Humanae Vitae On "Competency of the Magisterium"

Abusing the exercise of our freedom and will leads us to develop a rebellious mentality against any authority that tells us to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. Such is a case when Pope Paul VI penned the document "Humanae Vitae", Catholics are expected to receive the moral teaching contained in the document wholeheartedly and without question but instead it was rejected and ridiculed by the majority. The reason why people rebelled against "Humanae Vitae" is that they no longer listen to the voice of the Church but preferred to follow their own passion and listen to their own voices. Some even questioned the authority and competency of the Church in interpreting moral and natural laws. Pope Paul VI long before the release of the document already foreseen the objections that will be raised by liberal clergies and disobedient laity. Thus, in the beginning of the document Pope Paul VI discuss the origin and nature of the Church's authority.

Such questions required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation. Humanae Vitae No. 4

One of the difficulties why people are having a hard time in accepting the moral teaching of the Church against the use of contraception is that it is no longer relevant in our time. The world is struggling to feed its population and yet every year the world's population is increasing, the only viable solution against the consequences of a ballooning population is to halt its increase by the use of modern methods of contraception. Because of this people are seeing the Church's moral teaching as outdated and out of our league, they now begun to question the origin and foundation of the Church's moral teachings, is it just a teaching of one man or is it willed by God? Pope Paul VI responded by explaining that the Church's teaching against contraception is based on the moral teaching about marriage, marriage is a sacrament willed by God, through marriage the couple is engage into a sacred act of collaborating in God's plan of creation. To employ the use of contraception to impede the cooperation between the married couple and God is a betrayal to the covenant between God and the married couple. The Church's teaching about marriage is no theological speculation, the very fiber of its foundation is the natural law. Natural law encompasses human barrier which means regardless of the person's race, cultural background, religious belief and gender natural law is actively governing our moral compass. Natural law do not change nor evolve like our culture because Natural law emanates from the very being of God, and since God remains to be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow Natural law stays exactly the same, only our understanding and perception of natural law evolves but natural law itself do not. Natural law is not a set of random rules and regulation it is illuminated and enriched by divine revelation in other words it has been revealed to us (Heb.2:1). Basing on this fact the Church's moral teaching against contraception is binding not only to believers but also to non-believers as well. 

No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared, that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and the apostles His divine authority and sending them to teach all nations His commandments, constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel, but also of the natural law, which is also an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation. Humanae Vitae No.4

Now, let us turn our attention to the liberal thinkers who without a fail questions the origin of the Church's teaching authority. There is always the tendency among scholars of the sacred art to exalt themselves above the Magisterium, they have often question numerous teachings of the Church that they think are already out of date or needs to be modified in accordance to the modern findings of their scientific research. These so called liberal thinking scholars have forgotten that the Church is more than 2000 years old, as the Church grows older her wisdom also matures and her understanding of God's revelation also deepens and brought to clarity. Should we entrust our salvation to the fallible opinion of scholars regarding divine revelation? Pope Paul VI reiterated a sacred dogma of the Church that Peter being the first pope and his successors and the apostles received a direct mandate from Christ to spread the gospel to all nations (Mt.28:18-20) and in exercise of their ministry they will be having with the divine authority of Jesus Christ (Mt.16:17-19, Papal Bull Unam Sanctam). Since the Bishops as the successors of the apostles in unity with the Pope possesses the divine authority of Jesus Christ they are the only authentic and infallible interpreter of natural moral laws. Any other interpretation aside from what they taught is to be treated as merely a fallible opinion which has no binding authority on us. Magisterial teachings are to be obeyed with great diligence because it is Christ who speaks to us through the Magisterium (Luke 10:16). Henceforth, obedience to the Magisterium is necessary for salvation. In propagation of the good news to all nations the Church's mission is to convey the will of God to the people thus the Church has no authority to alter, modify or change the moral teaching revealed by God to the Church.

5 Lame Excuses For Not Implementing The Summorum Pontificum

In our Archdiocese, the Archdiocese of Davao under the pastoral care of Archbishop Valles the implementation of Summorum Pontificum is in its early stage. The Latin Mass Society of Davao together with the Archdiocese is slowly educating the people about the Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Every month at Sacred Heart Parish the society celebrates the Tridentine Latin Mass and gradually the people who regularly attends the mass is increasing. Aside from that there are also various activities initiated by the group in order to increase the awareness of the faithful about the Tridentine Latin Mass. However, other diocese are not as fortunate as the Archdiocese of Davao, years have passed since the release of Summorum Pontificum but other dioceses seem have no plan of implementing the said document. Here are the five lamest excuses we heard from them why they refuse to implement the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum.

1. The People do not understand Latin, it would be chaotic and devastating if we are to force them to understand Latin. To do so would decrease Church attendance and some would even leave the Church.

Admittedly majority of the faithful do not understand Latin and so as our ancestors. When the Franciscans said their first Mass in 1521 they didn't celebrate the Mass in vernacular or in the native language of our ancestors, in fact our ancestors never even heard of what the Latin language is. However, these missionaries are able to win scores of converts from the natives even if they cannot understand Latin. When St. Paul traveled to Spain (Rom.15:28) he didn't speak Spanish the only language he knew is Greek and Hebrew, certainly, when he celebrated Mass in Spain he didn't celebrate it in Spanish he either used the Greek or Hebrew language. The point is language can never be a barrier or a hindrance in promoting and implementing the sacred rituals of the Church most especially the Holy Eucharist. If the apostles and medieval missionaries were able to gain converts even when celebrating Mass in Latin then it is safe to say that people will not leave the Church just because a certain parish is celebrating one of its masses in Latin! How can the people learn to response in Latin if we are not going to expose them to the Latin language? Gradually incorporating Gregorian chants which mostly are composed in Latin is enough to orient the people about the language and later on it will no longer be difficult for them to learn the responses during the celebration of the Latin Mass.

2. It will cause division and confusion among the faithful

Such a statement would be an insult to the Holy Trinity, the Holy Eucharist is an action of the Holy Trinity, to say that celebrating and/or implementing the Summorum Pontificum will create confusion and division is tantamount in saying that the action of the Holy Trinity will create confusion and division. The Eucharist is a mystery of faith par excellence: the sum and summary of our faith. Faith is expressed in the rite, while the rite reinforces and strengthens the faith (Sacramentum Caritatis). With moral certainty the Holy Eucharist regardless of its form cannot and can never be a cause of confusion and division about the faithful. What causes division and confusion are the constant abuses in the Liturgy that is left unpunished. When it comes to the Sacraments we have to trust the Holy Spirit because in each celebration of the Sacrament the Holy Spirit is behind it.

3. The priests do not know how to celebrate the Holy Eucharist in Extra Ordinary Form

I remember when liberation theology was at its peak both the laity and some priests are eager to learn the ideology behind this foreign and unheard of theological movement. This monstrosity was able to snare so many that they begun to implement the principles of liberation theology in ministering to the people of God. They no longer wear clerical dress making it hard to distinguish a priest from the laity, some gave up wearing the crucifix that as if it will cause a barrier between them and the people. They no longer listen to the voice of the Magisterium but quick to obey the wishes of the people. They no longer speak of the gospel in their homilies, we seldom hear them talk about heaven, hell and purgatory, the authority of the pope, Sacraments and many more. Some would even go to the extent of saying that people do not need to hear doctrinal teachings what they need is food on their table. If they were able to learn liberation theology is such a short span of time and implement it to their respective parishes, then learning how to celebrate the Extra Ordinary form and promoting and implementing the Summorum pontificum would not be as hard as learning and accepting the horrors and heresies of liberation theology. Ignorance can never be an excuse in not celebrating the different rituals of the Church, everything in the Church can be learned if they will put their heart on it. 

4. Since the efficacy and dignity of the Novus Ordo and the Extra Ordinary Form are one and the same then there is no longer a need to implement the Summorum Pontificum.

The implementation of the Summorum Pontificum is not left at the discretion of the local ordinary it is not an indult but a law of the Church. It is not about the efficacy and dignity of the form of the Mass at stake here but being in line with the mind of the Church. Since we are members of Christ's mystical body (Col.1:18) we must embrace all aspects of it, we cannot just choose what to love and not to love in Christ's body. Embracing and being open about everything in the Church's living tradition is a sign of Catholicity of being Universal. One cannot claim to be part of this universality of the Church if he choose only to love a single part of the Church and not the Church as a whole. The consequence of being a cafeteria Catholic is devastating, if they can just choose what to love in the Liturgy then they will also choose what to accept in the Church's moral and doctrinal teachings.

5. There ain't enough people attending the Extra Ordinary Form or there ain't a community that will see to it that people will attend the Mass celebrated in the Extra Ordinary Form.

The validity of the Mass regardless of the form that it is celebrated do no depend on the number of people attending it. Even if the Mass is celebrated by the priest alone without the congregation it is still a valid Mass. When St. Francis de Sales was sent to convert Protestants he often celebrates the Holy Eucharist alone without anyone there to join the celebration and yet that is still a valid Mass. If people will remain ignorant about the existence of the Extra Ordinary Form then there would only be few people who will regularly attend it. The Extra Ordinary Form of the Roman rite is not meant to be kept from the people or to be just celebrated privately, it is like a wind it will always find a way to blow the leaves from the tree. There is no use in suppressing the implementation of the Summorum Pontificum because sooner or later it will spread like a wild fire in various country. 

Excuses are just another way of saying no to the implementation of the Summorum Pontificum, if there are difficulties in its implementation the Church would always find a way around it. We do not say that it should be implemented immediately and with urgency, but at least steps are to be taken gradually until we reach the summit of its implementation in all archdioceses and parishes.          

Forcing Nurses To Do The Dirty Job, Promoting Contraception

We are now seeing the effects of the anti-life provisions of RH Law. A friend of mine who happens to work in a government hospital as a nurse told me that they are force by the institution to provide health teachings regarding contraceptive methods to their clients who are about to be discharged from the OB ward. Unfortunately they cannot obey their conscience and refrain from teaching contraceptive methods because it would jeopardize their employment. Though wanting to follow the dictates of their conscience yet they are force to choose between their bread and butter and their faith. Attempts to question the said policy failed because they are told that since they are working in a non-sectarian institution they should set aside their religious convictions and obey the policy of the institution. Despite the temporary restraining order issued by the supreme court against the implementation of the RH Law, some government institution continues to implement the provisions stated in the said law and completely ignore the directives of the high court.

This dilemma leads us to question whether a non-sectarian institution have the authority to compel their employee to act contrary to their conscience or religious convictions just to follow the institution's policy. The freedom of religion and to publicly profess one's faith is protected by the Constitution (Art.III Sec.5) and of the bill of rights (Sec.8). Henceforth no institutional policy can supersede the rights contained and protected by the Constitution. When the said government hospital compelled its nurses to instruct their clients on how to use various contraceptive methods despite of being contrary to the nurse's religious conviction/ conscience the institution is violating the nurse's right to religious freedom because he was asked to deliberately betray his conscience and follow the institution's policy. In the case of Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, students who are members of the Jehovah's witnesses were expelled from public schools because they refuse to salute the flag and sing the national anthem citing their religious belief as the reason for their defiance. The petitioners petitioned the high court to exempt them from participating in flag ceremonies because it is contrary to their religious belief. Upon much deliberation the high court ruled in favor of the petitioners and instructed the division superintendent to re-admit the the expelled students and declared null and void the memorandum issued by the division superintendent to expel members of the Jehovah's witnesses who refuse to salute the flag and sing the national anthem.  

In like manner non-sectarian institutions cannot compel their employee to act contrary to their conscience and/or to implement policies that directly contradicts the rights contained and protected of by the Philippine constitutions. They should respect the religious convictions of their employee and refrain from making threatening gestures that will jeopardize their employment. Health care professionals who are employed in either private and government institutions must have the right to refuse to perform acts that are contrary to their conscience or religious convictions. Their employers cannot fire them from their employment if they are just following the precepts of their religious belief otherwise their employers will be guilty of illegal termination and violation of the person's right to religious freedom.