4. Are the clergy prohibited from running for political positions?
Some pronouncements of the Popes also refer to this prohibition. The following text comes from Pope John Paul II in his address to the clergy and religious of Mexico in January 1979: “You are priests and members of religious orders. You are not social directors, political leaders, or functionaries of a temporal power.”
Many of the clergy during those times ran for elections or were appointed to political office in several areas of Latin America, for example, Ernesto and Fernando Cardenal, and in other places. This command not to run for elections or not to join the executive branches of governments is the proximate context of these texts. To use this (and other parallel texts) in order to preach against clergy and religious “endorsing” political candidates today is to quote them out of context.
The Canon Law 285, §3 is already clear on this: “Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.” Canon Law sees that running for public office is “unbecoming” of and “foreign” to the clerical state. It needs to be said that the Constitution does not prohibit a priest from running for public office. This is a canonical prohibition; not a violation of civil law. And if the priest wants to run for public office, it is clear that he needs to relinquish his clerical state.
This is the sense of the CBCP Statement when it writes: “We have no ambition of appropriating for ourselves your distinct role as laity in the just ordering of society, nor do we intend to usurp the role of the government. We are here to provide moral and spiritual guidance, in accord with our mission of proclaiming the truth from our faith.” (CBCP, The Truth shall Set You Free, 2022).
5. Can the clergy “endorse” political candidates?
I have already answered this in a more detailed manner in another paper.[1] Some ideas here are taken from this article.
The crucial Canon Law provision which is 287 §1 writes: “Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people; §2: They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.”
First, our present question only envisions the act of “endorsement” by the clergy, not even joining a political party. Canon 287, §2 even permits the clergy to join actively in a political party, if the reasons provided by the Canon Law are met.
Second, granted that the priest is the “center of unity” of the community, that peace can only be real if it is “based on justice”. When justice and human dignity have been grossly violated, the peace and harmony which the priest is trying so much to preserve is a sham and a concealed violence against the victims.
Third, this provision admits of an exception: UNLESS, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.”
When it has seen that thousands have been killed, tortured or detained during the Martial Law or on the War on Drugs being perpetrated by State authorities; when plunder and corruption are so blatant and obvious at the expense of people’s lives both during the Martial Law and the pandemic, or when history has been revised through algorithmic “pandemic of lies” aimed to erase these atrocities in peoples’ minds as the CBCP strongly condemns, it is demanded that we stand up against these atrocious crimes as prophetic Christians of our times.
It is not the “rights of the Church which are threatened”, as one writer claims. The Church is standing up not to defend itself, but to defend the people of God whose lives are threatened. It is the Gospel values of human dignity, justice, truth and common good which are at stake and it is the “transcendent nature of the human person” which is violated — something which the Church needs to defend from politics, as the Vatican II calls us to do (GS 72). I do not know who among the members of the clergy and religious in their right mind can deny that these atrocities have happened or are happening.
Fourth, who is the “competent authority” who makes and/or confirms this judgement? The bishop of each individual diocese and/or the Superior of each religious congregation. That is why this decision to endorse should be a product of a common discernment process in the diocese or religious community, honestly confronting themselves with the concrete situation and the demands of the Gospel. We need to emphasize that we are in a very crucial and abnormal situation. Our bishops have been “appalled by the blatant and subtle distortion, manipulation, cover-up and abuse of the truth”, “human rights abuses, the victims, the corruption, the grave debt and economic downturn of the country due to the dictatorship” which are all well-documented. “This is very serious!” they tell us. The “competent authority” and the clergy should confront themselves with these and take them into account in their discernment process.
Fifth, the criteria from the Gospels and the Catholic Social Teaching should be clear as basis of the discernment process. The criteria need to be clear, some of which we have enumerated earlier. People should level-off in the reading of the situation and the discernment process should be “synodal”, open and honest enough.
After such discernment, some can opt to remain non-partisan and dedicate their lives to help their parishioners decide well on their political options based on the criteria of the Gospel. Or, they may decide to organize PPCRV in their parishes to ensure the honest counting of votes. This was the option of many religious during the 1986 Snap Elections. In fact, many clergy and religious placed their lives on the line by guarding the ballots.
However, some others may also decide to go all-out endorsing and campaigning. As we said, this is also contemplated by the Canon Law. There can be plural options on the ground depending on the result of the honest discernment process. And these options need to be respected.
What is not a Christian option is the stance of neutrality in front of shameless injustice, systemic lies, blatant abuse and violation of human dignity. Silence is complicity.
