Is the Catholic Church Still Relevant?
September 27, 2008
It is not for the reason that I refuse to conform to a certain religious conviction that I find other people’s spiritual practices as out rightly absurd. I may be short of a strong belief in Christianity but it is not a reason for me to go astray, away from what Christians call as the right way. I do have a respect for all religions, and much more for humanity, and I do not plan to sway you away from your current beliefs. There is, nevertheless, a difference between meddling with people’s affairs just for the pleasure of criticizing them and getting concerned with their affairs as to help them think about things. Between the two of these, I think that I’m absolutely considering the latter.
Every day on my way to school, I normally would pass by four catholic churches. And because I would be passing by the same road home, I would see those four churches twice. I certainly do not find it worth mentioning to pass by these churches, but I do find something remarkable about other commuters whenever the jeepney would pass by a church. Most of them would do the sign of the cross, and others would utter a little prayer shortly after. I always watch people do this thing, and I find it amusing at times when they would all do it in unison, much like a choreographed act. However, later I realized that maybe that choreographed catholic ritual might be worth something more than an amusing scenario. Perhaps, it is an indicator of a social situation that most people do not think much of as a dilemma.
The Filipino society’s strong Catholic foundation has sustained a long list of conservative rituals and practices across a hundred years. These traditions, along with the habitual sign-of-the-cross-as you-pass-by the-house-of-god, are rooted in our history. However, looking back on the account of the colonial era and considering how the Spanish friars utilized the Catholic Church to their advantage over the innocent natives of our land, one may wonder if the church that our people put so much of their trust on is really true to the values and morals that it preaches. Over the years and up to the current times, the Catholic Church has been an active player in the society’s more important decisions. Analyzing this situation from a secular point of view, the Catholic Church’s active intervention in the state’s legal processes impedes the nation’s progress and development towards the relevant times.
Fast-forward to the present and we now have the issue of the Reproductive Health Bill introduced by Representative Edcel Lagman. The church insists that the house bill is out rightly anti-life and pro-abortion. It is rather confusing how this church does not understand the very essence of reproductive health at this time. They are persistent on advancing their pro-life stand, arguing that the bill is moving towards abortion issues, even if it is clearly stated under Sec. 6 of bill that the Council will implement several functions including the “prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications”. How can they advance a pro-life stand without considering the circumstances that govern the nation at these times? Do you think that life is sustainable in a poverty-stricken and overpopulated nation where the conception of children whom their parents can barely support is rapidly increasing? Political issues aside, if this church undeniably stands for life, then it must identify the need for an apt population control measure that might promote a better life for our citizens in the long term.
This Church enjoys its influence over their followers and over the majority of the state, much like any other institution. It seems that the separation of the church and state implies other functions aside from the tolerance of religious organizations. Religious affiliation is just a part of our lives, and thus we must not let take it over.
This is not an issue of religion. This is about whether a religious institution, be it the Catholic Church or any other religious organization, considers first the circumstances that surround an issue before taking a stand on such important matters. I have nothing against the Catholic Church as an institution. Nevertheless, we are now living the contemporary times and perhaps, it is now the time for this institution to question their relevance. Is the church outdated, and moreover, is it still relevant?

September 27, 2008 at 8:54 PM
The Catholic Church is not alone in thinking that abortion is bad, many religions and branches of those religions do (and some more secular people who think it violates rights). I they and it feel that this law will lead to more abortions than it is not unthinkable that it would be opposed. Now, I should admit to not knowing the detail of this law but it is a point worth mentioning.
I’ve also of the Philippines being referred to as “overpopulated” before. However, I’ve heard of others pointing to other nations as having more people and less of the problems that occur in the Philippines. Thus the question should be asked if the poverty is actually due to “overpopulation” or other problems that cause society to not work as well. These other things include corruption and large wealth inequality (a large divide between rich and poor). I was told that the Philippines had each of these. Thus is it possible the Philippines has a problem relating to other issues and claims of overpopulation are actually being used as an excuse or distraction?
September 28, 2008 at 3:27 PM
I might say that I agree with you that the Philippines is currently caught in conflict with a lot of other issues with regards to economic and social policies. Nevertheless, in the light of the circumstances that govern our condition, there is no better way but to consider such solutions as the Reproductive Health Bill. Although I am against abortion, I’m a strong supporter of the RHB, knowing that this bill is not about abortion. To make matters clear, the Reproductive Health Bill “continues to proscribe abortion, which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code”.
If you might want to take a look at the bill, check out this page.
http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/downloads/HB16_Lagman_ReproHealth_and_PopMgmt.pdf
October 3, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Catholic journals such as America and Commonweal, along with Catholic social thinkers such as theologian, Fr. Carry Humanity
October 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I started to check it out and have to admit I didn’t finish reading through the bill until now. Most of it I have no problem with. Sorry for the long comment but I wanted to point out which things were questionable and why. Sorry for any typos.
I don’t mind saying that there is such a thing as gay people and that they should be respected and be treated equally as others. I don’t mind condoms at all-I think they help prevent many (but not all) diseases (depending on the condom. I honestly disagree with many officials in Catholic Church (my own and I don’t plan to leave it) on these issues. So I can see how they would mind this bill even if I don’t.
However, there are a few things that do bother me. SEC 4. l (under “Definition of Terms”) bothers me a fair amount. It mentions that this bill would lead to programs that encourage limitation to children per family to 2. It will also discourage people from migrating to urban areas. The poll referred to mentioned that a survey indicated that most people would like 2.7 children. Even if this poll was not worded in a deceptive manner (I have seen some that are on different political issues) the preferred number of children is closer to 3 and thus taxpayer funds are going to be spent encouraging families to have less children than they actually want. Also urban areas may actually (if structured well) actually provide homes and workplaces for people easier and more environmentally than rural-so discouraging migration to the urban areas may be a bad idea and there is no mention of even trying to determine if it is.
SEC. 13. “Ideal Family Size” may discriminate against children who are from families that include 3 or more children. The actual wording is “In order to attain the desired population growth rate, the State shall encourage two (2) children as the ideal family size. Children from these families shall have preference in the grant of scholarships at the tertiary level.” That is unfair to the children themselves, may actually cut down on the number of children who can receive an education with scholarships (as many families have 3 or more children), and is a way of subtly discriminating against people who do not agree to a population control (or “management” as it is referred to here) program. Population control is very different from making sure people are healthy and even decide the number of children they have (as the whole point of population control is deciding for parents how many children they can have and therefore not giving them that freedom).
SEC. 17 “Multi-Media Campaign” also may lead to spending taxpayer funding on propaganda for population control. It should focus just (in my opinion) on informing people about reproductive health care-and not be part of a “management” promotion.
SEC. 18 “Tax-Deductible Donations” is a way of encouraging or subsidizing this program. While I see health as a good thing have doubts about this “management” and thus don’t feel it should be subsidized and that it may not be as positive a thing for society. You can disagree with me on this point, but the reason for making things tax-deductible is because they serve a social good.
SEC. 19 “Prohibited Acts” under “a” and “2″ makes it illegal for a health care provider to refuse perform “voluntary sterilization and ligation” on a pregnant minor-even if the minor’s parents have not been informed. In a case child abuse this makes some sense if a parent is the abuser, but not in ones where the parent is not.
I mentioned the specific parts of this bill I take issue with and why. There is one last thing to mention. If you believe that life begins at conception that means that a fertilized egg is a life and that pills that cause this egg to die are an abortion. The usual type of abortion is on a fetus and if the definition of what an “abortion” is ends up being restricted to this then the pill based abortions may slip through the law under a listing of “contraceptives”. Thus it may allow some types of abortion in the eyes of many Catholics including myself. I don’t know if the types of pill I’m referring to are or are not thought of as abortions as they aren’t mentioned in one way or another in the bill-they should be so this issue is made clear.
In sum, there are alot of things in this bill I think are fine. I would try to change it one the point that I brought up and then pass it. And, if you don’t mind me repeating it one last time, there is a big difference between making sure people understand sexuality and are able to raise children well and engaging in population control or “management”. I would pull the latter out of this bill so the former could pass in a form that would only be helpful to people in my POV. And I tend to be suspicious of others who decide how many children you should or should not have, especially when if I am a good parent or a criminal does not appear to matter (be the main issue) with regard to them on this point. I don’t want children to be stuck with bad parents, but population management doesn’t care (or check) to see if you are a good or bad parent-just the number of children you have.
And that preference for scholarships is totally unjustified. I can understand giving them to poor people so they can have an education but that is not the focus of this “preference”.
And I do like the mentioning of women being required to be thought of as equal as that is fair.
October 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I’ve heard good things about Commonweal so it is probably worth reading.
Have a good day.
October 5, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Nathaniel, I see your good points, and they’re worth pondering on. These issues are the reason why most people wanted to revise some provisions of the bill.
Hey, could you leave your site’s url?
October 7, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Thanks. I actually don’t have my own website. If you want to point me towards your email I could email back and forth but otherwise I’m good with just exchanging comments on this blog.
Have a good day.