The Apostolic Letter motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem
Introduction
On 9 January 1989, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published new formulas for the Professio Fidei et Iusiurandum fidelitatis in suscipiendo officio nomine Ecclesiae exercendo (AAS 81[1989], 104 106), to replace the previous formula of 1967. These formulas were approved by the Roman Pontiff in a special Rescript dated, 19 septembris 1989 (in AAS 81 [1989], 1169). However, the new Code of Canon Law (CIC), promulgated on 25 January 1983, did not contain the new formula of the Professio Fidei, which, in addition to the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, enunciates three categories of truths. Thus, the Code of Canon Law, and later the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), lacked the juridical, disciplinary and penal provisions for the second category of truths.
Given the compelling need to forestall and refute the theological opinions being raised against this second category of truths, the Holy Father decided to promulgate the Apostolic Letter Ad tuendam fidem last May 28, by which precise norms are established in canon law regarding the second category of truths indicated in the second paragraph of the concluding formula of the Professio Fidei, through modifications to canons 750 and 1371 n.1 of the CIC and to canons 598 and 1436 of the CCEO.
Three Categories of Truths
What was the reason for the confusion—and accompanying abuse—which the present motu proprio came to forestall? An attentive reading of the pertinent paragraphs of the Profession Fidei shows that the three categories of truths enunciated are as follows:
1st Category: “[E]verything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." These are truths found immediately in Revelation, which the Church vouches for as contained in Revelation. This are supposed to be held “with firm faith”, because their certainty has a twofold basis: the authority of God Revealing (fides divina) and the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica).
These are commonly referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica or simply dogmas.
2nd Category: “[E]verything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” These constitute what Dogmatic Theology has always referred to as Catholic truths or Church doctrines, which are to be accepted with a faith based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). Even if the Profession fidei did not expressly state it, these are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3rd Category: “[T]he teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." These are the teachings for which the CIC stipulates “A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith” (c.752).
Source of Confusion
As previously stated, while the 1st and 3rd Categories had their corresponding provisions in the Code of Canon Law, there was no expressed provision for the 2nd Category. Thus, cc.750 & 752 described the 1st and 3rd Categories respectively, and c.1371 provided for the penal sanction for their violation. This has given rise to not a few cases of open dissent, perhaps emboldened by a seeming lacuna in Canon Law, especially as regards the penal provisions.
A more attentive reading of the Profession fidei, however, coupled with a solid grounding in Dogmatic Theology, shows that there was really no lacuna. As Ott would affirm, the 2nd Category are “as infallibly certain as dogmas proper”—i.e., the norm for the 1st Category should hole also for the 2nd. Hence, when the CIC expressly provided for the 1st and 3rd Categories, it tacitly provided also for the 2nd Category of truths.
Nevertheless, since abuses have arisen, and such may be legally defended against sanction with the principle of “nulla poena sine lege”, the Supreme Church Authority has come up with this new legislation to fill up that seeming lacuna.
Infallibility of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
It is fitting to note also that almost all infallible teachings in the field of morality are contained not in solemn definitions (so called definitive acts or definitively proposed in the language of the Profession fidei and in the CIC), but precisely in the teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This has led some to think that there are no infallible teachings in the field of morality, inasmuch as, in fact, there are no texts in which such infallibility is explicitly claimed. This assertion fails to recognize, however, that the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which by nature does not adopt such solemn expressions, is precisely the normal way in which the infallibility of the Church is exercised.
As Pope John Paul II affirms, “The Magisterium (...) includes the charism of infallibility, which is present not only in the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and the Ecumenical Councils, but also in the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which can be considered the usual expression of the infallibility of the Church.”
Practically all concrete and absolute moral norms that are under debate today (e.g., abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, premarital relations, euthanasia, divorce, masturbation), have been taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium and are hence infallible.
Reach of “religious respect (obsequium) of intellect and will”
This religious submission means more than the usual obedience required for the legitimate command of the hierarchical authority of the Church. Specifically, it means:
a. The ordinary response will be a sincere adherence not only of the will but also of the intelligence. In an exceptional case, a teaching might not be intellectually convincing. Then the first duty is to doubt oneself, giving credibility to the Magisterium. This does not mean that one must stop working on research and presenting the authorities—in a private way—one’s own reasons and the possible formulations that one might suggest as being better suited for expressing the truth.
b. In any case, religious submission implies the obligation to avoid every dissent; the only thing admissible is to suspend or withhold assent. If dissent is made publicly and obstinately, opportune sanctions would be in order (c.1371).
Conclusion
From the foregoing, and the preceding three issues of this column, I think it is quite clear that the Bishops are quite empowered to call the attention of all the erring theology professors, in Catholic institutions or otherwise, and in the case of obstinacy, apply canonical sanctions.
[Following is an abridged version of the Apostolic Letter, excluding what is pertinent to the CCEO, and retaining the original numbering for easy reference.]
To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith, consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEC) new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.
1. From the first centuries to the present day the Church has professed the truths of her faith in Christ and the mystery of his redemption. These truths were subsequently gathered into the Symbols of the faith, today known and proclaimed in common by the faithful in the Solemn and festive celebration of Mass as the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. This same Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed is contained in the Profession of Faith developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which must be made by specific members of the faithful when they receive an office that is directly or indirectly related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith and morals, or is united to a particular power in the governance of the Church.
The Profession of Faith, which appropriately begins with the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, contains three propositions or paragraphs, intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith, which the Church, in the course of time and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "who will teach the whole truth" (Jn 16,13), has ever more deeply explored and will continue to explore.
The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." This paragraph appropriately confirms and is provided for in the Church's legislation in c.750 of the Code of Canon Law and c.598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. [Referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica.]
The third paragraph states: "Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in c.752 of the Code of Canon Law and c.599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. [Referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Catholica.]
3. The second paragraph, however, which states: "I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals" has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph of the Profession of Faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit's particular inspiration for the Church's deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship.
4. Moved therefore by this need, and after careful deliberation, we have decided to overcome this lacuna in the universal law in the following way: c.750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus c.750, in its complete form, will read:
Canon 750 ─ §1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held, namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Canon 1371, n.1 of the Code of Canon Law, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to c.750, §2, so that it will now read:
Canon 1371 ─ The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in c.1364, §1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in c.750, §2 or in c.752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;
2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
The Juridic Protection of the Church Teaching against Contraception
(Part III)
A RECENT column of Atty. Jose Sison (A Law Each Day, The Philippine Star 8.XI.2010, p.15) caught my attention. Quoting an e-mail he received from a Jose Teodoro Sagalo, he focused on what the latter qualified as “grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute.” A quick check of the primary source verified the presence of the offensive proposals, in a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues and authored by Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
The questions posed by our concerned reader were: Can these theologians, teaching in a Catholic university, where young minds are supposedly being formed in the Catholic faith, maintain such doctrinally questionable positions with impunity? Can’t the Law of the Church even protect the youngest of its own faithful against doctrinal error? Or put another way, if the bishops are so concerned about the environmental degradation brought about by irresponsible mining, shouldn’t they be more concerned about the doctrinal confusion brought about by irresponsible theologizing in Catholic universities? After all, environmental degradation is not as serious as the erosion of the Catholic faith, which is at bottom the reason for the increasing acceptance of the RH Bill among the Catholic faithful—including government policy-makers.
These questions are masterfully answered in a book by Jesu Pudumai Doss, SDB, entitled Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonico-Theological Study, published by Kristu Jyoti Publications, Bangalore (India) in 2007. Based on the author’s doctoral dissertation in Canon Law at the Salesian Pontifical University (Rome), the book bears a foreword by Angelo Amato, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The pertinent sections are contained in Chapter III of the book, entitled Magisterium and Theologians: A Multifaceted Rapport (pp.157-240).
Doss summarized the juridic regulation of the relationship between Magisterium and theologian—which can be applied to the case of the Church authorities in the Philippines (the individual bishops or the CBCP) vis-à-vis the theology professors in Catholic universities (not only the Loyola School of Theology, but also other faculties of theology in the country, e.g., Maryhill School of Theology)—in a series of canonically regulated institutions: (1) the mandate to teach for professors, (2) the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity required of said professors, (3) the prior approval of (or nihil obstat) and the permission to publish (or imprimatur) writings dealing with faith and morals; and (4) the doctrinal examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
I. The Mandate to Teach Theological Disciplines
Church Law provides a guarantee of orthodoxy in Catholic teaching by requiring a mandate for all those who teach theological disciplines in Catholic Universities and other institutes of higher studies (c.812), and in the Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (c.818). It is given by the competent ecclesiastical authority (cc.812, 818)—(1) the Holy See by virtue of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff (cc. 331, 333§1, 361), (2) the Episcopal Conferences (cc.809, 821) and the diocesan Bishops (c.386 §2) and those equivalent to them—who have the right of vigilance (c.810 §2), although such authority can also be delegated.
The appointment of professors for theological disciplines is a complex process that can be summarized in 5 steps: (1) the designation of a particular individual as a candidate professor, (2) the verification of his/her scientific and pedagogical competence, (3) the conferment of the teaching post, (4) the stipulation of a contract of employment, (5) the beginning of the didactic work. The mandate is situated in the second step of this process and involves a judgment of orthodoxy on the one hand (i.e., the compatibility of the doctrine taught by the candidate professor with Catholic doctrine), and of moral uprightness on the other (i.e., his personal status with that of the Catholic community).
It is important to emphasize that the mandate is neither an authorization to teach nor a canonical mission, but is only a certification that the professor is not teaching anything objectionable in matters concerning faith or morals and is doing so in communion with the Church. Thus, the mandate cannot be used to teach apart from the Church and much less against the Church; there is no room for active dissent in Catholic theology. In fact, it can be withdrawn—and I daresay I should be withdrawn—when there is an absence of communion between the theologian and the Church (c.253 §3).
At this point, one wonders how avowed atheists were teaching theology in a well-known Catholic university in Manila, and how a group of professors could sign a position in open defiance of the CBCP stand on the RH Bill in another Catholic university in Quezon City.
2. The Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity
The Profession of Faith is a public declaration of one’s sharing in the faith of a believing community in Christ and his Church. Thus, it is both an act of cult to God himself and an important manifestation of the need to live in an authentic spirit of communion towards the competent Church authority and with the entire People of God.
The new formula of the Professio fidei begins with an introductory affirmation of faith. This is followed by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but formulated in the first person singular: “I believe”. It concludes with the three propositions or paragraphs, which distinguishes the order of the truths and the proper response of the believer to it as follows:
1st Category: “[E]verything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." These are truths found immediately in Revelation, which the Church vouches for as contained in Revelation. This are supposed to be held “with firm faith”, because their certainty has a twofold basis: the authority of God Revealing (fides divina) and the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica).
These are commonly referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica or simply dogmas.
2nd Category: “[E]verything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” These constitute what Dogmatic Theology has always referred to as Catholic truths or Church doctrines, which are to be accepted with a faith based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). Even if the Profession fidei did not expressly state it, these are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3rd Category: “[T]he teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." These are the teachings for which the CIC stipulates “A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith” (c.752).
Can.833 provides an exhaustive list of persons who are legally obliged to pronounce personally the Professio fidei and those persons in whose presence it is to be pronounced. They include (in what is relevant to the present discussion): (1) rectors and professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; (2) the Rector of the Ecclesiastical or Catholic universities, in the presence of the Chancellor or the local Ordinary (or the delegates of either), and (3) those who in any university teach subjects which deal with faith or morals, in the presence of the rector (if he is a priest) or the Local Ordinary or the delegates of either (italics added).
The Oath of Fidelity, on the other hand, can be considered as a public pledge to fulfill the duties incumbent on a subject in exercising an office or in undertaking a specific task (e.g., to teach theology) in a spirit of loyalty to the whole ecclesiastical community.
Both the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity involve three parties then: the community to which a specific service is rendered, the ecclesiastical authority who entrusts the task, and the person concerned who accepts to fulfill the office in a spirit of loyalty.
Again, at this point I wonder how I keep on getting reports of heterodox teachings being foisted on the young and innocent by professors teaching either theology or matters related to faith and morals in Catholic institutions. Could it be that such professors are not making either the professio fidei or the iusiurandum fidelitatis?
3. Ecclesiastical Permission for Publications on Faith and Morals
The procedure for obtaining permission or approval to publish books can be broadly divided into two parts:
1st The prior examination of the book by the censors and the granting of the nihil obstat (c.830). The examination, preceding the granting of permission, is done by a censor or censors, chosen by the Local Ordinary with the following traits: scientia, recta doctrina et prudentia (c.380 §1). The censor/s should give his judgment based only on the doctrine of the Church on faith and morals, as proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium, without any personal preference or partialities. This judgment—whether positive or negative—should contain the reasons on which it is based and should be given in writing, dated and signed. It is usually called the nihil obstat, since its positive judgment should guarantee that the writing has nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Church.
2nd The permission to publish, called the imprimatur, granted by the Local Ordinary. If the judgment of the aforementioned censor/s is favorable, the Ordinary can give the permission to publish in his own name, detailing the date and place it was granted. However, the Ordinary’s decision pro suo prudenti iudicio (c.830 §3) is an independent one, which takes wider issues in consideration as regards giving or withholding the permission to publish. Nevertheless, in case the permission is denied by a Local Ordinary, it can either be requested from any other competent Ordinary or an administrative recourse sought from the CDF.
The range of writings requiring the nihil obstat and/or imprimatur has been narrowed to a few categories of writings in the present Code (cc.825-829), which we can narrow further to what is relevant to the present discussion as follows:
(1) Books on Sacred Scripture, Theology, Canon Law, Church History or other religious or moral disciplines to be used as textbooks in schools at various levels need prior or successive approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority (c.827 §2).
(2) The permission of the Local Ordinary is needed for clerics and members of religious institutes to write in newspapers, magazines or periodicals, which usually attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals (c.831 §1). Likewise, the permission of their major superior is required to publish writings on religion or morals by the members of the religious institutes (c.832).
(3) No writings, especially books that deal with religion or morals, can be displayed, sold or distributed in Churches or oratories without the prior permission or successive approval of the competent authority (c.827 §4).
(4) Books which deal with matters of Sacred Scripture, Theology, Canon Law,
Church History, or religious or moral disciplines—but not used as textbooks for teaching—are recommended to be submitted for prior judgment of the pastors (c.827 §3).
In this regard, I cannot help but think of the repeated attacks on official Catholic teaching regarding contraception, theology of liberation and even the distinction of Church and State (hence, the non-involvement of clerics on partisan politics) that appear on Philippine dailies in the columns of clerics and religious; or of the occasional book in theology (especially moral theology) that finds its way in bookstands in Catholic venues, without a nihil obstat and much less an imprimatur. Again, one wonders if the aforementioned norms regarding publications by clerics and members of religious institutes are being enforced.
4. The Doctrinal Examination by the CDF
The responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel and the truths of the faith in its purity and entirety is that of the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops as regards the Universal Church, and the individual Bishops for the particular Churches (c.756). Thus, after everything else may have failed, the doctrinal examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes a final instrument for the vicarious exercise of the Papal responsibility to safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world.
The procedures for such a doctrinal examination were formulated in 1971, on indication of Paul VI, at the height of the postconciliar crisis in Catholic doctrine. It was renewed in 1997 in view of the new Code of Canon Law of 1983. Without going into the details now, a cursory reading of the renewed Agendi ratio of 1997 gives us an idea of the process. The 29 articles are divided into five parts: (1) Preliminary Examination, (2) Office Study, (3) Ordinary Procedure of Examination, (4) Procedure of Examination in case of Urgency, and (5) Disciplinary Measures.
Conclusion
The CBCP has been engaged in a heroic battle to resist the attempts in no less than three Congresses to pass the Reproductive Health Bill. Each time, despite the perseverance of the pro-Life and pro-Family advocates, the resistance against the forces of the RH Bill proponents has been slowly going down: from a high during Estrada’s time, a lower but still strong anti-contraceptive stand during GMA’s presidency, to an all-time low in the present regime. I am convinced there is a strong inverse correlation between the acceptance of the Church teaching against contraception—which has been going down in the Philippines in recent years—and the acceptance of a RH Bill. Furthermore, I am convinced that such rejection of the Church teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception is primarily fomented in the very heart of some of the best-known Catholic colleges and universities.
The Bishops are totally empowered to make these persons and institutions toe the line:
1st by enforcing the canonical requirement of the mandate for teaching on matters regarding faith and morals;
2nd by enforcing the canonical requirement of the professio fidei and the iusiurandum fidelitatis for those who teach matters regarding faith and morals;
3rd by enforcing the requirements set down by Canon Law regarding the publication of writings regarding faith and morals—i.e., the nihil obstat and the imprimatur for books and the required permission for cleric and religious columnists in newspapers.
Faith is the beginning of salvation. Logically, the erosion of the faith—by the uncorrected teaching of erroneous doctrine in Catholic institutions—is the beginning of perdition.
A RECENT column of Atty. Jose Sison (A Law Each Day, The Philippine Star 8.XI.2010, p.15) caught my attention. Quoting an e-mail he received from a Jose Teodoro Sagalo, he focused on what the latter qualified as “grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute.” A quick check of the primary source verified the presence of the offensive proposals, in a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues and authored by Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
The questions posed by our concerned reader were: Can these theologians, teaching in a Catholic university, where young minds are supposedly being formed in the Catholic faith, maintain such doctrinally questionable positions with impunity? Can’t the Law of the Church even protect the youngest of its own faithful against doctrinal error? Or put another way, if the bishops are so concerned about the environmental degradation brought about by irresponsible mining, shouldn’t they be more concerned about the doctrinal confusion brought about by irresponsible theologizing in Catholic universities? After all, environmental degradation is not as serious as the erosion of the Catholic faith, which is at bottom the reason for the increasing acceptance of the RH Bill among the Catholic faithful—including government policy-makers.
These questions are masterfully answered in a book by Jesu Pudumai Doss, SDB, entitled Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonico-Theological Study, published by Kristu Jyoti Publications, Bangalore (India) in 2007. Based on the author’s doctoral dissertation in Canon Law at the Salesian Pontifical University (Rome), the book bears a foreword by Angelo Amato, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The pertinent sections are contained in Chapter III of the book, entitled Magisterium and Theologians: A Multifaceted Rapport (pp.157-240).
Doss summarized the juridic regulation of the relationship between Magisterium and theologian—which can be applied to the case of the Church authorities in the Philippines (the individual bishops or the CBCP) vis-à-vis the theology professors in Catholic universities (not only the Loyola School of Theology, but also other faculties of theology in the country, e.g., Maryhill School of Theology)—in a series of canonically regulated institutions: (1) the mandate to teach for professors, (2) the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity required of said professors, (3) the prior approval of (or nihil obstat) and the permission to publish (or imprimatur) writings dealing with faith and morals; and (4) the doctrinal examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
I. The Mandate to Teach Theological Disciplines
Church Law provides a guarantee of orthodoxy in Catholic teaching by requiring a mandate for all those who teach theological disciplines in Catholic Universities and other institutes of higher studies (c.812), and in the Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (c.818). It is given by the competent ecclesiastical authority (cc.812, 818)—(1) the Holy See by virtue of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff (cc. 331, 333§1, 361), (2) the Episcopal Conferences (cc.809, 821) and the diocesan Bishops (c.386 §2) and those equivalent to them—who have the right of vigilance (c.810 §2), although such authority can also be delegated.
The appointment of professors for theological disciplines is a complex process that can be summarized in 5 steps: (1) the designation of a particular individual as a candidate professor, (2) the verification of his/her scientific and pedagogical competence, (3) the conferment of the teaching post, (4) the stipulation of a contract of employment, (5) the beginning of the didactic work. The mandate is situated in the second step of this process and involves a judgment of orthodoxy on the one hand (i.e., the compatibility of the doctrine taught by the candidate professor with Catholic doctrine), and of moral uprightness on the other (i.e., his personal status with that of the Catholic community).
It is important to emphasize that the mandate is neither an authorization to teach nor a canonical mission, but is only a certification that the professor is not teaching anything objectionable in matters concerning faith or morals and is doing so in communion with the Church. Thus, the mandate cannot be used to teach apart from the Church and much less against the Church; there is no room for active dissent in Catholic theology. In fact, it can be withdrawn—and I daresay I should be withdrawn—when there is an absence of communion between the theologian and the Church (c.253 §3).
At this point, one wonders how avowed atheists were teaching theology in a well-known Catholic university in Manila, and how a group of professors could sign a position in open defiance of the CBCP stand on the RH Bill in another Catholic university in Quezon City.
2. The Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity
The Profession of Faith is a public declaration of one’s sharing in the faith of a believing community in Christ and his Church. Thus, it is both an act of cult to God himself and an important manifestation of the need to live in an authentic spirit of communion towards the competent Church authority and with the entire People of God.
The new formula of the Professio fidei begins with an introductory affirmation of faith. This is followed by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, but formulated in the first person singular: “I believe”. It concludes with the three propositions or paragraphs, which distinguishes the order of the truths and the proper response of the believer to it as follows:
1st Category: “[E]verything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." These are truths found immediately in Revelation, which the Church vouches for as contained in Revelation. This are supposed to be held “with firm faith”, because their certainty has a twofold basis: the authority of God Revealing (fides divina) and the infallible teaching authority of the Church (fides catholica).
These are commonly referred to in Dogmatic Theology as De fide Divina et Catholica or simply dogmas.
2nd Category: “[E]verything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” These constitute what Dogmatic Theology has always referred to as Catholic truths or Church doctrines, which are to be accepted with a faith based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). Even if the Profession fidei did not expressly state it, these are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3rd Category: “[T]he teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." These are the teachings for which the CIC stipulates “A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith” (c.752).
Can.833 provides an exhaustive list of persons who are legally obliged to pronounce personally the Professio fidei and those persons in whose presence it is to be pronounced. They include (in what is relevant to the present discussion): (1) rectors and professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; (2) the Rector of the Ecclesiastical or Catholic universities, in the presence of the Chancellor or the local Ordinary (or the delegates of either), and (3) those who in any university teach subjects which deal with faith or morals, in the presence of the rector (if he is a priest) or the Local Ordinary or the delegates of either (italics added).
The Oath of Fidelity, on the other hand, can be considered as a public pledge to fulfill the duties incumbent on a subject in exercising an office or in undertaking a specific task (e.g., to teach theology) in a spirit of loyalty to the whole ecclesiastical community.
Both the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity involve three parties then: the community to which a specific service is rendered, the ecclesiastical authority who entrusts the task, and the person concerned who accepts to fulfill the office in a spirit of loyalty.
Again, at this point I wonder how I keep on getting reports of heterodox teachings being foisted on the young and innocent by professors teaching either theology or matters related to faith and morals in Catholic institutions. Could it be that such professors are not making either the professio fidei or the iusiurandum fidelitatis?
3. Ecclesiastical Permission for Publications on Faith and Morals
The procedure for obtaining permission or approval to publish books can be broadly divided into two parts:
1st The prior examination of the book by the censors and the granting of the nihil obstat (c.830). The examination, preceding the granting of permission, is done by a censor or censors, chosen by the Local Ordinary with the following traits: scientia, recta doctrina et prudentia (c.380 §1). The censor/s should give his judgment based only on the doctrine of the Church on faith and morals, as proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium, without any personal preference or partialities. This judgment—whether positive or negative—should contain the reasons on which it is based and should be given in writing, dated and signed. It is usually called the nihil obstat, since its positive judgment should guarantee that the writing has nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Church.
2nd The permission to publish, called the imprimatur, granted by the Local Ordinary. If the judgment of the aforementioned censor/s is favorable, the Ordinary can give the permission to publish in his own name, detailing the date and place it was granted. However, the Ordinary’s decision pro suo prudenti iudicio (c.830 §3) is an independent one, which takes wider issues in consideration as regards giving or withholding the permission to publish. Nevertheless, in case the permission is denied by a Local Ordinary, it can either be requested from any other competent Ordinary or an administrative recourse sought from the CDF.
The range of writings requiring the nihil obstat and/or imprimatur has been narrowed to a few categories of writings in the present Code (cc.825-829), which we can narrow further to what is relevant to the present discussion as follows:
(1) Books on Sacred Scripture, Theology, Canon Law, Church History or other religious or moral disciplines to be used as textbooks in schools at various levels need prior or successive approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority (c.827 §2).
(2) The permission of the Local Ordinary is needed for clerics and members of religious institutes to write in newspapers, magazines or periodicals, which usually attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals (c.831 §1). Likewise, the permission of their major superior is required to publish writings on religion or morals by the members of the religious institutes (c.832).
(3) No writings, especially books that deal with religion or morals, can be displayed, sold or distributed in Churches or oratories without the prior permission or successive approval of the competent authority (c.827 §4).
(4) Books which deal with matters of Sacred Scripture, Theology, Canon Law,
Church History, or religious or moral disciplines—but not used as textbooks for teaching—are recommended to be submitted for prior judgment of the pastors (c.827 §3).
In this regard, I cannot help but think of the repeated attacks on official Catholic teaching regarding contraception, theology of liberation and even the distinction of Church and State (hence, the non-involvement of clerics on partisan politics) that appear on Philippine dailies in the columns of clerics and religious; or of the occasional book in theology (especially moral theology) that finds its way in bookstands in Catholic venues, without a nihil obstat and much less an imprimatur. Again, one wonders if the aforementioned norms regarding publications by clerics and members of religious institutes are being enforced.
4. The Doctrinal Examination by the CDF
The responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel and the truths of the faith in its purity and entirety is that of the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops as regards the Universal Church, and the individual Bishops for the particular Churches (c.756). Thus, after everything else may have failed, the doctrinal examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes a final instrument for the vicarious exercise of the Papal responsibility to safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world.
The procedures for such a doctrinal examination were formulated in 1971, on indication of Paul VI, at the height of the postconciliar crisis in Catholic doctrine. It was renewed in 1997 in view of the new Code of Canon Law of 1983. Without going into the details now, a cursory reading of the renewed Agendi ratio of 1997 gives us an idea of the process. The 29 articles are divided into five parts: (1) Preliminary Examination, (2) Office Study, (3) Ordinary Procedure of Examination, (4) Procedure of Examination in case of Urgency, and (5) Disciplinary Measures.
Conclusion
The CBCP has been engaged in a heroic battle to resist the attempts in no less than three Congresses to pass the Reproductive Health Bill. Each time, despite the perseverance of the pro-Life and pro-Family advocates, the resistance against the forces of the RH Bill proponents has been slowly going down: from a high during Estrada’s time, a lower but still strong anti-contraceptive stand during GMA’s presidency, to an all-time low in the present regime. I am convinced there is a strong inverse correlation between the acceptance of the Church teaching against contraception—which has been going down in the Philippines in recent years—and the acceptance of a RH Bill. Furthermore, I am convinced that such rejection of the Church teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception is primarily fomented in the very heart of some of the best-known Catholic colleges and universities.
The Bishops are totally empowered to make these persons and institutions toe the line:
1st by enforcing the canonical requirement of the mandate for teaching on matters regarding faith and morals;
2nd by enforcing the canonical requirement of the professio fidei and the iusiurandum fidelitatis for those who teach matters regarding faith and morals;
3rd by enforcing the requirements set down by Canon Law regarding the publication of writings regarding faith and morals—i.e., the nihil obstat and the imprimatur for books and the required permission for cleric and religious columnists in newspapers.
Faith is the beginning of salvation. Logically, the erosion of the faith—by the uncorrected teaching of erroneous doctrine in Catholic institutions—is the beginning of perdition.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Juridic Protection of the Church Teaching against Contraception
(Part II)
A RECENT column of Atty. Jose Sison (A Law Each Day, The Philippine Star 8.XI.2010, p.15) caught my attention. Quoting an e-mail he received from a Jose Teodoro Sagalo, he focused on what the latter qualified as “grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute.” A quick check of the primary source verified the presence of the offensive proposals, in a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues and authored by Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
My questions are: (1) Does the Catholic Church really teach─in an authentic, infallible, obligatory way─the instrinsic moral evil of contraception, or is this a matter of religious persuasion, therefore admitting of a variety of interpretations in a pluralistic society like the Philippines? (2) If the Church indeed officially teaches the intrinsic evil of contraception, can a Catholic institution─like the Loyola School of Theology─publicly propose otherwise, and get away with it? In other words, is there no provision in Church Law against a Catholic School of Theology teaching something contrary to Catholic Doctrine?
These questions bring to a head something which I had been wanting to address in this forum for some time: the juridic protection of the Word of God. Put another way, indeed there must be something in Church Law that guarantees─with coercive and punitive force─the doctrinal soundness of Catholic institutions. Still put another way, in much the same way that the Republic of the Philippines has the opportune departments to establish standards for what are taught in the centers of elementary, intermediate and higher education, the Church must have the necessary means to guarantee that only sound Catholic doctrine is taught in the officially Catholic institutions of education. To illustrate: if a chemistry professor at the University of the Philippines (my department and alma mater respectively) were to insist on teaching his students theories of alchemy that had already been long disproven, and if the university authorities were to allow him to continue deforming his students in that way─with dire consequences in his chemistry practice thereafter─the Republic of the Philippines would have grounds to call the university to task, aside from of course flunking its graduates in the professional board examinations.
In a previous issue of this paper, I summarized a series of articles I had written in this column in previous years regarding the Canonical Protection of the Church’s Magisterium. At this point, and before finally making a canonical appraisal of the question posed by our reader above, allow me to summarize the corresponding rights and duties of the faithful in relation to the Magisterium of the Church.
1. Rights and Duties of the Faithful in relation to the Magisterium
1) Fundamental right to receive an integral catechesis. The Christian faithful, since they are called by baptism to lead a life in conformity with the teaching of the Gospel, have the right to a Christian education by which they will be properly instructed so as to develop the maturity of a human person and at the same time come to know and live the mystery of salvation (c.217). This canon, situated under the title of Obligations and Rights of All Christian Faithful, corresponds to the duty of the Church to evangelize.
2) Right-Duty to do apostolate: Aside from the Magisterium, we must not forget that the whole Church is the carrier of the true meaning of human life; therefore, the whole Church—not just the Hierarchy—has the right and duty to inform the temporal structures with the Gospel message. Nevertheless, This duty of the faithful to do apostolate has no public character—i.e., the apostolate that they are bound to carry out has no public character (personal apostolate), even if they are not barred from carrying out a more public apostolate.
3) Duty to give an assent of faith to Universal Magisterium: All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, i.e., in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith.... therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths (c.750).
The Code defines two situations contrary to this norm (c.751):
a) Heresy - is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or an obstinate doubt concerning the same.
b) Apostasy - is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the Code typifies the above situations as crimes, establishing that an apostate or a heretic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by additional expiatory penalties (cf. c.1336, §1, nn.1-3).
4) Duty to give religious respect of intellect and will to Authentic Magisterium. Such religious respect implies, aside from an intellectual assent to the doctrine, also an assent of the will as manifested by an external actuation in accord with it. This is manifested at two levels:
a) Universal Level. A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate on faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act. Therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching (c.752).
b) Particular Level. Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own bishops with a sense of religious respect (c.753).
3) Duty to refrain from dissent in matters of faith and morals: All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and proscribe erroneous opinions; this is especially true of the constitutions and decrees issued by the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops (c.754).
It is senseless to speak of a right to dissent as an expression of a religious freedom within the Church. By definition, this is a freedom that exists only in civil society, and as an eminent canonist has pointed out, what exists in the Church is the “right of opinion and expression (cc.212; 218), a right which is not absolute, but limited and one of the limitations is the magisterium of the Church. A member of the faithful cannot dissent from what makes up the deposit of faith without breaking ecclesiastical communion, since it amounts to ceasing to be a disciple of the Master.”
Thus, even if the Universal Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium can be differentiated in that an internal act of assent is required in the former while not in the latter, in both cases the faithful is duty-bound to refrain from active (external) dissent.
2. The Loyola House of Studies’ “Talking Points” for a Discussion on the RH Bill
The offending paper is actually too long to tackle in detail, but I would like to focus on what I think is the ethical principle which underpins the entire set of talking points, which to my mind is not in sync with official Catholic teaching as enunciated in the ordinary, authentic and infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs. Quite early on, the paper reads:
“Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them” (italics mine). It then goes on to make a proposal:
“Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.”
The implication here is that there is one morality for Catholics and another for people of other religious traditions. This is clearly contrary to the notion of intrinsically evil acts—as taught by John Paul II in Veritatis splendor—and the qualification of contraception as an intrinsically evil act—as taught by Paul VI in Humanae vitae and again by John Paul II in Evangelium vitae.
The proposal to delve into the question of whether or not the prevention of implantation of an embryo is an abortion only serves to muddle the issue and take the discussion away from the more fundamental doctrine: the intrinsic evil of contraception. Put another way, engaging the proponents of the RH Bill in a debate on the abortifaciant or non-abortifaciant character of the contraceptives it proposes to promote is tantamount to conceding that contraception is not the issue but rather abortion. Even from the point of view of rhetoric or debate, that’s a concession that the Church is ill-advised to make, since in fact the proponents of the RH Bill have always affirmed their staunch disapproval of abortion.
This in fact is the problem with some theologians from the aforementioned theological school: through the years, they have repeatedly defended the position that the official Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception—repeatedly enunciated by the popes of the recent past, by Vatican Council II and at present by Pope Benedict XVI—is just one more position, on equal footing with the opposite view of—what a Philippine Star Jesuit columnist calls—an equally responsible Catholic position that contraception is licit in certain situations.
The question now is: Can these theologians, teaching in a Catholic university, where young minds are supposedly being formed in the Catholic faith, maintain such heterodox positions with impunity? Can’t the Law of the Church even protect the youngest of its own faithful against doctrinal error? Or put another way, if the bishops are so concerned about the environmental pollution brought about by irresponsible mining, shouldn’t they be more concerned about the doctrinal pollution being brought about by irresponsible theologizing in Catholic universities? After all, environmental degradation is not as serious as the erosion of Catholic faith, which is at bottom, is the reason for the increasing acceptance of the RH Bill among the Catholic faithful.
This question is masterfully answered in a book by Rev. Jesu Pudumai Doss, SDB, entitled Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonico-Theological Study, published by Kristu Jyoti Publications, Bangalore (India) in 2007. Based on the author’s doctoral dissertation in Canon Law at the Salesian Pontifical University (Rome), the book bears a foreword of Angelo Amato, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I shall attempt to summarize the pertinent sections in the next issue of CBCP Monitor. (To be concluded.)
A RECENT column of Atty. Jose Sison (A Law Each Day, The Philippine Star 8.XI.2010, p.15) caught my attention. Quoting an e-mail he received from a Jose Teodoro Sagalo, he focused on what the latter qualified as “grave error that the Loyola School of Theology has posted in the Ateneo website endorsed earlier by Fr. Nebres, Ateneo President, for reflection, and now endorsed by Roberto Rivera of the John Carroll Institute.” A quick check of the primary source verified the presence of the offensive proposals, in a paper issued jointly by the Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues and authored by Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.
My questions are: (1) Does the Catholic Church really teach─in an authentic, infallible, obligatory way─the instrinsic moral evil of contraception, or is this a matter of religious persuasion, therefore admitting of a variety of interpretations in a pluralistic society like the Philippines? (2) If the Church indeed officially teaches the intrinsic evil of contraception, can a Catholic institution─like the Loyola School of Theology─publicly propose otherwise, and get away with it? In other words, is there no provision in Church Law against a Catholic School of Theology teaching something contrary to Catholic Doctrine?
These questions bring to a head something which I had been wanting to address in this forum for some time: the juridic protection of the Word of God. Put another way, indeed there must be something in Church Law that guarantees─with coercive and punitive force─the doctrinal soundness of Catholic institutions. Still put another way, in much the same way that the Republic of the Philippines has the opportune departments to establish standards for what are taught in the centers of elementary, intermediate and higher education, the Church must have the necessary means to guarantee that only sound Catholic doctrine is taught in the officially Catholic institutions of education. To illustrate: if a chemistry professor at the University of the Philippines (my department and alma mater respectively) were to insist on teaching his students theories of alchemy that had already been long disproven, and if the university authorities were to allow him to continue deforming his students in that way─with dire consequences in his chemistry practice thereafter─the Republic of the Philippines would have grounds to call the university to task, aside from of course flunking its graduates in the professional board examinations.
In a previous issue of this paper, I summarized a series of articles I had written in this column in previous years regarding the Canonical Protection of the Church’s Magisterium. At this point, and before finally making a canonical appraisal of the question posed by our reader above, allow me to summarize the corresponding rights and duties of the faithful in relation to the Magisterium of the Church.
1. Rights and Duties of the Faithful in relation to the Magisterium
1) Fundamental right to receive an integral catechesis. The Christian faithful, since they are called by baptism to lead a life in conformity with the teaching of the Gospel, have the right to a Christian education by which they will be properly instructed so as to develop the maturity of a human person and at the same time come to know and live the mystery of salvation (c.217). This canon, situated under the title of Obligations and Rights of All Christian Faithful, corresponds to the duty of the Church to evangelize.
2) Right-Duty to do apostolate: Aside from the Magisterium, we must not forget that the whole Church is the carrier of the true meaning of human life; therefore, the whole Church—not just the Hierarchy—has the right and duty to inform the temporal structures with the Gospel message. Nevertheless, This duty of the faithful to do apostolate has no public character—i.e., the apostolate that they are bound to carry out has no public character (personal apostolate), even if they are not barred from carrying out a more public apostolate.
3) Duty to give an assent of faith to Universal Magisterium: All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, i.e., in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith.... therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths (c.750).
The Code defines two situations contrary to this norm (c.751):
a) Heresy - is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or an obstinate doubt concerning the same.
b) Apostasy - is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the Code typifies the above situations as crimes, establishing that an apostate or a heretic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by additional expiatory penalties (cf. c.1336, §1, nn.1-3).
4) Duty to give religious respect of intellect and will to Authentic Magisterium. Such religious respect implies, aside from an intellectual assent to the doctrine, also an assent of the will as manifested by an external actuation in accord with it. This is manifested at two levels:
a) Universal Level. A religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate on faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act. Therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching (c.752).
b) Particular Level. Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own bishops with a sense of religious respect (c.753).
3) Duty to refrain from dissent in matters of faith and morals: All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and proscribe erroneous opinions; this is especially true of the constitutions and decrees issued by the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops (c.754).
It is senseless to speak of a right to dissent as an expression of a religious freedom within the Church. By definition, this is a freedom that exists only in civil society, and as an eminent canonist has pointed out, what exists in the Church is the “right of opinion and expression (cc.212; 218), a right which is not absolute, but limited and one of the limitations is the magisterium of the Church. A member of the faithful cannot dissent from what makes up the deposit of faith without breaking ecclesiastical communion, since it amounts to ceasing to be a disciple of the Master.”
Thus, even if the Universal Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium can be differentiated in that an internal act of assent is required in the former while not in the latter, in both cases the faithful is duty-bound to refrain from active (external) dissent.
2. The Loyola House of Studies’ “Talking Points” for a Discussion on the RH Bill
The offending paper is actually too long to tackle in detail, but I would like to focus on what I think is the ethical principle which underpins the entire set of talking points, which to my mind is not in sync with official Catholic teaching as enunciated in the ordinary, authentic and infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs. Quite early on, the paper reads:
“Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them” (italics mine). It then goes on to make a proposal:
“Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.”
The implication here is that there is one morality for Catholics and another for people of other religious traditions. This is clearly contrary to the notion of intrinsically evil acts—as taught by John Paul II in Veritatis splendor—and the qualification of contraception as an intrinsically evil act—as taught by Paul VI in Humanae vitae and again by John Paul II in Evangelium vitae.
The proposal to delve into the question of whether or not the prevention of implantation of an embryo is an abortion only serves to muddle the issue and take the discussion away from the more fundamental doctrine: the intrinsic evil of contraception. Put another way, engaging the proponents of the RH Bill in a debate on the abortifaciant or non-abortifaciant character of the contraceptives it proposes to promote is tantamount to conceding that contraception is not the issue but rather abortion. Even from the point of view of rhetoric or debate, that’s a concession that the Church is ill-advised to make, since in fact the proponents of the RH Bill have always affirmed their staunch disapproval of abortion.
This in fact is the problem with some theologians from the aforementioned theological school: through the years, they have repeatedly defended the position that the official Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception—repeatedly enunciated by the popes of the recent past, by Vatican Council II and at present by Pope Benedict XVI—is just one more position, on equal footing with the opposite view of—what a Philippine Star Jesuit columnist calls—an equally responsible Catholic position that contraception is licit in certain situations.
The question now is: Can these theologians, teaching in a Catholic university, where young minds are supposedly being formed in the Catholic faith, maintain such heterodox positions with impunity? Can’t the Law of the Church even protect the youngest of its own faithful against doctrinal error? Or put another way, if the bishops are so concerned about the environmental pollution brought about by irresponsible mining, shouldn’t they be more concerned about the doctrinal pollution being brought about by irresponsible theologizing in Catholic universities? After all, environmental degradation is not as serious as the erosion of Catholic faith, which is at bottom, is the reason for the increasing acceptance of the RH Bill among the Catholic faithful.
This question is masterfully answered in a book by Rev. Jesu Pudumai Doss, SDB, entitled Freedom of Enquiry and Expression in the Catholic Church: A Canonico-Theological Study, published by Kristu Jyoti Publications, Bangalore (India) in 2007. Based on the author’s doctoral dissertation in Canon Law at the Salesian Pontifical University (Rome), the book bears a foreword of Angelo Amato, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I shall attempt to summarize the pertinent sections in the next issue of CBCP Monitor. (To be concluded.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)