Notes from the End of Life as We Know It 8: Repentance and Rebirth at the End of Life as We Know It

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

I once heard from a report my students gave that there is such a thing as the autogeddon theory. They said some scientists did the math and believed that we have reached a point of no return with regard to bringing about destructive changes to the earth because of rising population, massive demand for energy and water, the strain of our consumption on natural resources and habitats, and the destructive changes in the climate we are causing. It was never clear to me where they got this autogeddon theory because they were not sure themselves. However, in the subsequent years, it became clearer to all of us that no matter how much we conserve, no matter how much we reduce our population growth, we have irrevocably damaged the earth and we have already brought about massive destruction to nature. It is also clear that we will continue to do so in more massive levels when the full effects of global warming kick in.

As it stands, we have caused the extinction of more species than any natural event. We have raised the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 times since the start of the industrial revolution and there is no end to that increase in sight. It seems that it will take centuries “for global processes to reach equilibrium.” Even if we cut GDP by 2% per developed country today, we will still raise the amount of CO2 produced by industrial processes. Scientists already estimated that we have overshot the world’s capacity to sustainably support our existence by 120 percent and still we keep growing by about 200,000 people per day. It seems clearer now more than ever that we are destroying our habitable world at unprecedented rates and that we have long passed the point of no return. This means that no matter how much we conserve, reuse, recycle, reduce, live responsibly, consume less, and live with the least impact on the earth that our present state of development affords, we will never be able to restore the world to its prior state when it could sustain human life seemingly indefinitely. It’s just too late. We have eaten and polluted ourselves out of a nourishing home and created this fragile habitat.

How did we get here? There are simply too many of us and a rich minority of us are living grandly wasteful lives. A simple fact from biologist Walter Dodds. Each hamburger requires 3028 litters of water to produce and a full meal requires 5591 liters of water. Imagine how much water that is when you multiply those thousands of liters to the billions of hamburgers Macdonalds and the millions Jollibee have served. Now imagine how many millions of people actually get to eat full meals. Certainly they are not the majority of the world’s population but they are a considerable minority. Now imagine the hectares of land used to grow the corn that feeds the cows and the hundreds of species that had to give up their habitat for our burgers. To think, most of our meals and all of these burgers aren’t even good for us. And because these things we consume aren’t good for us, imagine how much governments and pharmaceuticals spend on research and development, production and distribution of the pills and teas that try to burn away the burgers we shouldn’t have eaten. Yet, his is but a fraction of our impact on the earth. Our continuous production of electronics, low and high end consumer goods, fashion, and luxury items at every level of the social strata has caused us to destroy, pollute, and deplete habitats and resources. Because we produce so much waste and require so much material to sustain us, and because there are simply too many of us, we are destroying the nourishing rock that brought us to life.

So what do we do? The more clearly the data emerges, the more clearly it seems that we have to enact radical changes in the way we live just to make sure that our home doesn’t become too hostile to us. To put it quite simply, we must repent and reform. For those of us who have realized our being in the world in such a way that has been hurtful to society and to our fellow citizens, we expect some kind of remorse—we expect some king of awakening and realization that their way of being in the world has to be reformed or realized in another way. Well, we have acted badly. Therefore, we must be expected to rethink the way we are being in the world. The way we have been for the last century, we have lived like selfish, inconsiderate, demanding, greedy, self-absorbed, arrogant, needy, and gluttonous brats who have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. It’s as if everything in this world existed for our sole pleasure and that our sole purpose is to exploit everything that will let us. Only a few of us even wonder if we were hurting other species, if we have a right to destroy their worlds, or if we should make amends for our boorish behavior. We have lived on this world like parasites without a capacity to regulate our consumption thereby causing the death of our host. We have behaved badly and have come to the end of life as we know it.

As I have always said, this moment is a tremendous opportunity for growth. However, we can only begin to grow and realize our better selves when we first acknowledge that we have realized a way of being in this world that is careless and destructive. However, most of us aren’t even close to recognizing our failings. In Barack Obama’s inauguration speech, the great American hope of this generation, the world leader who people thought was genuinely progressive and understood that significant changes had to be realized in their country’s way of living and dealing with the world and the environment, said, “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.” Of course he was delivering his required rhetoric against terrorism. However, I am deeply offended by this notion that the Americans will not apologize for their way of life. Why not? It is their mad consumerist dream that filled our shared atmosphere with more than their share of greenhouse gases, that caused the floods that destroyed the lives of many people in my city, that has caused and continues to cause environmental degradation in their quest for oil, that has bullied my nation into an unfair world economic system that keeps my people poor. They won’t repent for any of that harm? They won’t apologize for their way of life that makes my children’s future uncertain and clouded over by the darkest clouds we can imagine? I think they and those that created this world order do owe us an apology. And we should repent our complicity in their destructive self-realization.

The sad and seemingly hopeless fact is that only a few people understand that the way we live is not good for us. It is a lifestyle that treats the world as a resource to use and consume as, what Martin Heidegger would refer to, as standing reserve. We look at the world as a thing waiting to be used. Its various habitats and myriad life forms are but mere resources to tap as we think of more complex ways to feed and amuse ourselves, to make our selves feel alive and immortal. Nothing, not even our fellow human beings, are thought of as individual and separate beings who have an existence that bears its own value other than that we confer. Nothing exists for us unless it is something useful or amusing or consumable. And because we have seen the world in the light of its status as standing reserve, we have refashioned it in such a way that it exists according to our demands. Our jungles are no longer primordial, our animals no longer wild, our skies no longer a transcendent sheltering dome, our seas no longer an impenetrable depth—all are touched by men with a heavy hand that cannot help but alter and destroy what it touches. And so, Mr. Obama and all the rest of humanity—especially man-kind—we have much to apologize for and much to be sorry about. We have treated our world and our fellow living beings with such utter disregard that not only have we fouled our own nest, we have driven other beings to extinction. What kind of species does that make us? The kind that no one with any sense would want to move into their neighborhood. Unfortunately, we have taken over the planet.

It is time then to admit that we have somehow come to a point when our drive to a more successful way of being in the world has become a bane to others and to ourselves. We have realized our human potential in such a way that it has become harmful and dangerous to others. We only have to admit that our way of being has not been desirable so that we can move on and become better persons. Unless we can come to that realization, we will continue to be the bad neighbor, the stupid parasite, and we will drive ourselves into extinction.

How then do we repent? Max Scheler explores the experience of repentance in his essay “Repentance and Rebirth.” Here he shows how repentance is an act born of the realization that one has concretized oneself in a way that violates the order of values, or in a way that violates or fails to realize the highest potential of my self. Somehow, perhaps because of the presence of a model person that allows me to intuit my fullest potential, or more simply because I am confronted with the pain I have caused others with my way of being, I realize that I have realized my worst possible self and that I need to renew my commitment to a more creative way of being in the world that values myself and others. According to Scheler, and I believe this is true, there is an aspect of grace in repentance.

All of us, in our finitude, can only see the world according to our own system of values, according to our own rationalities. The reason we do what we do is because we think that this is the good thing to do based on our own way of understanding and valuing ourselves and others. We engage in this orgy of consumption because we thought it was the best for us—we still do. No one set out to foul the nest. We only wanted to improve our lives by getting the most while paying the least, to gain the most pleasure with the least pain. We set to have children because it was a joy and an assurance of continued existence. We built our cities because it felt like the safest way of living. We are structured by the prevailing systems of valuation that define an ethos. This ethos tells us that our way of being in the world is the most beneficial and the truest way of realizing our humanity. To realize that our way of seeing and engaging the world is actually perverted is not easy because we can only see things through our own system of values. It takes the coming of another who bears another way of being or seeing, the advent of disaster, or even just the quiet moment of sudden insight to awaken us. Best of all, it takes the miracle, rare but not unheard of, of seeing myself for an instant through the eyes of the transcendent source of the good to shatter my certainties about who I am and awaken me to the need to realize my better self. That is a rare act of grace, but every day we are challenged by others to rethink our priorities, to reevaluate our desires, to reexamine our certainties. If we are open to that grace, we can awaken to our possibilities.

In our time, in this suitable time, we are confronted by our own folly. There is no greater mirror to our souls than our ravaged world. Thusly, we are forced to confront our false conceptions and valuations of reality. The main reason for this is because we will not survive otherwise. So we can say that we are being pushed to repent our destructive way of being. Global warming is the grace that prods us to repentance. The only proper human response to such an awakening is to embrace it. Without embracing this and without repenting, we will always be caught in the ethos of our destructive selves. A destructive way of being is like a rail that keeps us running in a particular direction unless we can break from it. Thus repentance is like a disaster of sorts—a derailing that wrenches us out of our destructive self-realization so that we can reevaluate our being in the world.

Of course there will be the sorrow one feels for having to see one’s self this way. It can never be pleasant and can even be debilitating. One can feel hopeless about one’s self and fall deeper into one’s destructiveness because one may not have the will or imagination to see one’s self other than this negative realization of personhood. However, only when one embraces one’s brokenness, when one accepts that he has lived for so long according to this distorted realization of the self, can one begin to pick one’s self up and realize one’s self otherwise. Until there is no reevaluation, acceptance of one’s shortcomings, and repentance of one’s patterns of concretization, there will be no potential for rebirth. But the first step is humility.

Humility calls for our acceptance of our finitude and our brokenness in our capacity to realize our potentials as persons. If it is grace that awakens us to awaken to our destructive selves, perhaps it is also grace that will draw us to our greater potentials as persons. This time at the end of life as we know it, there is a call for rebirth. There is an urgent call for humanity to collectively awaken to more authentic ways of being in the world. What can realize such an awakening? Perhaps if there are enough of what Scheler calls model persons, i.e. bearers of systems of values that will shape a more creative way of being in the world, then we will be able to understand how we can achieve our potential. Perhaps, if more people are engaged in the task of reimagining our civilization, we will be able to pull ourselves together and build more just and less consuming economies. Perhaps, if it is not too late and if we are not in the early phases of our autogeddon.

But whether it is too late or not, we must repent and find ourselves reborn to a new way of being in the world.

Let's Talk About Sex. And Women. (Thoughts on Issues Related to the RH Bill.)

by Rowie Azada

I'll start by sharing three insights that struck me at different times in my life.

Insight number 1. When I was in college, we studied the Catholic doctrine on contraception, marriage, and sexuality for a Theology class. I remember thinking to myself that it was very difficult to follow the Catholic doctrine on contraception, but at the same time I was also struck by how much faith it had in the kind of love a husband and a wife could have. The only "Church-approved" methods of family planning--natural "birth control" methods--were entirely dependent on open communication lines between husband and wife, and on a husband's respect for his wife's body and her sexuality. There was also a strong concern that "a man ... may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection" (HV 17, encyclical given in 1968). There were other parts of the doctrine I had many questions about, but I thought that the emphasis on a man's respect for a woman's body was quite cool.

Insight number 2. When I was a fresh graduate, I was hired to translate for an American journalist who was doing a story on contraception in the Philippines. We visited a number of urban poor areas in the Philippines and interviewed women who had eight or more children. We asked the women why they had so many children and their answers were often along the lines of, "E kasi madalas umuuwi ang asawa ko nang lasing, kaya alam mo na ...." Many of the women we interviewed said they had tried the pill but didn't like the side effects they said the pill gave them; when asked why they didn't use a condom instead, they often said, "E ayaw kasi ng asawa ko."

Insight number 3. I read a statistic a few years ago that showed a correlation between a woman's level of education and the number of children she had: the more educated a woman was, the more likely it was that she would have less children. I don't know for certain what the cause of the correlation is, but I'm guessing that maybe a more educated woman has a surer sense of self, and therefore feels more empowered to make decisions about her entire life, including her sexuality.

========

Why do so many poorer families have so many children--often far more than they can afford? There are probably many answers to the question, but based on those interviews I did several years ago, it seems that for some families, part of the reason is the dynamic between the husband and wife, the communication--or rather, the lack of communication--about sexuality. My guess is that many women cannot say no to their husbands/sexual partners, or cannot assert their own opinions and views about sex in the bedroom.

It is a shame that in this debate, the Catholic bishops and religious have been focusing only on the issue of contraception, because I think that there is much more in Catholic doctrine that can contribute to the discussion on reproductive health. Reproductive health begins, not in public clinics or barangay health centers or in school, but first and foremost, at home, in sexual relationships. Of course, the State cannot legislate respect between sexual partners (other than prohibiting domestic abuse), but by framing the issue of reproductive health mainly as a debate about contraception, the current participants in the debate are missing the opportunity to draw attention to what I think is at least an equally important issue: the power relations between sexual partners.

Why are women in our culture unable to be frank about sex? Why are men in our culture more vocal about sex? Both are equally misinformed about sex, yet in the power relation between man and woman, the woman acquiesces to the man. Despite all theories that ours is a matriarchal society, this is one area where women lose out.

I remember the last huge art-related controversy in school, around a decade ago. A theater group wanted to stage the Vagina Monologues. However, some administrators (not priests), reacting to the play's strong language, refused to endorse it as an official school activity, and banned it from campus. The group went ahead and staged it, off campus, but the banning caused a huge uproar.

I watched the play and loved it. The next day I talked about it with some friends. "In one of the scenes," I began, "where a character started talking about her 'puerta' ..."

A male friend who had also watched it responded, "A oo, kadiri talaga yung scene na yun ...."

"Kadiri?" I said, surprised. "I thought it was so powerful, so moving ...."

"See, the thing is," I continued, "men have porn and locker room jokes to talk about sex. Women have nothing. When men talk about sex publicly, it's funny. At least, it's funny. When women talk about sex, it's 'kadiri.'"

If we want to increase reproductive health awareness, giving condoms or pills for free at health clinics might help a little. But it won't be enough. Let's go beyond this contraceptive talk. Let's talk about people. Let's talk about relationships. Let's talk about women in relationships and how we can help women speak up.

*picture from http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/

The Nativity and Public Space

by Remmon E. Barbaza

As Christmas nears, many of us feel oppressed by the madness of road traffic, long gift lists, and endless parties and reunions. But we also relish the joy and peace of Christmas in the quiet of our homes. These opposing experiences point to a tension between private and public spaces.

The story of the Nativity is itself a struggle involving private and public spaces. The God who chose to insert Himself in human space and history, who “pitched tent among us”—the same God who made space for the heavens and the earth in loving acts of letting-be (“Let there be…”)—now finds Himself without a space to lay His head. There is no room for Him in the inn.

*image taken from The Biblical World

So there He is to be born, in a manger, marginalized from the very beginning. He knows these margins very well, these edges of human society and history. This God will begin from the margins, live in the margins, and die in the margins of our human spaces. His earthly life is a story of reaching out to those who live in the margins, those who are marginalized, and hence out-cast. We want them out of our spaces. But God wants them back in.

Although not couched in the socio-political language of “private and public spaces,” the teachings of Jesus do point to something that speaks of such distinctions. He would, for example, exhort people to transcend the selfish confines of the family. The family is a kind of private space. We feel at home in it. But Jesus says that we cannot be called children of God if our love was limited to our families. For indeed even the cruelest evildoers among us love their own families.

We Filipinos pride ourselves in having close and tightly knit families, which indeed is a wonderful thing in itself. But as in any other good thing, when corrupted it can degenerate into something destructive.

That our state is run mostly by families and clans—and often with the same names over and over again—tells us not only that the family is stronger than the state, but also that, on the fundamental level, we have not yet learned how to recognize the public space that lies beyond the narrow and often selfish confines of the private space.

The Ampatuan massacre is an extreme example of the violent imposition of the self in public space, where the will was not satisfied with simply marginalizing people who challenged the legitimacy of its power, but went so far as to brutally and physically wipe them out altogether from our shared space.

Violating laws with impunity can thus be seen as an illegitimate appropriation of public space. But before we fall into the illusion that the impunity claimed by the Ampatuans is something extreme and remote from most of us, we would do well to think again. For we might discover that there are degrees of acting with impunity, and that each one of us acts in one degree or another.

Gone may be the wang-wangs, one of the loudest and most disgusting examples of the imposition of the self in public space. But we still get subjected to the tasteless self-promotion of public officials who force the ugly sight of their names and faces upon public space, or car owners who seem to demand entitlement by announcing that they are “LAWYERS” or “PMA CLASS so and so” (yes, in screaming capitals), or doctors who are not necessarily responding to emergency calls but seem to demand special treatment through their “Doctors on Call” stickers or plates (thereby perhaps preventing other doctors from actually responding to life-and-death situations).

How many times did we get stuck in traffic because some selfish driver stopped right at the street corner, totally unmindful of others whose right to unobstructed roads was not respected at all? And when such a thing happens, how many times do we see traffic enforcers look the other way? (One need only observe what happens at the corner of Kamias and EDSA, for instance, on any given weekday, to see how disorder has reached insane levels.)

How many times have we heard of a friend or a relative die in an accident because a couple of buses or trucks engaged in a mad race, or else “encountered brake failure,” indicating that their drivers and operators did not recognize that the right to drive a vehicle is exercised in public space and therefore comes with the serious responsibility of ensuring public safety? Did not the Vatican itself identify reckless driving and road bullying as two of the modern sins?

In gated villages (itself a phenomenon of spatial segregation), we also witness how some supposedly educated, Mass-going and rosary-reciting residents usurp upon the public domain, disregarding common space by blocking fire hydrants, street corners, and driveways, while being the first and loudest ones to complain when their own spaces are blocked by others.

But we need not look further and outside ourselves. The Nativity invites us to enter into that most sacred space, from within which alone we can take a hard look at ourselves, and see to what extent we have violated the common good by unlawfully usurping upon public space, and all because of our illusion of being the center of the world.

Simone Weil tells us that to love is “to give up being the center of the world in imagination, to discern that all the points in the world are equally centers and that the true center is outside the world.” Such love is the love that the Nativity invites us to receive.

Our spiritual life demands that we pass the social and political test of recognizing and safeguarding public space. After all, we pray that His will be done on earth as in heaven. Failing this test will only belie all claims to religiosity and spirituality, and unmask them as nothing but sheer hypocrisy.

And so as we slowly enter into the heart of Christmas, we are invited to behold the unfolding of this wondrous story that is the Nativity. It is the story of this ultimate act of displacement, when God willingly divested Himself of His divine nature, displacing Himself in order to bring everything back to its proper place.

Among the first ones to witness the unfolding of this wondrous story were those who lived in the margins, too. We must learn from them then, these shepherds. Like them we must approach the manger, quietly and without any expectation, with hearts open and ready to wait.

There, in the manger, where the true center is.

Statement Regarding Administrative Matter No. 10-7-17-SC and Its Definition of Plagiarism

On October 15, 2010, the Philippine Supreme Court declared in Administrative Matter No. 10-7-17-SC that Justice del Castillo did not commit plagiarism in his ponencia in Vinuya v. Romula (G. R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). In the Ethics Committee's decision, the justices mention the argument presented by the petitioners of the case that the question of intent is immaterial in deciding whether or not plagiarism has been committed. They counterargue, however, that "plagiarism is essentially a form of fraud where intent to deceive is inherent."

The justices' description of plagiarism, however, contradicts a widely-accepted understanding of plagiarism in the academe and in the community of researchers. In the conventions of scholarly work, unintentional plagiarism is still labeled "plagiarism." Whether or not the person responsible for the plagiarism intended it, the fact remains that the original source of the ideas or words used in a text was not cited, and the result is that those ideas and words appear to belong to someone else. In some cases, the meaning of the original text is distorted and the reader is not given the chance to verify the plagiarist's reading of that text. Regardless of intent, when a person plagiarizes, a wrong has still been committed against the community of truth-seekers, against the individuals to whom the ideas were not attributed, and to the value of truth as a whole.

To be a researcher, whether in the academe or in any other endeavor of knowledge generation, is precisely to be among a community dedicated to the defense of truth. One of the primary responsibilities, then, of a researcher, scholar, or academic is to safeguard this value by vigilantly, meticulously and honestly paraphrasing source material, crediting one's sources, and representing ideas as original authors intended them.

There is no question that intentional plagiarism is a graver offense than unintentional plagiarism; nonetheless, even without an intention to commit fraud, a person who commits plagiarism might, at the very least, be guilty of irresponsibility or neglect.

The decision fails to acknowledge that an offense is committed as well, even when plagiarism is unintentional. As worded, the decision may be misconstrued to mean that no wrong at all occurs when a researcher fails to deliberately identify the original sources of borrowed words or ideas. In the case involving Justice del Castillo, there must be some acknowledgment, at its simplest, that one did not do what one was supposed to do, and that is something that must be rectified.

It is possible that some in the legal community view the law primarily as prohibitive, where notions of "wrongdoing" and "burden of proof" are limiting principles. We are grateful, however, for Justice Sereno's dissenting opinion that implies that the Supreme Court does not only have a disciplinary authority, but also a moral authority and the ability "to positively educate" the people. Morality is concerned not only with preventing and punishing the commission of wrong, but more importantly with a positive pursuit of the good, and with honing sensibilities of character and virtue.

No one should deny the complexity of the issues involved in the case and thereby the difficulty of making judgments about the rightness and wrongness of the act in question. And indeed complex situations require that finer distinctions be made. But in that case we must also make distinctions about distinctions, for there are distinctions that are legitimate and necessary, and there are others that only serve as an evasion of the issue and thereby of responsibility. The recognition of such complexity and the need to make distinctions should not mean that we should do away with clarity of principles as well as the firmness of our convictions about those principles. What is at stake here is the principle of veracity, and ultimately of truth, which cannot be violated without harming the human community as a whole as it can only be founded on and sustained by that principle. We are therefore unsettled and morally offended by the decision of the Supreme Court whose definition of plagiarism in relation to intention goes against widely accepted norms and standards and, far more seriously, presents a danger to our shared commitment to the principles of veracity and truth. We are hoping that with the presentation of this perspective, the court in its wisdom will better clarify its decision for the community of truth seekers that will be affected by it. The court's decision sends a message to all of us regarding the value of care and integrity in truth seeking. Its demand for accountability too explains to us the value of honorably taking responsibility for whatever mistakes we have committed in order to heal the wounds our acts have inflicted.

Signed,
Individual Faculty Members of the Department of Philosophy, Ateneo de Manila University
Rowena P. Azada-Palacios, MA
Remmon E. Barbaza, PhD
Oscar Bulaong, Jr., PhD
Mark Joseph Calano, PhD
Louis Catalan, SJ, PhD
Manuel B. Dy, Jr., PhD
Jacqueline Jacinto, MA
Michael Ner E. Mariano, PhD Cand
Pamela Joy Mariano, MA Cand
Jesus Deogracias Principe, PhD
Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez, PhD
Andrew K. L. Soh, MA
Roy Allan Tolentino, MA
John Carlo P. Uy, MA Cand

On Why This Catholic is Campaigning for State Support for Reproductive Health

by Agustin Martin Rodriguez

I am one of those professors from Ateneo that the media branded as defying the Church on the issue of the passage of House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development.” I’m not really sure if by making the stand we made we were defying the Church, for whom were we defying when we were acting out of Christian love and our informed consciences. And if we were defying the Church, we were doing so in order to respond to the call of love’s conscience. Now that the controversy over the Reproductive Health Bill is raging, I would like to explain my position in lobbying for state support for reproductive health. I don’t want to speak on behalf of my colleagues who so carefully crafted our statement or the signatories who supported our statement with passion and conviction. But I would like to explain why I myself stand so firmly behind our call to pass a law like this.

*editorial cartoon courtesy of The Manila Standard Today

Let me begin by saying that I do, as a student of philosophy and as a person who has grappled with the mysteries of parenthood and human sexuality for most of my life, understand the position of those members of the Church who look at this bill with fear and disapproval. I agree that the emergence of artificial contraceptives has made it easier for us to engage in careless sexual activity. The fact that there are contraceptives that minimize unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease has probably made it easier for many of us to be promiscuous and this has certainly had an effect on how we give meaning to and value the sexual act.

It’s also possible that some of the contraceptives that are being sold have an abortive effect. It is possible that the pill or the IUD allow implantation to occur and might actually cause a fertilized egg to die. I don’t deny that this is possible and tragic.

I also can sympathize with their hesitation to allow a law to pass that will potentially interfere with how their schools will handle sex education. I also understand their distrust of the government officials’ capacity to design an effective and appropriate syllabus for sex-education. We in the education business know how government bureaucrats can impose short sighted and ill-designed programs that tend to be ineffective if not outright harmful in the formation of young people. And in such a delicate matter such as human sexuality and love, it takes a great act of faith and hope to imagine that the bureaucracy will not mis-educate our children.

However, those truths and possibilities aside, we are faced with the hard and terrible tragedy of millions of women and children whose lives are put at risk everyday only because they do not know many of the basic facts of human reproduction and are unable to access existing technologies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is painful to witness how the undoing or further undoing of countless lives continues when proper information or the availability of effective methods of contraception are denied them. I need only to think of the countless children who grow up facing the violence of poverty that is compounded by the lack of care and nutrition imposed by the sheer size of their families; of the violence inflicted on the bodies of women by the unabated proliferation of their children due to the lack of knowledge and the lack of access to methods that could help them decide the number of children best for their family’s welfare; of the countless people whose creativity and joy is sapped by the constant pressure to find the resources to nourish themselves and their children in a world that can no longer sustain their numbers—and thinking all this, I asked myself how we could deny people a chance to rise from tragedy. Because this bill gives them that chance. It will ensure that young people understand the nature of human sexuality and reproduction so that they can make intelligent decisions about the risky behavior to which they are prone. It will give poor women access to contraception that will give them a fighting chance to have families the size of which can sustain love and care. It will give oppressed women a chance to say no to the abuse on their body and psyches of having large families. And it will give children a chance to develop with a chance at health care, education, and focused parental love. So you see, I and my colleagues are calling for the passage of this bill, not as an act of defiance but as a call of love. We know these parents, we know their children, we weep in our hearts to see how their chance at a decent human life is eroded by what society has denied them. We aren’t saying that responsible parenthood will solve poverty. It won’t, justice will. But this law will give them a chance to live more human lives as they wait for the reign of the Kingdom of God.

In my heart, I understand what the Church fears when it thinks of contraceptives and birth control—it is thinking that the contraceptive mentality is a symptom of a mindset that is not open to grace. For the Church it signals a kind of heart that has no hope and cannot trust in the good will of a loving God. I can see how that can be true and how the propagation of the culture of contraceptives might lead to the degradation of our capacity to be people of faith. It can also lead to the degradation of human sexuality as it will permit sex to be used as a drug to ease the ennui of modern life. I see how the reduction of unwanted pregnancies can do that. However, we do live already in a sinful world where the truth of sexuality especially between loving couples is an unfathomable mystery. Why does sex have such a power on our will such that it draws people to act beyond reason and good sense? Why is it that people think that sex could resolve their malaise, give them a higher esteem of themselves, make them happy, and give them a sense of completion? I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions and much of human existence is involved in trying to understand this mystery. In the meantime children are being born to impossible circumstances and women are being made to suffer preventable hardships.

In our broken and sinful world people are looking for answers and may be acting beyond their better wisdom in their search. Until we come to our wholeness and holiness perhaps we can provide ourselves the tools of prudence so that our search for intimacy and fullness does not have to end in sorrow and greater tragedy. State support for reproductive health will provide us these tools. And so with love for those like us who are broken, but unlike us are deprived of the means to regulate the effects of their tragic fate, we propose that some such bill be passed. Perhaps the Church will want it passed with revisions—but we should not touch its capacity to help people control reproduction through the access to knowledge and safe means. We should especially not water down its mandate to provide support for mothers who care for their children.

And as the secular state passes its laws for the secular good of all its citizens, perhaps it is only right for the Church to redouble its efforts in the education of its people’s hearts. For only a profound and effective education of the heart will bring her people to their good. No amount of intervention in state law will teach the people love. Only a Church that acts as a beacon of love can ultimately teach us what our intimacy is about. In the meantime, let us leave the state to its means to save its poor.

Musings on the RH Bill

by Rowena Anthea Azada-Palacios

First of all, let's get two things straight:

(1) Even if this bill gets signed into law, induced abortion will still be illegal.
(2) Even if this bill doesn't get signed into law, artificial contraception will still be legal.

So let's get rid of the straw men crowding the issue. The supporters of the bill are not, in this instance, calling for the legalization of abortion. The critics of the bill are not, in this instance, calling for the banning of artificial contraception.

==========

Yes, this is an issue of choice. I argue, however, that BOTH sides of the debate are arguing for choice.

Those who support the bill argue that the bill is about giving all Filipinos the choice to personally and privately decide for themselves which form of contraception they wish to use, if any. It is a freedom that is currently afforded to the segment of the population that has more access to information--the most educated and most literate--who have wider access to information.

I think many (most?) of those who support the bill are, in effect, saying that the same choice should be made available to everyone in the populace. They are saying that since there are many in the population who do not have access to information in the way that the most educated do, the government ought to fill in that space by mandating that the information be included in the curriculum, through Family Planning offices (to be created by the bill), and through the Commission on Population (also to be created by the bill).

To extend the issue further. While the bill reemphasizes the illegality of induced abortions, some proponents of the bill argue that the bill will actually LOWER the numbers of illegal abortions by lowering the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.

==========

Those who criticize the bill are also arguing for choice. The bill does make very clear value statements: it considers population control and birth spacing to be desirable, and it associates contraception (both natural and artificial) with the goal of lowering the country's population. It prohibits both private and public doctors from refusing to perform voluntary ligations and vasectomies. It also adds artificial contraception--including pills and intrauterine devices--to the list of "essential medicines."

I think many (most?) of those who criticize the bill are arguing that they do not want these values and viewpoints--which they do not hold--to become "official state policy." Those who criticize the bill might disagree with the views expressed therein regarding birth spacing or population control. The critics might also object to many of the kinds of contraception being promoted by the bill, and they may not want their tax money to be used to purchase these forms of contraception for others (which becomes a strong possibility, if these will now be considered "essential medicines").

On the issue of abortion, then. There are those who argue, then, that the passage of the bill will push the State to promote and possibly subsidize potentially abortifacient forms of contraception (such as pills and IUDs), using taxpayers' money.

==========

Note: This is based on HB No. 5403, AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Oversimplifications

by Rowena Anthea Azada-Palacios

In the aftermath of Monday's hostage-taking tragedy, a TV station asked its viewers the question: should there be a media blackout during hostage crises?

The question grossly oversimplifies the issue. The public outcry is not for a total news blackout, but for media outfits to exercise greater restraint in choosing which details to air and when to air them.

The best way, in fact, for media organizations to avoid further legislated media regulation, is for them to prove to the public that their self-regulatory mechanisms are sufficient.

ABS-CBN's statement, released on Thursday, enumerated ways in which their news team exercised self-restraint. However, of the nine examples they gave, five of them are not examples of self-regulation, but rather, of either complying with the law (e.g., not tampering with police evidence), or following commands from the police. Whether or not news organizations should follow the law and heed police's instructions is not at issue; that should be the minimum expected of all media groups in such situations.

In contrast to ABS-CBN's statement, the Poyner Institute, an American journalism school, published on its website in 1999 a list of self-regulating guidelines for journalists covering a developing law enforcement action, such as a hostage-taking situation. Among the guidelines are for journalists to "always assume that the hostage taker ... has access to the reporting," to avoid releasing information "that could divulge the tactics or positions of SWAT team members," to "strongly resist the temptation to telephone a gunman or hostage taker," and to "have a plan ready for how to respond" should a hostage taker call a newsroom. Links to these guidelines quickly spread online last week.

In response, Maria Ressa, ABS-CBN's head of news and current affairs, argued that the Poynter guidelines are culture-bound, and that our country's context is different from that of the Western audience for which the guidelines were written. Be that is it may, the ethical principle behind the guidelines is universal. In a hostage situation in any culture, the safety of the hostages should be paramount. When lives are at stake, media institutions ought to err on the side of too much rather than too little caution. News organizations can keep the public informed without jeopardizing the safety of the hostages nor aggravating the situation.

Moreover, the culture-boundedness of the Poynter guidelines does not exempt local organizations from the responsibility of making their own guidelines and assuring that these are followed. The argument has been made that in the heat of the moment, it is difficult for journalists and media executives to decide how best to regulate their own coverage. However, this argument simply affirms the need for pre-established protocols. With such guidelines, the journalist and the media executive need not spend too much time in an internal struggle over what to report or what to air. They just have to comply with rules they have already drafted.

It is unclear whether news organizations had definite protocols prior to this incident, but it is clear now, more than ever, that such guidelines are necessary. GMA News has promised to revise their rules for situations where the public or their personnel are at risk. ABS-CBN is inviting its colleagues in the broadcast industry tp undertake an industry review. These steps are welcome, but they are also long overdue. Journalistic behavior during crisis situations was debated in the aftermath of the 1990 earthquake, the 2002 hostage-taking incident at a Pasay bus station, and the Ducat hostage-taking incident in 2007.


Finally, some media practitioners, including opinion columnists, have criticized the public for blaming the media. It is not the media's fault, they argue, but the police's, as it was they who failed to control the media. Again, this is an oversimplification of the issue. No reasonable person is laying the blame entirely on the media. Of course, the PNP and the civil government also made costly missteps. And of course, most of the responsibility rests with Mendoza himself.

The question, however, which all people involved ought to ask themselves is this: what, in my capacity, could I have done at the time to make the situation better? And did I do it?

Only if all of us learn to be accountable for our actions, even when we are only partially responsible for the outcome of a situation, can we prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again.