The role of Church in politics

The role of Church in politics

I read with interest the articles “Religion and politics according to Pope Benedict XVI” of Randy David (PDI 03/28/09) and “Panlilio bid new Church intervention” of Amando Doronilla (03/30/09). On the one hand, David said the interrelation between the Church and State “has caused confusion.” On the other hand, Doronilla stated “he bishops are in a quandary as well. They are acutely aware of the interventions of the Church hierarchy to curb the abuses of the regime of Ferdinand Marcos and the high-profile activist role of the late Jaime Cardinal Sin in the dictator’s overthrow in the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.” I wish to add my own opinion on the same issues.

In the 1987 Constitution, there are two points to be understood as regards the separation between the Church and State. One is that there is no official religion of the State and two the State may not favor one religion over others. This is in accord with Pope Benedict’s words: “The state may not impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony between the followers of different religions.” There is no constitutional provision that prohibits the clergy and the religious from partisan politics. Only the Church’s own teachings and laws bar them from participating. It would be seriously wrong then to say that Gov. Panlilio violates that provision of constitution on the separation of the Church and State.

As a Catholic, I strongly believe that the Church is never partisan but that doesn’t change the fact that it has the moral duty to renew the political society in accordance with the Gospel values. The Church is duty-bound to proclaim the Gospel “to all creation” and that includes the political order. The Church, as the pope said, cannot replace the State but, in my opinion, it has to transform it in the light of the light of the Gospel. The State is peppered with many social sins and most of them are probably committed by Catholic politicians. For the clergy to be silent, or ignore, and downplay about the social sins of the Catholic politicians would be equivalent to allowing themselves to become cooperators of the commission of such sins. Doronilla mentioned of the interventions of the Church during the Marcos regime. The Church cannot simultaneously commit to renewing the political order in harmony with the Gospel values, while tolerating the Catholic politicians to attack the Church by their dishonesty and other unchristian ways. The bishops and the clergy are the voices of the Church and as such we expect them to continue to be our voices amidst the many injustices in our society.

The Church has bred her own destroyers. They are not only destroying the nation within but also the Church. Just because there are few bad Catholic politicians it doesn’t mean of course that we have to pain the Church with broad and negative brush.

About the alleged plan of Gov. Panlilio to run for the presidency, I share this excerpt from the Catechism on the Church and Politics by the CBCP: “Question: Is there any case when the Bishops can authoritatively order the lay faithful to vote for one particular and concrete option? Answer: Yes, there is and the case would certainly be extraordinary. This happens when a political action is clearly the only one demanded by the Gospel. An example is when a presidential candidate is clearly bent to destroy the Church and its mission of salvation and has all the resources to win, while hiding his malevolent intentions behind political promises. In this case the Church may authoritatively demand the faithful, even under the pain of sin, to vote against this particular candidate. But such situations are understandably very rare.”