Democracy and with it, freedom of choice, are among the best moral ideas that we have developed, a “universal value” of the 20th century according to the economist and philosopher Amartya Sen. Poor and powerless people do not have much of both, but most will agree that having more is the right way to go. I say “most” because believers of one-man, one-party or one-religion rule do still exist and assert that orders from above work best, or that people are like sheep that constantly need a shepherd for direction. Consider this gem of such thinking from CBCP president Bishop Nereo Odchimar as told in the report “CBCP renews opposition to RH bill ahead of SONA”:
“The bill ignores moral and religious considerations in the name of democracy and freedom of choice in a pluralist society,” he said. … He said the people’s right to choose must always be guided by the Gospels and the teachings of the Church. “To ignore this principle is to ignore the light that illumines an upright conscience,” Odchimar said.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a popular saying that most people agree with. Both deep and practical, it is something you can repeat to yourself as you overhear your neighbor enjoying the current brain-stopper on TV, or as you read the latest inanities of anti-RH groups. Well, Bishop Odchimar just upended that guide to good-neighborliness.
We know that Catholic doctrine states that contraception is intrinsically evil. But the bishop’s statement is not about the evil of contraception anymore, but the evil of democracy. Odchimar is saying that beyond his right to proclaim his brand of morality, democracy must also give way so that only his moral choices remain. We have the freedom to choose as long as we stick to what he chooses. He must think that we really are dumb sheep.
The RH bill upholds the moral and religious views of all precisely through freedom of choice, and seeks to become law through a democratic process. Unlike Odchimar’s proposal, no one will be forced. All can live with or without RH services. Even funding will depend on people’s choices. If Catholics shift from artificial to natural family planning (NFP), then public money will also shift to funding NFP training costs.
The CBCP should be more careful about devaluing democracy and freedom of choice. Odchimar’s claim about the RH bill ignoring moral and religious considerations is false. However, the country has had plenty of disastrous experience with the reverse, when democracy and freedom of choice were ignored in the name of interests cloaked in morality and religiosity.
Spanish friars came to the Philippines and amassed wealth and power as part of conquest, colonization and Christianization. We lost 300 years of national freedom. If those events are too distant to remember, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s sham presidency should be memorable enough. Just two months after the May 2004 election, the bishop-friendly Arroyo was hurriedly anointed with legitimacy with these words from the CBCP:
It is the view of the bishops that the results of the elections reflected the will of the Filipino people.
Years after Arroyo’s election cheating and large-scale corruption sparked popular protests, the majority of bishops continued to prop her rule through open collaboration* or acquiescence. All in the name of her anti-RH, conservative politics.
“Ang sinungaling ay kapatid ng magnanakaw” was Susan Roces’ ringing sound bite on Arroyo’s power grab. Bishops who wish to impose their morality after inflicting a corrupt and unelected ruler on us deserve a similar rebuke: Ang kapal ninyo!
————————————————-
* In 2009, Arroyo released public funds to Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos who asked for a 4×4 vehicle as a birthday gift and to Bishop Diosdado Talamayan who asked for contributions to a clergy retirement home. A year before, the two bishops were reported to have “spent thousands of pesos for a full-page ad in a major broadsheet to express support for the Arroyo government and insist that the [bishops’] call for ‘communal action’ should not be interpreted as a call for people power.”
The image of shepherd and sheep above is from a public domain work of Martinus Antonius Kuytenbrouwer d. J. (1821–1897), available at Wikimedia Commons
So what the Bishop Odchimar requests is nothing less than the demand of a theocracy : where the law of the Philippines have to be made based on the millennia old scripture scribbled on sheepskin from uneducated goat herders and those taken as universal guidance for the 21st century. Those old texts scanned and cherry picked for possible hints about sexual reproduction , of course only in the version interpreted from old male sexual defunct virgins of the Vatican, wearing red woman dresses and pointy hats, therefore their text and their interpretation must be the ultimate truth of the universe.
The “free will” is only one of the standard apologetics to explain evil and suffering in the world – not about the ‘free will’ to chose a democratic government or to choose your own family planning.
And the >> right to choose must always be guided by the Gospels and the teachings of the Church. “ << is indeed treating the Philippine society as ‘dump sheep’ as they have to follow the Catholic Church’s official doctrine of the RCC’s interpretation of the Bible (RCC as one of 33,000 to 38,000 different Christian denominations with their ultimate true interpretation) .
The RC Church (US) has recently condemned the following organizations:
The American Association of University Women
Amnesty International
Crop Walk (anti-hunger)
Church World Services (anti-hunger)
The March of Dimes
Susan G. Komen for the Cure (breast cancer research)
Planned Parenthood (no surprise)
UNICEF
Let's see- anti-anti-hunger, anti-anti-AIDS, anti-mediciine, anti-women and anti-children.
it is true what they say prolife=more babies, who cares about what happens next xD
do i really want these guys to be my moral compass? hell, no.
waiting for apologetics to explain the church's stand for condemning humanitarian organizations.
//do i really want these guys to be my moral compass? hell, no. //
They are. You become a good person by doing the exact opposite of their teachings. 😀
Yeah when they point towards a direction we should go south.
On recent Aussie news. 26 young adults killed themselves after being molested by catholic priests. Local bishop says it is a non-issue and does not require an inquiry.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/church…
This is the gem of a comment: "In the past a lot of ignorance was there on the part of lots of people. Parents didn't understand, sometimes bishops didn't understand. We have no excuse now." he was talking about understading rape.
Would we ever see the day that rape and molestation will be excommunicable acts? unlikely.
I just find it totally ironic that what the Catholic church PREACHES and what it PRACTICES are 2 totally opposite things.
They tell you that free will is God's greatest gift to man, that God does not want us to become mere automatons, yet here we have bishops decrying democracy and freedom of choice as the slippery slope that will lead to the downfall of mankind. Its a very passive-aggressive sort of logic. Its like saying "Yeah, God gave you free will, but the moment you use it, you'll burn in hell"
Retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz has the perfect answer to that: "A man or a woman is only free to choose what is ethical or moral – certainly not what is unethical or immoral.”
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/10/20/cruz-c…
"A man or a woman is only free to choose what is ethical or moral – certainly not what is unethical or immoral.”
So why do they give rapists a free pass, Jong?
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2011/07/20/bishop-ma…
apparently genocide and rape is not on the high list of condemning acts.
Is the concept of free will the same as that of democracy and freedom of choice? Note that he attacked the latter 2, which are secular ideas which the RCC may or does not subscribe to.
A very well written article.
"He must think that we really are dumb sheep." Nope. The Bishop doesn't think anyone is a DUMB SHEEP! You are thinking that and trying to put words on the Bishops mouth.
I’d have to disagree with your observation. I am nether a filipino citizen nor am I a catholic, so I’d like to think I’m a pretty objective by-standard. His direct quote is, “The bill ignores moral and religious considerations in the name of democracy and freedom of choice in a pluralist society.” in a simple parlance, “the bill sets aside catholic beliefs to uphold the will of the majority (plurality).” How can a democracy exist if it is the will of the minority that is enforced? I’m not saying that the bill is moral not so I endorse it. But I think that is a personal choice that individuals need to make. It will be between them and their god. But to take away their right to chose altogether is also morally wrong.
Yes they writer of the article did sensationalize by adding his two cents when he said “dumb sheep,” but I wouldn’t go as far as to say he put words in the bishops mouth. Its a pretty accurate metaphor.
//The Bishop doesn't think anyone is a DUMB SHEEP! You are thinking that and trying to put words on the Bishops mouth. //
So why is he making a baseless assertion that ALL Filipinos have to follow Catholic doctrine?
"He said the people’s right to choose must always be guided by the Gospels and the teachings of the Church. “To ignore this principle is to ignore the light that illumines an upright conscience,” Odchimar said."
GADEL, as a Filipino, I don't recall our constitution saying that I have to follow Catholic teachings to be a registered citizen. On the contrary, the RCC itself actively promotes bigotry and hate, hence should have no business acting like a moral arbiter:
https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/04/07/rcc-at…