TO ENCOURAGE dialogue—not conflict—is the reason why 14 faculty members in the Ateneo, a Jesuit and Catholic University, said that “Catholics can support the RH [Reproductive Health] Bill in good conscience.”
The faculty members released an October 15 position paper of the above title, stating that the RH Bill “adheres to core principles of Catholic social teaching.”
Almost instantly, the position paper sparked a debate on campus. Eight days after the position paper’s release, October 23, the school administration released a memo clarifying the school’s stand on the issue.
“Although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching, which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold,” the statement said.
On October 27, a letter by Ateneo alumni Paul Christopher Cheng (AB Eco-H ‘08), Varsolo Sunio (BS Ps-CE ‘07), and Gino Antonio Trinidad (AB-MA PoS ‘08) addressed to the Ateneo community, titled “Catholics Cannot Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience,” was released through email.
“The Church cannot alter the truth about the sanctity of life and the sexual faculty to provide a ready answer to our social dilemma,” the letter said.
“Ethical, moral issue”
Led by Theology Department Assistant Professor Raymond Aguas, Ph.D., the faculty members’ position paper contained research-based empirical evidence and outlined reasons why the RH Bill must be passed in Congress.
Among the points the 16-page position paper raised were the large number of women having abortions, the situation of the poor in the Philippines, and the lack of education for the youth, some of whom engage in premarital sex.
The paper stated that the opinions expressed are only those of the individual authors, and do not stand for other faculty members, or the University as a whole.
The three alumni, on the other hand, said that “the regulation of birth has been resolved in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.” They added that the debate on the RH Bill is not simply a matter of demographics, economics, or sociology, but is also an ethical and moral issue.
The Ateneo stand
On October 22, Manila Standard Today bannered a story titled “Ateneo profs defy bishops, back family planning bill.”
This prompted University President Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, SJ to release, on October 23, a memo responding to a request of clarification of the Ateneo’s stand from Most Rev. Angel Lagdameo, DD, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).
The memo, which serves as the Ateneo’s statement on the bill, said “the faculty members clearly state that they are not speaking for the Ateneo de Manila and that this is their personal position.”
It also said that the Ateneo “stands with the [CBCP] and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus” with regard to the passage of the RH Bill.
The statement indicated that “it is responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity.”
Nebres noted at the end of the memo that the Ateneo encourages and supports more critical studies and discussions regarding the RH Bill.
Meant for dialogue
Aguas also clarified that the faculty members’ paper was meant for dialogue. “[More than the Humanae Vitae position], there are other Church teachings; we have the poor, we need to be concerned about health, all these other factors,” he said.
“We’re not in any way seeking to undermine Church leaders; we are looking at the situation of the Philippines, especially with the underprivileged,” Aguas said.
Sociology and Anthropology Lecturer Czarina Medina agreed. “People have to start talking about the RH Bill and find ways to negotiate across the different frames of thought that emerges from the church, the social aspects.”
Medina was among the 65 other faculty members who signed a declaration in favor of the RH Bill and the position paper on October 27.
Meanwhile, Trinidad hopes their letter, like the 14 faculty members’ and Nebres’ statements, “will not only lead the way to a more engaging conversation concerning this hotly debated topic, but also—and I think more importantly—better form and inform the minds and hearts of the people concerning the Reproductive Health Bill.”
Still debatable
Before the memo was released, Nebres and several other Jesuits met with the 14 faculty members in a dialogue.
“They [the Jesuits] certainly recognize our rights as individuals acting from conscience and from our own intellect to come up with our own position,” Aguas said. “We have a right to say this, but there are certain provisions in the bill that, in its present form, they [the Jesuits] cannot present.”
Some faculty members of the Ateneo also do not stand for, or against the RH Bill. Among them is Economics Associate Professor Luis Dumlao, Ph.D., who did not sign the declaration supporting the 14 faculty members’ position paper.
In his essay “Why the ‘population debate’ will continue to be a debate” in the October 27 issue of Business World, he said that “the claim that population control policy is needed for development” is still debatable. He argued his point using economic theories, evidence, and policy sense.
The GUIDON tried to find faculty members who opposed the RH Bill, but they refused to comment, or were unavailable for interviews as of press time.
