P L C P D P O L I C Y B R I E F

Bishops in our Bedroom:

Roman Catholic Church and the
Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines
Carlos O. Tulali

Summary

The total prohibition of artificial birth control methods by the Roman Catholic church (RCC) was
declared by Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical, Casti Connubii, and was maintained by the 1968
Humanae Vitae.The RCC sanctions only abstinence and the natural family planning (NFP) method
as suitable techniques for birth control. This RCC stance is considered as a major reason why the
Philippines remains one of the few countries in the world without a comprehensive reproductive
health law. Currently, the government leaves family planning issues to local governments and few of
them promote artificial contraception.

Through the doctrine of papal infallibility, Roman Catholics could be certain that the teachings of
the pope and of God were one and the same, and if strictly followed, one’s entrance into heaven was
guaranteed. Such an arrangement placed enormous control of Catholic individuals into the hands of
the Vatican – among them is the 82 percent of 92 million Filipinos.

The proponents of papal infallibility could not imagine the population explosion of the last
half of the twentieth century. But, as it stands now, the RCC cannot change its position on birth
fundamental doctrine of papal infallibility at all costs.

The RCC is the only religion with a seat in the U.N., and the Vatican has used this status as well as
its influence on Catholic politicians in developing countries to press policies against contraception.
In the Philippines, RCC priests threaten ‘unfriendly’ politicians with a church-organized campaign
in the 2010 elections. However, survey results show that many Catholics disagree with the positions
taken by the bishops in relation to population and reproductive health.

In the future, the Philippine government and the RCC will likely continue to debate on their focus
on the nation’s population growth. While this continues, the health and well being of many women
and families will be affected and rapid population growth will remain.

Background

The Philippine population, with an annual growth rate of 2.04 percent,1 is projected
to hit 92.23 million by end-2009.2 The 2009 human development index (HDI)
for the Philippines is 0.751, which gives the country a rank of 105th out of 182
countries with data.3 In comparison, its South-east Asian neighbors Vietnam and
Indonesia saw significant improvements in their HDI. Without enough resources
to provide for everyone, the need to manage population growth becomes a critical
solution to the problem of poverty in the Philippines.

Expanding choices, uplifting lives through responsive population and human development legislation
2 PLCPD POLICY BRIEF | Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines
The Philippines, one of the few countries in the
world without a comprehensive reproductive
health (RH) law, has two characteristics which
differentiate it from other countries in Southeast
Asia. It is the only predominantly Christian country
in the region and has one of the highest rates of
population growth. Like in many other Catholic
countries, the Roman Catholic church (RCC) is
very active in the Philippines in the population
policy debate. Non-Catholic Christians make up
only about 9 percent of the population compared
with around 82 percent for Roman Catholics.
The 1994 International Conference on Population
and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, in which the
Philippines is a signatory, produced, for the first time,
the concept of reproductive health and reproductive
rights.The RCC in the Philippines responded to the
ICPD documents by publicly burning the conference
proposals, citing them as “an agreement with the
devil.” While the influence of the RCC has been
significant in attacking the government’s policy, the
Church has done little to influence the behavior
of individual Catholics.The RCC have been more
effective in influencing the government than its
people. According to the 2008 National Demographic
and Health survey (NDHS), the contraceptive
prevalence rate (CPR) is 51% in 2008.This marks an
increase of contraceptive use by Filipino women over
the last decade, from 47% in 1998 to 49% in 2003.
Distribution of donated contraceptives in the
government’s nationwide network of clinics
ended in 2008, as well as the contraception-
commodities program paid for by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID). Since the
1970s USAID has supplied most of the condoms,
pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) used by poor
Filipinos. While a relatively small Filipino middle
class can afford to buy their own contraceptives,
millions of poor women cannot. A month’s supply
of the pill costs around half the average daily salary
of almost half the population. Currently, legislators
in the Philippines are debating a new law that will
promote family planning to ease financial burden
on poor families. The debate over the controversial
RH bill is now threatening to turn into a major
battle between the church and the state.
Without an effective family planning and
reproductive health policy, the Philippines, already
the world’s 12th most populous country with 92
million people, is projected to have a population
of over 140 million by 2040. This will put a huge
strain on its creaking health system, education and
other services, and its ability to feed itself. The RH
Bill that remains pending in both chambers of the
14th Congress, while supported by many Filipinos,
is encumbered by the stand of RCC advocates
promoting only abstinence and natural family
planning (NFP) methods. Some Catholic bishops
have said they will refuse communion to politicians
who support the RH bill. Others warn that the
RCC’s crucial backing in the 2010 presidential and
congressional elections will be withheld.
This paper aims to present the historical and
religious basis of the RCC’s opposition to
contraception and how it affects every Filipino
woman, man, and child.
 Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines | PLCPD POLICY BRIEF
Church Influence on
Contraception
The Roman Catholic church (RCC) is the world’s
largest Christian church and says it has over a
billion members. Its claim to authority rests on
the doctrine of the apostolic succession, through
which the Church claims to be the true successor
of the original Christian community founded by
Jesus in his selection of Saint Peter, and through
which its bishops and priests claim spiritual and
sacramental authority.
The total prohibition of artificial birth control
methods by the RCC, declared by Pope Pius XI in
his 1930 encyclical, Casti Connubii, was maintained
by the 1968 Humanae Vitae4 (Latin for “of human
life”). The RCC sanctions only abstinence and the
natural family planning (NFP) method as suitable
techniques for birth control.
Casti Connubii was written in response to
the Anglican Communion’s Seventh Lambeth
Conference, which approved contraceptive use in
limited circumstances. For much of its existence,
the RCC heavily emphasized procreation as
the primary purpose of sex. Some Catholics
even believed that intercourse at times where
pregnancy was not a possible result (such as
current pregnancy and menopause) was sinful.5
However, Casti Connubii acknowledged for the first
time a secondary, unitive, purpose of intercourse.6
Because of this secondary purpose, married
couples have a right to engage in intercourse even
when pregnancy is not a possible result. Some
Catholics interpreted the statement as not only
permitting sex between married couples during
pregnancy and menopause, but also during the
infertile times of the menstrual cycle.7
Vatican and birth control
The birth control story begins with the Second
Vatican Council in the early l960s and the decision
of two popes to re-examine the RCC’s position
3
on birth control. Pope John XXIll had intended
to begin the re-examination, but he died before
he could begin the process. His successor, Pope
Paul VI, issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae in
1968, which constitutes the present day policy of
the RCC. In truth, the Humanae Vitae was in
direct opposition to the findings made by the
Pontifical Commission on Population, Family
and Birth (1964-66), which was tasked to look
into the continued validity of the Church stance on
birth control.
The Commission was two-tiered: 1) a group of 15
cardinals and bishops; 2) a group of 64 lay experts
representing a variety of disciplines: theologians,
sociologists, medical doctors and social scientists,
including a Filipina, Dr. Mercedes Concepcion of
the University of the Philippines.8
After two years of study, the lay commission voted
60 to 4, and the clergy voted 9 to 6, to change the
position on birth control, even though it would
mean a loss of papal authority. The Commission
believed it was the right thing to do.The
Commission would state in its final report
that the Church’s teaching on artificial
contraception was in a state of doubt and
that birth control, as long as this did not
involve abortion, was not intrinsically evil.
They recommended that the procreative aspect
of sex should not be tied to every sexual act,
4 PLCPD POLICY BRIEF | Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines
but belongs to marriage as a whole. They also
recommended that couples be free to choose the
non-abortive method of FP that would work best
for them.9
However, two members of the commission
produced a minority report stating that the
church should not and could not change its earlier
teaching. The minority report was submitted to the
pope. The co-author of that report was a Polish
archbishop, Karol Wojtyla, who later became Pope
John Paul II. In response, the commission majority
leaked their report to the press in 1967 in hopes
of pressuring Paul VI. However, he still promulgated
Humanae Vitae on July 25, 1968, and has been the
RCC’s policy document on all issues of human
sexuality since then.
Papal infallibility and the principle of reception
Roman Catholics could be certain that the
teachings of the pope and of God were one and
the same, and if strictly followed, one’s entrance
into heaven was guaranteed. Such an arrangement
placed enormous control of Catholic individuals
into the hands of the Vatican. Since it could
never be in the wrong, the Vatican acquired an
urgently needed new source of power. Back then,
it could no longer control the laity by means of
its governance as it had in the Papal States, which
would later become Italy.
Hans Kung, the world’s leading Catholic theologian,
said, “It is not possible to solve the problem of
contraception until we solve the problem of
infallibility.”10 In his book, How the Pope Became
Infallible, Catholic historian Bernhard Hasler wrote
that, for more than a millennium, the Vatican had
possessed temporal power which ensured its
survival. With the loss of the Papal States in 1870,
it appeared all but certain that a strong Papacy
would simply disappear.11 The Vatican urgently
needed a new source of power. A group of
conservative and influential leaders, including Pope
Pius IX, came up with a brilliant idea for a new
source: an infallible pope.
What is papal infallibility? According to Catholic
doctrine, the pope is God’s representative on
earth and God guides him as he cares for his flock.
When the pope formulates a doctrine, he is simply
transmitting this dogma on God’s behalf. Therefore,
the teaching cannot possibly be in error. Thus, the
pope’s teachings are infallible.
The Church as a State
The Holy See is the spiritual and temporal
government of the RCC. It consists of the pope,
the Roman Curia (the various departments and
institutes that assist the pope in running the
church), and the College of Cardinals. The Holy
See is also the government of Vatican City.12 As
such, diplomatically and in other spheres, the Holy
See acts and speaks for the whole RCC. It is also
recognized by other subjects of international law
as a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope, with
which diplomatic relations can be maintained.
To date, the RCC is the only church government
that has the status of a state. The Holy See is a
Non-member State Permanent Observer at the
United Nations (U.N.) since 1964. This is a rarely
used designation shared only by Switzerland.
It gives its holder some of the privileges of a
member-state at the UN, such as being able to
speak and vote at U.N. conferences. In 2004,
this status was reconfirmed, giving the Holy See
full membership in the U.N., except the voting
privilege. The Holy See is an active member of
many United Nations Commissions, such as the
U.N. High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR) and
the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD). It has played an active role in special
U.N. conferences, particularly those having to do
with population and development. It has used its
presence at gatherings, such as the International
Conference on Population and Development
(ICPD) in Cairo (1994), to strongly oppose
policies that promote family planning, legalization
of abortion, and the recognition of more diverse
forms of the family.
 Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines | PLCPD POLICY BRIEF
The crux of the Holy See’s special status in
the U.N. is its claim that its possession of a
territorial entity, the tiny Vatican City, qualifies
it as a nation-state. The question of the Vatican’s
statehood has been debated without definitive
conclusion in diplomatic circles for most of the
century. However, it is not the Vatican that is a
member of the U.N., but the Holy See. The Holy
See is by definition a “non-territorial religious
entity.”13
The Holy See also clearly does not meet the
established international legal criteria for
statehood, which include a defined territory and
permanent citizenry. The Holy See has no defined
territory; it is a government, not a territorial entity.
As such, it also does not have a citizenry.
Clearly the Holy See, the government of the RCC,
is not a state. As such, it should not participate in
the U.N. as a state, but as a religion. Hundreds of
organizations and thousands of people worldwide
have initiated a campaign to change the status of
the RCC at the United Nations. Concerned that
the church has flown in under the U.N.’s radar
by calling itself the Holy See, they have called
on the secretary-general to review the church’s
current status as a Nonmember State Permanent
Observer. They believe that the Holy See should
participate in the U.N. in the same way that the
world’s other religions do, as a non government
organization (NGO).
In 1994, Catholics for a Free Choice, a Catholic
reproductive rights group, challenged the right of
the Holy See to be a member of the U.N. because
it is a church government and not a state.14 While
it did not dispute the right of the Vatican to have a
voice at the U.N., it argued that it should do so as
a NGO as do other church organizations and not
as a state.
The church in policymaking of nations
For many developing countries, the RCC has more
influence over official FP policies and availability
5
of contraceptive and abortion services. Roman
Catholicism is the only religion with a seat in the
U.N., and the Vatican has used this status as well as
its influence on Catholic politicians in developing
countries to press policies against contraception,
which has serious implications for the availability of
such services to non-Catholics as well as Catholics.
Since the 1994 International Conference on
Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo and
the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women
in Beijing, it has become more obvious why the
views of the RCC establishment are an issue that
should concern Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
At these conferences, for perhaps the first time in
the 20th century, the RCC was seen clearly as a
political player on issues of both international and
national political significance.15
Catholic humanitarian agencies are recognized
for the quality of their assistance. They often are
at the forefront of humanitarian assistance and
the provision of food, shelter, and sanitation for
people worldwide. However, when it comes to the
question of women’s rights, especially RH, these
agencies are not able to implement government
policies requiring that aid recipients have access to
family planning (FP) and the human right to make
6 PLCPD POLICY BRIEF | Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines
their own decisions about the number and spacing
of their children.
The Vatican is not even content with applying its
doctrine against contraceptive birth control to
members of the RCC. Pope John Paul II in his
Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin
and on the Dignity of Procreation has declared
that Catholic teaching must become law. The
Instruction states: “Politicians must commit
themselves, through this intervention upon public
opinion, to securing the widest possible consensus
on such essential points.” They are expected to
enact into law “appropriate legal sanctions” for
violations of the law.
These papal instructions, if enacted into law, would
put the majority of the world’s population, which
is non-Catholics, along with non-conforming
Catholics, into the position of being lawbreakers.
Non-Catholics are also affected if they use
Catholic hospitals and compliant physicians, since
they are forbidden to provide information about
contraceptives or to prescribe or apply them.
This is not to suggest that the RCC or any
religious institution should be prohibited from
participating in the public life of nations, expressing
its values, or even attempting to influence public
policy. It is appropriate that religious voices be
heard in all debates. There is much that religions
have to offer in the development of policies that
address values. It is, however, the responsibility
of parliamentarians and other policymakers to
evaluate the policy positions put forward by the
RCC in the same way that they would evaluate
public policy positions put forward by other
religions and NGOs.
Separation of Church and State in
the Philippines
Catholic acceptance of the principle of the
separation of church and state is relatively new.
Not until the Second Vatican Council (1966) was
it accepted definitively in the “Declaration on
Religious Liberty.” That was preceded by more
than 17 centuries of adamant belief that civil
law must conform to the moral teachings of the
Church. Thus, it is understandable that Church
leaders still tend to believe that they occupy
a sacred place in the policy process. It is less
understandable when political leaders grant them
that space and treat them as privileged players.
The Philippine constitution has mandated the
state to provide a comprehensive and accessible
healthcare program to every citizen. The
constitution also prohibits any discrimination due
to religion and beliefs. The separation between the
church and state is mandated as well. There are
many non-Catholics the state must also serve. The
State has the responsibility to provide information,
assistance and access to all types of FP methods.
Thus, the government is expected to develop
policies including health programs based on these
general principles.
The government violates the constitution when
it promotes and emphasizes particular programs
that are discriminatory to certain groups either
because of religious or political beliefs. The
government’s promotion of the natural family
planning (NFP) method over the other methods
available to our people is a de facto violation
 Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines | PLCPD POLICY BRIEF
of our constitution in this regard. This policy is
obviously designed to please the RCC. It is also
designed to toe the line and to be consistent with
the beliefs of the majority of our officials including
the president.
Humanae Vitae in the Philippines
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, a
grandmother with three grown children, said in
2003 that when she was a young mother, she took
birth control pills. She said that she later confessed
to a priest. Under her regime, the Department
of Health (DOH) issued Administrative Order
No. 125, which recognizes natural family planning
(NFP) as “the only acceptable mode of birth
control.” Arroyo refuses to allow national
government agencies to purchase FP commodities,
leaving the decision to purchase, and to set aside
funds, to local government units (LGUs).
To celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Humanae
Vitae 4, thousands of Filipino Catholic church
and lay people gathered last July 25, 2008 for an
event to celebrate the sanctity of life and the
sanctity of the family, and reiterated their hope
to hear the President of the Philippines “reaffirm
her commitment to protect the sanctity of life
and that the foundation of a strong republic is
a strong family.” Their prayers where answered
when President Arroyo reiterated her pro-church
position during her state of the nation address last
July 28, 2008. This was not a surprise since Arroyo
has been taking the side of the RCC on issues
regarding FP and RH in an attempt to maximize
her political capital.
The Church in Philippine elections
In the Philippines, RCC priests who hold positions
of authority, from the pulpit or through official
pronouncements, threaten politicians who support
positions not to their liking with a church-
organized campaign in the 2010 elections. This
can happen, for instance, against legislators who
support House Bill 5043 and Senate Bill 3122,
7
commonly known as the Reproductive Health
bill.16 17 As election time approaches, legislators or
potential legislators who support the bill may find
themselves, or will find themselves, threatened by
what the RCC calls a “Catholic vote.”
Even those in government, including the President,
have avoided taking any strong action to control
the birth rate, presumably because politicians fear
the RCC’s ire. It is common knowledge that the
RCC is vehemently against the use of artificial
contraception, and the local RCC hierarchy,
through the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the
Philippines (CBCP), has openly threatened to
campaign against anyone who tries to introduce
policies involving such. The influential CBCP is
again taking its war against the controversial
reproductive health bill now pending at the 14th
Congress to the electorate. The call against pro-
RH bill candidates has topped the guidelines of
Catholic bishops for the 2010 elections.18
Political candidates should heed the people’s call
for action on family planning. Survey results show
that many Catholics disagree with the positions
taken by the bishops in relation to population and
reproductive health. For example, according to the
2008 National Demographic and Health Survey
(NDHS)20, seven in ten married Filipino women
(73%) could be using a family planning method if all
FP methods were satisfied. Fifty one in every 100
married women are using a FP method.
According to Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a Filipino
8 PLCPD POLICY BRIEF | Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines
Jesuit specializing in constitutional law, the CBCP
in their Second Plenary Council warned pastors
that “to take active part in partisan politics, in
the wheeling and dealing it entails, would tend
to weaken their teaching authority and destroy
the unity they represent and protect.” And
as one high-ranking official has also said,
to dictate to parishioners whom to vote
for or not to vote for is “as bad as buying
their votes.”21
Church teachings may not be imposed
The most heavy-handed effort to bar all use of
contraception happened in the Philippines in
2006, in response to the RH bill being discussed
in the Philippine Congress during that period. The
CBCP has announced that it will deny baptism,
communion, confirmation, weddings and burials to
all who support or use contraception. This threat
is seen as an effort to use methods of “shock and
awe” to impress on Filipinos the seriousness of the
sin of contraception. 22
Like the concept of the primacy of conscience, the
principle of reception does not mean that Catholic
law is to be taken lightly or rejected without
thoughtful and prudent consideration. Many of the
RCC hierarchy’s teachings on reproductive health
and rights have not been received by the faithful
Catholics. Rather, Catholics all over the world have
soundly rejected the RCC’s ban on contraception.
In fact, more than 50 Catholic groups from around
the world have written an open letter asking Pope
Benedict XVI to lift the Church’s ban on birth
control.23
It is possible to believe in religion without
adhering to its fundamentalist ideas. There are
Roman Catholic women, for example, who
openly espouse pro-choice views or declare
their support for RH policies. It is important that
people are able to work for policies based on
their religious beliefs, provided that these policies
are acceptable to non-believers and conform to
human rights standards.
The RCC, if it wishes, may advise its flock what is
acceptable and what is not. But it cannot impose
upon the state. If it does its leaders should be
charged for violating the Philippine constitution.
If the RCC insists on its position, and gets it
enforced then it should take responsibility for its
decision and provide the food, clothing, education,
health services for all the extra children over and
above what should be a reasonable growth rate.
Impact of Church Influence
The policies of the RCC cause most suffering
to people who are most vulnerable, especially
the poor. Women, for example, bear most of
the brunt of the RCC position. Concretely, this
translates to about 11 Filipino women dying
every 24 hours from pregnancy and child birth.
Also, half of all pregnancies are unwanted. Fewer
pregnancies lead to lower risk of maternal
mortality, improved child survival and more
opportunities for women. Families with fewer
children are better able to invest in the health
and education of each child.
Further, when the RCC puts forward a public
policy position it is not just Roman Catholics who
are affected if policymakers enact such positions.
Every woman, man, and child, regardless of beliefs
and religion, would be subject to these laws.
On maternal deaths
In the Philippines, the lifetime risk of death from
pregnancy is 1 in 140. Around 11 Filipino mothers
die everyday or an estimated 4,500 every year due
to severe hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders,
sepsis and problems related to obstructed labor
and abortion.
While the U.N. increasingly makes decisions
that will prevent these deaths, the Holy See’s
special status gives it a powerful voice in these
decisions. At the 1994 ICPD in Cairo, the Holy See
successfully led the effort to block the inclusion of
 Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines | PLCPD POLICY BRIEF
safe, legal abortion in the list of basic reproductive
rights for women. It uses its voice to limit
access to family planning, safe abortion (even in
countries where abortion is legal), and emergency
contraception (even for women who have been
raped as an act of war). Successfully challenging
the Holy See’s policy positions on RH will save
women’s lives.
On HIV/AIDS
Each year, 5.8 million people become HIV positive
and 2.5 million die from AIDS. Within the U.N.,
the RCC attempts to block international policy
decisions that would make condom education and
use a major tool in the prevention of HIV/AIDS.
The RCC hierarchy has repeatedly condemned
the use of condoms to prevent AIDS. Successfully
challenging the Holy See’s policy position on
condom use will assist in reversing the HIV/AIDS
pandemic.
Evaluating the Church’s Policy
Positions
According to Frances Kissling, President of
Catholics for a Free Choice, there are four criteria
that could be used in evaluating public policy
positions, whether the policy is suggested by a
religious or any other group.24
The first criterion is: who does this group
represent, who is their constituency, and does that
constituency agree with them on this issue?
Findings from the March 2007 Ulat ng Bayan
national survey on family planning, conducted
by Pulse Asia, Inc., 44 percent of Filipinos said
the Church should not participate in deciding
what FP methods couples should use.25 Half of
those surveyed believe rapid population growth
hinders development. About 92% of respondents
believe it is important to plan one’s family. The
same survey shows that 9 out of 10 (89%) said
9
the government must allocate funds for FP. Three
out of four Filipinos will support candidates who
are in favor of a government budget for family
planning.26
In an October 2008 Ulat ng Bayan national
survey on family planning, Pulse Asia found that
63 percent of Filipinos expressed support for
the Reproductive Health bill, with 68 percent of
respondents saying that they are aware of the
proposed legislation. An overwhelming majority
of respondents (76 to 91 percent) across
geographic areas and socio-economic classes said
that government should teach couples regarding
modern methods of family planning, with 82
percent saying that proper services and materials
should also be provided.27
Also, according to the Third Quarter 2008 Social
Weather Survey, done on September 24-27,
2008, 76% of Filipino Catholics and 78% of non-
Catholics support FP education for the youth.
Such support is high regardless of frequency of
church-going, and regardless of trust in the RCC.
In the same manner, awareness of the RH Bill,
and public support for it, do not vary by religion,
regularity of church-going, and trust in the RCC.
Seven out of ten Catholics (71%) and non-
Catholics (68%) favor the passage of the RH Bill.
Three out of four men (75%) and women (77%)
support having a law requiring family planning
education for the youth. The support is equally
high among singles and married ones.28
These surveys give some sense of the extent to
which the Catholic bishops do not represent
their own constituency when they seek legislation
that will limit options or methods for family
planning.
The second criterion is: are they honest and do
they present accurate and valid facts?
One has to look at what the Catholic bishops
say about various aspects of public policy and see
whether what they say indeed is true. For instance,
10 PLCPD POLICY BRIEF | Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines
in arguing against AIDS prevention programs that
include information about the use of condoms,
bishops have argued that condoms do not prevent
the transmission of the disease. Some have gone
so far as to say that condoms cause AIDS, by
lulling people into believing they are completely
protected.
The RCC has even publicly claimed that condoms
are full of tiny invisible holes that let the HIV virus
through and therefore should not be used. To date,
statements from the Vatican have argued not that
use of condoms to prevent disease is immoral,
but rather that condom-promotion programs are
simply bad policy. The Vatican’s current position is
that such programs encourage promiscuity, thereby
actually increasing transmission of sexually-
transmitted infections (STIs).
In January 4, 2009 the Vatican’s official newspaper
L’Osservatore Romano published an article claiming
that the contraceptive pill is causing environmental
pollution and sterility in men.29 They produced
no evidence to back up this claim, any more
than they did their claim that condoms do not
protect against HIV. Scientists quickly rubbished
the Vatican’s claims. Gianbenedetto Melis, vice-
president of a contraceptive research association,
said: “Once metabolised, the hormones contained
in oral contraceptives no longer have any of the
characteristic effects of feminine hormones.”
The third criterion is commitment to the common
good and not the benefit of a specific group
or religion. Do the policy suggestions respect
the rights of all within society? Are the policy
suggestions respectful of other religions, pluralism,
and tolerance?
There is no doubt that among all religions, the
RCC has the most absolute position against
contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Almost
all other churches have come to the point of
understanding the use of FP and contraception
as an important element in a couple’s exercise
of responsibility. The RCC does not even permit
the use of contraception for Catholics who are
married or in a lifelong monogamous relationship.
Given that the RCC has accepted both the
separation of church and state and an obligation
not to seek laws that would limit people of other
faiths or no faith in the practice of their beliefs, it
goes against its own teaching in putting forward
a position on FP that would limit the freedom of
Anglicans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims. Islam
has been characterized by some as the most
conservative of religions, yet it has a very open
attitude toward FP and the use of contraception.
A legislator who would work for laws that would
limit these religions from exercising their freedom
by legislating the Roman Catholic view would
violate the value of tolerance at a very basic level.
The final criterion is utilitarian.Will the policy position
work? Where no birth control, except for natural
family planning, is available, are couples able to have and
care for the number of children they choose?
We cannot shy away from the real situation in
the Philippines. We have a steady population
growth rate that is projected to result in about
92.23 million Filipinos by end of last year. The
government is unable to provide even the
most basic of the basic services to the growing
population as depicted by the country’s human
development index. Women are very far from
reaching their desired family size.
Certainly, policies are not formulated without
biases and these biases define the effectiveness of
the policies. The problem starts when the bias is
not based on realities. And if that is the case, we
can never expect policies to work.
Limits and Risks of Church
Influence
In the Philippines, the Roman Catholic church
has been a major influence in the crafting and
implementation of a national population policy.
 Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines | PLCPD POLICY BRIEF
It has firmly stood on the ground of population
policies rooted in the belief that life is sacred and
transcends any constitutional order. It has made
clear its opposition to the use of artificial FP
methods because it is considered morally wrong.
The RCC’s advocacy has made it difficult for the
government to push for more liberal measures
that can better address the RH needs of the
growing population. However, there are also limits
and risks to the political influence of the church.
Religion cannot provide the answers to many
public policy questions.
Religious belief can, on occasion, stifle the
democratic process, for instance, when people use
claims of religious faith to justify with conviction
specific positions on complex public policy issues
like FP and RH. People do not serve our democracy
well when they insist that God is on their side on
a particular issue, or that someone who disagrees
with them is godless, sinful, or immoral.
Church’s intolerance of different political
viewpoints undermines our democracy by shutting
off debate and leaving no room for compromise.
It ignores the requirement in a democracy to
accord mutual respect to political adversaries and
to refrain from ascribing evil motives to them.
Religious groups must recognize that there are
other people of good will who do not share their
views. The deep public ambivalence about religion
in politics places a special burden on them to tread
carefully in the political arena and to respect the
diversity of opinion in our democracy.
Summary and Conclusion
In addressing population and RH issues,
government clearly has a big role to play. It is
government that should take the lead not only
in informing the public of the need for a sound
population policy, but more importantly in
crafting and implementing a policy that will most
adequately assist the nation in its quest for national
development.
11
For the Philippine president to openly promote
only NFP is improper, discriminatory, and
undemocratic. She is the president of all Filipinos
regardless of their religious beliefs and social
status. Her declaration discriminates against our
Muslim brothers and sisters and the rest of the
Christian sects in our country. These people
stand to be deprived of the right to choose the
appropriate FP method for them. In short, this
pronouncement is a violation of the Philippine
constitution since it excludes and discriminates
some of our citizens.
The RCC claims that every act of intercourse
has the potential for human life, but as the cycles
of human fertility show us, most sexual acts do
not cause a pregnancy. Thus, sex’s purpose is not
just procreation, but also to fortify unions and to
deepen love, which supports the RCC’s teachings.
The Vatican has accepted natural family planning
(NFP) and it should be a first logical step toward
accepting other forms of birth control. The
Vatican’s acceptance of NFP shows that it agrees
that responsibility is as important as procreation.
Thus, responsible family planning is not self-
indulgence as claimed by the Catholic hierarchy.
Logic dictates that condoms and pills should be
morally permissible since their use produces much
good without desecrating the reasoning of the
moral theologians.
An article, “Condum Conundrums,” published in
the Economist in 1993 by an anonymous author,
states that because the Vatican supports FP
around ovulation cycles, there is no reason for
the Vatican not to support FP through the use
of contraceptive techniques such as condoms or
pills.30 It argues that family planning in itself is an
act of responsibility, as opposed to self-indulgence,
which is how it is viewed by the RCC. Thus, the
RCC has no reason not to condone the use of
contraception.
12 PLCPD POLICY BRIEF | Bishops in our Bedroom: The Roman Catholic Church and the Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines

Endnotes

1
National Statistics Office, Philippines, Census of Population
(POPCEN) 2007.
2
National Statistics Office website, http://www.census.gov.ph/
3
United Nations Development Programme, Human
Development Report 2009, Philippines. Available at http://
hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_
PHL.html.
4
“Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the
Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968”. The Vatican.
5
Yalom, M. (2001). A history of the wife. London:
HarperCollins: 297–8.
6
Ibid.:.307.
7
Kippley, John; Sheila Kippley (1996). The Art of Natural
Family Planning (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: The Couple to
Couple League. p. 231.
8
http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2008/07/28/debate-on-
abortion-humanae-vitae-and-the-reproductive-health-care-
act-continues/
9
“Reveal papal birth control texts”. National Catholic
Reporter 3 (25): 1, 3, 8–12. 1967 April 19.
10
Hasler, A.B. (1981). How the Pope Became Infallible. Garden
City, New York: Doubleday:25.
11
Ibid.
12
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1986.
13
Abdullah, Y (1996), “The Holy See at United Nations
Conferences: State or Church?”, Columbia Law Review.
14
http://www.seechange.org/
15
Kissling, F. (1999), “The Vatican and politics of reproductive
health”, USA Today Magazine, May;127(2648).
16
House Bill 5043, An Act Providing for A National Policy
on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and
Population Development and for Other Purposes.
17
Senate Bill 3122, An Act Providing for A National Policy on
reproductive Health and for Other Purposes.
18
The CBCP’s election guidelines were a product of the
national gathering of the CBCP Episcopal Commission on
Family and Life’s (ECFL) directors and lay coordinators last
Nov. 30, 2009 in Antipolo City. The 20-page guidelines
underscore the Roman Catholic church’s position on “family
and life issues,” which is how the Catholic hierarchy refers to
the debate over RH bill. The CBCP released the statement
during its 100th general assembly at the Pius XII Center in
Manila last January 24 of this year.
19
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/network/aquino-supports-
reproductive-health-bill
20
National Statistics Office (2009), 2008 National
Demographic and Health Survey, Preliminary Report.
21
Bernas, J.G. (2009) “Sounding Board: When churchmen
campaign,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 22 November.
Available at http://opinion. inquirer. net/inquireropin
ion/columns/ view/20091122- 237831/When- churchmen-
campaign
22
Herrera, C.F. (20 February 2006). “Church adopts tough
stance on birth control.” Manila Standard.
23
“Catholic groups to Pope: Lift birth control ban,” GMA News.
TV, 25 July 2008. Available at http://www.gmanews.tv/
story/109475/Catholic-groups-to-Pope-Lift-birth-control-
ban
24
Kissling, F. (1999), “The Vatican and politics of reproductive
health.” USA Today Magazine, May;127(2648).
25
Pulse Asia, Inc. (2007). “Pulse Asia’s March 2007 Ulat ng
Bayan Survey Media Release on Family Planning.” Available
at http://pulseasia.com.ph/pulseasia/story.asp?ID=545.
26
Ibid.
27
“63% of Pinoys back RH bill: Pulse Asia.” Abs-cbnNEWS.
com, 19 January 2009. Available at http://www.abs-
cbnnews.com/nation/01/19/09/63-pinoys-back-rh-bill-
pulse-asia.
28
Social Weather Stations (16 October 2008). “Third Quarter
2008 Social Weather Survey: 76% Want Family Planning
Education in Public Schools; 71% Favor Passage of the
Reproductive Health Bill.” Available at http://www.sws.org.
ph/pr081016.htm.
29
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24871307-1702,00.html.
30
“Condom Conundrums. Why Catholic morality and birth
control are not inconsistent,” Economist, 1993 Oct 2-8:20.

PEOPLE COUNT
PLCPD POLICY BRIEF November 2009

A publication of the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. (PLCPD)
with support from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
2/F AVECSS Building, #90 Kamias Road. cor. K-J Street, East Kamias, Quezon City, 1102
Tel. nos.: (+632)925-1800 • (+632)436-2373
E-mail: plcpdfound@plcpd.org.ph Since 1989
Website: http://www.plcpd.org.ph
Executive Director: Ramon San Pascual, MPH
Editors: Ernesto B. Almocera Jr. and Romeo C. Dongeto
PLCPD
Philippine Legislators’ Committee

Layout: Dodie Lucas

on Population and Development
Foundation, Inc.