Point Taken

My good friend WillyJ, of Random Thoughts and Musings on a Narrow Road commented on the position paper “A Call of Conscience: Catholics in Support of the RH Bill,” that the 14 Ateneo professors wrote in support of the RH Bill. Essentially, WillyJ contends that the learned professors are missing the point:

The professors seem to imply that their well-formed conscience, probably developed over the last few months, trumps more than 2,000 years of Church history and teaching tradition. Primacy of conscience does not guarantee rightness and the objective TRUTH in one's subsequent actions. As is usually the case, when one finds himself in conflict with the Church’s teachings, the problem is with the person and not with the teaching, a direct consequence, naturally, of a selective reading(?) of Catholic (social ?) teachings.

While the professors continue to think more along the lines of “well-formed consciences”, they might consider not dragging the Ateneo name the next time they feel an irresistible urge to voice out their personal opinions. It would also do them well to read the Compendium of the Social Doctrines of the Church (all 361 pages, with NOT A SINGLE PAGE of it expounding on the PRIMACY of CONSCIENCE); study NFP first DILIGENTLY, without making “impossible” conclusions; rethink their concept of ROOT CAUSES; ask a succession of “WHYS” on the problems of women at hand; and investigate more deeply the real meaning of “WELL-FORMED CONSCIENCES”.

I probably would disagree with WillyJ concerning the recency in which these esteemed professors formed their consciences. I took classes under some of the professors who wrote the position paper. I have nothing but the highest respect for their unwavering commitment to sapientia et eloquentia.

But I concur with WillyJ that the professors' advocacy for the RH Bill seems to fly in the face of a properly Christian, or even rational conception of Man. They seem to have misappropriated the term "rational animal" and applied it hastily to our nation's poor. Do the less fortunate give in more easily to their impulses? Does their poverty prevent them from making rational decisions?

What about man's capacity for self-improvement and transcendence?

I also think that people, when considering the different alternatives for reproductive health, however it is conceived, should consider the merits of the Natural Family Planning (NFP) method. As WillyJ pointed out some time ago, NFP is different from the Rhythm or Calendar method. Rather, NFP is based on the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM). BOM has often been assailed as being difficult to implement. However, as this study asserts:

It is interesting to note that in one field trial, most failure cases had a relatively high cultural level (two university graduates and two lecturers). They all felt sorry and admitted that since they considered the method was simple and easy to master, they had paid less attention to the teaching course and had not strictly followed the rules. The consequence was use-related failures. On the contrary, the illiterate women were generally very attentive to BOM teaching and rigidly stuck to the rules, and failures were very rare. This experience gives us the following elicitation:

3.1 The BOM is simple and easy to comprehend; almost all the women, including the illiterate, can successfully learn the method and identify their own mucus symptoms.

3.2 During the training, special attention should be paid to the intellectuals and professionals. The method seems to be too "simple" to them and they could not get hold of it without strict supervision.

Perhaps instead of turning our attention to the lack, perceived or otherwise, in our nation's poor, we could focus on ways in which to liberate them from the conditions which prevent them from exercising informed choices on reproductive health.