|
Sensing
that the debate on the reproductive-health bill was
taking a turn for the worse, Speaker Prospero Nograles
announced the formation of a panel of representatives to
dialogue with the bishops “to obviate misinformation and
acrimonious confrontation on the pending consolidated
bill on family planning.”
I share
the Speaker’s concern about misinformation, so I will
shoot down a comment made by a procontraceptives
Protestant bishop—married, with children and a
great-grandchild—who insinuated that he was a better
authority on the subject of reproduction than Catholic
bishops who have taken a vow of celibacy.
The
“lack of experience” argument can be exposed as specious
with a simple question:
Are you
not aware that Pope Benedict XVI has been going around
the world apologizing for the less-than-celibate
behavior of many of his priests and bishops?
Of
course, most of what Pope Benedict apologized for
involved acts that would not add a single baby to the
world’s population. However, there are enough
illegitimate children on this planet who can say they
are “of the Church” to prove that many of the priests
and bishops opposed to the family-planning bill are
authorities on reproduction.
The
controversy over family planning is not only about
addressing poverty and hunger through population
control. It is, more important, also about recognizing
every woman’s right over her own body and every couple’s
right to decide when and how many children they want to
raise.
The
Catholic Church has always denied women and couples the
right to self-determination in matters that are
“sinfully delightful,” to use Gov. Joey Salceda’s
zinger du jour.
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2370) teaches,
“[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the
development of its natural consequences, proposes,
whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
impossible is intrinsically evil.”
It (CCC
2399) adds: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the
spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable
means…for example, direct sterilization or
contraception.”
The
Church also refuses to see the connection between
overpopulation and poverty. It maintains that greed and
corruption are the root causes of poverty.
But even
if it were to accept the link, the Church is still
incorrigibly opposed to the idea of contraception.
“The
Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of
contraception, that is, of every marital act
intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to
be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is
gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to
the good of the transmission of life [the procreative
aspect of matrimony], and to the reciprocal self-giving
of the spouses [the unitive aspect of matrimony]; it
harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in
the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for
Confessors 2:4, February 12, 1997).
You can
go as far back as A.D. 307 to Lactantius, an early
Christian theologian, who wrote, “[Some] complain of the
scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not
enough for bringing up more children, as though, in
truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God
did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich.
Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be
unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain
from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).
Inasmuch
as I would like to see it happen, I doubt if Speaker
Nograles’s diplomatic offensive would be able to tone
down the “acrimonious confrontation” between realists
and doctrinaires. A soft approach will not work. A hard
line is better.
Nograles
should warn the bishops: “If you don’t drop your
opposition to this family-planning bill, Congress will
be forced to consider alternate legislation to address
the population problem. We will legalize same-sex
marriage and include masturbation education in school
curricula starting from the third grade.”
Buencamino is a fellow of Action for Economic Reforms (www.aer.ph). |
