On May 18, 2011, Ateneo de Manila University made a comment on it’s stand on the Reproductive Health Bill. James Reuter, a Jesuit priest of Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) commented on the stand of the institution’s teachers regarding the controversial argument about the Reproductive Health Bill. He stated that the school does not side with the faculty members’ stand and support for the Reproductive Health Bill.ADMU President Bienvenido F. Nebres issued a statement in March saying the university does not agree with the position of the faculty members. According to Reuter:
“Faculty members who support the Reproductive Health (RH) bill have no right to teach in Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU)”
“Reuter said the bill promotes abortion, thus it violates what ADMU stands for as a Catholic institution. He also reportedly said Catholic schools follow the rule of God and that freedom of speech is not absolute.”
“While we appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill," Nebres said the Jesuit university "stands with the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus... in matters of faith and morals”
Nebres added that it is the "responsibility" of the university "to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity." However, he also said, "We recognize the right of our faculty, as individuals, to express their views and appreciate their clear statement that these views are their own and not that of the University."
While ADMU’s persistent stand against the R.H. Bill is somewhat admirable, there is some common misleading information in the statement of Reuter. For one thing the common misconception that the bill promotes abortion is once again being brought up by those who are against the Reproductive Health Bill. Nowhere in the Reproductive Health Bill does it say that abortion is going to be legalized. In fact, most of the perspective that the R.H. Bill is “anti-life” is mostly a figment of people’s opinions. Honestly, I don’t think we can truly and definitely decide on whether the R.H. Bill is anti-life or not. In fact, we can’t really say if it’s moral or not because morality is just a collection of people’s beliefs and if those beliefs are divided then we can’t justify that a certain issue is moral or not.
If you are going be persistent in your stand in a certain issue then the least you can do is have your facts and details straight when you make your statement about your stand right? Because if you give out wrong information about your stand then what simply happens is you stand loses its validity and strength. Even though I disagree with the stand of Reuter, his persistent stand on the issue would have been admirable if he had made a better statement instead of the wrong information that he gave out during his interview.
No comments:
Post a Comment