The battle in the Philippines over the Reproductive Health Bill continues unabated, with Catholic bishops calling for a tax boycott. President Benigno Aquino III has in turn threatened sedition charges. He was obviously not perturbed when Church authorities warned last year of excommunication if he supported the bill. He has said that he will not veto it.
So what is the furore all about?
The Philippines is the only predominantly Christian country in Asia, with 80 per cent identifying as Catholic. Also, it is the 12th most populous nation, of which a third lives in poverty — that's 32 million people who do not meet an adequate standard of living.
It is these factors that make the conflict over the RH bill volatile. The flashpoint is that the bill promotes a comprehensive family planning program that includes contemporary forms of contraception and age-appropriate sex education.
It predictably set its supporters on a collision course with Catholic leaders, who have been quite vocal in their opposition to government endorsement of artificial contraception rather than Church-approved 'natural family planning' (abstinence based on a woman's menstrual cycle).
The issue may be difficult to grasp from an Australian perspective, since Australian Catholic bishops do not enforce a ban against the pill or condoms with such activism. But in the Philippines, where Catholicism is woven through the culture and language, the teaching against birth control permeates even its politics. Electoral ambitions live and die according to the candidate's stance on contraception.
The Aquino Government, however, positions its population policy within its anti-poverty program.
The premise is that a family can only sensibly produce children within its means, and, by extension, a meagre economy like the Philippines cannot sustain its current population rate.
While children are deeply treasured in this family-centric society, economists at the University of the Philippines point out that poverty incidence rises with the number of children. Also, larger families tend to spend less on each child's education and health, which perpetuates the cycle of disadvantage.
Hence, there are serious consequences of Catholic teaching against artificial contraception.
To be fair, Pope John Paul II spoke of 'a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary.' His words offer a window that some would rather have bolted shut.
However, it is patently unjust for Filipino women to lack access to relevant education and services regarding their reproductive health. Though they nearly exclusively bear the burden of raising children, they are disempowered from choosing how many to have and how far apart.
This limits their participation in the workforce, but more importantly takes a toll on their health. The maternal mortality rate in the Philippines is 162 per 100,000 live births compared to 8.4 in Australia.
The irony is that, while Catholic bishops have staunchly opposed modern forms of birth control, the public paralysis that it has engendered over sexual health care has led to high rates of abortion — an estimated 27 abortions per thousand women. Inability to afford raising another child is the most significant reason, identified by 72 per cent of women who had an abortion.
The Philippine Catholic Church can thus be seen to be at odds with its ministry for the poor. Its inflexibility becomes punitive when women who are unable to make informed choices live with the consequences anyway. By compelling people to choose a family planning method that is unreliable, it is keeping impoverished Filipinos from sensibly constructing a more dignified future for their children.
The reality is that people do want to act morally within their desire for a better life. That is why they would prefer to avoid getting pregnant than have an abortion. Many Filipino women are already making this choice but now feel stigmatised by the public brawl over the RH bill. What is lost is the idea that the decision to not have a child can be made in good conscience.
The 1968 Winnipeg Statement, the Canadian bishops' response to the papal encyclical against artificial contraception, accommodates such exercise of faith, declaring that 'the unity of the Church does not consist in a bland conformity in all ideas, but rather in a union of faith and heart, in submission to God's will and a humble but honest and ongoing search for the truth'.
This open-heartedness to a continuing understanding of God's truth was echoed by Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner at the time:
'Bishops should not act as though the encyclical were irreformable or as though everyone who dissented were guilty of contempt of authority or were separating himself from the church. They should refrain from imposing canonical penalties on persons who respectfully and discreetly propose another view ...
'If no one could voice his opposition to reformable doctrines, the development and correction of the Church's official teaching would be seriously hampered.'
Philippine bishops, as well as others in the Catholic leadership, would do well to reflect on his words today.
Fatima Measham is a writer and former state school teacher.