Catholics who back the Reproductive Health bill are “Catholics in name only,” Malolos bishop Jose Oliveros told Inquirer. Their “cafeteria mentality” selects what to accept or reject.
When avowed followers of the Good Shepherd name call, that jolts. Worse, the tarring swirls around “creatures able to trace the stars and feel a passion for eternity,” as Edwin Markham wrote.
Every day, 5,800 children—equal to three barangays—are born. Tally how much more food, water, shelter, medicine, etc will they need over the next 365 days? “You can not say tomorrow to these children. Their name is today.”
Name-calling, however, whittles a vital issue into a quibble about metes and bounds of Malolos. The diocese obviously does not include the collegial Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
At the next-door diocese of Manila, the most prominent Catholic resident is President Benigno Aquino III. P-Noy supports the RH bill. So do a number of Catholics elsewhere.
In November 1964, Pope Paul VI invited University of the Philippines’ demographer Mercedes Concepcion to work with 54 other scientists in a Holy Office Committee for studies on problems of population. For two years, Concepcion shared expertise in the Vatican group. Is she a “nominal Catholic” today for RH bill support?
Former Asian Development Bank economist Ernesto Pernia is a rare avis in this neck of the woods. He holds a theology degree.
A “hard church and soft state” is “at the root of our economic backwardness, Pernia said in a Kalayaan College address. Persisting high poverty incidence is due to bad governance, weak economic growth, wealth and income inequality, plus rapid population growth.
“High fertility rates, especially among the poor, do exacerbate poverty,” he added. “(They) make it harder for government to address it.” Church stress on rituals rather than reforms caricatures faith. Theologian Thomas Aquinas would have approved.
Or take Cebu. Established as a diocese in August 1595, Cebu accounts for 3.41 million Catholics. That includes us plus grandkids.
We’ve never met the new Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma, who succeeded Ricardo Cardinal Vidal. But this new pastor doesn’t name-call. He courteously heeds questions from his flock on the RH issue. Palma hasn’t slammed the gate of the sheepfold to us. He explains concerns on RH’s controversial sections, from sex education to contraceptive funding. In his archdiocese, he tamped down “pro-lifers” who threatened tax boycotts. “Civil disobedienceby refusal to pay taxes, is a non-option,” he said.
Children stem, not from bishops’ diktat, but from a choice by parents. “With docile reverence toward God, parents will make decisions by common consent and effort,” as the Second Vatican Council put it: “Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring.”
“Catholic-in-name-only” stereotyping glosses over responsible parenthood. An anathema instead is invoked on RH bill backers. They do that in Ozamis too. Yet, many of RH bill supporters were also washed by the same waters of baptism. They pray the Nicene Creed of their fathers. “Somos o no somos,” they are jabbed nonetheless. Are you with us? Or against us?
“Catholic in name only” is pejorative. The “Fray Damaso” smear that pro-RH bill supporters lob is no better. The new tag only adds to epithets accumulated by two opposing sides in the by now three-decade-old “population debate”
“(We) should suspend our tendencies to label anyone who doesn’t agree with us as anti-life, anti-God or anti-family,” Fr Pablo David cautioned in July 2006. “It is counter-productive to simply take a sharp adversarial stance or a posture of militancy. We might end up marginalizing ourselves.”
David was consecrated then as auxiliary bishop of Pampanga that day. Five years later, Bishop David’s worry has come to pass, as the Lower House deadlock on the RH bill shows.
“The outcome has been two groups, each dominated by more ‘hard line spokespersons,’” notes Population Center Foundation’s monograph “A Balancing Act.” “They talk past each other without taking time to listen to the other or to discuss calmly the other’s arguments. The need is to move past the deadlocked debate into an area of respectful discussion.”
We’ve recklessly brawled our way the edge of a cliff. How does one inch back from a plunge no one really wants? There are no pat answers.
All crises put a premium on selfless leadership. “An army of a thousand is easy to find,” a Chinese proverb says. “But how difficult to find a general.” Today, we need leaders from state, church and people to revisit areas of common agreement. There are more spheres of consensus than than today’s often venomous name-calling suggest.
Two out of every 10 married women– mostly in the D and E economic brackets– want no more children, surveys show. But they can not access family planning services. Many resort to underground abortions.
Did abortions now crest at 1,930 daily? Who knows? Yet, that is a consequence of “umet family planning needs.”
The Church supports natural family planning but bucks contraception. Can dioceses like Malolos or Ozamis match their condemnations with Natural Family Planning programs, as Cagayan de Oro does?
Both state and church agree on the primacy of conscience—not only for Catholics but for all citizens, Muslims to atheists. As Blessed John Henry Newman put it: “I shall drink to the Pope, if you please. Still to conscience first, and the Pope afterwards.”