A layman’s perspective of the Church and the mess she is in.

Written on Saturday, June 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm | by J

A while ago I listened to a progressive-minded and brilliant young member of the Catholic clergy, Rev. Msgr. Gerardo O. Santos of the Archdiocese of Manila, talk about the role of the Church in Philippine governance at a forum organized by the Center for Philippine Futuristics at the Asian Institute of Management in Makati City.

Msgr. Santos talked at length about the political history of the Catholic church and how its involvement in Philippine politics is an inherent part of its evangelical mission. In the spirit of John XXIII’s aggiornamento- or the principle of constant renewal- the monsignor explained that the Church is committed to critical solidarity with people involved with politics and to the molding of an engaged citizenry towards a so-called “morally rebuilt nation.”

As an institution, Msgr. Santos insisted that the Church should be “political but not partisan, principled but not ideological, clear but civil, engaged but not used.” He boasts that since independence, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has so far produced about two hundred pastoral letters, majority of which are political and social commentaries.

But despite of all these involvement, the monsignor asked in his talk, how come we see no change in the socio-political and economic conditions of our country?

This is the question I would like to answer in this post. And my answer would be based on my observations, and criticisms, of the political participation of the Catholic Church as an average young man.

First of all, anyone who thinks that the involvement of the Church in politics would solve many of our social problems is delusional. At best, the Church’s participation could only aid the real solution to our problems, which is an overhaul of our social culture and political structures. But these are different stories altogether.

The reason why the Catholic Church’s participation in politics never really had any profound social effect that could lead us to the kind of change Msgr. Santos talked about is because the Church as an institution is fast losing its relevance.

This stems from two reasons. First is because people of today are way smarter than people of the Middle Ages. They don’t fear hell anymore. Where once God and religion came as a package, now the trend is for people to believe in God but ignore organized religion at the same time. This means that majority of the people no longer follow the bishops’ pronouncements by the letter. Second reason is because the Church is not responding to these present realities. It is still stuck with its silly traditions that are both out of place and out of time.

I personally don’t understand, for instance, why the Church begs for second collections during masses when the Vatican is overflowing with money. I don’t understand too why, as pointed out by an academic in today’s forum, the Vatican still excommunicates people for, you know, using their brains. Forty years after the Second Vatican Council promised change, it seems to me that the Church is still stuck in the premises made by the First Vatican Council centuries ago.

These make the Church’s voice feeble among young, thinking and rational people of my generation.

And this enfeeblement, unfortunately for the Church, is further exacerbated by the actions of our local bishops.

Msgr. Santos’ insistence that the Church should be political but not partisan is a brilliant point. I agree with it totally. But the problem is, the actions of the local clergy these recent years, especially after EDSA I, border on partisanship.

Based on Msgr. Santos’ presentation, I’m under the impression that Cardinal Sin’s and his successor’s leaderships have been the most political Catholic leaderships in this country’s history since maybe the infamous Bernardo Nozaleda’s. Since 1986, the Church has taken stands on a lot of issues, ranging from Charter change to the Visiting Forces Agreement. I think this is particularly bad because it made the Church lose the mysticism that made the flock in awe of it.

People usually seek arbitration from the Church on political matters based on the assumption that the Church is above the political circus. This impression stems only if the Church keeps its mouth shut on petty issues and reserve its voice on matters of great importance. If the Church speaks rarely (while doing concrete civic actions of course), its voice is taken with high regard by its flock.

But by speaking on every political issue, especially on those that are divisive in nature, the Church is in effect joining the political circus, instead of positioning itself above it. Hence, a great number of people no longer see it as a qualified arbiter.

Further, the inconsistencies and double-standards on the Church’s political stands in recent years send mixed messages and make ordinary people see malice in the Church’s actions.

The Church, for instance, has never fully explained why it was vigorous in opposing Estrada as a candidate in 1998 and in helping to oust him in 2001 yet very timid in responding to the evils of the Arroyo regime.

For me, the Church’s participation in EDSA II and its response to EDSA III were the greatest mistakes the Church have done in recent years.

I do not wish to talk about the merits and demerits of Joseph Estrada’s presidency. Whether the poor made the wrong decision in voting for the man is another issue. But the fact is, he was backed by the overwhelming majority of the people. By moving for the ouster of Estrada, the legality of which remains questionable, the Church effectively alienated itself from the poor which it claims to be concerned about.

Further, the Church’s elitist attitude towards the people who spontaneously formed crowds at EDSA and desperately attacked Malacanang on May 1, 2001 cemented the barrier EDSA II created between the poor and the Church. Even Msgr. Santos agrees with this.

This barrier is stronger now because the Church refuses to take a stand against the Arroyo regime even though there is a consensus among a great number of people that this government is evil. What’s more, several Catholic leaders are said to be either for sale or for rent. This is a rumor that I could not confirm, but the fact that this hearsay exists tells a lot about the amount of respect the people has for the Church.

Needless to say, before the Church could hope to effect lasting positive social change in this country through its involvement in politics, she must first fix the big mess she is in.

The good news, of course, is that the Church has people like Msgr. Santos who are willing to listen to the flock’s valid observations. I just hope people like him could do more than listen.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: J is a 19 year old varsity debater and a sophomore taking up International Relations at the Lyceum in Manila. He loves to write about geopolitics. His personal blog is The Nutbox.

Filed Under Politics, Society

Related Entries:

Comments

Leave a Reply