REPORT Secularism Violations
Religion

The disturbing politics behind the Church’s anti-contraceptive stand

Jong Atmosfera
Jong Atmosfera

In a previous post I mentioned that the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae, a 1968 encyclical written by Pope Paul VI insisting that sex must be kept open to the transmission of life. While the infallibility of such encyclicals may already be questionable to non-Catholics and even to liberal Catholics, what is more disturbing is how Humanae Vitae got promulgated even if the majority of the members of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control proposed that “artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed“, as stated in the majority report:

The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded.

Here the Commission acknowledges that even the “accepted” natural methods of birth control deliberately try to separate the unitive from the procreative purpose of sex.

The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention.

My understanding here is that there is no difference between “material conformity to the physiological processes of nature” (i.e., scheduling sex based on the wife’s fertility cycle to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant) and using contraceptives.

For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature.

Whether by slipping a condom or counting the days since his wife’s last mentruation, man is using his skill to put nature under his control.

The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.

The Commission is saying that what’s important is to distinguish between hedonistic sex and responsible family planning. In short, what matters is the intent, not the method.

Nevertheless, Pope Paul VI “explicitly rejected his commission’s recommendations in the text of Humanae Vitae, noting the 72 member commission had not been unanimous (4 theologian priests had dissented, and 1 cardinal and 2 bishops had voted that contraception was intrinsically evil–significantly Cardinal Ottaviani, the commission’s president and Bishop Colombo, the papal theologian).”

But the real reason for Pope Paul’s rejection may be a lot more disturbing. In an article published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Ambassador Rigoberto Tiglao talked about a book titled Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church” written by an insider, Robert McClory. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an online version of the book and so I hope the readers will forgive me for quoting heavily from Tiglao’s article since contraception is a very hot issue today and the message couldn’t wait until I’ve read the book.

The overwhelming majority in the commission concluded that artificial birth control did not violate the Church’s teachings, and that Catholic couples should decide for themselves what methods to use. However, a Jesuit theologian wrote a dissenting report, signed by three other theologian-priests, a bishop and—this proved to be most crucial—by the ultra-conservative Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. It was Ottaviani who is said to have single-handedly convinced Pope Paul VI to reject the pro-contraceptive report signed by the 70-plus members of the commission, and instead adopt the dissenting report of just six members, that the Church should label artificial contraceptives as intrinsically evil.

Ottaviani was the most influential cardinal in the 1963 Papal Conclave, which elected as pope the bishop of Milan Giovanni Batista Montini, who assumed the name Paul VI. It was solely Ottaviani who was authorized to announce to the world the election of the new pope, whose Humanae Vitae encyclical set in stone the Church’s uncompromising stand against artificial.

The picture that emerges is as follows: Like all politicians, Ottaviani reminded Paul VI that he, indisputably the most powerful prince of the Church then, helped him become pope, so that he should therefore take his advice to reject the commission’s majority report. Pope Paul VI gave in, thinking that the Second Vatican Council was the more important battle, instead of contraceptive use, which wasn’t after all, a burning issue at that time. Ottaviani’s “Semper idem” abhorrence of contraceptives became the Church dogma, and succeeding popes never dared reverse a predecessor’s encyclical.

Ottaviani passed away in 1979, and his ultra-conservative bloc in the Church that wanted it to remain in the medieval world view weakened to insignificance. His legacy—or his curse—lives on though, most prominently in our country.

And that, my friends, is how all this mess began. The Church teaches that Humanae Vitae as well as every other Catholic dogma is infallible because it comes from divine revelation as the Holy Spirit descends on the pope. It seems now that such dogma had been conceived with less spirit and more politics, to the detriment not only of the faithful, but the rest of the Filipinos.

Related content

54 comments

  2. The Catholic heirchy being so opposed to the RH bill then should take active role in educating the people. they keep harping on about providing opportunities for employment yet remain non involved nor participative. if they pay taxes that they make out from several businesses then (enormous)goverment funds collected would be somehow diverted to helping the poor. The great book says, give ceasar what is due ceasar. the sight of those children born that are deprived food to their mouth is so pathetic.. would you rather choose that over a peice of condom??

  3. I'll attempt to answer that but take note that my answer will not be based on facts (since I don't have much knowledge about the personality of Ottaviani) but on speculation.

    I think the reason Ottaviani didn't get himself elected was that he preferred to remain backstage and run the show from there, away from public scrutiny. He wanted the pope to be the public figure while he acts as the mastermind and a powerful adviser to get the pope to do what he (Ottaviani) wants and carry out his plan.

    • and the plot thickens…lol

      i still cannot imagine even if i look at the office even with out regards to the accountability that a believer has to God.

      for the sake of conversation, like what i said, once elected he is for life. a dreamjob for anyone who is simply into politics. if he has the power to have the pope do what he wants and carry out his plan, wouldnt the whole college of cardinals and the 1.2 billion catholics worldwide be a better option? …he wouldnt have to depend on "utang na loob" anymore to do the convincing for him. the story in itself is self-contradicting, they do not add up.

  4. We all should know of course that long before the mentioned encyclical the catholic church was already opposed to contraception right?

    (From Research Sources)

    All through the centuries the Church remained firm and constant in teaching that contraception was a grave attack on human life. In his encyclical on marriage of Dec. 31, 1930 (30+ years before the humanae vitae), Pope Pius XI referred to this teaching “which has been handed down from the beginning until now.” He called contraception: “this abominable crime” and “this infamous stain.”

    During the depression of the 1930s the majority of Catholics remained faithful to the Church’s teaching. That teaching was confirmed universally by bishops, priests, theologians and teachers.

    All that changed in the 1960s after the advent of the birth control Pill. Still there was no change in the Church’s teaching. Pope Pius XII condemned the contraceptive use of the Pill on Sept. 12, 1958. In Vatican Council II married people were taught that in their behaviour “They may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church” (Gaudium et spes n.50). Pope Paul VI confirmed the teaching of the Church in 1964 and 1966, calling it a time of study and not of doubt.

    The article (by tiglao) alleges that the pope gave in to ottoviani after being reminded by the latter of his assistance in the former's election to the papacy. It alleges that the Pope gave in as he thought that contraception was a lesser i…ssue than the second vatican council).

    The article (by tiglao) alleges that the pope gave in to ottoviani after being reminded by the latter of his assistance in the former's election to the papacy. It alleges that the Pope gave in as he thought that contraception was a lesser i…ssue than the second vatican council)

    "The picture that emerges is as follows: Like all politicians, Ottaviani reminded Paul VI that he, indisputably the most powerful prince of the Church then, helped him become pope, so that he should therefore take his advice to reject the commission’s majority report. Pope Paul VI gave in, thinking that the Second Vatican Council was the more important battle, instead of contraceptive use, which wasn’t after all, a burning issue at that time. "

    The paragraph therefore purports that the pope gave up so that he could concentrate on another (coming) battle (vatican 2).

    How could this be when the vatican 2 had already ended in 1965 and humanae vitae was only promulgated in 1968?

    The opening proposition "the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae, a 1968 encyclical written by Pope Paul VI insisting that sex must be kept open to the transmission of life. " therefore is wr…ong because:
    1. Earlier encyclicals had already been promulgated such as that of Pius XI in 1930 teaching that contraception was a grave attack on human life
    2. It implies malice in the decision making of the pope on promulgating Humanae vitae because he needs to pay back a debt of gratitude to Ottoviani.

    Tiglao or his reference is therefore twisting facts to suit their opinions, that not something a true freethinker would do.

    • Excellent arguments, Troy! You have raised very valid points. Let me try to answer as best I can:

      //We all should know of course that long before the mentioned encyclical the catholic church was already opposed to contraception right?…The opening proposition "the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae, a 1968 encyclical written by Pope Paul VI insisting that sex must be kept open to the transmission of life. " therefore is wrong because:

      1. Earlier encyclicals had already been promulgated such as that of Pius XI in 1930 teaching that contraception was a grave attack on human life//

      But in 1963 Pope John XXIII established the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control to deliberate on the birth control issue. Don't you think that by creating such commission the pope then was open to the idea of updating the Church's stand? Or was this just for show to somehow appease the dissenters? So when I said that the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae, what I meant was that Humanae Vitae cemented the Church's position on contraceptives.

      //"The picture that emerges is as follows: Like all politicians, Ottaviani reminded Paul VI that he, indisputably the most powerful prince of the Church then, helped him become pope, so that he should therefore take his advice to reject the commission’s majority report. Pope Paul VI gave in, thinking that the Second Vatican Council was the more important battle, instead of contraceptive use, which wasn’t after all, a burning issue at that time. "

      The paragraph therefore purports that the pope gave up so that he could concentrate on another (coming) battle (vatican 2).

      How could this be when the vatican 2 had already ended in 1965 and humanae vitae was only promulgated in 1968?//

      I can't speak for Tiglao or Robert McClory, but from what I understand Pope Paul VI gave in to Cardinal Ottaviano as a matter of "utang na loob" (debt of gratitude) because the latter helped him win the "more important battle"

      • [So when I said that the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae, what I meant was that Humanae Vitae cemented the Church's position on contraceptives.]

        So in short, in what could have been a golden opportunity for reform in light pf recent medical evidence, the Vatican decided to shove its collective head ups its arse. Again.

          • It's a decision that continues to influence the CBCP's and the RCC as a whole decision today, regardless if it was less of a "moral" choice and more of politicking. That's the bottom line.

          • @Reynor

            And once again you're trying to catch us in a half-truth Reynor. From your own link:

            [As stated in IARC’s review, the use of COCs modifies slightly the risk of cancer,
            increasing it in some sites (cervix, breast, liver), decreasing it in others (endometrium,
            ovary). Some of these data refer to older higher-dose COC preparations. Assessments
            based on risk-benefit calculations are carried out by different teams within WHO.]

          • A shortlist of other class 1 Carcinogens:

            Solar radiation
            Alcoholic beverages
            Solar radiation
            Salted Fish (Gloria Maris' Salted Fish Fried rice comes highly recommended 🙂 )
            Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with)
            Hepatitis C virus
            Soots
            Tobacco
            X-Rays

      • # So when I said that the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae, what I meant was that Humanae Vitae cemented the Church's position on contraceptives.
        >> Got it

        #I can't speak for Tiglao or Robert McClory, but from what I understand Pope Paul VI gave in to Cardinal Ottaviano as a matter of "utang na loob" (debt of gratitude) because the latter helped him win the "more important battle"

        But didnt the pope actually lose vatican 2 a few years earlier because the bishops reasserted their prominence after years if not decades of being strong armed by the the pope (my own words).

        Anyway, thanks for your good reply.

      • "But in 1963 Pope John XXIII established the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control to deliberate on the birth control issue. Don't you think that by creating such commission the pope then was open to the idea of updating the Church's stand? Or was this just for show to somehow appease the dissenters? " -innerminds

        the commission is necessary in order for the Church to provide substantiated replies on questions that arose with the dawning of new ways to regulate birth.

    • @Troy:
      while i do agree with you that the Church has openly denounced contraception before Pope Paul VI, Ottaviani, etc., it is also important to note that at THAT moment, when the Pope decided to organize a council to deliberate on the morality in artificial contraception, the Church was at crossroads and was open for reform.

      it accepted the possibility that the Pope's predecessors could have been mistaken. it accepted the possibility that the Church had to grow WITH its people. it accepted the possibility that the Church (and its leaders) is (are) fallible and imperfect – like a human being.

      It realized the importance and prominence of ABC and perhaps decided to think through whether or not the age-old ideology supposedly taught in the Bible (in the story of Onan – which i don't think is a viable basis) is still applicable in modern times.

      At that rare instance, the Church reflected. It began to think outside the box. Just when the Church was about to redeem itself, Ottaviani took that chance away from it.

      Yes, Ottaviani may not have been manipulative nor cunning. However, that is the picture painted. How would a single cardinal's letter overturn dozens of religious experts, bishops, etc.'s? It seems "utang na loob"-ish to me.

  6. This comment concur with the power abuse of the papacy. In a book I recently read titled "The Orthodox Church [New Edition]" (Penguin Books, 1997), the author Timothy Ware explains "Rome's mistake" concerning the nature of the papacy. He says,

    "The Orthodox church [i.e., the church of the first 7 ecumenical councils] does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Roman Catholic Church; but at the same time Orthodoxy does not deny to the Holy and Apostolic See of rome a [i]primacy of honor[/i]…Note that we have sued the word 'primacy', not 'supremacy'. Orthodox regard the Pope as the bishop 'who presides in love', to adapt a phrase of St. Ignatius: Rome's mistake — so Orthodox believe — has been to turn this primacy or 'presidency of love' into a supremacy of external power and jurisdiction." (page 27)

    Ware, although he is an Eastern Orthodox priest, presents some very important historical data concerning this conclusion.

  7. “what is more disturbing is how Humanae Vitae got promulgated even if the majority of the members of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control proposed that …” -innerminds

    The teachings of the Church does not depend on majority but solely on what we believe is what Christ has taught us. For a Catholic, it is not difficult at all to recognize the hesitation and denial of the 12 apostles against the many revelations that Christ had explained to them, the Church will not be here today if it were a case of “majority rules”.

    “My understanding here is that there is no difference between “material conformity to the physiological processes of nature” (i.e., scheduling sex based on the wife’s fertility cycle to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant) and using contraceptives…. Whether by slipping a condom or counting the days since his wife’s last mentruation, man is using his skill to put nature under his control.” –innerminds

    Our understanding is that the active employment of artificial means to get rid of the consequences of an act contradicts not only the true meaning of responsibility but also directly offend many moral principles that we hold about marriage (i.e. among many, requiring a total gift of self). Maybe it is much easier to understand if we reflect on the difference between taking advantage of the cyclic infertile periods that naturally take place and taking pills to render a person infertile.

    “The picture that emerges is as follows: Like all politicians, Ottaviani reminded Paul VI that he, indisputably the most powerful prince of the Church then, helped him become pope, so that he should therefore take his advice to reject the commission’s majority report. “ -article posted by innerminds

    Let us, for a second, assume that this was how it happened. Once elected a Pope, he is pope for life and what the author said is the most powerful prince of the Church, it would be very hard to accept that the most powerful prince will yield to 1 person while dismissing the 70-plus; yielding to 1 person whose only “authority” so to speak is to, accdg to the author, “the only authorized person to to announce to the world the election of the new pope when that authority to announce is actually, really, and in fact, is nothing more than just to go out and speak on the microphone to announce who the whole college of cardinals, Ottaviani and the 70-plus included, has participated on the election of the new bishop of Rome.

    • Actually, the person referred to as the most powerful prince of the Church was Ottaviani; the pope was the king. And what happened here was that the king yielded to the most powerful prince on the matter of contraception because that prince had helped a lot into making him king.

      As to the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, the idea that a Catholic dogma has to go through human deliberation not unlike in certain political council meetings contradicts the divine revelation claim that the Holy Spirit descends upon to pope to reveal God's word.

      • Well, it's because the Holy Spirit does not descend on all of them at the same time. It's very logical. I wonder if the Holy Spirit stopped descending to the last pope when he became senile?

      • the community's usage of the term prince refers to all cardinals including the pope. in any case, it is just as difficult to imagine the scenario that the article was proposing.

        as for the contradiction, my guess is that it seemed that way if we are interpreting "divine revelation claim" like the voice of God that literally whispers to the ear of the pope. any Catholic belief has already been revealed in the apostolic times. the interpretation of it as we move forward is what the human deliberation is for.

  8. "In a previous post I mentioned that the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae…" -innerminds

    The real reason is not the document itself but the understanding of the Church about marriage, conjugal act, authentic love, etc… documents are issued when new questions arise. The teaching, the principle behind is the same and faithful to what we Catholics believe as what Christ has revealed to the apostles. The first few paragraphs of Humanae Vitae clearly explains this.

    “2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.
    Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
    But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.
    New Questions
    3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?
    Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
    Interpreting the Moral Law
    4. This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.” -Humanae Vitae

    cont.

    • "In a previous post I mentioned that the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church is against contraceptives is Humanae Vitae…" -innerminds

      Reynor: //The real reason is not the document itself but the understanding of the Church about marriage, conjugal act, authentic love, etc… documents are issued when new questions arise. The teaching, the principle behind is the same and faithful to what we Catholics believe as what Christ has revealed to the apostles. The first few paragraphs of Humanae Vitae clearly explains this.//

      Hi Reynor, my favorite theist. 🙂 Are you saying that Humanae Vitae itself is not the reason for the Church's anti-contraceptive stand but rather the teachings and principles behind – as explained in Humanae Vitae? 🙂

      • Hello innerminds, would be it be safe to say my favorite atheist or agnostic it is? lol

        reading the first paragraph gave me an impression that somehow the encyclical is being viewed within the same vicinity as legal statutes, that something will only be illegal and prohibited only after it has been proclaimed as such and that the prohibition is solely based on that particular statute or in this case the encyclical. what i was trying to convey is the idea that the encyclical is nothing more but a clarification of what we have always believed. it is an interpretation, an update, a response, a guide on how to deal with the current situation in order to live out what has always been believed and taught. contraception is not wrong because humanae vitae says it is wrong, it is wrong because of the reasons and the principles that humanae vitae has clarified, retierated, and interpreted again as it explains what we have long and always believed.

  9. Excellent article, inner 🙂

    For an institution that claims the moral high ground as much as the church, it's interesting to see that the power play, blackmailing and politicking of its inner workings is no different from that of the Mafia.

    Moral high ground? Who the fuck are they kidding?

  10. Politics without a conscience will destroy the nation. The church will always be there to remind us always that moral convictions and values are the pillars of a strong nation.Contraceptive mentality will lead us to a culture of death.

    • true that conscience is always needed, no one is contesting that. but the church makes for a bad moral compass of said conscience as this essay is trying to point out, it's too busy with its own internal politics to make the right decisions that will benefit anyone but itself and its own well-being.

      take a look at the news lately, how many babies in trashcans, both alive and dead, have been reported? contraceptive or not, there is already a culture of death pervading our society. which do you think is the greater evil? dead sperm or dead babies?

      • Dahil nga sa contraceptive mentality na lumalaganap ngayon kaya nakukuha na ng tao gumawa ng ganyang mga bagay. Nawawala na ang moral convictions at values kaya nga nagpapaalala ang church na dapat ibalik and konsepto ng culture of life. Kung hindi ka galing sa sperm at egg ng nanay at tatay mo at sa biyaya ng Diyos, di ka mabubuo at walang "Wes" dito sa mundo. In short lahat mahalaga pagdating sa buhay. Hindi maitatama ang pagkakamali ng isa pang pagkakamali.

        • The cathoilic church in it's present form (worldwide, not just RP) is an out dated institution which will become more and more detached and isolated as people learn to make their own decisions and find their own path.
          If RP is to make any progress in the next 100 years then the current upsurge in public feeling against the church should be viewed as a starting point – some powerful and decisive government will be needed but I think now more than eve,r that will is in place. Good Luck!!

        • @malou – pag hindi nag-practice ng sensible family planning ang aking mga magulang, oo nandito nga ako at ang aking dalawang dosenang ibang mga kapatid na walang sapat na makain, walang pinag-aralan, at walang patutunguhan dahil hindi maisuporta ng wasto kaming lahat sa dami namin.

          its quality, not quantity that matters. mas mabuting ipalaki mo ng tama ang kaya mong isuportang mga anak kesa mabuntis na lang taon-taon na walang plano sa buhay.

      • Damn it Wes, you beat me to the punch 🙂

        Adding to Wes' point, I ask you Malou, as a woman, how do you feel about the church demanding the right to expel students and teachers from their schools simply because they're pregnant and unwed?
        http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/220983/unwed-pregna…

        You did nail it on the head – the Philippines is badly in need of people and leaders who value moral integrity above money and power.

        But if you honestly think an organization as bigoted, misogynistic, and culturally out-of-touch as the church is deserving of that role, then I will be blunt. You are a bloody moron.

    • Politics without conscience will destroy any nation – the catholic church is no paragon of conscience or virtue.
      It's reputation is as sullied and stained as that of any 3rd rate bought off politician.
      It's main aim is self perpetuation through control and ignorance.
      The first step to breaking this kind of oppression is education and with education comes enlighhtenment and self determination. The sheer hypocracy of a celebate institution dictating on physical acts of which it has no knowledge is rediculous – especially when members of that institution find relief by abusing the very people they are supposedly there to protect.
      And as for culture of death – I debated this with a local priest in Cebu a couple of years ago. Wasn't the Inquisition an invention of the cathoilc church? The fanatically catholic Mary Tudors reign in Britain where non catholics were burnt as heretics? The Vaticans stance on ignoring the mass deportations and extermination Jews in Europe during world war two?

      • Yes! The Catholic Church is quick on the draw when it comes to pointing out the errors of governments, but they pretend to be numb about their own faults. Without these "heretics," we'd still think the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it.

        As was said by someone wise: Before you clean your brother's eyes of dirt, clean the dirt off yours first. I think the Catholic Church is getting a big FAIL on this one.

  11. you hit the nail on the head.

    that's the problem with having too many sacred cows, you end up with no room to maneuver. when will the church leaders learn to eat some humble-pie and stop insisting on infallibility

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles