In what seemed like an effort to show an appreciation of the separation of Church and State and to give an answer to Fr. Joaquin Bernas’s explanation that “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,” Antipolo Bishop Gabriel V. Reyes defended the stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on the RH bill by saying that their opposition to contraceptives, which the RH bill seeks to fund and promote, is not based on faith or revelation, but on “natural law.”
In a statement, Reyes asserted that:
“By studying through correct reasoning the nature of the human person, we arrive at this teaching regarding contraception. All human beings, Catholic or not, are obliged to act according to right reason. By the efforts of the Church to go against the RH Bill, the Church is not imposing her religious beliefs on others. She is trying to stop a bill which is against natural law, a law which all human beings, Catholic or not, should follow. The RH Bill, judged from the principles of natural law, is against the good of the human person and the common good.”
But what exactly is this “natural law” the bishops keep bandying about? Is it the physical laws of the universe that are observable in nature?
The term “natural law” is actually a misnomer, quickly misleading those hearing it for the first time. An entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that:
Image Credit: Wikipedia
“If any moral theory is a theory of natural law, it is [Thomas] Aquinas’s [the 13th century Dominican priest and theologian]. Every introductory ethics anthology that includes material on natural law theory includes material by or about Aquinas; every encyclopedia article on natural law thought refers to Aquinas.”
Aquinas held that natural law is given by God. This premise alone already makes such law supernatural. And by insisting that not only Catholics but all human beings are subject to this law, Bishop Reyes is overstepping the bounds of religious authority and disrespecting those who do not share his belief in God.
Aquinas also held that procreation is a good that we ought to pursue and that we know this immediately, by inclination. While this may have a ring of truth and even a Darwinian explanation, in no way is procreation an absolute good. A statement released by the De La Salle University faculty in support of the RH bill says it best:
“[B]eyond protecting the very important right of the unborn, [the meaning of the right to life] must extend to a recognition that a life that is weighed down by poverty, sickness, and social inequality—now compounded by environmental stresses—deprives humans of agency to transform themselves and the world for the common good.”
What good would uncontrolled procreation do when our children are left to the streets, begging for food and exposing themselves to diseases and sexual predators? To declare procreation as an absolute good (and contraception as intrinsically evil) is to invoke dogma. So while Bishop Reyes may claim that the CBCP’s opposition to contraception and the RH bill is not based on faith or revelation but on natural law, it is clear that their arguments are ultimately religious in nature.
Fortunately, the constitutional separation of Church and State makes sure that Aquinas’s law or any religious law for that matter is not forced on our citizens. Philippine jurisprudence states that:
“If government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some might regard as religious programs or agenda. The non-believers would therefore be compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by a religious belief, i.e., to a “compelled religion,” anathema to religious freedom.”
The CBCP’s objection against the RH bill is noted, and the bishops’ right to free speech is respected. Let us just hope that our lawmakers are keen enough to discern between secular and religious arguments, and that they do not forget to respect our Constitution, especially the clause that declares that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
[…] says the paper. Of course, what the Varsitarian means by “natural law” is the specific ethical system ingrained in the Catholic faith. To support their claim that natural law applies to and must be believed by everyone, the paper […]
they are opposing because they are compelled to protect the future of their position in the society.
education, globalization, progress, – in any society, did not favor theism.
ignorance, subordination, poverty, – fuels their power.
by stopping RH, they ensure themselves of a struggling household, submissive mothers who will bear another fantasy dependent generation.
NAKALULUNOD ANG KAPANGYARIHAN. once you take hold of it, control people with it, why would you let go?
Well if the majority of Filipinos are catholic and they dont want the Rh bill passing its democracy at work then. Let the Phillipines be a shithole full of ignorant jesus freaks, its just evolution/Darwin sayin that were doomed.
"All human beings, Catholic or not, are obliged to act according to right reason. By the efforts of the Church to go against the RH Bill, the Church is not imposing her religious beliefs on others. She is trying to stop a bill which is against natural law, a law which all human beings, Catholic or not, should follow. "
– BULLSHIT.
– Why do I always get a lesson on Logical Fallacies 101 each time I read cbcp's statements, or any of their defenders? Reyes' circular reasoning is wider than the orbit of Jupiter. By saying "all human beings, Catholic or not", he gives me the impression that he is invalidating other religions who do not share the same beliefs or dogma. Talk about tolerance!
You're right Jong; the CBCP is clearly making a religious argument not a secular one.
Natural Law comes from Thomism –the metaphysic of Aquinas (which he in turn took from Aristotle).
The problem I see for the CBCP is that not everyone subscribes to Thomistic Metaphysics, and therefore to this 'Natural Law'. Thusly, to argue, as they do, that bound everyone is by 'natural law', is to beg the question about their worldview –and their views on sexual morality, by extension– is true, since that's exactly what's being disputed.
The problem also, unfortunately for the CBCP, gets compounded by the fact that a lot of Christians –non-Catholic Christians, that is; the non-orthodox, or non-classical ones– don't hold to Thomism, much less, one would think, to Aquinas' 'Natural Law'. (Although they may have their own versions of it, precluding Thomism/Aquinas as a framework)
Now, perhaps the guy who made the 'Natural Law' argument can be excused; we can't expect him, or anyone –yes, even bishops– for that matter, to be aware of how unsettled the metaphysics is, out from which the concept (natural law) was derived, so it's no surprise, that being the case, an over-generalization was made based on an annoyingly simplistic understanding of the word 'natural'.
A common rut.
(Amusingly, they could have argued they were right about contraception because Thomism is true, and would have at least avoided making a "religious argument". Not that anyone would have understood them, however.)
The irony in this is I'm Catholic.
Would the CBCP's reply count as sophistry/bullshitting?
I doubt it's outright "bullshitting" –although, yeah it could be. I'll charitably say, however, that they simply don't know what they're talking about. Most of them study theology, but not the metaphysical framework by which the theology was derived, which only a broader philosophy of religion can clarify, so I don't really expect a lot of them, even the ones who've reached bishop-hood, to know these things.
There are other secular arguments they can rely on and should stick to –not that they're convincing, but at least they're secular.
Thanks, Miguel. As for your being Catholic, I don't think it's really ironic because being Catholic doesn't necessarily mean being dogmatic or having the illusion that your beliefs should be shared by everyone. No wonder you are my favorite theist. 🙂