The 400-year old University of Santo Tomas has been one of the steadfast supporters on the campaign against the highly talked about reproductive health bill. It had already been involved in several pro-life rallies and whose students and faculty are mainstays in public debates.
As you may have noticed, the university has branded upon itself as Pro-life, in other words against the RH bill. I find this very amusing as to where the university grounded its collective proclamation of being pro-life. Who decided that UST should be pro-life anyway? As far as I know, there were no consultations made with the students regarding the university’s stand on the issue. If I were to ask random students regarding one’s position on the matter, I bet I shall get the same varied responses as those people outside the four corners of the university. What then is the basis for the collective branding?
In line with this, an interesting observation would be that I do not see anyone, whether student or faculty member, from the UST actively talking publicly in debates favoring the RH bill. Are the Thomasians (students from UST) just unanimous in their belief regarding the issue or are they fearful for the consequences similar to the CBCP’s threatened excommunication on President Aquino? Or are their opinions manipulated by someone, say a professor who gives merit to those who would “troll” a Facebook fan page, say for example, the one of the Akbayan partylist, in an effort to express disgust with the proposed bill and other social issues? I am not talking about the issue regarding Theology professor Aguedo Florence Jalin. Okay, that was solid irony.
I am familiar with the term “academic freedom” and the responsibility of professors, more so the ones who teach Social Teachings of the Church, to share their opinions based on the lessons to their students but when “incentives” come in, this is clearly beyond the point.
Before I probe on further, I would like to make clear that this entry is not made to campaign for any side and I personally am not yet decided on the issue. I have read the entirety of the House Bill No. 5043and I seriously believe that both parties are aiming for similar goals, just differing in their approaches and ideologies. If both parties would be less defensive, listen and consider more, I have high hopes that the bill could arrive at a compromise, meeting both parties’ issues and concerns.
I would like to say I am highly satisfied with the kind of education UST has been giving me since I get to learn both sides of the issue with my Theology professors explaining the catholic perspective while my Social Sciences professors keep us grounded on the other viewpoint. However, I still feel that there is still the unwritten responsibility of siding with the pro-life as I am a student of a Catholic university.
One may say that the University, being the only pontifical and Catholic university of the Philippines is just fulfilling its designated role as an extension of the church. But the University is obviously separate from a church. While UST may be deeply rooted in the Catholic faith, it is still first and foremost a “university” with its mission to find truth and encourage free thinking. With the public proclamations of UST as pro-life, I have my doubts on the interest of the authorities for further discussion on the RH bill topic. What is the essence of a university if it would base its assumptions purely on faith and morality? - cornerstones that widely differ among people, culture, and religion.
I recently had a conversation with my close friend from a local student publication. She said that their publication is quite keen with the reports on the RH bill, and that they only feature those from the pro-life stand as they represent the voice of the entire student body and thus must reflect the university’s value system. Whatever happened to the fairness and no bias qualities of campus journalism? Where is the veritas (truth) in mental reservation and censorship on the other parts of the story?
In the constitution of the Philippines, there exists a passage on the separation of the church and the state where one cannot meddle with the affairs of the other. I’m thinking if it would be possible if we could have a separation of the university and the church as well. However, if that would happen, much of what characterizes UST will definitely be lost.
Photo from Varsitarian.net
when the coordinating center of collective consciousness conflicts with the zeitgeist of the people, the ruling attitude of consciousness is in decline. this is one of the perennial problems of hierarchy and something that UST seems to have worked through for the last 400 years, like it will this time when the RH bill has passed and everyone has access to competent family planning and appropriate medically supported sex education....
ReplyDeletei also find it so paradoxical that Christians talk about being pro-life. Christ was not about this world, but the next. Christianity is an ascetic religion that denies the body (which is life) and the material world (which is nature) for the next world which is beyond death. it can be historically explained why the church turned to sex and sexuality, it's just paradoxical, in my mind.
I agree. I fear that the time will come when the RH bill is passed and the church will still be unfazed in its conservative principles. More and more people would forget about their faith and just go along with the zeitgeist.
ReplyDeleteYes, Christianity is more concerned with the next world but it must be noted that their religion "mandates" them to follow the scriptures/teachings in order to enter heaven. So it can't be paradoxical.
perhaps the paradox is between what is written and how it has been interpreted?
ReplyDeleteas to the zeitgeist, i agree with the maxim: vocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit. that maybe is the greatest threat to the hierarchical apparati of organized religion.
probably,this is a problem of the one sided interpretation of those in authority inside the Church.
ReplyDeletevocatus atque non vocatus, deus aderit- that's also what makes the New age spiritualism a convenient alternative to organized religion.
i agree that life is aristocratic in nature and some organization is necessary, but alternatives only become relevant or convenient when the dominant symbolism of the divine fails to correspond to the collective. this is when renewal is necessary -- and as the saying goes, summoned or not, god is there -- a too one-sided interpretation will thankfully provide its opposite and a renewal or new beginning is possible.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know the biggest human cross we did earlier this year was the University's protest against the RH Bill. When I found out I said, thank goodness I didn't go or else that would have been hypocritical of me. They didn't even tell us that the event had a political purpose.
ReplyDelete