Peaceful Revolt Against Roman Absolutism

I found this article on Hans Kung's call to all Catholics for a peaceful revolution against the absolutism of the papal power published in National Catholic Reporter. Hans Kung has been a consistent critic of the Vatican's conservative bloc. The conservative bloc, with Pope Benedict XVI as its prominent leader, controlled the Vatican's Roman Curia, and responsible in appointing conservative bishops in the local churches, and in silencing Church theologians who are perceived as reformists. Formed as the restoration movement in the Church today, they do not only derail the full implementation of the Vatican II but want to reform the Vatican II reformation. With the absolute power of the Pope, the reforms of Vatican II will be set aside and the restoration efforts of the conservative bloc are now on-going. Thus, Hans Kung urges all Catholics to be vigilant to protect the fruits of Vatican II and launches a peaceful revolution against Roman absolutism. This article is a good read. I included below the full video interview and its transcript "What Went Wrong With Catholic Church?" of Hans Kung by Anthony Padovado. Plus, the earlier video interview of Hans Kung titled "Catholicism Heading Back to Middle-Ages". Kudos.

Hans Kung urges peaceful revolution 
against Roman absolutism

'few people realize how powerful the pope is,' Kung said

By Jerry Filteau

Jun. 11, 2011

DETROIT -- Famed theologian Fr. Hans Kung has called for a “peaceful” revolution by world Catholics against the absolutism of papal power.

Hans Kung's Letter to the Bishops

I reproduce here the letter of Theologian Hans Küng to all Catholic Bishops. The open letter was first published in the Independent Catholic News last April 29, 2010 and republished on May 4, 2010. I also included his previous interview conducted by Laura Sheahen and published in Beliefnet last February 2004.

Venerable Bishops,

Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and I were the youngest theologians at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Now we are the oldest and the only ones still fully active. I have always understood my theological work as a service to the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI, I am making this appeal to you in an open letter. In doing so, I am motivated by my profound concern for our church, which now finds itself in the worst credibility crisis since the Reformation. Please excuse the form of an open letter; unfortunately, I have no other way of reaching you.

I deeply appreciated that the pope invited me, his outspoken critic, to meet for a friendly, four-hour-long conversation shortly after he took office. This awakened in me the hope that my former colleague at Tubingen University might find his way to promote an ongoing renewal of the church and an ecumenical rapprochement in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

Mother Teresa and Mother Church: Two Faces of Love

tgm_erick,

Friend, here's an anecdote about the encounter of a poor cancer patient and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.  

HER SMILE REACHES OUT...

                                           to the suffering poor 

At the home for the dying which the Missionaries of Charity have in Calcutta there was a man who had cancer, his body half-consumed by the sickness. Everyone had abandoned him as a hopeless case. Mother Teresa came near him to wash him tenderly. She encountered, at first, only the sick man’s disdain.

“How can you stand my body’s stench?” he asked.

The Primacy of Conscience in Catholic Theology

Salient points in Senator Santiago’s

 “The Primacy of Conscience in Catholic Theology”
By Joaquin Salvador

(Part 1)

Imagine, Senator Miriam Santiago joined the plenary assembly of the Catholic Bishops' Conference in the Philippines (CBCP) and confronted the bishops with their own teachings, arguing the primacy of conscience in Catholic theology. Who among the bishops would stand up to rebut her?

In this article I will be pondering on some salient points in Senator Miriam Santiago’s co-sponsorship speech on RH Bill, part 1: “The primacy of conscience in Catholic theology.”

I.          Defining the field.

Senator Santiago told us about the status of the bill pending before the Senate with a strong opposition from the Catholic church and asked us to consider the following facts:

Some comments on CBCP Pastoral Letter on RH Bill

In its pastoral letter on Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill) dated 30 January 2011, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) strongly rejected the RH Bill because it is an anti-life bill.

The bishops made their message clear to the Filipino people, particularly those who supported the bill and the policy makers in Congress “what they object to and what they stand for” as reflected in their pastoral letter’s title “Choosing Life, Rejecting RH Bill.”

Interestingly, the bishops did not start its pastoral reflection on the life-situation of the Filipino people, particularly the direct beneficiaries of this bill, the poor women and their children and families. Should it start with the death-dealing situation of the poor women and their children and families, the moral principles used by the bishops will be shaped by the harsh reality of maternal death and suffering of the poor women. If and when these moral principles become a hindrance to protect life, and promote quality life, of the poor, the prophetic stance would be to judge the situation in favor of the poor. In doing so, the bishops are doing option for the poor.

CBCP on RH Bill

 [Note: Please refer to the original article. Thanks. --jsalvador]

CHOOSING LIFE, REJECTING THE RH BILL

(A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines)

Our Filipino Brothers and Sisters:

The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Section 11). The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Art. II, Section 12).

Background

We begin by citing the Philippine Constitution. We do so because we intend to write you on the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people and not on the basis of specifically Catholic religious teachings.

We are at a crossroads as a nation. Before us are several versions of a proposed bill, the Reproductive Health bill or sanitized as a Responsible Parenthood bill. This proposed bill in all its versions calls us to make a moral choice: to choose life or to choose death.

At the outset we thank the government for affording us an opportunity to express our views in friendly dialogue. Sadly our dialogue has simply revealed how far apart our respective positions are. Therefore, instead of building false hopes, we wish at the present time to draw up clearly what we object to and what we stand for.

Moral Choices at the Crossroads -- at EDSA I and Now

Twenty five years ago in 1986 we Catholic Bishops made a prophetic moral judgment on political leadership. With this prophetic declaration we believe that we somehow significantly helped open the door for EDSA I and a window of political integrity.

Today we come to a new national crossroads and we now have to make a similar moral choice. Our President rallied the country with the election cry, “Kung walang corrupt walang mahirap.” As religious leaders we believe that there is a greater form of corruption, namely, moral corruption which s really the root of all corruption. On the present issue, it would be morally corrupt to disregard the moral implications of the RH bill.

This is our unanimous collective moral judgment: We strongly reject the RH bill.

Commonly Shared Human and Cultural Values – Two Fundamental Principles

Far from being simply a Catholic issue, the RH bill is a major attack on authentic human values and on Filipino cultural values regarding human life that all of us have cherished since time immemorial.

Simply stated the RH Bill does not respect moral sense that is central to Filipino cultures. It is the product of the spirit of this world, a secularist, materialistic spirit that considers morality as a set of teachings from which one can choose, according to the spirit of the age. Some it accepts, others it does not accept. Unfortunately, we see the subtle spread of this post-modern spirit in our own Filipino society.

Our position stands firmly on two of the core principles commonly shared by all who believe in God: 

(1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.

(2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator.

What We Specifically Object to in the RH Bill

Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes reproductive health. The RH Bill certainly does not. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists have known for a long time that contraceptives may cause cancer. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health.

Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion rates. But many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of contraceptive failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as sinful. “Safe sex” to diminish abortion rate is false propaganda.

Advocates moreover say that the RH bill will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This goes against the grain of many available scientific data. In some countries where condom use is prevalent, HIV/ AIDS continues to spread. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda.

Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers women with ownership of their own bodies. This is in line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women have power over their own bodies without the dictation of any religion. How misguided this so-called “new truth” is! For, indeed, as created by God our bodies are given to us to keep and nourish. We are stewards of our own bodies and we must follow God’s will on this matter according to an informed and right conscience. Such a conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life.  

Advocates also say that the RH bill is necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape from poverty. Our own government statistical office has concluded that there is no overpopulation in the Philippines but only the over-concentration of population in a number of urban centers. Despite other findings to the contrary, we must also consider the findings of a significant group of renowned economic scholars, including economic Nobel laureates, who have found no direct correlation between population and poverty. In fact, many Filipino scholars have concluded that population is not the cause of our poverty. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc. World organizations estimate that in our country more than P400 billion pesos are lost yearly to corruption. The conclusion is unavoidable: for our country to escape from poverty, we have to address the real causes of poverty and not population.

In the light of the above, we express our clear objections:

1. We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good.

2. We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills.

3. We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill.

4. We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill towards population control.

5. We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization.

6. We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God.

What We Stand For

On this matter of proposed RH bills, these are our firm convictions:

1. We are deeply concerned about the plight of the many poor, especially of suffering women, who are struggling for a better life and who must seek it outside of our country, or have recourse to a livelihood less than decent.

2. We are pro-life. We must defend human life from the moment of conception or fertilization up to its natural end.

3. We believe in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning for which character building is necessary which involves sacrifice, discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse.

4. We believe that we are only stewards of our own bodies. Responsibility over our own bodies must follow the will of God who speaks to us through conscience.

5. We hold that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of one’s faith.

6. We believe in the freedom of religion and the right of conscientious objection in matters that are contrary to one’s faith. The sanctions and penalties embodied in the proposed RH bill are one more reason for us to denounce it.

Our Calls

As religious leaders we have deeply and prayerfully reflected on this burning issue. We have unanimously made the moral judgment – to reject the RH agenda and to choose life.

1. We call for a fundamental transformation of our attitudes and behavior towards all human life especially the most defenseless, namely, human life being formed or being conceived. The cheapness with which many seem to consider human life is a great bane to our religious-oriented nation.

2. We call upon our legislators to consider the RH bill in the light of the God-given dignity and worth of human life and, therefore, to shelve it completely as contrary to our ideals and aspirations as a people. We thank our legislators who have filed bills to defend human life from the moment of conception and call upon all other legislators to join their ranks.

3. We thank the great multitude of lay people all over the country, and particularly the dedicated groups who made their presence felt in the halls of Congress, to defend and promote our position. We call upon other lay people and adherents of other religions to join the advocacy to defend and promote our commonly shared ideals and aspirations.

4. We call on our government to address effectively the real causes of poverty such as corruption, lack of social and economic services, lack of access to education and the benefits of development, social inequities.

5. We call for the establishment of more hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, the deployment of more health personnel to provide more access to health services, the building of more schools, the provision of more aid to the poor for education, and the building of more and better infrastructures necessary for development.

6. We echo the challenge we prophetically uttered 25 years ago at EDSA I and call upon all people of good will who share our conviction: “…let us pray together, reason together, decide together, act together, always to the end that the truth prevail” over the many threats to human life and to our shared human and cultural values.

We commend our efforts against the RH bill (or the Responsible Parenthood bill – its new name) to the blessing of our almighty and loving God, from whom all life comes and for whom it is destined.  

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

+NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, D.D.

Bishop of Tandag

President, CBCP

January 30, 2011

The conversation between Jesus Christ and Karl Marx

When I tell people that I am an agnostic, they don’t believe me. Well, I cannot entirely fault them because deep in my heart I have a passion for God. More precisely, I have the passion to be with God who loves mankind, especially the poor and the oppressed, the sinners and the unbelievers.  

Not so many years ago, I bought a book (on sale!) from St. Paul’s religious store titled “The Range of Faith: Basic Questions for a Living Theology” (1986) by a Redemptorist theologian Father Tony Kelley. What caught my attention was the brief description of the book which says, ”The essays in this book investigate a whole range of issues facing the believer today.” This must be a good book for me as a seeker of God in the modern world. In the foreword, Father Kelley wrote: “The great theologians of South America have reminded us forcefully that the expression of faith is most genuine when it is intent in promoting human freedom and resisting everything that does violence to our humanity.”

Father Kelley is a frequent lecturer in the Philippines and surely, as a Redemptorist, he met a lot of our poor brothers and sisters wallowing in misery and deprivation. But what is more interesting is his concept of “free-thinking”. He explained that it is in a sense of “freedom-promoting” theology for "an essential liberation for faith is one of mind”.  He further explained that “we believers must be freed to express our faith in a wonderful and inspiring way, even as the familiar evils of our age all but overwhelms us.” The implication of this mental attitude is “being free to enter into a conversation with all men and women of good will who are searching and struggling for hope.”

One chapter in his book intrigues me, “The great conversation between Jesus Christ and Karl Marx” which he reflected on the Vatican’s Instruction on Certain Aspects of Liberation Theology (1984). At that time, you will read in major newspapers that Liberation theology was condemned by Vatican. But it was not the case. Father Kelley observed, “what we are witnessing today, in this convulsed era of the world, is a conversation taking place in the presence of two of the great classic figures of our civilization” – Jesus of Nazareth and Karl Marx.

The first speaker said, “Truly, I say to you, as often as you did it to one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it to me.” (Mt 25:31-46) Reflecting on this biblical text, Father Kelley exclaimed: “The ‘least’ with whom he is so identified, are the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the prisoner. The God whom he involved and invoked in his tragic career was the God of the forsaken and the powerless.” Jesus of Nazareth “showed the face of God who was really intent on human freedom, willing the healing of all human ills, calling forth hope. His witnessing to such a God resulted in his public execution. At very least, he was a prophet of hope and a martyr of the forsaken and the outcast.” Those who follow Jesus of Nazareth are forced to ask “who is my real God?” and get involved to take side with the “least of his brethren.”

The second speaker “embodied and endlessly expressing one powerful, original insight: so much of human suffering is caused by the economic structures that, by favouring the privileged few, degrade and exploit the many.” Karl Marx “diagnosed the mass poverty of his time as an instance of capitalist greed living from the creative and unrewarded energies of the toiling masses of humanity. Such a pattern of exploitation fabricated its own self-justification, pressing the compliant religion into its service. As long as God offered a reward in another life, the mass of mankind would accept its dispossession in this life. His solution was to change the system. His method was to inspire the freedom of the dispossessed as a world-shaping force. With such new energies unleashed, society would be turned upside down, and justice would result.”

Sadly, Marx rejected Jesus who became the possession of the capitalist religion. By rejecting the captivated Jesus in the capitalist religion, Marx, unwittingly, brought back to life Jesus of Nazareth who proclaimed the Kingdom of God as liberation of mankind from all forms of oppression. Marx has no room for Jesus. But how about Jesus, living in the reality of those who follow him, is there a room for Marx? For Father Kelley, both the crucified Jesus and the revolutionary Marx “still speak to the millions who, even in their suffering, sense the presence of a new freedom and the stirring of new hope.”

Liberation theology, for Father Kelly, conducts its conversation along seven lines:

(1)        Self-determination. The growing awareness of humanity to its capacity to re-structure social, political and economic order is a powerful force of liberation. “The human world is a self-determining reality, no longer a regular order or a blind fate that simply occurs or is imposed,” observed Father Kelley. “Liberation theology is a modern style of thinking inasmuch as it grasped that the social and economic order are the result of choice, and that human freedom is truly human only when it is liberated to participate in the formation of the conditions that govern human life.”

(2)        The political nature of freedom. Father Kelley affirmed the importance of being involved in politics. “Not to be ‘political’ is a political decision to ratify the status quo. The only choice one has, is either to be politically critical or naïve about the reality of social life.” The implication to the Church is clear: “to refuse a political stance on human rights is simply to ratify the politics of those who degrade or oppress human beings.” For Father Kelley, “liberation theology attempts to liberate the Church for constructive political involvement.”

(3)        Praxis. Father Kelley described praxis is simple term “we know the truth by doing it.” Christian truth, in the judgment of liberation theology, is meant to be lived, to be acted, to have a life-transforming effect. It must promote human freedom and give hope to suffering human beings.

(4)        The dangerous memory of Jesus. While classical theology uses metaphysical and abstract notion about Christ, like human and divine nature, hypostatic union, liberation theology reclaims Jesus of Nazareth, who proclaimed God’s kingdom to the poor, who proved himself a partisan of the poor and the outcast. Father Kelley noted that Christian belief, being influenced by the historical figure of Jesus, “has much more of a social and political ‘bite’ to it.

(5)        History from the underside. The dangerous memory of Jesus “provokes a more compassionate reading of the history of one’s society and one’s world.” Father Kelley argued that “the surest knowledge of the real state of one’s society is revealed by listening to those who are most powerless and most forgotten.” For liberation theology, “it is the poor who teach theology about what the world is really like and where God is to be found.”

(6)        Social analysis. Father Kelley wrote: “The way the voiceless and powerless feel about reality calls forth a hard-headed look at the society. Here the issue of the use of Marxist categories of analysis has become controversial. If big business or rich landowners control the natural resources, the industrial power and the media of a country, it is hardly surprising that Marxist terms most easily identify the structure of the problem – how the resources became so concentrated in the hands of the few, how ideology functions to maintain this position, how it can be challenged.” He continued, “if such a use of Marxism makes people like atheists at this point, it might be because they are rejecting the false god of the powerful and the rich.”

(7)        Context. “Liberation theology,” Father Kelley explained, “was never meant to be a truth in the head, but the truth lived with and for others… the central value of liberation theology will, I am sure, enter into all theological reflection” because “thinking about God without an involved commitment to your neighbor is an illusion. The real God makes for community and freedom.” This is precisely the importance of context in living out our Christian life.

Of course, I can find a much deeper reflection from the liberation theologians concerning option for the poor but it is surprising and refreshing to find an abandoned book in the Christian religious bookstore with a radical message.

Where is the poor in the Church-RH Bill Discourse?

The most radical in this new way of being Church, as Church of the Poor, is how the Church, the hierarchy and the laity, looks at the poor as evangelized and evangelizers. The Church will not only evangelize the poor but the poor in the Church will themselves become evangelizers. Pastors and leaders will learn to be with, work with, and learn from the poor.

How can the poor evangelize the Church? The most radical and effective way for the poor to evangelize the Church is through the misery and poverty of their lives. Their life-situation, as a glaring reality of sin, of dehumanization and injustice, of anti-life, of anti-Kingdom, invites the Church to witness the Gospel. The Church cannot be indifferent in the face of this dehumanizing misery and poverty. The Church must do something to help the poor to liberate themselves from this dehumanizing condition.

If its law hinders the Church to be of service to the poor, the Church must give primacy to the well-being of the poor. The interpretation and application of the moral law which does not alleviate the misery of the poor is not good news of the poor. Jesus said: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." An authentic law liberates the human persons from all forms of oppression and exploitation.

In her article, “Do mothers matter?,” Ms Rina David described the miserable situations of mothers today. Among others, she said that about 11-12 mothers died every day due to poor reproductive health services; these are pregnancy- and childbirth-related causes of maternal death. This reality of the maternal death is itself the message of the poor that the reality of sin and anti-life is present. The Church cannot be indifferent and morally obliged to do something to prevent and destroy it. The RH Bill provides a legislated solution to the problem, thereby making safe and affordable reproductive health services and responsible parenthood formation programs accessible to the poorest of the poor. In conscience, the Church must endorse RH Bill at all cost.

Pope John Paul II said to the shanty dwellers in Brazil, "Do not say that it is God's will that you remain in a condition of poverty, disease, unhealthy housing, that is contrary in many ways to your dignity as human persons. Do not say 'It is God who wills it."

Today, more than ever, the prophetic voice of Pope John II is not simply addressed to the poor women and children who are deprived of access to cheaper reproductive health care, but to the Catholic Church in the Philippines to revisit its doctrine and practices from the perspective of the suffering poor women and children. For the Church to be truly a Church of the Poor, it must support the RH Bill and help in making it truly responsive to the needs of the poor and the oppressed. If certain contraceptives are proven as abortifacients, then by all means take them out of the market.

 [Note: This article was a response in the INQ.net - Disqus thread. jsalvador]

Church and Power

The hierarchy and power 

The Church is hierarchically structured society in which the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power. The power structure of the Church is centralized in the authority of the Pope in the global church and the bishops in the local churches. It is also known as the perfect society of the saved. Vatican II in Lumen Gentium looks at the Church as a society, an ecclesiology almost exactly the same as formulated in the Council of Trent and Vatican I, stated: "The Church is not part nor member of any other society. It is so perfect in itself that it is distinct from all human societies and stands far above them." It further said, "the Church of Christ is not a community of equals in which all the faithful have the same rights. It is a society of unequals... whereby to some it is given to sanctify, teach, and govern, and to others, not." The conservative group maneuvered to incorporate it in the Vatican II's vision of the Church. And the Church today is moving towards that direction; it is asserting its old prestige and power as Mother and Teacher of the world.

Decentralization of power 

Decentralization of power is upheld by Vatican II and PCP-II in the image of servanthood. Instead of domination, service. The Pope himself is the Servant of the Servants of God, a title used by Pope Gregory the Great (pope from 590 to 604 CE). Bishops were seen as advocate and provider of the poor. The Council of Macon in 585 CE declared that the bishop's house was the house of the poor. "Bishops were forbidden to go out with a pack of hounds, in case these bit poor people and so prevented them free access to the person of the Bishop." Even the controversial pope in this artificial contraception debate, made a historical gesture in making the Papacy in the service to the poor, Pope Paul VI laid his tiara on the altar at the end of the Eucharist. In the Philippines, we have a few Bihops who are truly friends of the poor, prominent are Bishop Julio Labayen, Bishop Francisco Claver, Bishop Bienvenido Tudtud, Bishop Arturo Bastes, and many unnamed advocates and providers of the poor.

The ethic of participation is central in the messages of Vatican II and PCP-II. Greater participation of the lay people in the life and mission of the Church is a sign of hope but, unfortunately, the hierarchy is not ready for the decentralization of power in the Church.

The MSPC experience

One sad experience in the history of the Church was the leadership conflict between the bishops and MSPC board and MSPC secretariat in the Mindanao-Sulu Pastoral Conferences. Father Picardal observes, "The nature of the conflict was complicated for it involved ecclesiological, organizational and ideological issues.... The bishops felt that the secretariat and the board were functioning as decision-making bodies and that they were operating under the ecclesiology of a people's Church...On the other hand, the secretariat and board believed that the bishops were uneasy about the growing lay participation in the decision-making process since they could no longer exercise absolute authority and control over the MSPC." It should be noted that some members of the MSPC secretariat and board were suspected being linked with NDF and CPP. But the core issue was about power --control and dominion. Most Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs), concrete way of being Church of the Poor, are neglected by the parish priests precisely with the same reason, among others, authority and control amidst growing participation of the lay people in the decision-making process.

Time changed but the Christendon model is very much operative in our modern world. In fact, in a pluralist society like ours, the Church struggles to exercise absolute authority in the matters of morality. The Church of the Poor is more dialogical and communicative in the modern pluralist society. The Church hierarchy must wake up.

[Note: This article was a response in the INQ.net - Disqus thread. jsalvador]

Church of the Poor and RH Bill: Some thoughts

The RH Bill protects life. It promotes quality life of the poorest of the poor, particularly the women and the children. Thus, I am a pro-RH Bill.

Let me share with you my reflection on the Church and the poor. If the Church is serious about its vision of the Church of the Poor, then its moral reflection on artificial birth control and the use of contraceptives as defined by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae must be viewed from the perspective of the poor women and children deprived from safe and affordable reproductive health care and family life education program for responsible parenthood.

A note to Humanae Vitae

Pope Paul VI, if you recall, rejected the majority report of the papal commission (special commission to study birth control and population by Pope John XXIII) which proposed a radical stand by allowing the use of the contraceptives among Catholic couples. In so doing, Pope Paul VI adopted the minority report and upheld the old teaching prohibiting the use of contraceptives. This act of the Pope was controversial and many theologians around the world criticized the traditional teaching of the Humanae Vitae. For them, the teaching of Humanae Vitae is not infallible and can be changed to address the alarming global social problems like women's reproductive health, AIDS and others.