MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE and TO FILE AND ADMIT THE ATTACHED COMMENT-IN-INTERVENTION Intervenors JOAN A.

DE VENECIA, KORINA ANA T. MANIBOG and JAN ROBERT V. BELTEJAR, by counsel, respectfully state: 1. The law being assailed by petitioners, Republic Act No. 10354 or The Reproductive Health Law ("RA 10354") is, in the intervenors' view, the single most important, critically needed piece of social legislation the country has had in the last decade. The present Petitions, fashioned as a Constitutional challenge to the law, raise issues that engage the national interest, and present far-reaching social, economic and environmental concerns that intervenors have a real interest in being heard on. 2. To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant must have a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and (2) the intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should the claim of intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. ( 1 Metrobank v. International Exchange Bank, G.R. No. 176008, August 10,2011, 655 SeRA 263, at 276.) Both requisites are present here. 3. Intervenor De Venecia, who is a mother and a taxpayer, has a real interest in the information and means for modem, scientific methods of birth control and responsible family planning that RA 10354 would make available to herself and eventually her daughter, and in ensuring that laws duly passed by the legislature which are funded in part by her taxes are enforced and not abrogated without any valid constitutional grounds. Intervenors De Venecia, Manibog and Beltejar, who are Filipinos and practicing Catholics, and are either a lawyer or law students, have an interest in keeping critically urgent social policies and measures adopted for the common good through legislation from being subverted and frustrated by a noisy minority who do not speak for the Filipino people and who have not presented any valid constitutional challenge to RA 10354 and an interest also in preventing the petitioners from misrepresenting the views of the vast majority of Catholics who do not share their, or the Catholic Church hierarchy's, antipathy towards RA 10354 and who would use that misrepresentation to preempt social policy for a religious group that does not even pay taxes and share in the common burden of supporting our republican democracy. 4. Indeed, the intervenors' Filipino citizenship, by itself, confers upon them the requisite interest in the outcome of the present controversy, since it concerns a public right and interest to health and the ability to plan for one's family and involves issues of paramount importance to the public. In this connection, the Honorable Court has in the past recognized locus standi and allowed interventions by citizens on issues of transcendental importance and those concerning a public right, upon the ground that citizens have a real interest in the faithful execution of laws:

This Court, however, has adopted a liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people, as when the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public. Thus, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. There can be no doubt that the matter of ensuring adequate water supply for domestic use is one of paramount importance to the public. That the continued availability of potable water in Metro Manila might be compromised if PSALM proceeds with the privatization of the hydroelectric power plant in the Angat Dam Complex confers upon petitioners such personal stake in the resolution of legal issues in a petition to stop its implementation. Moreover, we have held that if the petition is anchored on the people's right to information on matters of public concern, any citizen can be the real party in interest. The requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right. There is no need to show any special interest in the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are citizens and, as such, are interested in the faithful execution of the laws.2 (Underscoring supplied) 2 IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM Corporation, G.R. No. 192088, October 9,2012,682 SCRA 602, at 633-634. 5. Considering that the Honorable Court has consistently upheld the right of a citizen to bring a suit on matters of transcendental importance to the public More importantly, there is no question that the instant petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. The fundamental and threshold legal issue in this case, involving the national economy and the economic welfare of the Filipino people, far outweighs any perceived impediment in the legal personality ofthe petitioner to bring this action. In Chavez v. PCGG, the Court uphcld the right of a citizen to bring a suit on matters of transcendental importance to the public, thus: In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is

a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right then recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, in connection with the rule that laws in order to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. In ruling for the petitioners' legal standing, the Court declared that the right they sought to be enforced 'is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land.,3 3 Gamboa v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579, June 28,2011,652 SCRA 690, at 713. the intervenors submit that allowing them to intervene will not unduly delay the adjudication of the case but would in fact prevent the multiplicity of suits. Moreover, the rights of the intervenors will not be fully protected in a separate proceeding. 6. The intervenors have examined the petitions and the responses thereto submitted to the Honorable Court, and believe that their intervention is necessary (i) in order to refute claims made by petitioners that are not addressed sufficiently in the counter-submissions, or (ii) in the resolution of issues that, while discussed by the parties, could benefit from further amplification or discourse coming from a different perspective. 7. The intervenors therefore respectfully ask that the Honorable Court grant them leave to intervene in the present proceedings and ventilate their position on RA 10354 through the attached Comment-in-Intervention and in oral argument. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court GRANT intervenors leave to intervene in the present proceedings, and ADMIT the attached Comment-in-Intervention. Other just and equitable remedies are prayed for. Makati for Manila, May 20,2013. Counsels for Intervenors 7th Floor SyCipLaw Center 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City 1226 Email: sshg@syciplaw.com Telephone No.: (02) 982-35-00 Fax No.: (02) 817-38-96 PTR No. 3670416MC; 01/02/13; Makati City IBP No. 911742; 01102/13; Makati City Roll No. 30678 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007636; 09/07/12 PTR No. 3670340Makati City IBP No. 911720; 01/02/13; Quezon City Roll No. 51953 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007491; 08/28/12 JAN ROBERT V. BELTEJAR Intervenors.

COMMENT-IN-INTERVENTION Intervenors JOAN A. DE VENECIA, KORINA ANA T. MANIBOG and JAN ROBERT V. BELTEJAR, by counsel, respectfully state: The Intervenors their Standing 1. Intervenor JOAN A. DE VENECIA is a Filipina, mother, taxpayer, lawyer and practicing Catholic, with an address at c/o 105 Paseo de Legaspi Village, Makati City. She is seeking to intervene on her own behalf and on behalf also of her daughter, Lucia Beatriz De Venecia Panlilio, a minor and likewise a Filipina. As a mother, Intervenor De Venecia has an interest in the information and means for responsible family planning and modem, scientific methods of birth control that Republic Act No. 10354, The Reproductive Health Law ("RA 10354"), would make available to her and eventually her daughter. As a she has an interest that laws duly passed by a legislature funded in part by her are enforced and not abrogated without any valid constitutional grounds. As a Filipina and a lawyer, she has an interest in keeping critically urgent social policies and measures adopted for the common good through legislation from being subverted and frustrated by a noisy minority who do not speak for the Filipino people and who have not presented any valid constitutional challenge to RA 10354. Finally, as a practicing Catholic, she has an interest also in keeping the petitioners from misrepresenting the views of the vast majority of Catholics who do not share their, or the Catholic Church hierarchy's, antipathy towards RA 10354 and who would use that misrepresentation to preempt social policy for a religious group that does not even pay taxes and share in the common burden of supporting our republican democracy. 2. Intervenor KORINA ANA T. MANIBOG is a Filipina, law student, taxpayer and practicing Catholic, with an address at c/o 105 Paseo de Legaspi Village, Makati City. She alleges interests similar to Intervenor De Venecia's, with the exception of the latter's interests as a mother. 3. Intervenor JAN ROBERT V. BELTEJAR is a Filipino, law student, taxpayer and practicing Catholic, with an address at c/o 105 Paseo de Roxas, Legaspi Village, Makati City. He alleges interests similar to Intervenor Manibog's. 4. Intervenors also allege that the subject matter of the petition is of transcendental importance and implore the Court to exercise liberality due to the far-reaching implications of the case to the public. 5. In any case, the Intervenors' Filipino citizenship, by itself, confers upon them the requisite interest in the outcome of the present controversy, since it concerns a public right and interest to health and the ability to plan for one's family and involves issues of paramount importance to the public. In this connection, the Honorable Court has in the past recognized locus standi and allowed interventions by citizens on issues of transcendental importance and those concerning a public right, upon the ground that citizens have a real interest in the faithful execution of laws:

This Court, however, has adopted a liberal attitude on the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people, as when the issues raised are of paramount importance to the public. Thus, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. There can be no doubt that the matter of ensuring adequate water supply for domestic use is one of paramount importance to the public. That the continued availability of potable water in Metro Manila might be compromised if PSALM proceeds with the privatization of the hydroelectric power plant in the Angat Dam Complex confers upon petitioners such personal stake in the resolution of legal issues in a petition to stop its implementation. Moreover, we have held that if the petition is anchored on the people's right to information on matters of public concern, any citizen can be the real party in interest. The requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general public which possesses the right. There is no need to show any special interest in the result. It is sufficient that petitioners are citizens and, as such, are interested in the faithful execution of the laws.1 (Underscoring supplied) 1 IDEALS, Inc. v. PSALM Corporation, G.R. No. 192088, October 9, 2012, 682 SCRA 602, at 633-634. 6. Considering that the Honorable Court has consistently upheld the right of a citizen to bring a suit on matters of transcendental importance to the public, More importantly, there is no question that the instant petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. The fundamental and threshold legal issue in this case, involving the national economy and the economic welfare of the Filipino people, far outweighs perceived impediment in the legal personality of the petitioner to bring this action. In Chavez v. PCGG, the Court upheld the right of a citizen to bring a suit on matters of transcendental importance to the public, thus: In Taada v. Tuvera, the Court asserted that when the issue concerns a public right and the object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a public duty, the people

are regarded as the real parties in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the laws, he need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result of the action. In the aforesaid case, the petitioners sought to enforce their right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right then recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, in connection with the rule that laws in order to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. In ruling for the petitioners' legal standing, the Court declared that the right they sought to be enforced 'is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law ofthe land.,2 2 Gamboa v. Teves, G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011, 652 SeRA 690, at 713. the Intervenors submit that allowing them to intervene will not unduly delay the adjudication of the case but would in fact prevent a multiplicity of suits. Moreover, the rights of the Intervenors will not be fully protected in a separate proceeding. 7. The Intervenors can be served summons and other processes through their undersigned counsel at the address below. Prefatory Statement 8. The Intervenors have managed to obtain copies of only four of the ten petitions filed in these cases.3 While those petitions attempt to construct constitutional arguments against RA 10354, however, it appears that they are all ultimately underpinned, not by a genuine conviction as to the existence of any constitutional flaws in the law, but by personal religious beliefs that are then packaged and presented as ersatz constitutional arguments. [3 I.e., the petitions in GR. No. 204819 (the "Imbong Petition"), GR. No. 204988 (the "Serve Life Petition"), GR. No. 205138 (the "Xseminarians Petition" and GR. No. 205720 (the "ProLife Petition").] 9. The petitioners' pretended constitutional arguments for the annulment of RA 10354 are based on their fundamental assertions that: a) there exists an unwritten body of immutable "natural" laws that all men hold sacred and which are somehow deemed automatically part ofand which in case of conflict, writtcn laws of all cultures and nations, including the Philippines4 [4 See for example, Pro-Life Petition, at 12 et seq.] and b) among such natural laws is one proscribing humans from engaging in sex without a procreative purpose (or nonreproductive sex) and consequently, also prohibits the use of scientific and modem5 means of birth control to achieve that end. According to them, RA 10354 violates that "natural" law because the statute makes available information and means for engaging in non-reproductive sex through the use of modern birth control methods. They claim that since that "natural" law must be deemed part of the country's laws, including the 1987 Constitution, then RA 10354 is unconstitutional and void.[5 Pro-Life Petition, at 23 et seq. Regardless of their specific scientific, medical or chemical mechanisms, the petitioners insist on misleadingly labeling

modem birth control methods "artificial" or "unnatural." They do this so they can wrongfully imply that their preferred method of preventing reproduction, which they equally misleadingly call "natural" family planning or the "natural" rhythm method-and which requires refraining from sex when the woman is in and most fertile and receptive-is somehow "natural" even if it goes against nature's essential biological rhythms.] 10. The petitioners' arguments are confused, contradictory and factually baseless. To be sure, the petitioners themselves and the Catholic church's history itself prove the bankruptcy of their challenge to RA 10354. The Natural Law Argument 11. The idea originally conceived by the ancient Greeks6 that there are fundamental universal rules that govern all cultures and that comprise a permanent body of"natural" laws is debatable at best. [6 Heinrich Rommen, The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy, trans. Thomas Hamley (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998), 26. <files.libertyfund.orgifiles/676/Rommen_OOI7Accessed on May 8, 2013.] 12. For example, various cultures have justified even the presumptively universally condemnable act of taking another's life when committed, say, to protect one's life (selfdefense) or group's territory (war), to punish for sufficiently terrible acts (retribution), to preserve reputation (honor killings) or to convert others (religious conquest). For that matter, many groups have defended the equally presumptively universally incomprehensible act of taking one's own life in as varied circumstances as when done to avoid terminal pain (euthanasia) or to reap eternal rewards or to save humanity or both (religious martyrdom). Indeed, certain groups accept the even more presumptively universally reprehensible act of cannibalism when practiced on captured enemy warriors to acquire their bravery or on strangers to obtain valuable protein. 13. To begin with, even if there had been an unwritten body of such basic universal values, nevertheless these values, as well as their exact outlines and limitations, are very difficult to determine. Thus, they are not useful and cannot be utilized to mount challenges to laws passed by our legislature. This means that any challenge to RA 10354 must be based on specific constitutional grounds, not on nebulous natural law precepts. 14. But even if there had been a body of determinable fundamental rules comprising a system of natural law and even if it had included universal proscriptions such as those against the taking of another's or one's own life or the consumption of other humans, however, that body of natural law still would and does not include a rule against humans having nonreproductive sex. a. the fatal inconsistency in petitioners' positions 15. First, the petitioners' and the Catholic church's advocacy of "natural" family planning or the rhythm method belies their claim that there is a natural law against having sex without a procreative intent. Petitioners say that while they have issues with "artificial" or scientific birth

control, however, they also at the same time advocate "natural" family planning. By this, they mean that partners can practice the rhythm method and have sex only when the woman is infertile. In fact, petitioners claim that as a method for avoiding the risk of procreation, "natural" family planning or the rhythm method is far more effective than the "artificial" scientific contraceptive methods that RA 10354 recognizes.7 [Note 7: 7 Pro-Life Petition, par. 74, at 31, where they claim: The irony of it is, with all the health risks attached to contraceptives, its success rate isn't even that assuring. As the Illinois Right to Life committee pointed out: "The effectiveness of contraceptives is not as high as often claimed. Contraceptive drugs are often claimed to be 99% effective. In fact, statistics show closer to a 7% failure rate for contraceptive drugs. The condom has a 15% failure rate. In contrast, NFP ['natural' family planning] that many critics claim is not effective has a success rate of 98%.ActuallyMotherTeresatrained over20,000 women in India to use NFP with a 0% failure rate. (ProLife Petition, par. 74, at 31) But this assertion is belied by the petitioners' own discomfort over the supposed danger arising from controlling population growth, which they call "demographic winter." [note continues] Finally, inasmuch as the Philippine competitive advantage lies in its demographics, it is sad to note that a contraceptive policy has a proven history ofcausing demographic wmters, as can be seen from the following *** (Id., par. 84, at 35) The petitioners lose whatever credibility they have when they advocate "natural" family planning as the most efficient way of controlling population growth when they also decry "demographic winters" which they assert is a major negative consequence of population control. Maintaining both positions exposes their insincerity at making each claim and betrays the essential spuriousness of both. End of Note 7] 16. If so, then the rhythm method would be the best way to have non-reproductive sex. And advocating it means the petitioners do not really believe that there is a natural law proscribing non-reproductive sex. Otherwise, the use of the rhythm method would itself be the most egregious violation of that supposed natural law. 17. Moreover, the petitioners' protestations against nonreproductive sex, logically applied, would also completely proscribe sex when the couple is naturally incapable of having children, as when one or both are naturally sterile or when the woman has reached menopause. That the Catholic church has never condemned non-reproductive sex in such situations also conclusively belies a belief in a natural law that proscribes non-reproductive sex. b. the Catholic church's changing positions

18. Second, the lack of an immutable natural law prohibiting non-reproductive sex is also consistent with and is conclusively established by the Catholic Church's own varying attitudes on the matter. 19. While the petitioners claim that the Catholic Church has always recognized a natural law against non-reproductive sex, however, this is simply not true.8 [8 Gary Wills, Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit, (New York: Image, 2001), at 73-103; a copy of the chapters comprising "Doctrinal Dishonesties" is attached as Annex A. Wills, one of the most respected writers on religion today, is the author of Saint Augustine's Childhood, Saint Augustine's Memory, and Saint Augustine's Sin. His other books include "Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power, Why I Am a Catholic, and Lincoln at Gettysburg, which won the Pulitzer Prize. <http://www.amazon.com!gp/productl03__ttl_sol_0> Accessed May 17, 2013.] 20. The Catholic Church has not always believed in or professed such a natural law.9 [9 Id.]On the contrary, its history shows that during its first few hundred years, the occasional issue it had with contraception related not to the overall purpose of having sex but to the specific methods for contraception, some of which early Christians thought were the work of magic and witchcraft.10 [10 Id., at 75.] 21. But the notion that sex should always be for a procreative purpose was not originally a Christian idea. There was nothing in the Old Testament or in Christ's teachings about it. As a matter of fact, it was an idea that the early Christian fathers merely borrowed from pagan Greek Stoics in the early second century. As James Brundage has pointed out, the immediate source of influence on Christian writers was the pagan Stoics, whose high ideals for morality challenged the Christians to copy them or even do better. Natural law or the law of nature was the basis for these ideals. The famous Stoic jurist Ulpian supplied to Christian writers their understanding of natural law. For Ulpian, natural law consisted in the laws of nature that animals and humans had in common. Among the domestic animals with which Ulpian was familiar, the female accepted the male only when she was in heat. So it was the law of nature for humans and animals alike that sexual intercourse should only take place for breeding. *** Later in the fourth century, Jerome enthusiastically accepted Stoicisms' negative understanding of morality in marriage. He saw the marriage act as lustful, unless for procreation. Jerome reworded a Stoic epigram to read: "An adulterer is he who is too ardent a lover of his wife." This saying, with others from the Stoic Seneca, became for centuries watchwords of those defending an exclusively procreative purpose for intercourse.

*** Augustine went further. He integrated Stoic teaching with his theological understanding of original sin and concupiscence. Concupiscence and original sin were not identical, but rather concupiscence resulted from original sin. It was the "heat" that always accompanied copulation, the "confusion of lust," "the law of sin." Evidence for concupiscence's existence was reason's inability to control the generative organs. Original sin is passed on by concupiscence. So sexual intercourse, stained by concupiscence, could be justified only by a procreative intention. ***11 [11 Philip Kaufman, Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, (New York: Crossroad, 1995), at 73, 75. Philip Kaufman, OSB, is an active Benedictine monk. See back cover.]

22. Catholic Church thinking gradually ossified around that borrowed pagan Stoic view and in time the Catholic Church began to proclaim that there was a natural law prohibiting nonreproductive sex despite the absence ofany such teaching in the Old orNew Testaments.12 [12 Wills, at 76-8l.] 23. This ossification occurred despite the glaring inconsistency of the Church's twin positions denouncing sex without a reproductive intent while also advising Catholics to practice the rhythm method to prevent conception. 24. In any event, fresh efforts to re-examine the Catholic Church's pOSitiOn, even just to achieve logical consistency, were considered impertinent challenges to Church authority and stifled.13 [13 Id.] 25. This was the case until the late 1950's and the early 1960's when advances in scientific methods of contraception presented Catholic couples with safe and reliable means for expressing their love while planning their families. 14 [14 Id., at 80.] 26. Because Catholic couples clamored for a clarification of the church's position, Paul VI appointed, initially secretly, a "Pontifical Commission for the Study of Population, Family and Births,,15 comprised of top Catholic bishops, theologians, scientists, doctors and lay leaders to study the matter. The commission was to issue an official report and recommendation to Paul VI if the Church should finally permit the use of modem contraceptive methods. Paul VI would never have initiated that inquiry had the Church always believed that there was an immutable natural law prohibiting non-reproductive sex. [15 Kaufman, at 52. 16 Wills, at 87. 17 Id., at 8889.] 27. After years of reviewing the evidence (including surveys by the largest lay Catholic organization, the Christian Family Movement, whose members reported that the rhythm method not only dehumanized the spouses and damaged their marriages but that it was also highly unreliable even when practiced with a neurotic fastidiousness18), the commission

concluded, by an overwhelming two-thirds vote, that no natural law proscribed nonreproductive sex and no doctrinal, scientific, medical, social or other reason existed for the Church to continue prohibiting the use of modern birth control.19 Accordingly, the commission's final report recommended that Paul VI withdraw the church ban on, and thenceforth allow Catholics to use, scientific contraceptive methods.20 [18 Id., at 89-90. 19 Id., at 88-89; 89-95. 20 Id.] 28. However, two disgruntled ultraconservative committee members21 wrote their own opinion, which they then passed off as the commission's minority report.22 In it they argued that the Vatican's authority would be irreparably undermined if it abandoned a position it had adopted hundreds of years (in the process ignoring the lessons from the church's persecution of Galileo and its insistence for hundreds of years earlier 23 after science had proved the reverse, that the sun yet revolved around the Earth). [21 Id., at 93-94. These were Father John Ford and Cardinal Ottaviani, working with an ultraconservative theologian, Gennain Grisez, whom they had brought into the committee's work for that purpose, and whom the Pro-Life Petition cites in pars. 52-53, at 24. 22 Id., at 93-94. 23 Id., at 94.] 29. Paul VI, apparently unable to take a courageous stand on the matter, yielded and rejected the (overwhelming majority) report of his own Pontifical commission. Instead, he issued Humane Vitae which reiterated Pius XI's stifling, and by then thoroughly discredited, 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii pronouncement that there was a natural law proscribing sex without a procreative intent.24 [24 Id., at 95. 25 Id., at 95-96.] 30. But because the committee's existence had become public and its report had been leaked, Humane Vitae unleashed an unprecedented firestorm of protest and defiance from bishops, priests and lay Catholics.25 The majority of Catholic dioceses issued statements saying that Catholics were free to follow their consciences rather than Humane Vitae's proscriptions against sex without a procreative intent and the use of scientific contraceptive methods.26 [26 Id., at 96.] 31. These events are narrated in riveting detail in the following account, which Intervenors quote at some length considering its critical relevance to the petitioners' claims: Casti Connubii (1930) Although it is true that some kind of criticism of contraception can be found in Christian history from the third century on, it is misleading to call this a constant teaching. To read the best (and massive) book on the subject Contraception (1966) by the conservative legal historian John T. Noonan, Jr. is to wander through a galaxy of vivid battles fought, on a dizzying variety of fronts, against shifting combinations of adversaries, in alliance with shifting platoons of allies. The most consistent early attacks on contraception treated the potions used for it as magic and witchcraft. But there were many other rationales for condemning contraception. Early on, church Fathers shared with Stoics the certainty that all sex acts not directly aimed at procreation were immoral. That was Saint Augustine's view, and

Pius XI would cite Augustine in Casti Connubii. But Augustine Stoicism made no allowance for things later accepted even by Pius -intercourse in old age, for instance, or when a partner is sterile. On still other fronts in conflict with various heresies that opposed sex, marriage, women, or procreation (heresies from Gnosticism to Manicheism to Catharism) -church instructors made tactical concessions to extremes of asceticism while trying to retain basic values of respect for life or the family. So, when we look to the patristic era and its legacy, we find a variety of campaigns against contraception limited to particular contexts. And the great issue in those battles was usually not contraception in itself but some larger struggle -over the goodness or the evil of the body, or the apocalyptic expectations of history, or the sacrifice of marriage to virginity. The whole attitude toward sex in late antiquity -pagan and Jewish as well as Christian was marred by misogynism, fear of the body, and the lure of false spiritualisms. It is not the place to look for sanity on these matters. It was a time when the bestiality of sex was proved by a belief that the serpent had sodomized Adam and Eve in Eden. Strange notions of what was "natural" in sex would persist for a long time in Christianity. Even in the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas would still be saying that natural law makes it a sin for sex to take place in any position but with the man on top, or that contraception is a worse sin than incest. The Middle Ages added their own weird views on what is normal, including the doctrine of amplexus reservatus - the teaching that coitus interruptus can be engaged in so long as no seed is spilled. One particularly disturbing aspect of modern papal claims is the assertion that contraception violates natural law. If it is a matter of moral right or wrong perceptible to natural reason, the ancient pagans should have been bound to see its immorality. Yet the classical Greeks and Romans, who originated Western moral theory (including the theory of natural law), had no inkling of the evil of contraception -and not because there were no contraceptive devices available to them. As Noonan concludes "The absence of reference to the subject in Roman classical literature is perhaps best understood as due to a general calm acceptance of contraceptive practices. Even more disturbing for Catholics, who believe in the inspiration of Jewish scripture, is the fact that Jews had no prohibition of contraception in their extensive and detailed laws (though Pius tried to wrest one from a false interpretation of the Qnan story in Genesis). Even today, some conservative Protestants inform their political allies in the Catholic church that they agree with them in opposing abortion but they fmd no moral basis for opposing contraception. As a final blow to natural law claims, some of the theologians who helped craft Humanae Vitae for Paul VI agreed with the ban on contraception but not with the natural law justification for that ban.

The history of the theology on contraception, then, had this anomaly as it entered the modern world: It claimed to be basing its views on a philosophy of natural law derived from classical antiquity (which had no ban on contraception) but was taking its supposedly empirical views on sex from late antiquity and the Middle Ages (which were full of superstitions). These problems call for sorting out by the nineteenth century, when science, the industrial revolution, the study of demography, and scientific psychology changed family patterns. Concern over demographic imbalances -combined with urban living, improved technologies, and higher living standards -led to a limiting of births. (Condom technology made progress after Charles Goodyear vulcanized rubber in 1839 and Thomas Hancock improved this process in 1843.) *** Given the papal uneasiness about science, it is surprising that the first changes to Casti Connubii came from improved technical knowledge. Studies by Kyusaku Qgino in Japan and by Hermann Knaus in Austria were popularized in the years immediately following 1930, the year of Pius's encyclical. These doctors more accurately pinpointed the monthly infertile days in women's ovulation cycle, making it seem possible to limit births if intercourse took place only on those days. Could exploitation of this information give Catholics a permissible new way limit family size? Some theologians said yes, since church authorities had (despite Augustine) allowed couples to have intercourse even though they were infertile. It seemed, then, that Catholics could take advantage of a naturally infertile interval in the month, and have intercourse only then -a conclusion to which Pius XII gave authoritative support in a 1951 address to Catholic midwives. The "rhythm method" was declared a natural, not an artificial form of birth control. This decision changed the teaching on contraception. Before, it was contraceptive intent that was objected to. Now, people could space their sex acts with the intent to avoid conception, so long as they did not interfere with "the integrity of the act" -which put a sacrosanct mechanics of sex above the motives of the actors, reversing the normal priorities of moral reasoning. The mechanics of killing a person, for instance, had not been considered the primary factor in judging the morality of killing. Catholic moralists had approved the infliction of death, no matter what means were used, if the motive was one of permissible self-defense, or the authorized execution of a criminal, or engagement in a just war. But the sex act, it now appeared, was good if performed "naturally," apart from the contraceptive intent of the couple involved. Augustine, for one, would have been astonished at this. His Manichean opponents had an early theory of infertile days and relied on it to avoid procreation (which they considered immoral). Augustine directed his

first and harshest attacks on contraception against this early form of "rhythm." As John Noonan remarks: The method of contraception practiced by these Manichees whom Augustine knew is the use of the sterile period as determined by Greek medicine... In the history of the thought of theologians on contraception, it is, no doubt, piquant that the first pronouncement on contraception by the most influential theologian teaching on such matters would be such a vigorous attack on the one method of avoiding procreation accepted by twentieth-century Catholic theologians as morally lawful. An emphasis on the integrity of the act, on the way nature intends it to be performed, had the further unhappy result of recalling earlier limitations of the sex act to the one right way, including Thomas Aquinas's teaching that incest, if it preserved the fertilizing integrity of the act, was less sinful that contraception. This stress on observance of the proper mechanics stored up trouble for the Pope when the next scientific breakthrough occurred -the anovulant pill, which was being tested at the very time Pius XII approved of rhythm (though it would not be approved for use in America until 1960). These pills did not interfere with the sex act itself-though they did suppress ovulation, ahead of time, by artificial means (chemistry). Catholic theologians' first responses to this development were generally negative, and they were confirmed by Pius Xli in 1958 when he condenmed the pill in an address to Catholic hematologists. But Pius in his old age had become oracular, pronouncing on all kinds of news before all the facts were in, and -as a sign of a new mood in the church -some theologians and Catholic doctors continued to explore questions raised by the pill. *** Nervous prelates in Rome felt that the pill was just an excuse to jettison the Vatican's position on birth control, which was resented and under siege. The euphoria over new freedoms was part of the social giddiness that characterized the 1960s, in the church as in the secular world. It was a time of the sexual revolution, feminism, and new attitudes toward authority. In this atmosphere, the papal pronouncements about natural law were brought under closer scrutiny by natural reason, and they grew flimsier with every look. There was great fear in the Curia of the Vatican that this mood would invade the Council Pope John was assembling (as, in fact, it did). The whole matter of birth control was considered especially endangered, and it would be fought over strenuously in two Roman arenas, one open and one secret. The former battle, carried on in the sessions of the Vatican Council, reached a

kind of stalemate in the conciliar decree on the church in the modern world Gaudium et Spes. The other battle, waged in secret by the Pope's own special commission, led to that commission's stunning defeat by the Pope's own encyclical Humanae Vitae. [27 Wills, at 73-82; emphases added.] Humanae Vitae That Pontifical Commission met five times, at first in the fall of 1963 six men convening at Louvain. The second meeting (like all subsequent ones) was in Rome, in the spring of 1964, attended by the thirteen men. The number was increased to fifteen for a meeting that summer. Up to this point, no one had presumed to recommend altering the church's teaching on contraception. Things changed at the fourth session, held in the spring of 1965, when the size of the commission jumped up to fifty-eight, with five women among the thirty-four lay members. An expert called in for consultation was John T. Noonan, from Notre Dame in Indiana, whose study of the church's changing positions on usury had won scholarly acclaim. He was working on a similar study of changes in the prohibition of contraception a book that would appear just as the commission was disbanded. Noonan opened the members' eyes to the way that noninfallible papal teaching can develop. Another eye opener was the result of a questionnaire brought to Rome by the lay couple Pat and Patty Crowley. They had long been active in the international Christian Family Movement, and they had surveyed their members -devout Catholics all -on their experience of the rhythm method of contraception. They found it far from natural. Since a woman's period fluctuates with her health, anxieties, age, and other influences, establishing the actual infertile period in any cycle required daily charting of her temperature and close comparative reading of calendars -and even then the results were not sure. The most conscientious Catholics, who followed this nervous procedure with precision, found that it was not certain -which left them in great fear until the next menstruation (which might not occur). And in this concentration on the wife's physical conditions, her psychological patterns -of fondness, need, crises, travel -had to be ignored or repressed. The comments of the couples surveyed made riveting reading in the commission. A husband, a scholar, wrote: Rhythm destroys the meaning of sex act; it turns it from a spontaneous expression of spiritual and physical love into a mere bodily sexual relief; it makes me obsessed with sex throughout the month; it seriously endangers my chastity; it has a noticeable effect upon my disposition toward my wife and children; it makes necessary my complete avoidance toward my wife for three weeks at a time. I have watched a spiritual and

physical union dissipate and, due to rhythm, turn into a tense and mutually damaging relationship. Rhythm seems to be immoral and deeply unnatural. It seems to be diabolical. His wife gave her side of the story: I find myself sullen and resentful of my husband when the time of sexual relations finally arrives. I resent his necessarily guarded affection during the month and I find I cannot respond suddenly. I find, also, that my subconscious and unguarded thoughts are inevitably sexual and time consuming. All this in spite of a great intellectual and emotional companionship and a generally beautiful marriage and home life. The commission was hearing that rhythm made people obsessed with sex and its mechanics while minority members at the Council were arguing that rhythm allows people to escape the merely animal urges and enjoy the serenity of sexuality transcended. The commission was also hearing from doctors that nature, ofcourse, provides women with their greatest sexual desire at just the fertile time that rhythm marked off bounds. The combined impact of Noonan's history and the Crowley's empirical findings made the commission members -good Catholics all, chosen for their loyalty to the church -look honestly at the "natural law" arguments against contraception and see, with a shock, what flimsy reasoning they had accepted. Sex is for procreation, yes -but all the time, at each and every act? Eating is for subsistence. But any food or drink beyond that necessary for sheer subsistence is not considered mortally sinful. In fact, to reduce to that animal compulsion would deny symbolic and spiritual meanings in shared meals -the birthday party, the champagne victory dinner, the wine at Cana, the Eucharist itself. Integrity of the act? Is it sinful to be nourished intravenously when that is called for? Does that violate the integrity of the eating act? The more assembled members looked at the inherited wisdom of the church, the more they saw the questionable roots from which it grew the fear and hatred of sex, the feeling that pleasure in it is a biological bribe to guarantee the race's perpetuation, that any use of pleasure beyond that purpose is shameful. This was not a view derived from scripture or from Christ, but from Seneca and Augustine. The commission members, even trained theologians and spiritual counselors who had spent years expounding the church teachings, felt they were looking at reality for the first time. A cultivated submission to the papacy had been, for them, a structure of deceit, keeping them from honesty with themselves, letting them live within a lie. To their shared surprise they found they were not only willing to entertain the idea of the church's changing, but felt that it had to change on this matter, that the truth, once seen, could no longer be

denied. When the nineteen theologians on the commission convened for a separate vote, were asked whether church teaching could change on contraception, twelve said yes, seven no (including John Ford, who had joined the commission at this meeting). This set off alarn bells in the Vatican. For the next meeting, the last and the longest, from April to June of 1965, the members of the commission were demoted to "advisers" (periti) and the commission itself was constituted of sixteen bishops brought in to issue the report. They would listen to those who had done the actual conferring, and theirs would be the verdict. Debate before them would be presided over by Cardinal Ottaviani of the Holy Office. This bringing in the big guns would have cowed the members in their first sessions. But things had gone too far for such intimidation now. The Crowleys brought another survey with them to the showdown, this one of 3,000 Catholics -including 290 devout subscribers to the magazine St. Anthony's Messenger -of whom 63 percent said that rhythm had harmed their marriage and 65 percent said that it did not actually prevent conception, even when the right procedures were followed exactly (even neurotically). Dr. Albert Gorres spoke of the selfcensorship Catholics had exercised over themselves -something the members recognized in their lives when it was pointed out. The Jesuit priest Josef Fuchs, who had taught Casti Connubii standards for twenty years, said he was withdrawing his moral textbook and resigning his teaching post at the Gregorian University in Rome now that he could no longer uphold what he was asked to profess. The vote of the theologians who were presenting their findings to the bishops was now fifteen to four against the claim that conception is intrinsically evil. The vote of the larger group was thirty to five. Here was a perfect laboratory test of the idea that contraception is against nature, as that can be perceived by natural reason alone. These people were all educated, even expert. They were Catholics in good standing (they had been chosen on those grounds). They had been conditioned all their lives to accept the church's teaching -in fact they had accepted it in the past. They of all people would entertain the official case with open minds. They had no malice against church authorities -most of them had devoted much (if not all) of their lives to working with them. Most had entered the project either agreeing with the papal position or thinking that it was unlikely to change. Now they found themselves agreeing that change was not only necessary but inevitable. They had trouble imagining how they had ever thought otherwise. Cardinal Suelllens explained how they had been conditioned to have a double consciousness, to live a lie: For years theologians have had to come up with arguments on behalf of a doctrine they were not allowed to contradict. They had an obligation to defend the received doctrine, but my guess is they already had many

hesitations about it inside. As soon as the question was opened up a little, a whole group of moralists arrived at the position defended by the majority here... The bishops defended the classical position, but it was imposed on them by authority. The bishops didn't study the pros and cons. The received directives, they bowed to them, and they tried to explain them to their congregations. As soon as people began to think independently about the matter, the whole structure of deceit crumbled at the touch. The past position could not be sustained, even among these people picked by the Vatican itself, much less among Catholics not as committed as these were. And it was absurd to speak of the non-Catholic world as ever recognizing this "natural law of natural reason." The need to face the prospect of change was impressed on the people in the commission by the arguments of the five theologians defending Casti Connubii. They reduced their own case to absurdities. John Ford said that intercourse is not necessary for marital love: "Conjugal love is above all spiritual (if the love is genuine) and it requires no specific carnal gesture, much less its repetition in some determined frequency." Ford also liked to say that, if the teaching on sexual activity only for procreation were changed, people could masturbate with impunity. Dr. Gorres quoted the Melchite Patriarch, Maximos IV, who said in the Council deliberations that priests display a "celibate psychosis" in the area of sex. *** The climactic vote of the commission -the one of the sixteen bishops -was nine to three for changing the church's position on contraception, with three abstentions. An agreement had been reached before the vote was taken to submit only one report for the commission, but Cardinal Ottaviani and Father Ford, seeing how things were going, had prepared a document of their own, which would later be misrepresented as an official minority document. There was only one official document, the sole one voted on by the bishops who had authority to report the body's findings. (Ottaviani was the one who had brought in these officials, hoping to get the result he wanted. When he failed to, he ignored his own device.) The Ford "report," drawn up with Germain Grisez, said that any change was inconceivable. This was not because there were rational arguments against change: "If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our Commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church." No, tbe real reason to keep tbe teaching was that it was the teaching: "The Church could not have erred though so many centuries, even through one century, by imposing under serious obligations very grave burdens the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose these burdens." As a priest had

put it in earlier debate, if the church sent all those souls to hell, it must keep maintaining that that is where they are. This was not an argument that made sense, at this point, to the commission to bishops any more than to the theologians or lay experts. But it was the one argument that, in the end, mattered to Paul VI. He took advantage of the socalled "minority report" to say that he could not accept the commission's findings since there had been disagreement with it. Nine of the twelve bishops, fifteen of the nineteen theologians, and thirty of the thirty-five nonepiscopal members of the commission were not enough for him. Votes on the decrees in the Council had not been unanimous either, but he did not call them invalid for that reason. Paul's real concern was with the arguments that Ottaviani brought to him after the report was submitted. He knew what was worrying the Pope, and could play on that. F.X. Murphy had observed one thing about Paul's behavior throughout the meetings of the Council: The Pope was a man obviously torn by doubts, tormented by scruples, haunted by thoughts of perfection, and above all dominated by an exaggerated concern -some called it an obsession -about the prestige of his office as Pope. His remarks on this score at times displayed an almost messianic fervor, a note missing in the more sedate utterances of his predecessors. His innumerable statements on the subject were made on almost every occasion, from casual week-day audiences of Sunday sermons from the window of his apartment to the most solemn gatherings in season and out of season. Since it was part of the strategy of the [conciliar] minority to accuse the majority of disloyalty toward the Holy Father, Paul's constant harping in inevitably caused the majority to think that he perhaps did share these misgivings, at least to a certain extent. It was noticed by students of Paul's remarks that while he showed an openmindedness about almost any other subject, on the single theme of the papacy his mind remained strangely closed to analysis. Those words were written before Humanae Vitae was issued, but they explain the letter entirely. The commission members left their work convinced that the Pope could no longer uphold a discredited teaching. When the report was leaked to the prc:ss, Catbolics around tbe world took heart at the signs of change. So far from upsetting their faith, as the Pope feared, it heartened them. What would unsettle their faith was what Paul did next -issue Humanae Vitae, with its reiteration of Casti Connubii's ban: "The church, calling men back to the observance of the natural law, as interpreted by its constant doctrine, teaches

that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life." Catholics responded with an unparalleled refusal to submit. Polls registered an instant noncompliance with the encyclical. At a previously scheduled Catholic festival of devout young Germans at Essen, a resolution that those attending could not obey the encyclical passed through a crowd four thousand with only ninety opposing votes. A simultaneous poll among German Catholics at large found that 68 percent of them thought the Pope was wrong on contraception. Similar findings rolled in from around the world. What were bishops to do? The encyclical itself had ordered them to explain and enforce the Pope's decision, along with all priests: Be the first to give, in the exercise of your ministry, the example of loyal internal and external obedience to the teaching authority of the Church... it is of the utmost importance, for peace, of consciences and for the unity of the Christian People, that in the field of morals as well as in that of dogma, all should attend to the magisterium of the Church, and all should speak the same language. But for the first time in memory, bishop's statements, while showing respect for the encyclical, told believers they could act apart from it if they felt bound by conscience to do so. The assembly of bishops in the Netherlands put it most bluntly: "The assembly considers that the encyclical's total rejection of contraceptive methods is not convincing on the basis of the arguments put forward." Other Episcopal panels were more circumspect, but signaled that they would not consider those disobedient to the encyclical to be separating themselves from the sacraments. The Belgian bishops put it this way: "Someone, however, who is competent in the matter under consideration and capable of forming a personal and well-founded judgment -which necessarily presupposes a sufficient amount of knowledge -may, after serious examination before God, come to other conclusions on certain points." In other words: do not treat the Pope's words lightly, but follow your conscience after taking a serious look at them. That was the position taken by bishops in the United States ("the norms of licit dissent come into play"), Austria, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, [] West Germany, Japan, France, Scandinavia, and Switzerland. The Scandinavian statement was typical: Should someone, however, for grave and carefully considered reasons, not feel able to subscribe to the arguments of the encyclical, he is entitled, as has been constantly acknowledged, to entertain other views than those put forward in a non-infallible declaration of the Church. No one should, therefore, on account of such

diverging opinions alone, be regarded as an inferior Catholic. The Pope was stunned. He would spend the remaining ten years of his pontificate as if sleepwalking, unable to understand what had happened to him, why such open dissent was entertained at the very top of the episcopate. Four years after the publication of Humanae Vitae, when the Pope looked "cautious, nervous, anxious, alarmed," he deplored the defiance of church teaching in a sermon at Saint Peter's, and this was the only explanation he could come up with for the defiance: "Through some crack in the temple of God, the smoke of Satan has entered." He was increasingly melancholy and prone to tears. Had he opened that crack in the temple of God? Even as a nagging suspicion this was a terrible burden to bear. It explains the atmosphere of darkening tragedy that hung about his fmal years. He would not issue another encyclical in all those ten years. He was a prisoner of the Vatican in a way that went beyond his predecessors' confinement there. He was imprisoned in its structures of deceit. Meanwhile, Father Ford, who had assisted his fellow Jesuit Gustave Martelet in drawing up Humanae Vitae under Cardinal Ottaviani's direction, went back to the seminary where he had taught moral theology for years and found that the Jesuit seminarians there refused to take his classes, since they knew from others in the Order what he had done in Rome. As a result of what he considered his life's great coup, his teaching career was over.28 [28 Id., at 89-96; emphases added.] 32. Since then, the most conservative elements of the Catholic Church, led by Karol Wojtyla29 and Joseph Ratzinger30, have behaved and spoken as if the church had always recognized a natural law proscribing non-reproductive sex and the use of scientific contraceptive methods.31 But nothing they have said or can say will alter the Church's history of changing beliefs on the issue, which plainly belies the existence of any such supposed natural law. [29 Id., at 99-102; see, also, Truth & Consequence, A Look Inside the Vatican 's Ban on Contraception, Catholics for Choice, at 9, copy attached as Annex B. PDF copy at <https://catholicsforchoice.org/topics/refonnidocumentsffruthConsequencesFINAL.pdf> Accessed May 17, 2013. 30 See Benedict XVI's Encyclical entitled Caritas in Veritate (2009), <http://www.vatican.va/holyjather/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documentsIhCbenxvi_enc_200906 29_caritas-in-veritate_en.html> Accessed on May 9, 2013. 31 Wills, at 99-102.] 33. That history means that the Church position professing belief in a natural law proscribing sex without a procreative intent is merely a temporal view that is a time-bound product of primitive and clearly wrongheaded social and historical influences. Like all such other transient beliefs, it will go and in fact for the overwhelming majority of Catholics (see below) has already gone - the way of such other totally baseless and wholly discredited and abandoned Church and teachings as Limbo32, meatless Fridays33, the immorality and sinfulness of charging interest34 and the Earth-centeredness of the solar system.35 [32 International Theological Commission, 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized' (2007), <http://www.vatican.va/roman curia/congregations/cfaith/cti documents/rc con cfaith doc 200 70419_un-baptised-infants_enlttml> Accessed on May 8, ---

33 Paul VI, 'Paenitemini' (1966), <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_vi_ape_ 19660217en.htrnl>Accessed on May 8, 2013. 34 Arthur Venneersch, 'Interest', The Catholic Encyclopedia VoL 8, New York: Robert Appleton Company, (1910), <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08077a.html> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 35 'Vatican Science Panel Told By Pope: Galileo was Right', New York Times (November 1, 1992), <http://www.nytimes.com/1992111101/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileowasright.html> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 36 Pro-Life Petition, at 65.] c. the wide divergence of beliefs even among Catholics 34. Third, the assertion of a natural law proscribing sex without a procreative purpose and prohibiting the use of scientific contraceptive methods is also belied by the dramatic divergence of views regarding the matter even within the Catholic Church itself, with the vast majority of Catholics rejecting the suggestion. 35. The petitioners purport to speak for all Catholics when they make such sweeping claims as "RA 103 54 forces Catholics to commit or perform acts that are contrary to their faith,36 and "RA 10354 discriminates against Catholics because it removes from them their right to choose regarding responsible parenthood in a manner consistent with their faith.37 But the petitioners do not say what their basis or standing is for asserting these claims. [37 Id., at 67.] 36. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not share views of the petitioners or the Catholic Church hierarchy and do not believe that non-reproductive sex or the use of scientific contraception is wrong or immoral. On the contrary, the great majority believe that as devout Catholics they can in good conscience freely decide to engage in the former while using the latter so they may express their love even as they plan their families responsibly.38 In fact, "by 1999, nearly 80 percent of Catholics believed that a person could be a good Catholic without obeying the church hierarchy's teaching on birth control39 and "only 20 percent of Catholics thought church leaders held the final moral authority about divorce, abortion and homosexuality, only 23 percent about premarital sex, and only 11 percent about birth control.40 This means that the petitioners represent the views of only a very tiny minority even within the Catholic Church. [38 Wills, at 80. 39 Truth & Consequence, supra, at 7_ 40 Id., at 8.] The impact of Humanae Vitae has been wide-ranging both within the Catholic church and in the world at large, with the prohibition on birth control affecting Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and forever altering the Catholic church. Humanae Vitae marked a turning point within the church. The vibrancy and forward-looking attitude that characterized the church in the wake of Vatican II was ended by the encyclical and the efforts that followed it to stifle an ever-widening circle of dissent within the church. *** According to Curran, Humanae Vitae hit like a storm that dashed the hopes of millions of Catholics. "All the hope and enthusiasm, all the

sense that things had changed and that the birth control teaching could change, were crushed by the document," he recalls today. Beyond the sense of betrayal felt by many who had invested their energy and hopes in transforming the church, Humane Vitae also altered the relationship between Catholics and the hierarchy, says Curran. "In a sense, there was one positive outcome from the encyclical in that Catholics realized that they could disagree with the pope on non[in]fallible issues and still remain [] good Catholic[s]. However, the negative outcome was that it created a lot of tension regarding the credibility of the church," he says. Statistics on papal authority bear Curran out. In 1963, 70 percent of Catholics believed that the pope derived his teaching authority from Christ through 81. Peter; by 1974, only 42 percent believed the same thing. By 1999, nearly 80 percent of Catholics believed that a person could be a good Catholic without obeying the church hierarchy's teaching on birth control. Catholic sociologist Andrew Greeley noted in 1985, "Certainly never in the history of Catholicism have so many Catholics in such apparent good faith decided that they can reject the official teaching of the church as to what is sexually sinful and what is not, and to do so while continuing the regular practice of Catholicism and even continuing the description of themselves as good, strong, solid Catholics." With Catholics rejecting the encyclical on an unprecedented level, many priests told people to follow their consciences about birth control or just avoided the issue of contraception altogether. Curran recalls speaking with a group of clergy five years ago and asking them about how they handled the issue with the laity -most couldn't recall the last time they talked about sexuality with lay people. The result, according to theologian Anthony Padovano, has been a "conspiracy of silence" between priests and the laity. "It is a don't ask/don't tell' situation," he said," in which the laity doesn't volunteer information about contraception and the clergy don't inquire." Having a teaching that no one believes in or follows has been damaging to the church on a number of levels. According to Padovano, [J it led to a type of "creeping indifference" about church teachings. "As a result of Humanae Vitae, ignoring church teaching became an acceptable strategy and the laity became indifferent to much teaching," he said. The effect of the encyclical was particularly strong on women -who were directly affected by the ban on reliable, modem contraceptive methods. "Women already had an unequal role in the church, the encyclical was just a further manifestation of this, "notes Aisha Taylor, executive director of the Women's Ordination Conference, which seeks full equality for women in the Catholic church. "As a result, many

women in the United States decided to use their consciences and not go to priests about this issue any more. They were not letting the leadership speak to them about morality and sexuality -they compartmentalized, while remaining faithful to the fundamentals of the church," she says. In fact, the tacit disobedience fostered by Humanae Vitae soon spilled over into other areas of the church, with Catholics increasingly making up their own minds on a host of other issues, including abortion, premarital sex and homosexuality. By 1999, only 20 percent of Catholics thought church leaders held the final moral authority about divorce, abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent about premarital sex, and only 11 percent about birth control. The very thing that Pope Paul had feared most -that changing the teaching on birth control would erode the hierarchy's authority on other matters of sexual morality happened precisely because the teaching was not changed.41 [41 Id., at 7-9; emphases added.] 37. So, clearly, neither the petitioners nor the Catholic Church hierarchy can claim to speak for the overwhelming majority of Catholics when it comes to a natural law proscribing nonreproductive sex and the use of scientific birth control. On the contrary, the existence of such a massive body of dissenting Catholics (80 percent) who reject the petitioners' and the church hierarchy's views on the matter forecloses any claims as to the existence of a natural law that effect. No such natural law can exist if even the members of the same church, indeed, the overwhelming majority of the members of the Catholic Church-to repeat, about 80% -reject the notion of such a law. 38. In fact, the petitioners' claims as to the existence of such a supposed natural law are surprising at best and suspicious at worst considering not just the Church's documented history but also the belief of 80 percent of Catholics that no such natural law exists and that as devout Catholics, they may employ scientific contraceptive methods. If the petitioners were not aware of this stunning divergence of opinion and dissension within their own church and ranks, then they have filed their petitions in ignorance. But if they were aware of it, then they have acted in bad faith. 39. Moreover, not only does this imply absence of any such natural law but it also means that the petitioners (and the Catholic Church hierarchy) have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Catholics on the matter of non-reproductive sex. It is now their intention to keep that tremendous majority from getting the information and the means, which RA 10354 would provide, to plan their families responsibly through scientific birth control, if that is their choice. This is the only reason for the petitioners or the Catholic Church hierarchy to be threatened by a law that does not compel the use of, but merely gives citizens, Catholics included, information about and access to, modem birth control methods. 40. It is precisely because the petitioners know that the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not share their discredited and outdated ultra-conservative views on scientific birth control, that

the petitioners do not want RA 10354 to give those Catholics the information and the means to plan their families responsibly through scientific contraception, if they so choose. Had the petitioners thought that most Catholics still believed in the existence of a natural law proscribing nonreproductive sex and the use of scientific birth control, then they would not have felt threatened by RA 10354. They would simply have shrugged off the laws' benefits as offerings that devout Catholics would have readily ignored. 41. In any case, RA 10354 will not violate the constitutional freedoms of choice or speech of Catholics, or any other citizen, because it does not compel anyone personally to accept or adopt any of the information or methods it provides. Furthermore, since the vast majority of Catholics believe that they may employ scientific birth control in good conscience to plan their families responsibly, then RA 10354 enhances their freedoms and choices as it does the general citizenry's. It is, therefore, the petitioners and the Catholic Church hierarchy who oppose RA 10354 who would deprive the vast majority of Catholics as well as the general citizenry of the freedoms of choice and means that the Constitution guarantees and which RA 10354 implements and enhances. 42. To make matters worse, the petitioners seek to invalidate RA 10354 in its entirety and would deny its benefits not only to the vast majority of Catholics who do not agree with them but also to all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs or of lack of them. 43. That the petitioners would seek to pre-empt and dictate social policy for an entire nation so they can promote the unpopular, outdated, discredited, oppressive and injurious views held by them and the hierarchy of a church that does not even pay taxes to support government programs is not just particularly unfair and galling. It is also nothing less than an inexcusable exercise of intolerance by a noisy minority mounting an assault on the very cornerstone of a republican democracy founded on the consent, and for welfare, of the many. 44. All the foregoing considerations leave no doubt that there is absolutely no moral or legal underpinning for the petitioners' constitutional protestations against RA 10354. There is neither a natural law that prohibits non-reproductive sex or the use of scientific contraceptive methods, nor is there even a predominant belief on the part of the majority of Catholics to that effect which the petitioners can claim to safeguard. This, even assuming that the protection of the opinions and practices of any religious sect or sects can take precedence in a republican democracy over a measure passed by the people's elected representatives, for their general welfare. d. the experience of nations and the essential absurdity of the petitioner's position 45. Any clear-thinking individual can also see that there is no natural law against nonreproductive sex because: a) other countries have population control programs similar to or even far more extensive than that which RA 10354 seeks to implement, and b) modern contraceptives are widely available, even in the Philippines. If sex only for procreation were truly a fundamental natural law precept, then neither of these would be the case. 46. This emphasizes that RA 10354 is a law providing State support for family planning including through scientific contraception. If we follow the petitioners' logic, they should really

be moving for the banning of all means of artificial contraception in the country (which have been here for ages) regardless of provider. So, to put things in perspective, what the petitioners really seek to do is stop government support for such a family planning program, rather than question the intrinsic legality of modern contraceptives and so ban them completely irrespective of source. This, too, is inconsistent with a real belief in the essential illegality of scientific contraception under natural law. 47. Lastly, if the petitioners were serious about their objections to anything they deem "artificial", then they, like the Amish, should espouse that Filipinos not take any medicines or seek any other medical or scientific intervention when we get sick and simply consign our fates to our respective gods. That the petitioners refuse to do this even for themselves and their families betrays the intrinsic fraudulence of their claims regarding the supposed "artifice" of scientific contraception. The Environmental Considerations 48. The Court has taken very aggressive positions aimed at protecting the environment and promoting environmental sustainability. To do so, it has even stretched the limits of permissible state interference with personal and property rights (by issuing the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases42 which allow temporary environmental protection orders, following the so-called "precautionary principle" adopted from administrative policymaking, even where there is no preponderant proof of a clear right and imminent irreparable harm43) This Court is, without doubt, an activist environmental court. [42 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective April 29, 2010. 43 Rule 20, Sees. 1 and 2, Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases.] 49. The biggest threat to the environment and to the earth's sustainability is uncontrolled human population growth. It is man's dominant presence that most adversely impacts on the earth's resources. Four decades his controversial book, The Population Bomb, scientist Paul Ehrlich still believes that overpopulation-now along with over-consumptionis the central environmental crisis facing the world. And, he insists, technological fixes will not save the day.44 44 Paul Erlich and Anne Erlich, "Too Many People, Too Much Consumption," Yale Environment 360: Opinion, Analysis, Reporting & Debate, (2008), <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/too_many_much_consumption/2041/> Accessed on May 7,2013.] The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are ' beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. [Text illegible: But unsustainable use and population growth will overwhelm those efforts ...45] [45 Center for Biological Diversity, "Human Population Growth and

Climate Change", <http://www.biologicaldiversity.orglcampaigns/overpopulationlclimate/> Accessed on May 19, 2013.] Much attention has been paid to the ways that people's home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their emissions of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their contributions to global warming. However, the reproductive choices of an individual are rarely incorporated into calculations of his personal impact on the environment. Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person's descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person's reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-today activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment.46 [46 Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax, Reproduction and Carbon Legacies of Individuals", 19 Global Environmental Change (2009) 14-20, <http://www.biologicaldiversity.orglcampaigns/overpopulation/pdfs/OSUCa rbonStudy.pdf.> Accessed on May 7,2013.] John Platt has aptly described man's present predicament as a "storm of crisis problems" Complacency concerning any component of these problems-sociological, technological, economic, ecological-is unjustified and counterproductive. It is time to admit that there are no monolithic solutions to the problems we face. Indeed, population control, the redirection of technology, the transition from open to closed resource cycles, the equitable distribution of opportunity and the ingredients of prosperity must all be accomplished if there is to be any future worth having. Failure in any of these areas will surely sabotage the entire enterprise. *** Precisely because population is the most difficult and slowest to yield among the components of environmental deterioration, we must start on it at once. To ignore population today because the problem is a tough one is to commit ourselves to even gloomier prospects 20 years hence, when most of the "easy" means to reduce per capita impact on the environment will have been exhausted. The desperate and repressive measures for population control which might be contemplated then are reason enough in themselves to proceed with foresight, alacrity, and compassion to day.47 [47 Paul R. Erlich and John P. Holdren, "Impact of Population Growth," Science, New Series, Vol. 171. No. 3977 (March 26, 1971), at 1216, < http://www.jstor.org/stable/1731166> Accessed on May 18, 2013.]

50. Necessarily, therefore, the greater the earth's human population, the greater the strains on its resources and its environmental health and sustainability. Climate change [illegible text] solutions cannot be adequately tackled without addressing the neglected issue of the worlds booming population, according to two leading scientists. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, and Professor John Guillebaud, vented their frustration yesterday at the fact that overpopulation had fallen off the agenda of the many organisations dedicated to saving the planet. The scientists said dealing with the human population of the planet was vital if real progress was to be made on the other enormous problems facing the world. "It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about" Professor Guillebaud said. Unless we reduce the [illegible text] through [illegible text] family planning, nature will do it for us through violence [illegible text]*** His concerns were echoed by Professor Rapley, an expert on the effects of climate change on the Antarctic, who pointed out that this year extra 76 million people would be added to the 6.5 billion already living Earth, which is twice as many as in 1960. By middle of the century, the United Nations estimates that the world population is likely to increase to more than nine billion, which is equivalent to an extra 200,000 people each day. Professor Rapley said the extra resources needed to sustain this growth in population would put immense strains on the planet's life-support system even if pollution emissions per head could dramatically be reduced. Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of critical importance [text illegible], Professor Rapley says in an article for the BEE website. "So if we believe that the size of the human 'footprint' is a serious problem and there is much evidence for this then a rational view would be [text illegible] of measures to reduce the foorprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed. 48 [48 Steve Connor, "Overpopulation 'is main threat to planet"', (January 7, 2006), < http://www.independent.co.uklenvironmentloverpopu1ation-is-main-threatto-planet521925.htm1> Accessed on May 19, 2013; emphases added.] 51. Uncontrolled human growth is the source of all the major threats to the environment. Massive pollution, unprecedented levels of carbon emissions, widespread deforestation, the

production of huge volumes of human/industrial waste, the destruction of water resources and systems, climate change and the consequent devastating weather calamities and more-all these ultimately trace themselves back to the increasing human presence/footprint on the globe. An environment capable of sustaining human life cannot be preserved unless human population growth itself is curbed and controlled. 52. RA 10354, The Reproductive Health Law, means to give the Philippines a fighting chance to control its population and its adverse impact on the country's environmental survival. Without it, the country's uncontrolled population growth will remain at or rise above 1.900/0 per year49, and its current 92.34 million population50 will balloon by about 50% to 141.67 million by 204051 without a serious population control program. That will add colossal strains on a country whose current population imposes already unmanageable demands on the country's ecosystem. At present, only 24% of the country's land area remains forested52. Corals are despoiled53 and marine biodiversity is threatened due to overfishing54. Waterways have been poisoned, silted and built over.55 Cities are sinking as water levels rise, exacerbated by "over-pumping of groundwater by [the] burgeoning population".56 Without RA 10354, the future generations of Filipinos for whom the Court wants to realize the dream of an environmentally sustainable future will instead be condemned to nightmarish lives trying to survive in a barren and toxic wasteland. [49 For the period 2000-2010. National Statistics Office, 2010 Census of Population and Housing Reveals the Philippine Population at 92.34 Million," <http://www.census.gov.ph/contentl2010-census-population-and-housing-revealsphilippinepopulation-9234-million> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 50 Asof2010 census. Ibid. 51 Based on 2000 Census on Population and Housing. National Statistical Coordination Board, "Statistics: Population," <http://www.nscb.gov.ph/secstatld-popn.asp> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 52 Jeannette Andrade, "PH has SE Asia's Lowest Forest Cover," Philippine Daily Inquirer (April 23, 2013), <http://newsinfo.inquirer.netl395725/ph-has-se-asias-lowest-forestcover> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 53 Philippine Information Agency, "Coral Reefs Destruction in the PHL Alarming," (May 29, 2011), <http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=1051316669505> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 54 Kristine Alave, "No More Big Fish, Overfishing Blamed," Philippine Daily Inquirer (September 13, 2011), <http://newsinfo.inquirer.netl57797/no-more-big-fishoverfishingblamed> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 55 Allison Lopez, 'Local Execs Told to Clear Waterways: Informal Settlers Blamed for Flooding' Philippine Daily Inquirer (August 2, 2013), <http://newsinfo.inquirer.netlinquirerheadlines/metro/view/20090802-218461/Local-execstoldto-clear-wateIWays> Accessed on May 8, 2013. 56 Rouchelle Dinglasan, "Overpopulated, Metro Manila is sinking-and flooding-fast," (March 12, 2013), <http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/298939/scitechlsciencc/overpopulatedmetro-manilais-sinking-and-flooding-fast> Accessed on May 8, 2013.] So in the last 10 years I've been increasingly asking colleagues, 'Can you name a single environmental problem that would not be easier to solve with fewer people, and doesn't get harder -and ultimately impossible -to solve with ever more?' No-one can. ***

Another fact -our planet is finite, it cannot support an infinite number of people, so population growth, caused by more births than deaths, will definitely stop one day. And when it stops, it will be because of either fewer births or more deaths (or some combination). This will either by human, humane means -contraception backed by policy which makes it readily available and encourages people to use it -or by the inhumane, natural means through which nature, as Darwin pointed out, has kept every other species in balance with its habitat for the last billion years or so -famine, disease, and predation (in our case war). Which would you prefer? There is no third alternative of indefinite growth. *** And finally there's the crying, shameful, humanitarian need which we go on ignoring, summarised poignantly by a devout woman, desperate for family planning, reported recently from the Philippines. She said: "If the Holy father could only experience for one hour what it's like to be six months pregnant in a Manila slum, with seven children to feed and no money to feed them, he would change the doctrine on contraception the very next minute!" There are hundreds ofmillions like her.57 [57 Roger Martin, "Overpopulation is the biggest threat to our climate," Reuters UK edition (October 16, 2009), <http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debateuk/2009/l0/16/overpopulation-is-thcbiggest-threat-to-our-c1imate/> Accessed May 18, 2013; emphases added.] 53. The Honorable Court must, therefore, act in a manner consistent with its record of environmental protectionism. It must uphold the obvious constitutional validity of RA 10354 if the country is to take the most fundamental step to environmental sustainability and survival. None of the Court's earlier affirmative rulings and actions on environmental issues and not even its issuance of the extremely sympathetic Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases will mean anything unless the Court allows such urgent measures as RA 10354 to address runaway population the single greatest threat to our environment. CLOSING STATEMENT 54. The petitioners are parties who are either admittedly part of, or apparently belong to, the ultraconservative, fundamentalist faction of the Catholic Church. While they pretend to have constitutional objections to RA 10354, however, they are themselves engaged in the most brazen violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state when they try to impose their thinly disguised religious beliefs as grounds for invalidating an otherwise plainly constitutional law. They are a religious minority who, having first lost the battle for hearts and minds within the Catholic Church and then the social policy debate at the legislature, now seek to misuse the judicial process to assail an unimpeachable constitutional so may yet impose their intolerant minority views on an entire country that does not share their beliefs.

55. To make matters worse, the beliefs that animate their challenge to a critically urgent social program are based on a gross misconception borrowed from primitive pagan Stoics that would reduce the rich fabric of man's love to the base biological rhythms of beasts. Such beliefs, even when disguised as legal objections, can never pass for valid constitutional challenges in a republican democracy where the substantive due process guarantee requires all government action, including judicial reviews, to be based on reality and reason. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petitions all be dismissed, Republic Act No. 10354 be declared valid and constitutional in its entirety, and the status quo order issued on March 19, 2013 be immediately dissolved. Other just and equitable remedies are prayed for. Makati for Manila, May 20, 2013. Counsels for Intervenors 7th Floor SyCipLaw Center 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City 1226 Email: sshg@syciplaw.com Telephone No.: (02) 982-35-00 Fax No.: (02) 817-38-96