The Two Adams

by Alan S. Cajes, PhD

Note: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik wrote an essay entitled Confronted in 1964 and another one entitled The Lonely Man of Faith in 1965. Both were published in Tradition. This reflection is a reading of these essays. The quoted phrases are from Soloveitchik. The biblical verses are from the Vatican’s online Bible.

Two Accounts of Creation

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik acknowledges two accounts of the creation of human beings in the Bible. The first account in Genesis 1 states: “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The second account in Genesis 2 states: “…then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”

Soloveitchik points out some discrepancies in these accounts and portrays the first account as Adam the first, and the second account as Adam the second. 

Adam the first focuses on how, and not why, creation works. He discovers the secrets of nature and uses this power to make existence convenient by producing food, fighting diseases, creating wealth, and building monuments with science and technology. Adam the first, says Soloveitchik, is “this-worldly-minded, finitude-oriented, beauty--centered” who pursues his mandate to “fill the earth and subdue it.”

On the other hand, Adam the second longs for a communion with creation. He is a wonderer who admires and respects nature, a seeker who desires to unravel the meaning of life. Soloveitchik describes Adam the second as one who “explores not the scientific abstract universe but the irresistibly fascinating qualitative world where he establishes an intimate relation with God.”

In a way, Adam the first is a doer, survivor, builder, creator and conqueror, but “purely utilitarian and intrinsically egoistic” existing in a community of similarly minded individuals. In contrast, Adam the second is like a philosopher-theologian who searches for value, yearns for meaning and significance, and lives in a faith community composed of “I, thou, and He.”

Human Typologies

The two Adams can be placed under the types of human beings following the train of thought of Soloveitchik. The first type is the non-confronted human who is non-normative and falls prey to beauty. The mode of being is existence within the natural pleasures that the world can offer. The second type is the confronted human, a cognitive being who senses the numinous in nature. The mode of being is reflective knowledge, which leads to a realization that humans are both immanent in, and transcendent of, nature. The third type is a human in a faith community, a confronted human who forms a relationship with fellow confronted humans and their Creator. The mode of being is “together-existence” that is made possible by communicating to the other one’s loneliness and longing for companionship while at the same time affirming each other’s uniqueness and separateness.

Adam the first and Adam the second are, respectively, the non-confronted human and the confronted human, who has the potential to become a person in a faith community.

Dilemma of a Person in a Faith Community

“I am lonely” is a dilemma facing the third type of human being, i.e., in a faith community, or at least from the view of one who belongs to a religion. Soloveitchik describes religion as “a dimension of personal being” in which humans encounter the divine through their moments in history. The person of faith (the third type) exists in a world that is dominated by non-confronted humans (the first type), who are self-centered and bent on conquering nature and perhaps the stars, galaxies, the heavens. The person of faith is a confronted human (the second type) who feels an awful sense of loneliness amid the loud triumphs and yet mundane concerns of non-confronted humans.  This loneliness stems from his/her faith that espouses a doctrine that “has no technical potential,” a law that “cannot be tested in a laboratory” and “an eschatological vision” that science cannot verify as to its “degree of probability, let alone certainty.”

There may not be a solution to this dilemma, says Soloveitchik, yet he hopes that by confronting this dilemma, one is able to shed light on human existence and propel the journey from a state of non-confronted human to the higher levels – the confronted human and then the human in a faith community.

Sustainable Development: Perspective from the Philippines

Click here

From Domination to Stewardship: A Change in World View

By Alan S. Cajes, PhD[1]

One of the passages in the Bible that has perturbed me as a Christian Catholic and as someone whose work involves environmental management states: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."[2]

When I was younger, this passage is alright because I have been taught in school that “man” is the apex of creation. As I gain more experience in undertaking environment-related teaching and research tasks, however, this biblical decree started to trouble me. Did God really command that we, human beings, subdue (to bring somebody/something under control, especially by using force)[3] our planet and have dominion (authority to rule; control)[4] over the non-human forms of life? If yes, is this a reason why we have the propensity to cause damage to our environment?

The usual answer that I get from persons I asked about my concern is that we need to understand the context of the passage and that the text should not be taken literally. This answer did not put a closure to what has been my concern for quite some time – to understand the meaning and implication of the biblical passage.

As it turned out, there are others who find the passage problematic. Thomas Berry, in a paper that he read at Harvard University said:

“The university can be considered as one of the four basic establishments that determine human life in its more significant functioning. These four are the government, the church, the university and the commercial-industrial corporation - the political, religious, intellectual and economic establishments… They all presume a radical discontinuity between the non-human and the human with all the rights given to the human to exploit the non-human.”[5]

Berry did not say that the Church committed an error because of its interpretation of Genesis 1:28. He also did not criticize the wording of the passage. He said that “the creation story in Genesis 1 is the story of the victory of the Heavenly Father God over the Mother Earth God. The first commandment, therefore, is ‘Thou shalt have no Mother Earth God.’”[6] This was Berry’s response to the questions asked by Daniel Spencer, who “was struggling to make sense of the Genesis creation accounts’ themes of human dominion and stewardship in light of my geological understandings of Earth’s origins and my concerns for how dominion interpreted as domination had contributed to massive ecological degradation.”[7]

In 1966, Lynn White delivered a lecture entitled “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. White claimed that the roots of the ecological crisis could be linked to the Judaeo-Christian theology, which separated humans from nature and then made humans dominate nature. He said:

“Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as nonrepetitive and linear but also a striking story of creation. By gradual stages a loving and all- powerful God had created light and darkness, the heavenly bodies, the earth and all its plants, animals, birds, and fishes. Finally, God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes.”[8]

White pointed out that modern Western science, which enabled humans to exploit nature, “was cast in a matrix of Christian theology” and that the impetus for the “dynamism of religious devotion” was “shaped by the Judeo-Christian dogma of creation.” He said that the “implications of Christianity for the conquest of nature would emerge more easily in the Western atmosphere… The Christian dogma of creation, which is found in the first clause of all the Creeds, has another meaning for our comprehension of today's ecologic crisis.”[9]

In 1972, Arnold Toynbee wrote “The Religious Background of the Present Environmental Crisis’ stating that the solution to the environmental problems is possible if humans revert from the Weltanschauung[10] of monotheism to the Weltanschauung of pantheism, an older and universal world view. He asserted that the present-day assault against nature is due to the influence of a religious cause that gave rise to monotheism. He claimed that the command to have dominion over other creatures in Genesis 1:28 allowed the directed humans to exploit nature. In a 1973 article, he said:

This doctrine is enunciated in one sentence in the Bible. “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis I, 28)… Genesis I: 28 gave the license; Genesis III: 19 provided the incentive. In 1663, this read like a blessing on the wealth of Abraham in children and livestock; in 1973, it reads like a license for the population explosion and like both a license and an incentive for mechanization and pollution.”[11]

In 1975, John Passmore wrote “Attitudes to Nature” saying that the predatory attitude against nature is present in the writings of St. Paul. To Passmore, the Graeco-Christian arrogance became Christianity’s official position until recent times. This attitude of Passmore is based on his reading of Romans 8:21 “that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God (New International Version).” Passmore takes on the position that Paul considers creation as merely an instrument for human liberation.

A year before White’s classic paper, Pope Paul VI promulgated Guadium et Spes  (Joy and Hope"), the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, on December 7, 1965. The document stated:

“For man, created to God's image, received a mandate to subject to himself the earth and all it contains, and to govern the world with justice and holiness; a mandate to relate himself and the totality of things to Him Who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of all things to man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth.”[12]

This declaration did not sit well with some people, who were concerned about the anthropocentric slant of this passage. Emeka Obiezu expressed disappointment that “…the Second Vatican Council continued this apparent arrogant and dominion theme…that excludes any ecological concern.”[13] Joseph Xavier was cautious: “It may not be an exaggeration to say that there is an ‘anthropological concentration’ in Gaudium et Spes.”[14] He explained, however, that this “anthropological orientation… is very important for fundamental theology today.”[15] Thirty years later, the same theme was noted by Larry Rasmussen in John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life). It states:

“Everything in creation is ordered to man and everything is made subject to him: "Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over ... every living thing" (1:28); this is God's command to the man and the woman... We see here a clear affirmation of the primacy of man over things; these are made subject to him and entrusted to his responsible care, whereas for no reason can he be made subject to other men and almost reduced to the level of a thing.”[16]

The issue that I am trying to resolve is whether the passage in Genesis 1:28, specifically the terms “subdue” and “dominion”, can be interpreted as a license to destroy the natural environment. As has been shown earlier, there are scholars who consider the anthropocentric slant of the passage as the root cause of the current ecological crisis, and that the Catholic Church has been reluctant to give up such anthropological orientation. Despite this reluctance, it should be pointed out that the Catholic Church has always placed Genesis 1:28 in the context that humans are beings created in the image of God, thus humans have the responsibility to take care of the Earth as the “co-operator with God in the work of creation.”[17]

In 2015, the Church finally addressed the issue squarely when Pope Francis issued an encyclical, "Laudato si', mi Signore," or "Praise be to you, my Lord. It states:

“We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man “dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. The biblical texts are to be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us to “till and keep” the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). “Tilling” refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while “keeping” means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1); to him belongs “the earth with all that is within it” (Dt 10:14). Thus God rejects every claim to absolute ownership: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Lev 25:23).”[18]

Pope Francis emphasizes that human dominion “over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.”[19] He explains, “Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble.” This is possible, he said, quoting John Paul II’s Cenesimus Annus, because “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature.”[20]

Incidentally, the Hebrew word khabash (subdue) is used when one is dealing with a hostile enemy. When used in relation to the environment, it could mean that “we subdue the earth because without such subjugation the harshness of nature would yield death for us rather than life.”[21] In this sense, “subdue” becomes synonymous with an Old English word tammian (Latin, domare; Greek, daman) which means to tame or to make nature “not afraid of people, and used to living with them.”[22] On the other hand, the Hebrew word radah (dominion) is used in the royal sense (kings have dominion over their subjects and territories). It means “to have dominion, rule, dominate”[23] or “authority to rule; control.”[24] The same word, however, is used in the Scriptures to mean something else:

· “You shall not rule over him with severity;”[25]

· “…of Israel, you shall not rule with severity;”[26]

· “And the upright shall rule over them in the morning;”[27]

· “May he also rule from sea to sea.”[28]

Of particular interest is Psalm 72 (A Psalm of Solomon) entitled “The Reign of the Righteous King.” It depicts a ruler (one who has dominion) as righteous, just, and savior.[29] Thus dominion can be taken in a positive sense or what Pope Francis calls “stewardship” because the Earth belongs to God and we are the stewards of God’s creation.

The rise of Pope Francis is, in a way, a fulfillment of Lynn White’s proposal that was included in his 1966 paper. He said:

“Possibly we should ponder the greatest radical in Christian history since Christ: Saint Francis of Assisi…Francis tried to depose man from his monarchy over creation and set up a democracy of all God's creatures.

…The greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history, Saint Francis, proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of nature and man's relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man's limitless rule of creation. He failed….Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny. The profoundly religious, but heretical, sense of the primitive Franciscans for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature may point a direction. I propose Francis as a patron saint for ecologists.”[30]

At last, a new version of Saint Francis put an end to the controversy. I am pleased to be a witness of this unfolding. Toynbee did say that “only a change in world view[31] could heal the planet.”[32] This new world view brought about by the new interpretation of the Genesis 1:28 approximates what Berry calls the ecozoic era or “the geologic era that Earth is entering – when humans live in a mutually enhancing relationship with Earth and the Earth community.”[33] As Berry said:

"In this new context every component of the Earth community would have its rights in accord with the proper mode of its being and its functional role. In each case the basic rights would be for habitat and the opportunity of each being to fulfill its role in the natural systems to which it belongs. Humans would be obliged to respect these rights." [34]

---

[1] Associate Member, National Research Council of the Philippines; Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science

[2] Genesis 1:27 “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them;” 1:28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth." (NAB).

[3] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/subdue.

[4] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/dominion?q=dominion.

[5] Thomas Berry, "The University: Its Response to the Ecological Crisis", a paper delivered before the Divinity School and the University Committee on Environment at Harvard University.

[6] Quoted by Daniel T. Spencer in “Thomas Berry: An Overview of His Work,” http://thomasberry.org/assets/attachments/Worldviews_ThomasBerryReviewEssay_Spencer_2017.pdf.

[7] Daniel T. Spencer, “Thomas Berry: An Overview of His Work.”

[8] Lynn White, “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” https://www.cmu.ca/faculty/gmatties/lynnwhiterootsofcrisis.pdf

[9] Lynn White,  “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.”

[10] “A particular philosophy or view of life,” https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/weltanschauung?q=weltanschauung.

[11] Arnold Toynbee, “The Genesis of Pollution,” The New York Times (September 16, 1973).

[12] Guadium et Spes: 34. This passage cites as references Gen. 1:26-27; 9:3; Wis. 9:3; Ps. 8:7 and 10.

[13] Emeka Christian Obiezu, Towards a Politics of Compassion: Socio-Political Dimensions of Christian Responses to Suffering (AuthorHouse: August 14, 2008.

[14] Joseph Xavier, “Theological Anthropology of ‘Gaudium et Spes’ and Fundamental Theology,” Gregorianum Vol. 91, no. 1 (2010): 124-136.

[15] Ibid., p. 133.

[16] Evangelium Vitae: 34.

[17] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus: 37, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html.

[18] Laudato si': 67.

[19] LS: 116; Love for Creation. An Asian Response to the Ecological Crisis, Declaration of the Colloquium sponsored by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (Tagaytay, 31 January-5 February 1993), 3.3.2.

[20] John Paul II, Centesimus Annus.

[21] Genesis 1:28, To “Subdue” and “Have Dominion Over” Creation, https://christopherbrown.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/genesis-128-to-subdue-and-have-dominion-over-creation/. See also https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew.

[22] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/tame_1?q=tame.

[23] https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/7287.htm.

[24] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/dominion?q=dominion.

[25] Leviticus 25:43 (NAS).

[26] Leviticus 25:46 (NAS).

[27] Psalm 49:14 (NAS).

[28] Psalm 72:8 (NAS).

[29] Psalm 72: 1-4 .

[30] Lynn White, “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.”

[31] In simple terms, it refers to “a person’s way of thinking about and understanding life, which depends on their beliefs and attitudes”, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/world-view?q=world+view.

[32] Arnold Toynbee, “The Genesis of Pollution.”

[33] What does Ecozoic mean?, https://ecozoictimes.com/what-is-the-ecozoic/what-does-ecozoic-mean/.

[34] Thomas Berry, “The Great Work: Our Way into the Future.”(Bell Tower: New York, 1999), 80.

Postmodersnist Themes

by Alan S. Cajes

I audited a course on Intercultural and Inter-religious Dialogue (Theo 248.2) at the Loyola School of Theology. A good friend, Fr. Albert Alejo, S.J., Ph.D., teaches the course. The first meeting of the class reminded me of the postmodernist outlook that I have imbibed as a researcher. The key concepts of this outlook include the following: “difference,” “tolerance,” “contextualism,” “relativism,” “dialogue,” and “defiance.”

Difference. The term “difference” comes from the Latin word differo, which means to bring apart. If everything is different, then everything is separate, distinct, and distinguishable. The concept of difference has wide implications in the various areas of human life, i.e., the economic, social, cultural, and political aspects. It implies, for instance, that an economic, cultural or political system that works in one country may not work in another given the difference of people's experiences as shaped by the categories of space and time. In particular, it does not follow that since the presidential system of government works quite well in the United States of America, then, it should work well in the Philippines. 

Tolerance. Difference leads to the idea of “tolerance”, which is to recognize and respect the unique condition of reality in general. In practical terms, tolerance means, for example, respect to other cultures. In the Philippine setting, there are various local cultures that co-exist with one another, although such relationship is not always harmonious and peaceful. Cultural co-existence means the existence of various and different cultural communities that tolerate each other's presence.^[1]

Contextualism. Context may be defined as the parts or relevant circumstances that surround a text, which is understood, in a general way, as anything that can be interpreted. Context gives meaning to a text; hence, textual interpretation becomes possible by understanding the text’s context. Polygamy, for example, could be right or wrong depending on its context; it is unacceptable within the context of the Catholicism, but acceptable within the context of Islam.

Relativism. Relativism assumes that meaning should not be considered in relation to a universal or transcendental standard or logos because such logos presupposes identity and fails to account the contextual dimension of meaning. Meaning is relative to the interpreter and the context of the text being interpreted. This implies that there are different meanings of a text, instead of one, and that each interpretation of meaning is legitimate. Relativism, together with difference, is related to the idea of non-commensurability, which “involves a radical notion of non-comparability, and the unacceptability of imposing one set of cultural norms over another.”

Dialogue. Under a condition characterized by difference, contextualism, relativism and tolerance, the only viable way of maintaining social and political order is not through the totalizing power or authority of the state but though the spirit of dialogue, negotiation and cooperation. Dialogue is not a communication among non-equals. It is a communication premised on differences. It is a process of coming to understand the positions of each party to a dialogue using the rule of consensus. It is a dialogue through words and words are contextual. The purpose of dialogue is not to win over the positions behind the words, but to fuse the horizons of the dialoging positions.

Defiance. The attitude of postmodernism is active opposition against authority, because authority is perceived as a product of logocentrism or totalization, which is a violation of the notion of difference. Postmodernism rejects grand or totalizing narratives and since the state is one of the grand narratives, postmodernists defy the authority of the state.

---

[1]Following this train of thought, the colonization of the Philippines by the Spaniards and the Americans violate the notion of tolerance. The foreigners operated on the basis of identity, which presupposes that everyone is similar and shares the same nature. This notion led to their desire to impose uniformity on the natives, with uniformity based on the identity of the occupants. They made the Filipinos think the way they thought, act the way they behaved, put on clothes the way they dressed, speak the way they spoke, build houses the way they built their own, etc. Colonization was totalization. It sought to make Filipinos uniform and identical both in internal and external manifestations. It prevented tolerance of the differences among the various cultural communities in the country.

On Religion and Spirituality

Click here to read the article

Reproductive Health Bill

by Alan S. Cajes

(Photo courtesy of searo.who.int)

The Philippine House of Representatives filed a controversial bill - House Bill No. 96 – to be known as the Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2010. This proposed law has caused a religious, political, intellectual, and emotional division among the Filipinos. On one hand, the opponents of the bill, represented by the influential Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, insisted on having a healthy discussion of the proposal and not hastening its enactment into law. On the other hand, the proponents of the bill expressed support to President Noynoy Aquino’s statements, such as respecting the choices of the couples, educating the citizens about their choices, and giving the couples the freedom to decide on how to plan their family. The position of President Aquino is consistent with the survey findings showing that more than a majority of the respondents is in favor for the enactment of the reproductive health bill.

My own reading of the proposed bill led me to consider certain provisions as contentious. The first contentious provision is the requirement that all accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods. The second provision refers to the mandatory inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables, and other “safe and effective” family planning products and supplies as part of the National Drug Formulary. In addition, these family planning products are to be considered as among the essential medicines and supplies of government hospitals and health centers. I consider these provisions as controversial because they are based on at least two unsettled questions: First, when does human life begin? Second, should abortifacients be banned?

The time came when someone asked me about my thoughts on birth control and the reproductive health bill. While having dinner with friends, I was asked about my position on population control given my background as a graduate of catholic universities and as a sustainable development practitioner. The person who asked the question was a classmate in college. He was about to take his vow as a priest.

I told him that the use of contraceptives is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, I quipped that something must be done to address the problem of about half a million abortions every year. If all of the religious denominations can stop this problem, then it is a welcome development, I said. If not, I called his attention to the need for the State to take steps to promote maternal and infant health, and prevent the deaths of mothers and children.

My friend, who is normally argumentative, had a moment of silence. After a while, he said that the Church would not compromise her teachings. However, he agreed that the State must do something to address the pressing problem. He said that it came as a surprise to him to learn the serious state of abortion in the country.

When I reached home, I read Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope), the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, to refresh my understanding of the teachings of the Church as regards birth control. The document gives parents the mission of transmitting human life as participants in the act and process of creation. It is a moral obligation, therefore, for parents to ensure that pregnancy is neither prevented nor terminated. Gaudium et Spes clearly states that means are not justified by ends, but by unprejudiced values that enhance “true love” and “conjugal chastity”. It forbids the prevention of procreation by employing techniques that the Catholic Church abhors.

In Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI, the Catholic Church emphasizes the doctrine that direct contraception, direct abortion, direct sterilization, and any action before, during, or after sexual intercourse that are directed at avoiding pregnancy “are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.” The encyclical, therefore, prohibits artificial family planning methods, especially contraceptives. However, it permits the natural techniques of avoiding pregnancy, such as the use of the rhythm method.

The prevention and termination of pregnancy are considered wrong because they violate the natural law, which ordains that the purpose of sex is to procreate. The wrongness of contraception has a scriptural basis. In Genesis 38:8–10, God took the life of Onan for performing coitus interruptus or withdrawal method, a technique to control pregnancy by pulling out the penis from a woman, during an intercourse, and ejaculating the semen away from the vagina.

The natural and the divine laws, as specified above, are the bases for banning the artificial methods of family planning. These bases are sustained by the Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church.

Under the Catechism of the Catholic Church, human life begins at the moment of conception. This position is supported by a significant number of scientists. Thus, the artificial process of preventing conception is deemed wrong, in the same manner that the artificial process of terminating pregnancy is wrong.

In another gathering of friends, a freemason argued, rather strongly, that the high incidence of poverty and hunger in the Philippines are happening inspite of the more than 300 years of shepherding of the nation by the Catholic Church. He pointed out that if historical experience is used as a basis, then we could not address the social ills that are associated with poverty and hunger, such as prostitution, teenage pregnancy, unsafe abortions, drug addiction, and related crimes. He also emphasized that there must be something wrong with the “logic of the Church” for prohibiting contraception and abortion.

Another friend, who is a former Catholic priest, responded with equal enthusiasm and explained the flaw in the phrase “logic of the Church”. He said that the bases of the teachings and doctrines of the Church are the scriptures, magisterium, and tradition. He stressed that faith is to theology, and logic is to philosophy. He added that although the Church uses philosophy as a handmaid of theology, reason ends where faith begins. He said that one cannot say that philosophically the Church is wrong while theologically it is right.

Rather than join the fray, I decided to ease the increasing tension by bringing the discussion to the heart of the issue of the reproductive health bill. First, I said that the position of the Church is simple and clear. Second, I reminded them that the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly provides that the State “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” Third, I pointed out that those family planning methods that prevent conception are not covered by any legal prohibition by the State. Fourth, I posed this question: as Catholics and citizens of the Philippines, should we allow the killing of fetuses?

There was a remarkable silence after I stated the question. I could not even believe that I uttered those words. It seemed to me that when reality is stripped of underpinnings and prejudices, one immediately pours out his being and converges with the forces at work in the universe. Reality is simple, but has grand complexity in its nakedness. The question is simple, but it has intricate ramifications.

I suspected that my buddies were equally shocked by my question and were simply summoning the brilliant ideas inside their heads to destroy or deconstruct the points I raised. Like a brilliant chess player, I calculated the possible arguments and counter arguments. I ended up ready to move my last piece. There is no way we can intelligently grasp the concepts and implications of the reproductive health bill if we could not wrestle with the simple question staring at our face.

Finally, the freemason admitted that given the case, we could not help but follow the prescriptions of Faith and the State, unless there is a way to change the position of the Church and that of the government. The ex-priest concurred.

On my way home after our discussion, I recalled my earlier encounter with Shawn at a drug store. I could hear her little voice inside my head protesting: but why is it wrong to kill a fetus when it is not yet a human being?

The position of the Catholic Church is clear. One, the artificial methods of family planning prevent procreation. Two, the use of such methods is a sin. Three, the State should prohibit abortifacients or those modern family planning methods that could terminate the life of the unborn.

There are, however, a number of objections to the first reason. One, the purpose of sex is not just to procreate, but also to strengthen the bond and intimacy of the couples. Two, sexual intercourse is a natural want considering the negative health effects associated with not being able to enjoy it. Three, there is no one harmed when sexual intercourse is performed even if the purpose is not procreation. Fourth, the natural planning method is only applicable to women who have regular fertility cycle.

As regards the scriptural basis for banning artificial birth control, the context of Onan is very much different from the present, at least in the present context of the Philippines. God commanded Onan to marry his brother’s widow, as is customary in their time, and make her pregnant. Onan obeyed, but used the withdrawal method to prevent conception. This act displeased the Lord and brought death to Onan.

Onan belonged to a tradition, under the Sinai Covenance, that obliged a man to marry the wife of a dead brother who is childless. The purpose is to ensure that his dead brother will have a child, who will carry on his name. The first son of the widowed wife with her husband’s brother would become the heir of her husband.

One objection to the scriptural basis for banning contraceptives is the manner of interpreting the verses that tell the story of Onan. The question is this: did God punish Onan for practicing birth control?

The interpretation that supports the Church’s position states that Onan committed three sins. One, he failed to fulfill his obligations to his dead brother. Two, he married Tamar to spend his lust. Three, he avoided conception by spilling his semen on the ground.

The counter-interpretation states that God punished Onan for disobedience, not for practicing birth control. Besides, the traditional practice of marrying the wife of a dead brother does not necessarily apply to present day human beings, particularly the Filipinos.

The third reason – banning the use of artificial planning methods that kill an individual human being – appears to be the strongest argument against the promotion of artificial birth control. This argument rests on the idea that the fetus, being an individual human being, has rights, such as the right to life. Although this is by far the strongest of the three reasons for banning the abortifacients, it is also the most hotly debated topic.

A blow against the third argument is the 1973 landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Roe vs. Wade legalizing abortion in the U.S. According to the Court, there is no legal basis to the claim that an unborn fetus has any right to life. In U.S. law, a fetus would only have any right to life if it is defined as a legal person. In addition, the original intent of the U.S. Constitution excluded the protection of the unborn.

Under International Law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997) do not grant rights to a fetus. In June 1999, at the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Governments recognized the right and authority of the individual States to decide on the issue of abortion in their areas of jurisdiction. The only treaty that grants rights to a fetus is the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969. Also known as the Pact of San José, this treaty is signed by 24 Latin American countries. It states that human beings have rights beginning at the moment of conception.

The U.S. is not a signatory to this treaty. However, the U.S. Code penalizes anyone who kills or injures to “a child, who is in utero.”

In the Philippines, Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution protects the “life of the unborn from conception.” Inspite of this constitutional provision, there is no statutory law that provides protection of the life of the fetus. In the Philippines, abortion is considered as a criminal act under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which was enacted in 1930. Under Philippine Civil law and jurisprudence, an unborn is not vested with substantive rights. What vests human personality and provides legal rights to a fetus is actual birth, which means being alive after delivery.

From a legal standpoint, the Philippine Constitution recognizes the right to life of a fetus, although this legal edict is not supported by international law and by any national enabling law. Now, in the absence of a statutory law that provides an enabling mechanism for the Constitutional guarantee of protection of the fetuses, how will a policy that mandates that full range of modern family planning methods, which the Catholic Church abhors as abortifacients, figure in the country’s legal and moral landscape?

If House Bill No. 96 becomes a law, under the assumptions that it contains the provisions that promote the use of abortifacients, that President Aquino will not veto it, and the Supreme Court will sustain the constitutionality of the law, what will be the philosophical basis of the law? The philosophical basis refers to the ultimate rational foundation of the law. Obviously, such a law can not be founded on the problems that the bill seeks to address. It can not be based also on the religious doctrines of the religions in the country. The philosophical basis of the law will have something to do with the answer to the question: is killing a fetus by means of abortifacients justified?

Peter Singer, a contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, accepts the position that an embryo is a human being in the sense that the embyo can be empirically determined whether it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. However, there is the objection stating that the embryo is simply a clump of microscopic cells; hence, if the heart and the brain are not yet functioning, then abortion is justified. In this context, a fetus may be a human person, but not a moral person because a fetus is not a self-conscious subject.

As early as 1971, Judith Thomson, in her famous defense of abortion rights, argued that women have the right to control the use of their own body. The counter-argument to this position, which states that abortion should not be considered as a private choice, is based on the idea that being a human being is the only basis for membership in the human community. Since a fetus is a human person and has the potential to become fully human, then no one has the right to deprive life to a fetus.

On the assumption that individual human beings, both men or women, have the right to make personal choices that should not be constrained by the State, six famous moral philosophers, namely, Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, Thomas Scanlon, and Judith Jarvis Thomson, submitted “The Philosopher’s Brief” to the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases in 1997. The philosophers lost. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state laws in New York and Washington that prohibit suicide that is assisted by physicians. The Court argued that states have an interest in protecting life and should not entertain the idea that each citizen has the right to exercise the freedom to determine when and how he would die.

It boils down to this: a fetus has a right to live, says the Church, while the life of a fetus shall be protected, says the Philippine State. However, in the absence of an enabling law, the constitutional policy mandating the protection of the life of the unborn from conception cannot be implemented. Although this is the situation, the lack of an enabling law to protect the unborn should obviously not be used as a justification to enact a law that will allow the killing of fetuses. An amendment of the constitution is required, therefore, for a reproductive health bill that will promote the use of abortifacients to prosper.