Philippine politician invokes “Spirit of Vatican II” to promote culture of death

Speaking as author and co-sponsor of the Senate version of the RH bill, Senator Santiago said the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), which convened from 1962 to 1965, has changed Church doctrines.

“With Vatican II, the seeds of a democratic revolution were sown. In the past, Catholics simply obeyed the bishops. But now, many Catholics are no longer willing to give blind obedience to the Church,” she said.

The senator said Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on which the Church bases its opposition to contraception, was based on the minority report. The majority report recognized that “in some cases, intercourse can be required as a manifestation of self-giving love” and not just for procreation.

She said the adoption of the minority report was opposed by some Catholic theologians. Santiago also cited a survey that found that 80 percent of Catholics in the United States do not follow Humanae Vitae.

“The teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception is one of the important reasons why the absolute authority of the Church has grown weaker over the years,” Santiago added.

Santiago, who has a master’s degree from the Maryhill School of Theology, said Humanae Vitae contradicts Vatican II, “which allowed for a wider basis for evaluating the morality of (sex).”

Santiago said contraception falls under liberation theology, which sees the Catholic Church as “an earthly community of human beings who have a mission that includes the struggle on behalf of justice, peace, and human rights.”

“I humbly submit that the struggle for an RH bill to protect the health and quality of life of the mother and child in the context of unspeakable poverty is part of liberation theology,” she said.

Santiago added that Vatican II taught the “primacy of conscience.”

“Conscience is inviolable, and the individual Catholic has a right to follow her own conscience, even when it is erroneous,” she said.

Editor’s note: There is so much wrong with this woman’s “take” on this that it’s hard to know where to begin!

The truth:

Vatican II did NOT change ANY church doctrines. Any “seed” of democratic revolution in the Catholic Church exists only in Ms. Santiago’s Marxist/Leninist mind. Humanae Vitae is absolutely consistent with 2000 years worth of church teachings, so it cannot be characterized as a “minority report”. Liberation theology has been thoroughly discredited by the Catholic Church and is totally illegitimate and heretical. Code words for abortion: “to protect the health and quality of life of the mother”.

As for conscience … Ms. Santiago should have said that the individual Catholic has a right to follow her own conscience, even when it is erroneous, all the way to Hell!

The Philippine RH bill is just another “big lie” being foisted on ordinary people by of the culture of death.

So much for the value of Ms. Santiago’s Master’s degree in theology!


  1. This article shows what is deeply wrong in some Catholic thinking. The Lady senator is as absolutely incorrect. But her arguments are sadly based on misinterpretation and a false revelation that remains absolutely terrifying.
    Firstly, Vatican 2 as Editor notes did not change any church doctrine but on the contrary reaffirms Doctrine in a new setting. That is not the same thing at all. Nor is the Church democratic or likely to become so. The idea of democracy is encouraged in political regimes by Churchmen because as Churchill noted “Democracy is the worse form of government only slightly better than others that are tried from time to time”. The Church leadership is the Divine master, both Lord and God; Jesus Christ and the Trinity. It is a theotocracy and can hardly accept the notion of a human majority rule. It is a spiritual kingdom and not of this world although it is in it.
    Secondly, whilst Humanae Vitae is always controversial so is just about any Papal encyclical. Paul VI in its issue was reminding a world that in the 1960s delighted in notions of free love and free sex that humans must show respect and sexual freedom can turn into sexual slavery. The encyclical does not contradict Vatican 2 but does oppose people in society that believe sexual freedom is simply a liberating expression of the self.
    Thirdly, as Editors excellent rebuke notes; the senator in her like of Liberation theology reveals her lack of understanding. The Catholic Church generally regards this movement as divorced from grace and of at least highly suspect motivation founded in Marxism and the like. To imagine as the senator seems too that the Church is simply an earthly movement of folk wanting social justice etc is just lamentable! Apart from being idiotic and absolute heresy it lacks any catholic thinking on the true supernatural point of the church! To view the church as an earthly organisation or movement seeking peace and justice is bewildering! It is by its lack of theology and wilful ignorance quite a sinful statement by a practicing Catholic?
    Fourthly, The comment on conscience is quite correct or at least in part. BUT the author seems to have failed to appreciate that the Church requires the persons conscience MUST BE INFORMED. This means that simply following ones own conscience is a roadway to disaster and hell. Psychotic malevolence or simple stupidity and a lack of care and understanding are erroneous and will result in sinful acts. We do not have the right to commit these and so her argument is proven a fraud.
    Fifthly, Human life at conception is about the reflection of Jesus into the world. It is a single grace and when it happens must be respected. No individual or state thereafter has the right to destroy that life for any reason whatsoever. There are many reasons that children may suffer and their parents may not always respect the new life. Economic troubles and even cosmetic concerns may influence the family and mother or fatherhood. But a life is a life and the life is Jesus and it is a gross and most grave sin to destroy that life for any concern. Abortion is the western worlds most sad crime and the killing of innocents akin to Bethlehem’s slaughter is a horrible and most cruel deed. Any soul that is stained thus may yet turn to Christ for his mercy but the price all to often dulls the senses and inspires tepid regret if any.
    Lastly, whatever the lady author thinks or does not think must be scrutinised because the article she has written is best described as “absolute drivel!” Rarely do we get to see such a misreading of the faith presented as if by an intellect. I am at a loss to know what to write and must agree with editors comment that there is so much wrong with this woman’s take on life that it is hard to know where to begin. Perhaps it just goes to prove that the faith of Catholics is always under attack and often this abuse comes from supposed members within the church. On this occasion the tree has shown its fruit to be poisonous and must be rejected accordingly.

  2. Vatican II said this in it’s Constitution Dei Verbum:
    “Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”

    Vatican II showed that traditions should be kept with loyalty.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s