, Sociology
University of Warsaw
38. Tom D’Andrea
Philosophy
Cambridge University
39. Peter Kreeft
Philosophy
Boston College
40. J. Budziszewski
Departments of Government and Philosophy
University of Texas at Austin
41. Habib Malik
Department of History, Lebanese American University
Beirut
42. Nicholas Eberstadt
Political Economy
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment