Friendly Observer By Arthur Keefe
Social Reform: Who decides?
As the dust finally settles on the much fought over Reproductive Health Bill (RH), let me now reflect on the real significance of this long saga.
The arguments for and against the contest of the bill will not be repeated here, as these are less significant than the symbolic importance of the bill itself.
I recently asked a priest whose views I respect, what his views of the bill was. He said in reality it would make little difference, as the Public Health departments already made free contraceptives available, and education was already taught in many schools.
His view was that it was the principle or the declaration of support which mattered.
I did not fully understand his support then. What principle was at stake? Why did a declaration matter? At least so much that the Catholic Church seemed obsessed by this issue like no other.
A little later, the penny dropped! (an English version of saying that I finally understand!).
The issue was not the content of the bill, but the role of the church in society. It was the issue of whether it was the Church or the State which really called the shots. It was akin to the English Reformation when King Henry 8th broke away from the Catholic Church and established the Church of England. His excuse at the time was that he desired a divorce (or an annulment) which the Pope would not grant. The reality was that it was a power battle between the wealthy and powerful Church, and a penniless and weak King. The King is removing the power of Rome, took with him all the wealth and power of the Church. The monasteries and their massive wealth and land holdings transferred to the King, who installed himself as head of the new Church. A position incidentally still held by the Queen of England.
We certainly do not have an equivalent Reformation in the Philippines, and the church remains. However, this defeat has seriously weakened the role of the Church in its ability to set the political agenda.
Whether this is a good or a bad thing in a matter of opinion, the constitution separates the role of Church and State, and protects freedom of religious belief. To this extent, this is consistent with the government overruling the views of the Catholic Church.
Nothing in the bill requires Catholics to practice birth control, and thus individual freedoms are not overridden.
Perhaps some would prefer a country in which religious laws are applied regardless of personal views or beliefs, such as in the theocracy of Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. I am sure most would not.
The passage of the RH bill is therefore in my view, a landmark decision, not so much for its content, as for its statement about the respective roles of the church (which is to advocate and persuade), and the state, which is to legislate.
The next big social issue, now more likely to progress, is that of divorce.
Divorce is not legally available. However, if you have enough money to hire smart lawyers and pay court fees, annulment is an option. As a consequence, the poor who will do so cohabit, whilst the rich annul! The church only supports the annulment, leaving the poor, according to the church, “Living in Sin.”
The Philippines now has the unenviable distinction of being the only country left in the world with no divorce law.
No doubt the church will oppose moves to enable divorce, just as strenuously as they did the RH Bill. Hopefully, the legislators will again rule in favor of the will of the majority and against the clamor of the church.
Any such policy needs to be simple, unbeaurocratic, and of low cost. It needs some cautionary elements, such as optional mediation, a ‘cooling off’ period, and protection for dependents. However, there is an adequate supply of different models available around the world, many of which easily and quickly be adopted here.
Let the success of the RH Bill not be the point at which social reform stops, but a spur to deal with other longstanding social injustices.
The arguments for and against the contest of the bill will not be repeated here, as these are less significant than the symbolic importance of the bill itself.
I recently asked a priest whose views I respect, what his views of the bill was. He said in reality it would make little difference, as the Public Health departments already made free contraceptives available, and education was already taught in many schools.
His view was that it was the principle or the declaration of support which mattered.
I did not fully understand his support then. What principle was at stake? Why did a declaration matter? At least so much that the Catholic Church seemed obsessed by this issue like no other.
A little later, the penny dropped! (an English version of saying that I finally understand!).
The issue was not the content of the bill, but the role of the church in society. It was the issue of whether it was the Church or the State which really called the shots. It was akin to the English Reformation when King Henry 8th broke away from the Catholic Church and established the Church of England. His excuse at the time was that he desired a divorce (or an annulment) which the Pope would not grant. The reality was that it was a power battle between the wealthy and powerful Church, and a penniless and weak King. The King is removing the power of Rome, took with him all the wealth and power of the Church. The monasteries and their massive wealth and land holdings transferred to the King, who installed himself as head of the new Church. A position incidentally still held by the Queen of England.
We certainly do not have an equivalent Reformation in the Philippines, and the church remains. However, this defeat has seriously weakened the role of the Church in its ability to set the political agenda.
Whether this is a good or a bad thing in a matter of opinion, the constitution separates the role of Church and State, and protects freedom of religious belief. To this extent, this is consistent with the government overruling the views of the Catholic Church.
Nothing in the bill requires Catholics to practice birth control, and thus individual freedoms are not overridden.
Perhaps some would prefer a country in which religious laws are applied regardless of personal views or beliefs, such as in the theocracy of Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. I am sure most would not.
The passage of the RH bill is therefore in my view, a landmark decision, not so much for its content, as for its statement about the respective roles of the church (which is to advocate and persuade), and the state, which is to legislate.
The next big social issue, now more likely to progress, is that of divorce.
Divorce is not legally available. However, if you have enough money to hire smart lawyers and pay court fees, annulment is an option. As a consequence, the poor who will do so cohabit, whilst the rich annul! The church only supports the annulment, leaving the poor, according to the church, “Living in Sin.”
The Philippines now has the unenviable distinction of being the only country left in the world with no divorce law.
No doubt the church will oppose moves to enable divorce, just as strenuously as they did the RH Bill. Hopefully, the legislators will again rule in favor of the will of the majority and against the clamor of the church.
Any such policy needs to be simple, unbeaurocratic, and of low cost. It needs some cautionary elements, such as optional mediation, a ‘cooling off’ period, and protection for dependents. However, there is an adequate supply of different models available around the world, many of which easily and quickly be adopted here.
Let the success of the RH Bill not be the point at which social reform stops, but a spur to deal with other longstanding social injustices.
No comments:
Post a Comment