Month: March 2022

By Daniel Franklin E. Pilario, CM

1. Should the Church get involved in politics?

We have heard this for the longest time: the Church should never get involved in politics because it is a violation of the “separation of the Church and State”. We need to settle this once and for all. There is no such prohibition in the Church. Such prohibition is a Constitutional injunction for the State, not for the Church. First, it states that the State shall not pass laws establishing any religion (Art. III, Sec. 5). Second, the State shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion (Art III, Sec. 5). These are called the “non-establishment clause” and the “free exercise” clause. In short, only the State can violate it, not the Church or any church personnel. When Duterte and his government criticize the Church for violating the separation of Church and State, they are “barking at the wrong tree”.

On the contrary, it is the role of all citizens—Churches and their members included—to call out the State authorities when they favor one religious group over another or prohibit some religions the free exercise of their beliefs.

In Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis writes: Politics is “one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good” (FT 180). “A good Catholic meddles in politics so that those who govern can govern well.” This is not new; he was just quoting Pope Paul VI in Evangelii Nuntiandi (1106) and earlier popes on the notion of political charity.

But because of the strong influence of the dualistic view of Christian spirituality with regard politics, I observe several kinds of Christians in our times: (a) apolitical Christians — those who think that their home is in “heaven” and what happens in this “world” is of little or no value at all; (b) neutral Christians — those who follow the minimum requirements of political duties like the elections but consider it a “private affair”; when it is a question of injustice, they are neutral; (c) non-neutral but non-partisan — those who call out society on human rights violations as against Christian principles but refuse to name names or promote partisan candidates; (d) non-neutral and partisan — those who engage in social and political issues and get involved in partisan politics.

Based on the majority of church documents, the third type (non-neutral but non-partisan) is the place for the religious and clergy. The fourth type (non-neutral and partisan) should be the responsibility of the laity.

2. Does the proper “religious mission” of the Church prohibit the clergy from engaging in politics?

Vatican II documents and Canon Law are used by many writers to prove that the clergy cannot engage in politics because the Church’s proper mission is “religious”.  Based on these quotations (and their parallels in other church documents), the conclusion is that bishops and priests cannot engage in partisan politics. Doing otherwise would be “crossing the line”, as one author suggests.

“Christ, to be sure, gave his Church no proper mission in the political, economic, or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious one.” (GS, 42)

Archbishop-Emeritus Antonio Ledesma, SJ

 “Non-partisan, but not neutral…” has been the stance of many church leaders during this electoral period.  Non-partisan because bishops and priests, as institutional leaders of the church, are pastors of a community that is open to all, sinners and saints, and should not be divided by political affiliations.  On the other hand, religious leaders cannot be neutral when the issues involve a moral dimension. 

During this election campaign period, many voices have been heard over social media and in political rallies.  Candidates focus on their strong points, promises are made, while questions about the moral conduct of past and present activities are glossed over.  It is in this light that the prophetic role of church leaders must be heard.  The candidacy of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for President, in particular, has raised a number of moral issues.  The reports and comments of several knowledgeable observers articulate these concerns.

I  PLUNDER AND CORRUPTION CHARGES

1)  “$683 Million (or ₱34 billion) worth of Marcos assets in various Swiss banks were declared as ill-gotten wealth, based on a July 2003 Supreme Court decision.”(newsinfo.inquirer.net)

2)  “Marcos Jr. is aware of major judicial rulings in three countries (the Philippines, the United States and Switzerland) over the years that prove the existence of ill-gotten wealth. But he has decided to look the other way.” (Prof. Ed Garcia, ConCon delegate, 1987)

3)  “In 1991, the BIR assessed the amount of ₱23.3 billion in estate taxes on the estate left by the dictator Marcos.  Bongbong is the administrator of the estate of his father.  Bongbong ignored the collection notices since then.  The total now due of the estate taxes and the interest and surcharges thereon is ₱203.8 billion….Bongbong was implicated in the Janet Napoles pork barrel scam.  He placed several million pesos in 2011 and 2012 in nine short projects in four Napoles bogus NGOs.” (Ret. Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.)

4)  “The World Bank and UN Office on Drugs and Crimes said Marcos, having the longest reign as a dictator, stole between $5 billion and $10 billion from the country’s coffers. The corruption was so outrageous that it earned the distinction of being “The Greatest Robbery of a Government” from the Guinness Book of World Records.” (Kurt dela Peña, in World Mission)

II  TAX EVASION AND MORAL TURPITUDE

5)  “I find that the Respondent’s repeated and persistent non-filing of income tax returns in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985, which resulted in his conviction, constitutes an offense involving moral turpitude;… the fact that these omissions were repeated, persistent and consistent is reflective already of a conscious design and intent to avoid a positive duty under the law and intent to evade the taxes due…. Significantly, at the time when Respondent chose not to comply with the duty to society, not only was he a high-ranking government official, he was also the son of the President of the Philippines.” (Comelec Commissioner Rowena Guanzon)

6)  “He has been found guilty by a Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals of tax evasion for the billions of pesos in unpaid taxes racked up by the Marcos estate.” (Prof. E. Garcia)