Here’s a good article e-mailed to me by a friend that I’d like to share. It’s by Fr. Julio Penacoba of Sampaloc, Manila:
I will limit myself to the issue of the Bill promoting contraception. This is presented mostly in points First and Second of Fr Bernas article.
As I understand it, Fr Bernas attempts to explain why it would be possible to accept the teachings of the Church (that says that contraception is wrong) and yet to support the RH Bill that promotes contraception.
His line of argument may be put like this: The rules of the Church apply to Catholics but should not be imposed on others.In my understanding that line of argument is very valid for religious issues that is, for matters related to faith and worship. For example, the Church has rules coming from his worship such as the obligation of attending Sunday Mass, or the prohibition of eating meat on , or the obligation to follow canon law provisions regarding marriage. The Church should not demand that the State impose those obligations to non Catholics.
However, Fr Bernas line of argument is not applicable on ethical issues. On those matters, the Church does not have ethical rules for Catholics only but declarations of the ethical values inherent to the dignity of any human person. Thus, when the Church speaks against corruption, bigamy or drunkenness she is not stating rules for Catholics only. Neither is she imposing limitations on the goods of others. She is simply offering a moral evaluation of certain behaviors for all men of good will who mind the dignity of the whole person including his ethical dignity.
In my perception, Fr Bernas position seems to treat contraception as it were a religious issue (a Church’s rule) rather than an . For example, the first quotation that he cites in his Second point (Compendium of Social Doctrine, n.423) belongs to the section entitled Religious Freedom and not about morality or ethical issues. Any intelligent reader can see that it is talking of rights and privileges on the area of practicing ones religion --clearly not applicable to ethical issues. Regarding the second quotation from the same Compendium (n. 169); it belongs to a discussion on how the State should seek the effective good of all and not only of the majority but of the minorities as well. To apply that text to the discussion on contraception would assume that everybody agrees that contraception is an ethical good and therefore it should be given not only to the majority but to the minorities as well.
Since both quotes are from the Compendium of the , may I quote now from the section (n.234) where that document refers directly to the debate going on.
All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead by sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions. [[italics in the original, the emphasis is mine]]