For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has held great power in Philippine society. Its influence perhaps took root in the clergymen’s role as government actors during the Spanish era, and it has been influential ever since. Over time, the Church has come to have a strong foothold in the hearts and minds—and souls—of the Filipino people.
Despite its strong grip, it has faced controversy recently due to its questionable role in State affairs. History reminds us, too, that the local Church has already faced controversy when it opposed the mandatory teaching of Rizal courses in Philippine schools.
Today, the Church remains a vibrant national participant: it has campaigned against foreign mining and jueteng and has stood behind peasants in their fight for land. However, the Church’s stand on one specific issue has caused great uproar among lay people and clergymen alike. For, armed with its dogmas and encyclicals, the Church will not budge: the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill must be defeated to legislative oblivion.
The problem of poverty
A cursory reading of Albay Representative Edcel Lagman’s version of the Reproductive Health Bill—House Bill 96, arguably the most famous of the six RH Bills filed—would clarify the purported benefits of the measure; the bill provides for policies on informed family planning, hospital care, and mandatory sex education for the youth.
For so long, local politicians have advocated such policies because they are partly seen as panacea to the financial hardships endured by large, marginalized families. The bill, fashioned as anti-poverty, is also geared towards empowering women and widening their access to maternal health care.
Moreover, the RH Bill seeks to address overpopulation. It is notable that one of the government agencies tasked to fulfill the bill’s provisions is the Population Commission (PopCom).
Provisions and opposition
Still, even with the bill’s arguably noble intentions, two provisions on the promotion of artificial contraceptives and mandatory sex education remain controversial.
A major concern of religious groups regarding artificial contraceptives is that this would pave the way for abortion. The Constitution, however, firmly upholds the State’s obligation to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception. In effect, any abortion-permissive provision in the bill would be deemed unconstitutional.
As for mandatory sex education, critics have also noted a possible infringement on parents’ right to educate their children, also guaranteed by the constitution.
Word from the pulpit
Despite unprecedented support for the RH Bill, the Church remains firm on its stand. Until now, influential local bishops have been very vocal in their criticism. They are troubled by Sections 9 and 10 of the bill, which explicitly allow the use of artificial contraceptives.
“[The Church] wants that when a couple has the [sexual] act, it should be open to life,” says retired Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, “because if you close it [to life]… you exercise the right [to the sexual act], but refuse the obligation. Right and obligation go together.”
The Church also insists that some contraceptives permitted by the RH Bill are abortive, such as intrauterine devices—objects placed in the uterus that causes the endometrium in the vagina to reject any fertilized egg.
“The World Health Organization’s… definition of reproductive health automatically includes abortion,” says Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International, a conservative think tank. “[The bill] may not say abortion in it, but the widely international meaning is abortion.”
Economics, demographics
One of the more practical goals of the bill is to ease economic difficulties. In fact, the bill seeks to uplift the living conditions of big, impoverished families, and keep a family’s growth to a manageable size.
This rationale for passing the bill is erroneous for Fr. Melvin Castro, the executive secretary of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. For him, overpopulation is not the main issue, but rather the lack of jobs, poor education, and other socio-economic concerns.
“We are not poor because we are many,” he says. “We are many because there is poverty.”
A mixed basket
Despite the Church’s unyielding stance, an overwhelming bulk of the country’s Catholic majority disagree with its bishops. In fact, according to an October 2010 Pulse Asia survey, 69% of Filipinos agree with the RH Bill.
In the Ateneo, the bill has always had huge support. Two years ago, much fanfare surrounded the pro-RH Bill position paper issued by 14 Loyola Schools faculty members, including three from the Theology Department. A few days later, 66 more faculty members issued a written statement of support.
The 14 professors who co-signed the paper argued why they believe Catholics “can support the RH Bill in good conscience.” However, Fr. Adolfo N. Dacanay, SJ., Theology Department chairperson, is not a signatory. He does not have a definite stance.
Dacanay believes that there are some good things in the bill, such as hospital care provided for birth-giving mothers and stricter control on contraceptives as a result of their proposed classification as essential medicines. Still, there are also other provisions that he disapproves of.
“Some of the contraceptives are actually abortive,” he says. “[But] a big part of my objection is sex education… to be supervised by the PopCom. Why in the world would sex education be supervised by the PopCom?”
Dacanay is concerned that the focus of mandatory sex education might actually be population control and not sex education.
Nevertheless, Dacanay is not as dismissive of the bill as the Church establishment. “It’s difficult to say that we should reject it because there are good things about it,” he says, “but it is also difficult to say ‘let’s support it’ because there are some undesirable [provisions].”
A complex situation
In the Ateneo, a considerable number of Jesuits also do not share the Church’s uncompromising stand. Throughout the years, Jesuits have found themselves coming off as mavericks, the more ‘progressive’ ones compared to other religious groups. In fact, many Jesuits’ positions on matters are not always parallel to that of the Church.
Naturally, this attitude has had great influence on Atenean culture; Ateneans have generally been liberal towards significant issues. For example, despite strong Church opposition to sex education a few months ago, an Ateneo Statistics Circle survey published in The GUIDON last July showed that 66% of the student body supported the RH Bill, 18% had a neutral position, while only 15% opposed it.
There may be differences in the education and formation of Jesuits and Ateneans, but for the RH Bill, Fr. Dacanay just points to the complexity of the situation. For example, contrary to Castro, Dacanay recognizes the importance of population control.
He says, “I recognize that [decreasing the population growth rate] is part of the solution; it should be part of the solution.”
Critical thinking
Despite a clear difference in approach, Dacanay still believes the Church and its men have a right to be concerned, because the matter affects all. Filipino clergymen, after all, are also constituents of the Philippine government.
“The government has to pay attention to all its constituents,” he says. “Individuals… do not lose their rights simply because they belong to [a specific] group… We say we are searching for the truth; I think this is a community effort.”
Still, while many in the Ateneo find themselves disagreeing with the Church, this is positive for Dacanay. Regardless of the Ateneo’s stand as a community, he points out that the mixed feelings and reactions are a result of critical thinking.
“In other words,” he says, “I think people have a serious obligation to say, ‘I want to study the question… I don’t think it’s just a matter of obedience to authority, and I have to be responsible.’”
