 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Artificial Methods of Debate
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on July 30, 2008 For the Standard Today, July 31 issue The debate on population and artificial methods of birth control, sparked by bills on reproductive health being pushed in the Lower House of the Philippine Congress, can only be resolved with finality by the intervention of theologians at the highest level of the Roman Catholic Church, whether or not there will remain a significant constituency for the conservative point of view. This is so because the conservative position � which rejects all forms of artificial methods of birth control � is firmly anchored on the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" ("Of Human Life"), promulgated by Pope Paul VI on July 26, 1968. According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, when a pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, he is infallible, meaning he cannot make a mistake. So nothing he says in the encyclical can be faulted as being erroneous, false, heretical, outdated or temporary. (The doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted by the Church only in 1870. Presumably, before 1870, popes made mistakes even when, yes, pontificating on matters of faith and morals.) Theologians will ultimately have to intervene in the debate because "Humanae Vitae" categorically states that every conjugal act must "remain open to the transmission of life." Inquirer columnist John Nery, who seems to be a devout Roman Catholic quotes in his July 22 column what he considers the key sentences in the encyclical: "The heart of the matter lies in Article 11. The key passage in (Janet E.) Smith's translation reads: 'an unbreakable connection between the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning, and both are inherent in the conjugal act.' "As phrased in the English version available on the Vatican website, the passage adds appositives: 'the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act..' "Article 12 draws the inevitable conclusion: 'that each conjugal act remains ordained in itself to the procreating of human life.' The meaning is clearer in the Catechism: 'each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.' But if this quotation is to be taken literally, even the natural method of birth control in which a couple obligingly copulate only during the woman's infertile period in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy - which is the only method acceptable to the Church - would still be violative of the definitive admonition that "each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life." So if an otherwise singularly devout Catholic couple were to engage in the conjugal act deliberately during the woman's infertile period, so as to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, and one or both of the partners were to suddenly suffer cardiac arrest and die, he, she or they would go directly to Hell, since they were deliberately closing the doors to the transmission of life. Obviously, many devout Catholics would disagree with this harsh interpretation of the encyclical. But it is there in black and white, and since the Pope was speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals, he was infallible when he wrote it. Only learned theologians can untangle this theological puzzle, and they have to do it soon because hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics worldwide have chosen to disregard this admonition and have gone ahead with their lives, with hardly any regard for the infallible teaching of the Church. Only the other day (July 28), both Reuters and Agence France Presse reported that some 60 Roman Catholic organizations from Europe (and) the Americas signed an open letter published in Milan's Corriere della Sera newspaper, calling on Pope Benedict XVI to reverse the Vatican's opposition to contraception. The letter was timed with the 40th anniversary of "Humanae Vitae." Their letter read in part: "It is clear to us that the Catholic Church cannot move forward until it honestly confronts the paradox of Humanae Vitae: Most Catholics use modern contraceptives, believe it is a moral choice to do so and consider themselves Catholic in good standing, yet the Catholic hierarchy completely denies this reality, forcing the clergy into silence on this and most other issues related to sexuality�." Amen to that. "Humanae Vitae" had its origins in the 1960s. Because of the development of birth control pills, there was a debate in the Vatican on whether to allow the relaxation of the Church's traditional position on contraceptives . In 1963, the open-minded Pope John XIII established a commission made up of six European non-theologians to study the question. But he died before the commission got started. His successor, Pope Paul VI expanded the commission to 72 members, including theologians from five continents. In 1966, the commission expressed the opinion that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. But a group made up of four theologian-priests, one cardinal and two bishops voted that contraception was intrinsically evil. Because of this split vote � seven against the rest of the 72 � Pope Paul VI rejected the commission's report. An artificial method of debate, if you ask me, if the opinion of seven carries more weight than the opinion of 65.. And he went on to write "Humanae Vitae." I just read today in Wikipedia that one of those who objected to "Humanae Vitae" was Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens (of Belgium?), who questioned "whether moral theology took sufficient account of scientific progress, which can help determine what is according to nature. I beg you, my brothers, let us avoid another Galileo affair. One is enough for the Church�" (Other bishops from the US, Canada, Holland and Germany expressed similar dissenting opinions.) By coincidence, to a reaction letter from Eric Manalang who chastised me for "mocking" the Catholic position on birth control, I replied last week that "This is no different from (the Church's) insistence for centuries that the Earth was the center of the universe, even after Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno showed that the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun. "The Inquisition forced Galileo to recant his 'heresy' and placed him under house arrest until the old man died in 1642. The younger Bruno was burnt at stake in 1600. The Catholic Church did not admit and apologize for its mistake until the year 2000, through Pope John Paul II. "Perhaps 350-400 years from now, when the global population reaches 100 billion, another pope will also admit the Church's mistake on birth control and apologize for it." (See Reactions to 'Lucky and Amoral?' July 27, 2008) ***** TONY on YouTube. I am interviewed by Harry Tambuatco on federalism, electoral reforms, Myanmar and Mindanao and the MILF. See it on www.tapatt.org. You can also go directly to the following URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmOeoBcXJzY. Reactions to [email protected]. More articles in www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogspot.com. . To subscribe, send as blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to "Artificial Methods of Debate" More Reactions to "Lucky and Amoral?" Some bishops in favor of birth control I rejoice reading your article on "Artificial Methods of Debate". Superb. Well-researched. People are bound to learn from it. One minor comment. Bruno is not quite in the same league as those two others you cited. True. He was burned at the stake. But his argumentation verges on the "phantastic" compared to those of Copernicus and Galileo. Ramon C. Reyes, (by email), July 31, 2008 Ateneo de Manila University wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Oh, my God, I'm going to Hell! Jose Custodio, (by email), July 31, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony: Like most Catholics, I do not pay much attention to the hierarchy's position on birth control and other doctrines that are outmoded and unrealistic. I consider my practice of my religion is a personal one, only guided by my conscience. No religious leader or anyone else can challenge my conscience, and I try to live in harmony with our environment, peace and respect to my fellow human beings. Martin Celemin, (by email), Las Vegas, Nevada, July 31, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: How else but literally can Article 12 of the papal encyclical "Humane Vitae" be construed or interpreted? And since a pope, the author of this encyclical, was speaking about morals, he must be presumed by Catholics to be infallible. So, it should be crystal-clear to all Catholics that, as you assert, "even the natural method of birth control in which a couple obligingly copulate only during the woman's infertile period in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy--which is the only method acceptable to the Church--would still be violative of the definitive admonition that 'each and every marriage-act must remain open to the transmission of life.'" If the Catholic hierarchy is to be consistent, in strict obedience to the papal encyclical in question, it should not waste time correcting a clear and blatant mistake in construction or interpretation which considers the natural method of birth control as acceptable. Otherwise, they themselves could be guilty of a cardinal sin which will send them posthaste to Hell! The Catholic hierarchy is now under obligation to declare publicly that absolutely no method of birth control, whether natural or artificial, is allowed or acceptable under the diktat of "Humane Vitae." The fact that for such a long time now, the Catholic hierarchy has refused to do this--probably deliberately--is that it is still wrestling with the fact that millions of Catholics are in reality already employing both natural and artificial methods of birth control--and that, therefore, a corrective declaration by it at this late hour will no longer have any appreciable impact on the lives of these Catholics. On this particular issue, one can say that the Catholic Church has become completely irrelevant. With large majorities of Catholics everywhere having had the benefit of a good education, and therefore able to use their cognitive powers to the limit, moral restrictions or restraints imposed by the Catholic hierarchy, including those that in Catholic doctrine ought to be considered completely free from error, will either be ignored or deliberately violated without compunction. Reason, in those instances, will trump doctrine. Reason will free man from the tyranny of myth, of miracles, and of superstition. Mariano Patalinjug, (by email), July 31, Yonkers, NY, July 31, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded to Tapatt by Mar Patalinjug) Dear Mar, It seems like we are still living in the Dark Ages. You'd think that the spread of literacy and science would dispel so many of the myths and superstitions plaguing humanity... The Vatican (or fill in the blank for any representative body of any religion) should just simplify their edicts to what's left of their followers: "You will not go to heaven if..." to make their message PLAIN and SIMPLE enough instead of giving it some high-falutin name. After all, isn't that what this thing called religion is all about? A fear of not getting in to some exclusive club AFTER death? Some HOPE that there is this paradise, this CLUB, after death. Whatever it is that drives them, let them eat cake or do whatever they will do when they die and go to their respective paradises. History is rife with stories of subjugation either with the sword or the cross. The renaissance has given rise to the age of reason and has given man an alternative to the politics of fear. Whether humanity can be made to thrive based on the philosophy of reason remains to be seen. Fear is a powerful tool of control and intimidation. It has worked since the dawn of man so there really is no reason to switch for those wanting to have control over others. Can we ever have a human civilization free from fear, want and privation? Can we ever get to this promised land where each individual can be free to pursue this ideal, this dream, this ghost of a so-called utopia packaged as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The great founding father of a country called America saw this vision and set about trying to make it a reality. And as we have seen, this social experiment, this human experiment, is still unraveling right before our very eyes. It certainly is a noble vision and the whole of humanity's imagination has been fired up since the "idea" came into fruition. Perhaps the greatest miracle of humanity is the process of becoming because we can never GET THERE. We can only take part in the journey. And that, my friend, is good enough for me. Welcome to the human condition. As for religion, each man will always take his own opiate, his own poison. And for me, give me a thinking man (or woman!) any day. :) Peter, [email protected], Aug. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir Tony; This debate has gone on for ages. I wonder why the Church has so much to say about how many children a couple wants to a point they're even dictating the number of times a married couple should make love. Personally, if they're not the ones getting pregnant, delivering the baby, feeding the baby, breastfeeding the baby, sending the child to school and paying for the tuition fees until the kid's an adult - I can only say to these people - stay out of my bedroom. I won't mind following any form of natural family planning methods they may have in mind as long as they pay for each child's delivery, medications, education, food and housing until that child becomes an adult and has his own family the church can harass once more. But since they are not the ones doing all those things - then maybe it would be in their best interest if they stayed out of this discussion and left the family planning method and choice of method to the married couple instead. I would rather listen to a married couple debating about family planning than the church who's not 'technically' married to begin with and would have no idea of the day-to-day reality of what a marriage is like. At least a married couple would have some credibility when they say to have an X number of kids based on blah blah blah than to listen to a 'unmarried' entity who'll only tell me I'll go to hell if I want a better future for my kids because I want the number of kids I have down to an affordable number. If a couple both agree they only want one or two kids, I would expect the Church to respect it. Couples who irresponsibly have one or two basketball teams for kids and let these kids go neglected in every sense of the word should be jailed. Just my thoughts on this. Best regards, Jenifer A. Xavier, (by email), Aug.. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The Catholic Church's inflexible attitude about birth control is yet another sign of its dinosaur mentality. This "dogma" burdened religion is so out of sync with reality - and they wonder why they are losing believers and vocations!! Cayo Marschner, (by email), Moraga, CA, Aug. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, My two-cents recommendation is "Go and Multiply." Then ask for an unconditional "Papal Support" from the Vatican to send in to the Philippines financial aid and hundreds of tons of rice regularly at the rate of 3-1/2% compounded annually to recoup the gradual population growth and to help parents of children born every minute. The request for allowance should be coursed through the CBCP President Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, DD. When those babies born are already grown up, well fed and educated from "Papal Support," we can then have more OFWs that will earn this country more dollars. Isn't that beautiful? Is there anything unfair to the CBCP or to the Pope on this request? Alleluia! What do you say? Marlowe Camello, (by email), Homeland, CA, Aug. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Very brilliant and clear.......Regards, Ernie Gonzales, (by email), Aug. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Your suggestion that the Vatican consult theologians to straighten out the logical mess that characterizes the Catholic Chruch's stand on family planning, brings to my mind what Thomas Paine, the American patriot, wrote: The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Yours truly, Carlos Esteban, Jr., (by email), Aug.01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Preamble to Canada's Charter: Canada was founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the Rule of Law: And Section 15 also states: :Section 15: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. All artificial methods had been allowed ever since except abortion (Before 1983) which is only available legally since l969 upon approbation by the hospital therapeutic committee as long it will not endanger the mother's life, but one Dr. Mongentaler challenge the law by opening and performing illegal abortions, been charged, acquitted by the jury on trial, reversed by the Court of Appeal, re-acquitted by the SC two times..But the was before the charter, where the SC has no basis to declare the law for which he was convicted unconstitutional.. Then when the Constitution act of l982 was enacted and became the part of the Supreme Law of Canada, Upon Acquittal for the last time, the SC declared the law for which the doctor was convicted unconstitutional, hence the Abortion on demand became legal and publicly funded under the Universal Health Care. The Catholic Church did its very best to block the legalization of all forms of artificial methods, but the Freedom of Choice and the Right to Equality which is everyone's right including that of the Catholic Church, won the day and again the rule of law reign ever this land... Victor Sanoy, (by email), Scarborough, Ont.. Canada, Aug.01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Aside from the rhythm method violating the principle that each act must come out with a baby, how about the post-menopausal ladies? Glicerio Sicat, (by email), Aug. 01, 2008 (An act of God, no doubt. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, What is the future of hungry street kids, sadly multiplying geometrically? This is a sub culture the country will have to deal with increasingly - and it can one day become more than simply a moral issue.. The best my wife and I can do is to lower our air-conditioned car window and give some nutritional cookies. Too many cars and people totally ignore as though these hungry humans don't exist. It shows you care if you open the car window, and hand out something to eat, especially with a face showing care. Have you ever saved food left over from lunch in a restaurant, and watched hungry children devour it? Giving coins to ease your conscience is a step in the right direction, but solving the problem through birth control is our only solution! R. Stager, (by email), Quezon City, Aug. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You wrote: In 1966, the commission expressed the opinion that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. But a group made up of four theologian-priests, one cardinal and two bishops voted that contraception was intrinsically evil. The 1966 opinion of the 72 (less 7?) theologians did not have much impact on Philippine bishops, who remain conservative to this day, but I know for a fact that it greatly influenced the American Catholic Church. While in Monterey, California, in 1967 I accompanied a friend who wanted counsel on family planning from a senior Catholic chaplain. The man already had three children and he and his wife wanted advice on how to plan their family, i.e., prevent conception. The priest's reply was terse and unambiguous, falling exactly under the commission's opinion: "Do whatever your conscience dictates." I never forgot that enlightening advice from a well respected priest, although somehow I had followed exactly the same tenet even before I left the surroundings of my own Philippine archdiocese. Chuck Agustin, (by email), Aug. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Antonio, Very well said. Your words should be blasted all over the Philippines. Regards Doug Adam, (by email), Aug.01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony. As far as I know, encyclicals are not ex cathedra. Hence honest and reasoned dissent would be allowed. Since I am not a theologian, you may want to check this out with your priest friends. Ric de Leon, (by email), Aug. 01, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Read your interesting piece on Humanae Vitae. Just one correction � the encyclical was NOT declared infallible � one of the reasons why it is still a subject of debate among theologians. Regards. Michael Boyd, (by email), Aug. 02, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww In David Yallop's book "In God's Name--the Murder of John Paul I," it stated that the cardinal who was going to become John Paul I, was a close adviser to Paul VI. Paul VI's views on birth control were similar to those of the future John Paul I. So it was a great surprise and a big disappointment to the future pope when Paul VI came out with Humanae Vitae but he kept his misgivings in private because he was such a good priest. Johnny Dizon MD, (by email), Rye Brook, NY, Aug. 02, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Thank you very much for your column on Humanae Vitae. Very enlightening! I wrote an LTE to Inquirer about the Facts behind Humanae Vitae. I send you a copy, in case the letter won't be published. More power to you, Arnold van Vugt, (by email), Cagayan de Oro City, Aug. 02, 3008 The Facts behind Humanae Vitae There is much confusion around the debate about the proposed Reproductive Health Bill and the Encyclical Humanae Vitae. It is high time to state some clear facts regarding both sides of the debate. With respect to Humanae Vitae the facts are: 1) First of all, Humanae Vitae is highly controversial, ever since its promulgation in 1968. The Philippine Church thought it opportune to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the Encyclical by declaring the month of July as the month of Humanae Vitae. The ordinary faithful are caught by surprise and wonder what this is all about. The Encyclical is proposed as binding on the faithful, like it was forty years ago. People are almost made to believe that it is a dogma. 2) The Church is hypocritical � it pretends that in those forty years after Humanae Vitae the majority of the faithful are following the church teachings as if nothing has happened in the concrete experiences of the many ordinary faithful, especially the poor, who have felt that it is impossible to stick to natural birth control methods, let alone the findings of theologians and scientists who feel that Humanae Vitae is highly obsolete and outdated. There are bishops and archbishops in the Church who may not be surprised at all at this attitude towards the Encyclical, because they believe that the Church teachings are timeless and archaic like the teachings of Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and forever. Archbishop Capalla is one of them. He made that statement some weeks ago, and accordingly he told the Speaker of the House that as a Catholic he has to vote against the proposed bill. To use the Holy Eucharist as a deterrent is an abuse that is totally out of place, whatever Canon Law says about it. 3) When in 1968 Humanae Vitae was promulgated, based on secret reports most members of the Pope's own advisory commission were advocating a change in the previous teachings of the church. According to Hans K�ng, one of the periti present in the Second Vatican Council, only a tiny minority agreed with the official teaching of Humanae Vitae. To say a teaching is not infallible is an euphemistic way of saying it might be wrong and may some day be changed. 4) The Church through Humanae Vitae issued a ban on contraceptives. Many years before Humanae Vitae the Church issued another ban, a ban on usury, but after some years the practice ceased to be considered a serious sin � which I believe it still is. In fact, it became a practice from which the Vatican itself benefits. And look also, who are the owners of the numerous lucrative pawnshops in town! 5) Even if the authority of the Church is seen as almost absolute, it can never cancel out the conscience. In fact, the human conscience is the ultimate authority for man to know whether something is good or bad. Cardinal Newman considers the conscience of man as a divine resource, as directly inspired by God, by the Holy Spirit. That is why his famous adage 'To the Pope, but to conscience first!' 6) It is a pity that most bishops look at the controversy of Humanae Vitae as canon lawyers and moralists and close their eyes for the reality. Only a few, like Archbishop Ledesma, are concerned about the human side of the issue. Population explosion in some parts of the world, including the Philippines, makes conservation unrealistic. God's order 'increase and multiply' has been more than fulfilled. How many children are sold into slavery or in sex trade, crime and drug trafficking? These are a direct consequence of poverty and over-population. 7) God made humanity in his own image, with a mind and reason that the individual is supposed to use. In other words, when a Catholic denies a spouse his/her rights, or has a child that cannot be supported, or that will die of AIDS, he/she cannot simply say he/she is obeying an order from the Pope. When a husband forces himself on his wife while he is drunk, should the wife not tell him to put on a condom lest she will be impregnated against her will or run the risk of getting an abnormal child? Can artificial birth control not be considered a God-given blessing appropriate for the needs of humanity today? Is the primary purpose of marriage not for the spouses to love each other and the secondary purpose only to procreate? 8) The 'tradition' seems to be another stumbling block in the Church. Many in the Church still hold on to an 'My Pope right or wrong' mentality. The 'tradition', including the 'Fathers of the Church' can be wrong and in fact have been wrong in many instances. Some examples only: ��������� Incarnation means 'there is no longer male and female' ��������� Tertullian saw woman as 'the devil's gateway' ��������� John Chrysostom: 'woman taught once and ruined all' ��������� St Augustine: 'separately as helpmate, the woman herself alone is not the image of God; whereas the man alone is the image of God' 9) When Pope Benedict on May 10, 2008 said 'The transmission of life is inscribed in nature and in its laws', he never specifically denounced the use of artificial contraception or assisted fertilization by name. The Pope ordered the Church to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae this year. Hans K�ng believes that it would be better to write a draft for a new encyclical, instead. The Philippine Church has declared the month of July as the month of Humanae Vitae. I believe, it would be better for the Philippine Church to wait for the new encyclical to be published, instead. Arnold van Vugt, (by email), Cagayan de Oro City, Aug. 02, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Speaking personally and not representing my groups, perhaps what we need for our country to move forward is a more effective separation of Church and State which will guarantee religious pluralism along lines of the French model. According to the International French magazine Label France, "Indeed Article 2 of the 1905 law states that: 'the Republic neither recognizes, nor pays nor subsidizes any form of worship.[...]' affirming that in the eyes of the Republic all religions are equal and that in the absence of an official religion the State is no longer the arbiter of beliefs and abstains from favouring any one of them. The State is 'neutral' and the religious authorities, while they have the right to express their point of view on the laws of the State, do not however have the right to interfere in their drafting or to influence their application one way or the other." ( No. 60, 4th Quarter 2006, page 22) Best regards, Manuel Lino G. Faelnar, (by email), Aug. 03, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, You wrote: "In 1966, the commission expressed the opinion that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. But a group made up of four theologian-priests, one cardinal and two bishops voted that contraception was intrinsically evil. "Because of this split vote � seven against the rest of the 72 � Pope Paul VI rejected the commission's report. An artificial method of debate, if you ask me, if the opinion of seven carries more weight than the opinion of 65.. And he went on to write "Humanae Vitae." I say, this is the beauty of the primacy of the Seat of Peter and only underscores the guidance of the Holy Spirit when the pontiff exercises his authority on matters of faith and morals. After all, the Church is NOT a democracy. By that, I mean numbers don't matter here. It's the proclamation and assertion of the TRUTH that eventually prevails in the end. Thank God for that I must say! (That's the problem, isn't it? The Church is NOT a democracy. Even if most Roman Catholics accept artificial methods of birth control , a few dinosaurs with a warped sense of sexuality will always reject it. In the end, what is proclaimed is not the TRUTH but their extinction. ACA) You wrote: According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, when a pope speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, he is infallible, meaning he cannot make a mistake. So nothing he says in the encyclical can be faulted as being erroneous, false, heretical, outdated or temporary. (The doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted by the Church only in 1870. Presumably, before 1870, popes made mistakes even when, yes, pontificating on matters of faith and morals.) I say, you're presumption is wrong. What the Church established in 1870 was to formalize and categorically proclaim the doctrine of infallibility. Therefore, whatever doctrinal truths and dogmas declared by various pontiffs in the past remain and continue to be infallible and free from error. (Such as the immorality of lending money with interest? Such as the Earth being the center of the Universe? ACA) You wrote:"The Inquisition forced Galileo to recant his 'heresy' and placed him under house arrest until the old man died in 1642. The younger Bruno was burnt at stake in 1600. The Catholic Church did not admit and apologize for its mistake until the year 2000, through Pope John Paul II. "Perhaps 350-400 years from now, when the global population reaches 100 billion, another pope will also admit the Church's mistake on birth control and apologize for it." (See Reactions to 'Lucky and Amoral?' July 27, 2008) *** I say you're comparing apples and oranges. One pertains to a truth of science (i.e. the earth is round) while the other deals with an infallible truth of faith and morals (artificial contraception is intrinsically evil.) The Church may err on the former but never on the latter. (And I say you're sucking on a lemon. The Galileo affair was NOT about the roundness of the Earth. It was about whether all planets, the Sun and stars revolved around the Earth (as the Church insisted on), or whether the Earth and other planets actually revolved around the Sun (as Copernicus and Galileo taught). (The fact that the Church pronounced the Copernicus-Galileo cosmology a "heresy" and actually put people to death for believing in it shows that it was not a mere squabble over science but was actually a matter of faith. For centuries, the Church had taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe, based on the flawed cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy which established the physical location of Heaven "up there" beyond the stars, where resided the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover, to which the resurrected Jesus ascended. ACA) Sincerely, Jose Maria P. Alcasid, (by email), Aug. 02, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to "Lucky and Amoral?" (July 16, 2008) Hi Tony, Many Filipinos are reminded of their 'sinfully delightful' intimacy whether sanctioned by Cardinal Vidal or some parochial priest or not, who themselves (the latter at least) are known to be involved. Hee heee heeee heeee. I just could not stop laughing, oh my! The issue of birth control are never in the minds of two healthy couples, married or not. Let's face it, Filipinos are practical people and the church or their sinful pastors are almost always never obeyed in this issue. Sex is one biological factor that is beyond the control of any cardinal, whether he is Sin or whosoever! Only saints are safe here. Politicians are too afraid to openly debate on the issue of birth control. Hee heee heee heeeeee. Jose Regino, (by email), Zamboanga City, July 23, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir Tony, I'm a Catholic but I don't disagree with you when it comes to questioning the arguments offered by the Church when it comes to this reproductive health bill. If the church won't keep their mouth shut about it and keep telling people they'll go to hell if they continue using contraceptives and condoms or whatever form of birth control - I won't be surprised if a lot of "thinking" Catholics leave the folds of the Church and look for another place of worship. I honestly would prefer changing my religion if this Church has nothing better to do. Having children and the manner of how to have them, how many a couple wants to have is NONE of the Church's business to begin with. Poverty's source is also based on the economics of an average household - the more mouths to feed, the less that goes around for the rest of the family - and the Bill is only telling people to be more responsible parents. What kind of life with irresponsible parents give their kids? They can hardly feed themselves yet they go have 5-6 kids and the minute these kids start walking - they don't go to school - they're out there being used as an instrument for beggars or street kids loitering in the midday sun or stormy weather - where's the Church during these scenarios? I am pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. I hate abortion but I would prefer to keep the number of children at an affordable level because the future of the family as well as the nation as a whole is at stake. Why can't we focus instead on the kids who are already alive and trying to survive? Why can't the church put their "good intentions" elsewhere where it can literally save a life instead of promoting the production of more lives this country cannot handle anymore? I honestly believe the number of children a couple should have should be based on what they can afford without sacrificing the quality of life they have and make a conscious effort to keep it that way. The choice to have an X number of children should be guided properly but its still the choice of the couple - NOT the government or the Church - if they want to have a platoon or a pair of kids. But quite frankly - parents who cannot even give their children a decent home should either put their kids up for adoption in Churches and let the church send them to school and feed them, clothe them, raise them since its the church in the first place who kept insisting to "go forth and multiply" by the thousands. Given those items - if a couple only earns 350 a day, they should limit the number of children they have to a maximum of 2 because that's below minimum wage. The rest of the country should also consider the kind of future they'll be giving their children BEFORE they even start having them. This Country should start controlling its population growth or it will overtake the availability of food resources, clean water, facilities, services, etc. Its an old issue that Flavier once tackled in the early 90s and the Church called him the anti-Christ in its Church letters. Had Flavier's program been fully successful, maybe we won't have shortages in almost everything right now. Best regards, Jenifer Xavier, (by email), July 27, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Bishops in favor of Birth Control A group of Christian Bishops and leaders of various faith-based organizations said yesterday that they do not share the view of Roman Catholic bishops in reproductive health and population management. Leaders of the Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood reiterated their support for the controversial Reproductive Health and Population Development bill, saying that the passage of this measure would greatly help in recognizing and solving the health needs of the Filipino family. "We support the objective to manage our population in relation to the development of our country," Bishop Rodrigo D. Tano, Interfaith Chairperson states. "As Christians, we want an improved standard of living for our countrymen. We should be able to assist couples to achieve their desired family size so that parents will be able to provide better the needs of each of their children." The faith-based group strongly believes that fostering a more decent environment and nurturing the people has always been a duty inherent of every human being. "It is not only our social, but also, our moral responsibility to ensure that every right of our people is protected and that any hindrance to achieve a better quality of life is addressed. It is high time for the passage of a Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development policy that would contribute in achieving a healthy and abundant life as desired by God for every Filipino family," concludes Bishop Tano. Among the prominent religious denominations within the Interfaith Partnership are Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC), Iglesia Ni Cristo, Council of Christian Bishops of the Philippines (CCBP), International Bible Society, Baptist Conference of the Philippines , and the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP). ***** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to [email protected]. Tony on YouTube in www.tapatt.org. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. |