Last night I received an interesting message, the Pres of Uruguay Dr. Tabaré, a left leaning president, along the lines of Chile´s Bachelet and Argentine´s Kirschner, had vetoed a bill that would have liberalised abortion during the first trimester, a radical legislation for the región.
The most interesting aspect of his speech was his appeal to science, to the need for better laws that protect the poor and the vulnerable such as poor pregnant women pointing out the importance of not giving them abortion as option which only abandons even more but of providing them with real and viable option. Likewise he spoke of the importance of protecting physicians freedom of conscience by not imposing on them laws that would force them to violate their hippocratic oath.
Below I have copied the article from Mercatornet that refers to this and an English version of his speech.
Lessons in progressive politics
Something unexpected happened when Uruguayan politicians tried to liberalise their country's archaic abortion laws.
Tabaré VázquezHere's the scenario: we're talking about a tall, photogenic, charismatic left-leaning President who outsmarted traditional political forces to win office with 51.7 percent of the national vote. His platform is social justice, tax reform, human rights, better health coverage, and banning smoking in public. Elected in the midst of an economic crisis, the pundits described his campaign of hope as "the most profound political rupture in recent history".
And despite diplomatic rows, environmental controversies and a bitter dispute over NAFTA, perhaps the most controversial decision of his term is a Congressional proposal to dramatically liberalise abortion.
So what did President Tabaré Vázquez, do about a bill to give Uruguay the most progressive abortion law in Latin America? He vetoed it.
This has angered activists for abortion rights and even his own party, Frente Amplio (Broad Front) which had sponsored the bill. The “Law in Defence of the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health” would have authorised first trimester abortions when a woman's health is at risk or the family is too poor to care for a child. By US standards, this is conservative enough, but the current law in Uruguay makes abortion a criminal offence
What was most interesting about Vázquez's veto,however, is not the politics, but his thoughtful, scientific response to the proposed legislation. He is a French-trained cancer specialist who still does consultations in an oncology clinic. Here is what he said:
There is a consensus that abortion is a social evil which must be avoided. Nonetheless, in those countries where abortion has been liberalised, it has increased. In the United States, in the first ten years, they tripled, and the figure has been maintained. It has become customary. The same thing happened in Spain.
Laws cannot ignore the reality of the existence of human life in its gestational stage, just as science reveals it. Biology has evolved greatly. Revolutionary discoveries, such as IVF or sequencing the human genome, show that from the moment of conception there is a new human life, a new being. So much so, that in modern legal systems, including our own, DNA has become the acid test of determining the identity of persons, independent of their age, even if the body is destroyed, or when practically nothing is left of the human being, and even after a long time.
The true degree of civilisation of a nation is measured by how the neediest are protected. Therefore we must protect the weakest amongst us. Because the criterion is not the value of the subject with respect to how others respond to him, or his usefulness, but the value which exists due to his mere existence...
This text also affects freedom of enterprise and association when it imposes upon medical institutions with legally approved statues which have, in some cases, been functioning for more than a hundred years, an obligation to perform abortions, expressly contrary to their foundational principles.
The law, furthermore, describes, erroneously and in a strained fashion, against common sense, abortion as a medical act, ignoring international declarations... which reflect the principles of Hippocratic medicine which characterise the doctor as someone who acts in favour of life and physical integrity.
In accordance with the particular characteristics of our people, it is better to seek a solution based upon solidarity which promotes women and their babies, giving them the freedom to be able to choose other ways, and in this fashion, to save both of them.
We need to tackle the true causes of abortion in our country which are rooted in our socio-economic circumstances. There are many women, particularly in the poorest sectors, who are alone in the task of raising children. Hence, we should protect abandoned women with solidarity, instead of offering them abortions.
Perhaps President Vázquez could forward a copy of this letter to Uruguay's Congress to his counterpart in the United States, along with a few political tips. His veto may have exasperated colleagues and angered abortion activists, but it hasn't dented his popularity, even though 57 per cent of voters in this very secular country support liberal abortion laws.
According to MercatorNet's South American correspondent, Pedro DuTour, ministers in the Frente Amplio are scuttling about trying to change the constitution to allow Vázquez to run for a second term. He has a popularity rating of 63 percent. Opposing abortion doesn't have to be a political death sentence for a progressive politician.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Educational Policy
For some time now I´ve been containing my concern about the University system and its been to only handful of people that I have expressed my "elitist" opinion that a University education need not necessarily be open to all. Not because I don´t believe in equality but because by the very natures of society no all jobs requires a university degree and to promote this notion has only brought down the level of education in far too many institutions distorting what universities were originally meant to be, ie. centres of research and debate with a universal quality that is now lacking in these degrees made for getting jobs institutions. Why are polytechnics not supported. The skills they teach are necessary for society to function and by its very nature society is diverse and should be preserved as such. Now before I get into an entire analysis of the evils of wanting to make everyone the same I´ve attached an article published by Canada´s national post on the deterioration and loss of good Universitas.
Barbara Kay | Friday, 14 November 2008
Education suffers from high self-esteem
Students bubble-wrapped against failure lack both humility and motivation in their approach to higher learning.
My generation was prepared for university by high school teachers with little interest in how we “felt” about the subjects they taught, and a great deal of interest in what we actually knew. Grades were awarded according to the degree of one’s knowledge and one’s rhetorical skills in presentation. Motivation and performance were thus joined in elegant symbiosis.
Well, that was then. According to a just-published study by Ellen Greenberger, a professor of psychology and social behaviour at the University of California-Irvine, two-thirds of university students today believe that if they’re “trying hard,” their grades should reflect their effort, not their actual achievement. One-third of the 400 undergrads interviewed for the study felt they deserved a B- grade just for attending most of a course’s classes.
These students are the product of a decades-long, therapeutic educational culture in which personal self-esteem is privileged over knowledge, coherence of expression and academic integrity. Their chutzpah is the logical conclusion to a pre-university lifetime of reassurance from teachers that everything they said or wrote was “creative,” even if it was full of objective mistakes.
The self-esteem movement began in the 1970s, when ideology-inspired social engineering — the aim to “construct” a happy, confident person — replaced knowledge-based learning as an educators’ mandate. The idea was to reduce the supposedly bad stress caused by competition and objective standards, whose disparate consequences were thought to undermine less successful children’s fragile self-esteem. Instead of linking reward to achievement, children were rewarded for completing tasks, basically just for showing up.
All children were thenceforth to receive gold stars, not just the elite few. Predictably (by any non-intellectual), the effect was to render gold stars equally worthless in the eyes of indifferent and aspirational students alike. It didn’t take long to inculcate the unrealistic and actually quite harmful idea that self-esteem is an entitlement, not striving’s reward.
In their 2007 book, Ivory Tower Blues: A University System In Crisis, University of Western Ontario professors James E. Côté and Anton L. Allahar indict the self-esteem movement as a principal reason for the increasing dysfunctionality of the university system today: “Students with high self-esteem based on false feedback are much more difficult to teach because many cannot take criticism and feedback without assuming that it is personal. Experimental research suggests that such people attempt to preserve their self-esteem, not by altering their behaviour so that it becomes more based in reality, but by attacking the source of the threat.”
Anyone with common sense could have predicted that students high in bogus self-esteem but low in feelings of competency and control over material — what the book’s authors call “self-efficacy” — would also lack both humility and motivation in their approach to higher learning.
The domino effect of the self-esteem movement does not augur well for university culture. Students disengage from anything that looks like actual work, for which they have not been prepared, yet view a university degree as a right, a licence for a job. Accordingly, they balk at the very idea of failure — an abomination against which they have been bubble-wrapped since kindergarten. Then, constrained by fear of poor evaluations and by silence or denial from above, professors necessarily become complicit in the charade of student “achievement.” They must even turn a blind eye to cheating and plagiarism, once-taboo habits now routinely incorporated into students’ “research” process, but rarely punished by shaming of any kind, let alone expulsion.
Côté and Allahar conducted an in-depth analysis of the self-esteem movement’s consequences at the University of Western Ontario in the faculties of arts, social science and natural science. More than one-third of the profs they interviewed identified fewer than 10% of their students as “fully engaged.” Over 80% of professors said they had dumbed down their course work, and had reduced the frequency and difficulty of assignments.
More than half the students in courses at all levels were receiving either an A or B. Objectively, grade distribution should be: 10% A, 20% B and 40% C or lower. If graded accurately, up to 20% would regularly fail. In fact, at Western about 5% fail. Not surprisingly, only about half the professors consulted find the teaching part of their jobs satisfying.
The moral of the story is that you can have “higher education” as we used to call it, which depends on high effort and high levels of engagement amongst students. Or you can have high across-the-board self-esteem amongst students, producing mediocre education by disillusioned professors to unmotivated, disengaged students. You can’t have both.
It’s time to break the conspiracy of silence on this important subject. Even if — oh the horror! — it means some misguided educational theorists take a hit to their precious self-esteem.
Barbara Kay is a columnist for Canada’s National Post, in which this article was first published.
Barbara Kay | Friday, 14 November 2008
Education suffers from high self-esteem
Students bubble-wrapped against failure lack both humility and motivation in their approach to higher learning.
My generation was prepared for university by high school teachers with little interest in how we “felt” about the subjects they taught, and a great deal of interest in what we actually knew. Grades were awarded according to the degree of one’s knowledge and one’s rhetorical skills in presentation. Motivation and performance were thus joined in elegant symbiosis.
Well, that was then. According to a just-published study by Ellen Greenberger, a professor of psychology and social behaviour at the University of California-Irvine, two-thirds of university students today believe that if they’re “trying hard,” their grades should reflect their effort, not their actual achievement. One-third of the 400 undergrads interviewed for the study felt they deserved a B- grade just for attending most of a course’s classes.
These students are the product of a decades-long, therapeutic educational culture in which personal self-esteem is privileged over knowledge, coherence of expression and academic integrity. Their chutzpah is the logical conclusion to a pre-university lifetime of reassurance from teachers that everything they said or wrote was “creative,” even if it was full of objective mistakes.
The self-esteem movement began in the 1970s, when ideology-inspired social engineering — the aim to “construct” a happy, confident person — replaced knowledge-based learning as an educators’ mandate. The idea was to reduce the supposedly bad stress caused by competition and objective standards, whose disparate consequences were thought to undermine less successful children’s fragile self-esteem. Instead of linking reward to achievement, children were rewarded for completing tasks, basically just for showing up.
All children were thenceforth to receive gold stars, not just the elite few. Predictably (by any non-intellectual), the effect was to render gold stars equally worthless in the eyes of indifferent and aspirational students alike. It didn’t take long to inculcate the unrealistic and actually quite harmful idea that self-esteem is an entitlement, not striving’s reward.
In their 2007 book, Ivory Tower Blues: A University System In Crisis, University of Western Ontario professors James E. Côté and Anton L. Allahar indict the self-esteem movement as a principal reason for the increasing dysfunctionality of the university system today: “Students with high self-esteem based on false feedback are much more difficult to teach because many cannot take criticism and feedback without assuming that it is personal. Experimental research suggests that such people attempt to preserve their self-esteem, not by altering their behaviour so that it becomes more based in reality, but by attacking the source of the threat.”
Anyone with common sense could have predicted that students high in bogus self-esteem but low in feelings of competency and control over material — what the book’s authors call “self-efficacy” — would also lack both humility and motivation in their approach to higher learning.
The domino effect of the self-esteem movement does not augur well for university culture. Students disengage from anything that looks like actual work, for which they have not been prepared, yet view a university degree as a right, a licence for a job. Accordingly, they balk at the very idea of failure — an abomination against which they have been bubble-wrapped since kindergarten. Then, constrained by fear of poor evaluations and by silence or denial from above, professors necessarily become complicit in the charade of student “achievement.” They must even turn a blind eye to cheating and plagiarism, once-taboo habits now routinely incorporated into students’ “research” process, but rarely punished by shaming of any kind, let alone expulsion.
Côté and Allahar conducted an in-depth analysis of the self-esteem movement’s consequences at the University of Western Ontario in the faculties of arts, social science and natural science. More than one-third of the profs they interviewed identified fewer than 10% of their students as “fully engaged.” Over 80% of professors said they had dumbed down their course work, and had reduced the frequency and difficulty of assignments.
More than half the students in courses at all levels were receiving either an A or B. Objectively, grade distribution should be: 10% A, 20% B and 40% C or lower. If graded accurately, up to 20% would regularly fail. In fact, at Western about 5% fail. Not surprisingly, only about half the professors consulted find the teaching part of their jobs satisfying.
The moral of the story is that you can have “higher education” as we used to call it, which depends on high effort and high levels of engagement amongst students. Or you can have high across-the-board self-esteem amongst students, producing mediocre education by disillusioned professors to unmotivated, disengaged students. You can’t have both.
It’s time to break the conspiracy of silence on this important subject. Even if — oh the horror! — it means some misguided educational theorists take a hit to their precious self-esteem.
Barbara Kay is a columnist for Canada’s National Post, in which this article was first published.
Monday, November 10, 2008
A raging debate in the Philippines
Last week I found myself in one of my favourite haunts of San Francisco, where I had wandered to in between sessions at a conference I was attending. At the conference was a colleague from Manila whom I had not seen since 2004 at an alumni reunion in Spain. He was concerned about the current situation in the Philippines; a Reproductive and Sexual Health Bill had been presented for review and passing in the Senate with some very contentious material but what had heightened the debate and division in society was a position paper presented by a group of Professors, calling themselves the individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, the main Catholic University in the Philippines, stating that a Catholic could support the HB 5043 bill in good concious.
The position paper argues that the Bill is in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church, in particular it´s teaching´s on social justice. The paper had caused a reaction amongst that sector of society educated at the Ateneo and familiar with the Catholics Church´s teachings, they were concerned about the content of the position paper and at the consequences it might have.
Following its publication the president of the Ateneo held an interview where he clarified that the position paper was not the University´s position on the Bill and that though they recognized some of its good elements they could not support it as it was in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Driven by my extreme curiosity I asked my friend to send me some information on the Bill and the position paper. After this we both returned from whence we came and it was not until several days had gone by that I received an email from my friend. He had waited in order to send me the bill, the position paper and an international response to the position paper, sent to him via a mutual contact, signed by a very diverse group of Catholic Professors. After closely studying the three documents and reviewing some of the sources cited it is my conclusion that the bill is not in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church as it holds several clauses that go against the dignity of the human person, the freedom of conscience of health workers, and allows for officious state intervention into the private sphere of the family which is in direct contradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and liberal domestic laws of the mayority of the worlds countries that identify the family as a private, inviolable and basic unit of society that must be protected but not over controlled.
Below you will find attached a copy of the International Response to the Individual Faculty and this is the link to the page where the bill and the Individual Faculty of the Ateneo de Manila Position Paper in support of the HB 5043 Bill can be found (http://reproductivehealth.com.ph/index.php).
An open letter in response to the 14 signatories of the Ateneo Statement
House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development” has occasioned enormous debate in the Philippines and was recently the subject of a position paper drafted by 14 members of the faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University. In their statement, these faculty stated their belief that the bill adheres “to core principles of Catholic social teaching: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, integral human development, human rights, and the primacy of conscience.” They believe these conditions of Catholic social teaching are met in Bill 5043. We, the undersigned Catholics academics, assert, however, that these Ateneo faculty are gravely mistaken in their presentation of the Church’s teaching.
The primary reason for these Ateneo Faculty members´ support of the bill seems to stem from their deep commitment to the Church’s long-held “preferential option for the poor.” Their position paper describes, heart-wrenchingly, the situation of the poor in the Philippines. High maternal mortality rates, inadequate and uneven provision of basic health care, lack of birth attendants, and lack of reproductive health information: such situations place an undue burden on the poor, and in particular on women. These women, like all women, desire to determine the number and spacing of their children, and ensure that proper nutrition, health care, and education can be provided for each member of their families. As Catholics, we have a clear obligation to ensure that all persons, particularly the poor, have the ability to exercise these basic freedoms.
As Catholic academics, we agree that we must support civic and governmental initiatives that can aid the poor. Nevertheless, a Catholic cannot support the Reproductive Health and Population Development bill in good conscience, because the primary provisions of the bill not only fail to recognize and support the dignity of the poor, but also stand in direct opposition to Catholic social teaching. The bill focuses primarily on providing services to curb the number of children of the poor, while doing little to remedy their situation, provide necessary health care or establish the grounds for sound economic development.
A few citations will serve to show how clear and unambiguous is the Church’s care for the dignity of the person, and in particular the poor, and how critical it is for us to heed her teachings in addressing the circumstances facing the Philippines today.
Rerum Novarum opens with the powerful reminder that “Man precedes the state” and for that reason should not be subject to the state’s regulation of his private matters.
Populorum Progressio reiterates this sentiment, stating: "No solution . . . is acceptable which does violence to man's essential dignity; those who propose such solutions base them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life. The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values." (1)
Perhaps no document speaks more powerfully in opposition to the main ideas in this bill than Humanae Vitae: “Therefore we base our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.” (2)
In reply to the claim that reproductive rights, contraception and sterilization are required in order to help the poor limit their family size and thus aid the poor by reducing the numbers of mouths to feed, Humanae Vitae states: “Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question we must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.” (3)
Artificial contraception can never be accepted by the Church as an action in conformity with the dignity of the human person because “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (4) Further, it is never valid to argue, “as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one,” (5) as the authors of the position paper seem to suggest. While applauding efforts in the bill to provide information on both artificial and natural forms of family planning, the position paper then asserts that provision of contraceptives as essential medicines and fully covered sterilizations for indigent patients are measures that promote quality of life. (6) This statement directly contradicts Catholic teaching, which recognizes the use and promotion of artificial contraception and sterilization as intrinsically evil. Such actions can never be promoted or justified. “It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it – in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, or a family or of society in general. Consequently it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” (7)
The Church does not hold these positions to punish the poor, but rather because she recognizes that the poor have the same inviolable dignity and rights that all human persons share. What the poor need is not contraception and sterilization, but to experience authentic solidarity with those who, in responding to their innate dignity, work with the poor to enable them to develop their skills, improve their circumstances and cultivate lives that are marked by both interior and exterior freedom. This places a much more radical demand on those of us to whom much has been given (Luke 12:48); we must live and work with the poor in order to identify and enable the resources they require to live lives of authentic freedom.
Finally, Humanae Vitae warns us that "[c]areful consideration should be given to the danger of this power (8) passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.” (9)
These statements of the Church and Magisterium have been retained in all subsequent documents and reiterated in documents too numerous to cite here. (10) These few, but clear, passages make it abundantly clear that no Catholic can in good conscience support Bill 5043. This Bill violates the Church’s teachings in the gravest manner.
Maternal and ObGyn health
Finally, it must be emphasized that there are two sections in the bill that should be applauded and expanded. Both Section 6 and Section 7 call for the expansion of midwives and birth attendants, as well as greater access to obstetric care. Such measures are critical to reducing maternal mortality and making progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDG 5 (maternal health) and MDG 4 (infant health). Healthy mothers are the critical factor in assuring infant and child health. (11)
Unfortunately, these two sections are the weakest in the bill. Most of the reproductive health proposals of the bill are mandatory and supported through financial means, as well as through the creation of new government agencies to assure implementation. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill - and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching - has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee the its implementation.
A bill that responds to the situation of the poor requires us to respond to their full range of needs in order to facilitate integral improvement in their quality of life. This necessitates the creation of laws that guarantee the adoption of measures, at the national and local levels, that will lead to improved access to authentic development including the provision of basic health care and access to quality education. It is measures such as these that will enable the poor to develop and thrive, and that will affirm and respect the dignity of each and every human person. This bill stops short of assuring implementation of needed medical care, while emphasizing the adoption of measures that deny the dignity and freedom of the poor. As Catholics we have a moral duty to defend and support the poor; we must demand more from our legislators and from ourselves, placing ourselves at the service of poor, ready to commit to the necessary work, sacrifice and solidarity needed to establish and build societies that will respond to authentic needs while respecting the dignity and freedom of every human person.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
November 4, 2008
(Dr. Timothy Flanigan, Brown University Medical School, USA)
(Tom D'Andrea, Prof. of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom) (Gerard Bradley, Prof. of Law, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Director, ADR and Conflict Resolution Program, Fordham Law School, USA)
(Prof. Janet E. Smith, Fr. Micheal J McGivney Chair of Life Ethics, Sacred Hear Seminary, USA)
(Theresa Notare, Asistant Director, United States Council of Bishops)
(Aneta Gawkowska, Prof. of Sociology, University of Warsaw, Poland)
(Micheal Scaperlanda, Edwards Chair of Law, University of Oklahoma, USA) (Patrick Quirk, Prof. of Law, Ave María University, USA)
(Angela Aparisi, Director of the Institute of Human Rights, Universidad de Navarra, Spain)
(Fr. Earl Muller, SJ, Kevin M. Britt Chair in Theology, Sacred Heart Seminary, USA)
(Teresa S. Collett, Prof. of Law, University of St. Thomas, USA)
(Dr. Helen Watt, Director of Linacre Centre, United Kingdom)
(SC Selner Wright, Chair Philosophy Department,St. John Vianney Seminary, USA)
(Mary M. Keys, Prof. Political Science, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(David Braine, Research Fellow in Philosophy, University of Aberdeem, United Kingdom)
(Mark E. Ginter, Prof. of Moral Theology, St. Meinrad School of Theology, USA)
(Daniel Philpott, Prof. of Political Science, Joan B. Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(Romanus Cessario,OP, Prof. of Theology, St. John´s Seminary, USA)
(Rec. Joseph W. Koterski, SJ, Department of Philosophy, Fordham University, USA)
(Robert G. Kennedy, Co-Director of the Terence J. Murphy Institute for Catholics Thought, Law and Public Policy, University of St Thomas, USA) (Richard S. Myers, Prof. of Law, Ave Maria University of Law, USA)
(Micheal Rota, Prof. of Philosophy, University of St. Thomas, USA)
(Fr. Basil Cole, OP, Dominican House of Studies, USA)
(Richard Stith JD, Prof. of Law, Valparaiso University, USA)
(Dr. Mary Healy, Prof. of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Heart Seminary, USA) (Prof. David Paton, Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottinghan University, United Kingdom)
(Jane Adolphe, Prof of Law, Ave María University, USA)
(Evelyn Birge Vitz, Prof. of French, New York University, USA)
(William E. May, Micheal J. McGivney Prof. of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, USA)
(Dr. Dermot Grenham, Graduate Teaching, London School of Economics, United Kingdom)
( Fr. Daniel Trapp, Prof. of Sacramental Theology, Sacred Heart Seminary, USA (Maria Fedoryka, Prof. of Philosophy, Ave María University, USA)
(Dr. Micheal Pakaluk, Prof. of Philosophy, Institute for the Psychological Sciences, USA)
(Dr, Christian Brugger, Prof. of Moral Theology, St. John Vianny Theological Seminary, USA)
(Peter Kreeft, Prof. of Philosophy, Boston College, USA)
(Mark S. Latkovic, S.T. D., Sacred Heart Major Seminary, USA)
(Adrian J. Reimer, Prof. of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(Ligia M. De Jesus, Prof. of Law, Ave María University, USA)
(Habib Malik, Prof. of History, Lebanese American University)
(Fr. José M. Antón, L.C. Italy)
(J. Budziszewski, Departments of Government and Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin)
References
1. Encyclical letter Populorum Progressio, nos. 48-55: AAS 59 (1967), 281-284
2. Encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, nos 14-15, (1968)
3. Ibid, no. 16
4. Ibid, no. 12
5. Ibid, no. 14
6. “Catholics can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience”, Position paper on the Reproductive Health Bill by individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, pp. 2-7, 15 October, 2008
7. Humane Vitae, no 14
8. Paul VI is referring to the control of reproduction and artificial contraception when he talks of “this power” being put in the hands of the state. This passage follows directly on a passage in which he discusses the problems artificial contraception poses within the marital union, and then expands to the consideration of problems that will result if the state is given the authority to regulate conception and birth.
9. Humanae Vitae, no 17
10. The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman."(38) This principle, which is based upon the nature of marriage and the intimate connection of the goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's exalted vocation to parenthood."(39) The same doctrine concerning the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and between the goods of marriage throws light on the moral problem of homologous artificial fertilization, since "it is never permitted to separate these different aspects to such a degree as positively to exclude either the procreative intention or the conjugal relation." (40) Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage." The Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith quoting Humanae Vitae and Pope Pius XII in its "Instruction on the respect for Human Life and on the Dignity of Procreation" Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, February 22, 1987
11. As cited in the Ateneo position paper, page 2.
The position paper argues that the Bill is in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church, in particular it´s teaching´s on social justice. The paper had caused a reaction amongst that sector of society educated at the Ateneo and familiar with the Catholics Church´s teachings, they were concerned about the content of the position paper and at the consequences it might have.
Following its publication the president of the Ateneo held an interview where he clarified that the position paper was not the University´s position on the Bill and that though they recognized some of its good elements they could not support it as it was in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Driven by my extreme curiosity I asked my friend to send me some information on the Bill and the position paper. After this we both returned from whence we came and it was not until several days had gone by that I received an email from my friend. He had waited in order to send me the bill, the position paper and an international response to the position paper, sent to him via a mutual contact, signed by a very diverse group of Catholic Professors. After closely studying the three documents and reviewing some of the sources cited it is my conclusion that the bill is not in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church as it holds several clauses that go against the dignity of the human person, the freedom of conscience of health workers, and allows for officious state intervention into the private sphere of the family which is in direct contradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and liberal domestic laws of the mayority of the worlds countries that identify the family as a private, inviolable and basic unit of society that must be protected but not over controlled.
Below you will find attached a copy of the International Response to the Individual Faculty and this is the link to the page where the bill and the Individual Faculty of the Ateneo de Manila Position Paper in support of the HB 5043 Bill can be found (http://reproductivehealth.com.ph/index.php).
An open letter in response to the 14 signatories of the Ateneo Statement
House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development” has occasioned enormous debate in the Philippines and was recently the subject of a position paper drafted by 14 members of the faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University. In their statement, these faculty stated their belief that the bill adheres “to core principles of Catholic social teaching: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, integral human development, human rights, and the primacy of conscience.” They believe these conditions of Catholic social teaching are met in Bill 5043. We, the undersigned Catholics academics, assert, however, that these Ateneo faculty are gravely mistaken in their presentation of the Church’s teaching.
The primary reason for these Ateneo Faculty members´ support of the bill seems to stem from their deep commitment to the Church’s long-held “preferential option for the poor.” Their position paper describes, heart-wrenchingly, the situation of the poor in the Philippines. High maternal mortality rates, inadequate and uneven provision of basic health care, lack of birth attendants, and lack of reproductive health information: such situations place an undue burden on the poor, and in particular on women. These women, like all women, desire to determine the number and spacing of their children, and ensure that proper nutrition, health care, and education can be provided for each member of their families. As Catholics, we have a clear obligation to ensure that all persons, particularly the poor, have the ability to exercise these basic freedoms.
As Catholic academics, we agree that we must support civic and governmental initiatives that can aid the poor. Nevertheless, a Catholic cannot support the Reproductive Health and Population Development bill in good conscience, because the primary provisions of the bill not only fail to recognize and support the dignity of the poor, but also stand in direct opposition to Catholic social teaching. The bill focuses primarily on providing services to curb the number of children of the poor, while doing little to remedy their situation, provide necessary health care or establish the grounds for sound economic development.
A few citations will serve to show how clear and unambiguous is the Church’s care for the dignity of the person, and in particular the poor, and how critical it is for us to heed her teachings in addressing the circumstances facing the Philippines today.
Rerum Novarum opens with the powerful reminder that “Man precedes the state” and for that reason should not be subject to the state’s regulation of his private matters.
Populorum Progressio reiterates this sentiment, stating: "No solution . . . is acceptable which does violence to man's essential dignity; those who propose such solutions base them on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and his life. The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values." (1)
Perhaps no document speaks more powerfully in opposition to the main ideas in this bill than Humanae Vitae: “Therefore we base our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when we are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.” (2)
In reply to the claim that reproductive rights, contraception and sterilization are required in order to help the poor limit their family size and thus aid the poor by reducing the numbers of mouths to feed, Humanae Vitae states: “Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question we must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.” (3)
Artificial contraception can never be accepted by the Church as an action in conformity with the dignity of the human person because “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (4) Further, it is never valid to argue, “as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one,” (5) as the authors of the position paper seem to suggest. While applauding efforts in the bill to provide information on both artificial and natural forms of family planning, the position paper then asserts that provision of contraceptives as essential medicines and fully covered sterilizations for indigent patients are measures that promote quality of life. (6) This statement directly contradicts Catholic teaching, which recognizes the use and promotion of artificial contraception and sterilization as intrinsically evil. Such actions can never be promoted or justified. “It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it – in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, or a family or of society in general. Consequently it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” (7)
The Church does not hold these positions to punish the poor, but rather because she recognizes that the poor have the same inviolable dignity and rights that all human persons share. What the poor need is not contraception and sterilization, but to experience authentic solidarity with those who, in responding to their innate dignity, work with the poor to enable them to develop their skills, improve their circumstances and cultivate lives that are marked by both interior and exterior freedom. This places a much more radical demand on those of us to whom much has been given (Luke 12:48); we must live and work with the poor in order to identify and enable the resources they require to live lives of authentic freedom.
Finally, Humanae Vitae warns us that "[c]areful consideration should be given to the danger of this power (8) passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.” (9)
These statements of the Church and Magisterium have been retained in all subsequent documents and reiterated in documents too numerous to cite here. (10) These few, but clear, passages make it abundantly clear that no Catholic can in good conscience support Bill 5043. This Bill violates the Church’s teachings in the gravest manner.
Maternal and ObGyn health
Finally, it must be emphasized that there are two sections in the bill that should be applauded and expanded. Both Section 6 and Section 7 call for the expansion of midwives and birth attendants, as well as greater access to obstetric care. Such measures are critical to reducing maternal mortality and making progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDG 5 (maternal health) and MDG 4 (infant health). Healthy mothers are the critical factor in assuring infant and child health. (11)
Unfortunately, these two sections are the weakest in the bill. Most of the reproductive health proposals of the bill are mandatory and supported through financial means, as well as through the creation of new government agencies to assure implementation. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill - and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching - has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee the its implementation.
A bill that responds to the situation of the poor requires us to respond to their full range of needs in order to facilitate integral improvement in their quality of life. This necessitates the creation of laws that guarantee the adoption of measures, at the national and local levels, that will lead to improved access to authentic development including the provision of basic health care and access to quality education. It is measures such as these that will enable the poor to develop and thrive, and that will affirm and respect the dignity of each and every human person. This bill stops short of assuring implementation of needed medical care, while emphasizing the adoption of measures that deny the dignity and freedom of the poor. As Catholics we have a moral duty to defend and support the poor; we must demand more from our legislators and from ourselves, placing ourselves at the service of poor, ready to commit to the necessary work, sacrifice and solidarity needed to establish and build societies that will respond to authentic needs while respecting the dignity and freedom of every human person.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
November 4, 2008
(Dr. Timothy Flanigan, Brown University Medical School, USA)
(Tom D'Andrea, Prof. of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom) (Gerard Bradley, Prof. of Law, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Director, ADR and Conflict Resolution Program, Fordham Law School, USA)
(Prof. Janet E. Smith, Fr. Micheal J McGivney Chair of Life Ethics, Sacred Hear Seminary, USA)
(Theresa Notare, Asistant Director, United States Council of Bishops)
(Aneta Gawkowska, Prof. of Sociology, University of Warsaw, Poland)
(Micheal Scaperlanda, Edwards Chair of Law, University of Oklahoma, USA) (Patrick Quirk, Prof. of Law, Ave María University, USA)
(Angela Aparisi, Director of the Institute of Human Rights, Universidad de Navarra, Spain)
(Fr. Earl Muller, SJ, Kevin M. Britt Chair in Theology, Sacred Heart Seminary, USA)
(Teresa S. Collett, Prof. of Law, University of St. Thomas, USA)
(Dr. Helen Watt, Director of Linacre Centre, United Kingdom)
(SC Selner Wright, Chair Philosophy Department,St. John Vianney Seminary, USA)
(Mary M. Keys, Prof. Political Science, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(David Braine, Research Fellow in Philosophy, University of Aberdeem, United Kingdom)
(Mark E. Ginter, Prof. of Moral Theology, St. Meinrad School of Theology, USA)
(Daniel Philpott, Prof. of Political Science, Joan B. Kroc Institute of International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(Romanus Cessario,OP, Prof. of Theology, St. John´s Seminary, USA)
(Rec. Joseph W. Koterski, SJ, Department of Philosophy, Fordham University, USA)
(Robert G. Kennedy, Co-Director of the Terence J. Murphy Institute for Catholics Thought, Law and Public Policy, University of St Thomas, USA) (Richard S. Myers, Prof. of Law, Ave Maria University of Law, USA)
(Micheal Rota, Prof. of Philosophy, University of St. Thomas, USA)
(Fr. Basil Cole, OP, Dominican House of Studies, USA)
(Richard Stith JD, Prof. of Law, Valparaiso University, USA)
(Dr. Mary Healy, Prof. of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Heart Seminary, USA) (Prof. David Paton, Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottinghan University, United Kingdom)
(Jane Adolphe, Prof of Law, Ave María University, USA)
(Evelyn Birge Vitz, Prof. of French, New York University, USA)
(William E. May, Micheal J. McGivney Prof. of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, USA)
(Dr. Dermot Grenham, Graduate Teaching, London School of Economics, United Kingdom)
( Fr. Daniel Trapp, Prof. of Sacramental Theology, Sacred Heart Seminary, USA (Maria Fedoryka, Prof. of Philosophy, Ave María University, USA)
(Dr. Micheal Pakaluk, Prof. of Philosophy, Institute for the Psychological Sciences, USA)
(Dr, Christian Brugger, Prof. of Moral Theology, St. John Vianny Theological Seminary, USA)
(Peter Kreeft, Prof. of Philosophy, Boston College, USA)
(Mark S. Latkovic, S.T. D., Sacred Heart Major Seminary, USA)
(Adrian J. Reimer, Prof. of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, USA)
(Ligia M. De Jesus, Prof. of Law, Ave María University, USA)
(Habib Malik, Prof. of History, Lebanese American University)
(Fr. José M. Antón, L.C. Italy)
(J. Budziszewski, Departments of Government and Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin)
References
1. Encyclical letter Populorum Progressio, nos. 48-55: AAS 59 (1967), 281-284
2. Encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, nos 14-15, (1968)
3. Ibid, no. 16
4. Ibid, no. 12
5. Ibid, no. 14
6. “Catholics can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience”, Position paper on the Reproductive Health Bill by individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, pp. 2-7, 15 October, 2008
7. Humane Vitae, no 14
8. Paul VI is referring to the control of reproduction and artificial contraception when he talks of “this power” being put in the hands of the state. This passage follows directly on a passage in which he discusses the problems artificial contraception poses within the marital union, and then expands to the consideration of problems that will result if the state is given the authority to regulate conception and birth.
9. Humanae Vitae, no 17
10. The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman."(38) This principle, which is based upon the nature of marriage and the intimate connection of the goods of marriage, has well-known consequences on the level of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's exalted vocation to parenthood."(39) The same doctrine concerning the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and between the goods of marriage throws light on the moral problem of homologous artificial fertilization, since "it is never permitted to separate these different aspects to such a degree as positively to exclude either the procreative intention or the conjugal relation." (40) Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage." The Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith quoting Humanae Vitae and Pope Pius XII in its "Instruction on the respect for Human Life and on the Dignity of Procreation" Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, February 22, 1987
11. As cited in the Ateneo position paper, page 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
