My stand on the RH

Bill
By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
I HAVE been following the debates
on the RH Bill not just in the recent
House sessions but practically since
its start. In the process, because of
what I have said and written (where
I have not joined the attack dogs
against the RH Bill), I have been
called a Judas by a high-ranking
cleric, I am considered a heretic in a wealthy barangay where some
members have urged that I should leave the

Church (which is insane), and one of those who regularly hears my

Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to me disturbed by my
position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation to those who
listen to me or read my writings.

First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the

Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the
teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those
who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered
a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics
notwithstanding!

Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and

of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we
live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have
differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But
freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It
also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one
believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing
responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may
churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to
prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the
“Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says,
“Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious
community might be given special recognition on the part of the
State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within
the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those
responsible for government are required to interpret the common
good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the
majority but also according to the effective good of all the members
of the community, including the minority.”

Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support

for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication!
I find this to be irresponsible.

Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have
to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as
much as I can. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues
have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be
the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent
people in our country.) For that purpose we jointly prepared and I
published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill.

Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory

sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I
assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools
accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason
for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the
constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human
family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral
character.” (Article II, Section 12)

Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of

abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills
and devices, if there are any in the market, should be banned by
the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are
such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge.

Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized

ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the
unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that
sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.

Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of

employers with regard to the sexual and reproductive health of
employees is already dealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision
needs improvement or nuancing, let it be done through an
examination of the Labor Code provision.

Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of

Policy and Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the
nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of
medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance
to these good points. They should be saved.

Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of
reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution.
Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what
have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good
without violating the Constitution.

Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists.

Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive

views of some clerics.