Published by To move from theory into the practical, any discussion about relevance of religion necessitates a test case. Lexically, relevance is “to be of use.” Then, how can religion claim to be relevant — i.e, “useful” — in a given society? Giving flesh to our discussion, we take the case of Philippines with its burning issue involving its increasing population.
Right at the middle of the controversy is the biggest religious group in the country — the Catholic Church. Precisely, the Church, coming from its dogmatic standpoint, opposes the move of progressive personalities, groups and institutions in the country in the latter’s bid for the government to engage into population control. The Church argues that the only morally acceptable method of planning the (number of) family is natural method. The said to be basis of this method is human dignity requiring a particular sexual behavior, and thus it is exclusive of the use of artificial birth control methods. Taking on from the moral norm that what is natural is moral, this method urges the Catholic couples to periodically observe abstinence if not go for natural infertility, such as during periods of lactation and/or infertile moments in the menstrual cycle, during pregnancy or after the menopausal period. Intercourse in other occasions aside from the previously mentioned should always be open — or at least, the couples are aware that they are open — to begetting children.
The propositions of the Church concerning this issue are — for most part — contained in Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical that, at least, quantitatively aggravated the defection of priests and religious men and women from the hierarchy following the “shock” of the Vatican II.
So much about the Church, (at least for now)…
How about the Philippines? Well, the country that used to be the second in economics during circa 50-60 in the southeast asian region is now relegated to the second lowest, if not the lowest in the economic ladder. Aside from figures from statisticians and economists, anyone who comes to the country readily testifies to the face of Philippine poverty. And it seems the end of the tunnel (of poverty) for the country is still light-years away…
To afford you a vivid description, one can always make an allusion to an avalanche of garbage in Payatas that killed a number of garbage collectors. Almost this unfortunate incident transpired at the turn of the century — or millenium — its face has just metamorphosed into something else. In industrialized countries, suicide is being committed on the face of meaninglessness of life. When everything that is material is already at hand, what is still there to live for? In the Philippines, who could forget the news about a secondary student who took her own life and explained it away as her way of escape from a life that is hopelessly poor?
And not even the Church is not recognizing this issue… Ironically, however, Filipinos are seeing a religious institution that is fighting tit-for-tat for the survival of its dogmatic stand to the detriment of the majority of population.
Of course, one needs to be conscious of the so many nuances of the issue. It is not difficult to concede that poverty is also occasioned by graft and corruption particularly in the government. But one does concession only insofar as it is also acknowledged that an uncontrolled increase in population is likewise a factor that results to worsening poverty, so that an approach to poverty alleviation would take on multiple dimensions. In the same manner, one also recognizes that Filipinos do not trust their government so that any talk by its officials about poverty alleviation is, well, just that — a talk. One is also also aware that the issue is never freed from its cultural context, with the Filipino culture being (still) machismo; or that the subject should not divorce from an axiological coating – among others.
But in the face of the challenges of the scientific discipline of demographics, one wonders what is keeping the Church from coming to the scence with, and refusing to bare itself from, its dogmatic armor which is obviously not serving properly the population…
Seen from this context, the relevance of religion assumes concrete form. If to be relevant is to be of use, one could pose this question: Is the Church helping the Filipino people? Or is the Church relevant only to its own cause — which in this case is preservation of dogma?
A student of theology will definitely wonder how come a Church that has a concept of tradition that is alive, if not living, and has as its guideposts the principles of Vatican II among which tell its leaders in particular to always work for RE-INTERPRETATION of the dogma (as implicitly — a word which appears to be more politically correct than “explicitly” — the ecumenical council acknowledges the changes in the mindsets of people in different epochs of history, hence to change the semantic coating of the dogmas) could become so thick-skinned to adapt a doctrinal hardliner’s stance viz. the issue of population control…
As already said, if the question is raised with a backdrop of concrete situation, the subject matter of religion’s relevance becomes very practical. Thus, this writing would like to end by proposing two steps for the Church: (1) Can the Church devise a more sociologically facilitating stance face-to-face this issue? Such one is when the Church focuses to advocate better for its dogmatically-sanctioned method, while letting other methods more available and accessible to the population through other agencies. (2) Can the Church do a ego-introspection in order to begin adapting a different philosophy and theology of sexuality as its formal and official doctrine – something which is distinct from Aquinas’ outdated biology?
Without forcing the issue, one is reminded of the fate of Galileo in the hands of Church officials during the heyday of the geo-centricism and heliocentricism debate…
But, at least, by abandoning their Biblically-founded — which later exercises proved to have been wrongfully referred to — reason for opposing the man of science, the Church become more sociologically relevant.
Definitely, the Catholic Church is not against the objective of population control but only the methods – the natural method which the Church consider in accordance with moral norms while the artificial means are banned.
But is there really a big difference between the issue of the natural and the artificial method of birth control in terms of morality? Both methods have the same objective of preventing/depriving life…only in various stages.
The end does not justify the means.
You have succinctly pointed out, Gifted Flip, that natural and artificial methods of birth control have the same end result — spacing of lives.
If one considers the morality, as I already said, the Catholic Church stands on a rather archaic perspective that ‘WHAT IS NATURAL IS MORAL’.
Well, even our understanding of morality is in evolution so that, accordingly, a textbook-based morality — which is something that Catholics are known of — is no longer helping. Following the writings of McCormick, Haring and other famous moral theologians, there are more factors to consider now if one is to make a moral judgment not just on this specific birth control issue.
For specifically the context within which an issue is placed or situated is very significant to be ignored. For instance, to steal is according to Catholic moral books or booklets a sin. When one who is already wealthy steals, then he commits a more abominable sin. But for one who is in real need, say, for food or medicine, his act of stealing is justified. Why? What explains his justification is the primacy of preserving the integrity of life over the lawful right of one over his rightful property. Actually, if one steals to feed his starving neighbor, he should even be considered saintly. Nothing is going to equal this act — when one leases his soul to Satan only to serve his neighbor. I think, this is even nobler than the Biblical ideal about giving up one’s life for one’s friend. For in this case, what is given up is not only life, but soul. And to think that is it not what Lord did for us when he died on the cross — he stole us from the clutches of the devil?
Same is true in the issue of reproductive ethics. I understand the priests who would lodge a well-thought out advocacy against the supporters of, and also against the very theory of, reproductive rights will be quite sympathetic with those who approach them privately or in confessional concerning “this sin”. For, what do you say to a poor laundrywoman with already six or seven children who complain about the unabated libido of her drunkard and non-working husband?
- In the issue that the church helping the Filipino people? Or only for its own cause? You cannot blame the church itself. Only dangerous is that their ignorance of the meaning of the church.
- There are lots of trainings/ doctrines they have received from the clergy. Once people understand what the church is about and it needs for mission, they will share important information and educate one another. The problem of too much poverty, suicidal, immorality and others will lessen. Once they understand what the church is, they love and respect its teachings, accept and live it as an example.
I beg to disagree, Puree. Sheer understanding of the identity of the Church is never a guarantee that poverty and other social ills will lessen.
Actually, for me, an understanding of what the Church is and what the Church should be doing — i.e., that is the Church’s mission — should push one to advocate for a faith-community that is more socially relevant. For the only way to love and respect the teachings of the Church is to see that the institution and all that it teaches its flock have a decisive impact on the life of the people not in the after life, but in the here-and-now. Anyway, that we are given a foretaste of heaven is an understatement. What is more precise to say is the entry into the Kingdom of God already starts in the here and now.