Can't we keep the dis out of disagreeing?

I'm no expert on the issues surrounding the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) Bill 5043 introduced by Congressman Edcel Lagman, but I am aware of the varying and often strong opinions on the matter, particularly the opposition of the Catholic Church to the bill. My interest was piqued when I learned that 14 faculty members from the Loyola Schools of Ateneo de Manila had released a position paper on the RH Bill, in spite of the university's official stand against it. Soon after, more Ateneo teachers (over 60 of them, including the eminent Manny Dy, the famous Bobby Guev, the infamous Gus Rodriguez, and my hero Jo-ed Tirol) signed a declaration of support for the RH Bill, which they submitted to Congress last October. I found it a brave and admirable move, not only because they dared to disagree with the university's Jesuit administration, but because they took an unpopular stand on what remains a sensitive and even scandalous issue in this predominantly Catholic country of ours.

Then I came across this editorial from The Varsitarian, the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas. It is a somewhat violent reaction to the Ateneo position paper, blasting the "14 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" from "the other" Catholic university for "break[ing] away from the Catholic position and... twist[ing] Catholic teachings to suit their self-serving position." I was surprised that The Varsitarian published such a vitriol-laced article, attacking not only the character of the 14 Ateneo teachers (calling them intellectually dishonest, anti-poor and guilty of academic mediocrity, among others), but Ateneo itself as an institution, deriding "Ateneo's jesuitic nature" (whatever that means) that shows in its "cozy and cash-rich sleeping-with-the-enemy arrangements" (whatever that has got to do with the RH Bill). Perhaps the writer/s had not read the memo from ADMU president Fr. Ben Nebres clarifying the university's official position, which is firmly aligned with the CBCP's. Does that mean the Jesuits are not staying true to their "jesuitic nature"?

I'm sorry but while reading the editorial, the image in my head was that of an apoplectic Dominican friar from the Middle Ages furiously scribbling on a piece of parchment with a quill, sputtering in self-righteous indignation. Granted, the piece actually has some sound arguments (though I admit I did not agree with most of them) but because of its scathing and accusatory tone, it often lapses into faulty logic, not to mention the occasional grammatical error. The Ateneo teachers' position paper may have its flaws as well, but was it necessary to respond to it with such condescension and ugly mudslinging? And in an official university publication, no less. If the Varsitarian editorial staff truly and vehemently disagrees with the "14 Grim Reapers", it's their right to express their dissenting opinion, but they could have done it with less venom. The editorial itself evokes "the darkness foisted... by shadowy figures that include those who call themselves Catholics, educated, and educators". How can enlightenment come about through this kind of hysterical knee-jerk reaction? Rather than absorbing their arguments, all I picked up from the article was the permeating sense of holier-than-thou disdain. Is that UST's idea of how Catholic educators and educated Catholics should engage in intellectual debate or discussion?

What riles me further is how critics of the RH Bill keep throwing religion into the mix to cast an "evil" shadow upon the bill and vilify its proponents, which just serves to distract from the real issues at hand. I like this quotation I read in the blog of a former Ateneo Theology teacher:

"...it is fair and just to remind the hierarchy and the rest of the Catholic citizenry that our Republic does not exist for Catholics alone, and this means that their faith and morals cannot be made the exclusive basis for state policy." -Manuel L. Quezon III

I refuse to believe that one editorial speaks for the entire UST community, just as one position paper does not speak for the entire Ateneo community. I'm sure there are a number of Thomasians out there who support the RH Bill as well, or are at least capable of conveying their contrary viewpoints in a more level-headed manner. What this issue needs is open dialogue, not sanctimonious diatribes. Although I am in favor of the RH Bill, I'm not saying it's perfect and that it will solve the myriad problems it covers, but instead of coming at it with pitchforks and torches, maybe the angry mob should consider talking to the mad (social) scientists who are protecting the monster they fear so much. Instead of being hell-bent on destroying the RH Bill, perhaps its critics can propose a viable alternative or revisions to the bill that would make it less objectionable and more beneficial for the Filipino people. And everyone, whether for or aginst the RH Bill, would do well to bear in mind that ultimately, it's the welfare of our fellow citizens-- Catholic or otherwise-- that's on the line.