by Alex Roldan
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was abhorred by the powerful Catholic Church when he held as truth the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun in the 17th century. The Inquisition in Rome accused him of heresy and finally condemned and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life after he refused to abjure, curse and detest his opinions. Only in 1965 did the Catholic Church revoke its condemnation of Galileo.
The Catholic Church since then insisted that they never opposed the heliocentric theory but made its decision mainly on theological grounds. The church claimed that Galileo blurred the lines between science and religion and had already stepped outside his role as a scientist and attempted to reinterpret the Scriptures.
It was very clear then, until now, that the Church supports science and many scientific discoveries, and even has a brigade of priests who joined the effort for science, I am sure the Church continues to fear ideas that could undermine their teachings. Their rabid fear, though much of it unfounded, caused the conflict between the Church, government and people.
The Catholic Church’s fear against the Bill is glaring. The RH Bill is against the teachings of the Church, so they say. This to me this is reminiscent of the same blip in the Church’s history when they decided against Galileo. I cannot understand what teachings would be violated by the Bill. This is simply a health bill, particularly relating to reproductive health that is as ordinary as seeking medical assistance to prevent or cure a sickness. The bill simply emphasizes the need to mobilize government resources to respond to growing health problems in the country, many of which are related to reproductive health.
I can see clearly the point of some members of the Catholic Church – that this bill could corrupt our society’s perspective about morality and life.
The problem with this issue is that the Church insists on a conflict which is unnecessary and whose basis is mainly speculative. For example, the availability of contraceptives is never an issue. With or without the RH Law, contraceptives have always been available. The RH bill just makes sure that those who decide to use it are properly guided to prevent possible health complications. Claiming that this will lead to promiscuity is an affront to most of Filipino women whose dignity they hold dear. The purpose of the bill is to make the people aware of the need to take care of their health, produce healthy offsprings to become responsible citizen of our nation.
I listened to a doctor who was interviewed on TV claiming that this bill violates their right to medical practice because the law makes it illegal for them to deny services such as abortion. The doctor’s view, I am sorry to say, is preposterous as it deliberately warps the sections of the bill on abortion to fit her purpose. The bill makes it illegal for doctors to deny services to those who need it only if health complications exist. In fact, doctors have been practicing this ever since – to make the couple decide which should be saved– the mother or the baby–in cases of complicated pregnancies. The doctor knows too well that denying medical services in such situations, example, to abort the pregnancy to save the mother (if the couple decides) is not only unethical to their profession but is illegal.
The problem of abortion can be prevented if the most vulnerable are educated on the implications. Children’s future is better if the family is planned, and mothers’ health is protected through accessible services. Sexually related diseases could stop creating havoc to society if we are all aware of its dangers.
When Galileo’s insistence on his theory was proven right, did the faithful stop believing in GOD? When science established the fact that the galaxy where our planet belongs is only a speck in the entire universe, and proposed the possibility that God may be a spaceman, did it result to a breakdown of morality? Did society stop believing in the Church’s teachings of what is right or wrong, moral or immoral? In fact, religions, like our universe, continue to expand!
I can’t comprehend why this thing is debated so intensely and emotionally when the religious and scientific as well as the social aspects of the issue are supportive of each other?
These are valid issues that have to be responded to and acted upon posthaste by all. We cannot waste our time debating on the blurred line of the role of the state and the Church. We need to act now.
For comments, e-mail to: roldanalex@yahoo.com
