Impeaching Church arrogance
By what mandate does the retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz cheapen People Power by threatening the duly elected President with it?
There would be no Philippine democracy without the Catholic Church. There would have been no human walls in front of Camp Crame had Jaime Cardinal Sin not made his radio pleas. Ordinary citizens might not have turned back armored vehicles had nuns with rosaries not been their vanguard. No one questions why one of our greatest political monuments right in the middle of Edsa is a Catholic shrine. One thus laments how the likes of Cruz trivialize the Church’s hallowed place in history by making vague threats of “multi-church” People Power backed by “believers” in the military.
Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment is a call to reject our judiciary’s politicization. Should we not reject the Church’s politicization as well? Given our unique demographics, the Church’s implicit mandate parallels the Supreme Court’s. The latter commands great respect because it, ideally, is composed of learned men who impartially wield the wisdom of Solomon while institutionally perched above the political fray. Beyond deciding cases, its apolitical methodology empowers it to articulate our defining national principles with great moral force, to bind disparate generations with commonly cherished values. Yale Dean Eugene Rostow described how “the justices are inevitably teachers in a vital national seminar.” The parallels between Church and Supreme Court explain why it fell to the Church to galvanize the citizenry during martial law, in the same way the Supreme Court held the country together after the Estrada impeachment trial’s abrupt halt.
These parallels mean that the Church shares the Supreme Court’s weaknesses, particularly the rapid depletion of its moral capital, whenever it fritters this away on political issues. US Justice Felix Frankfurter penned the classic phrase, “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket,” because they are inevitably stung when they attempt to intervene in a dispute that only a majority decision’s legitimacy can definitively resolve. Where the Supreme Court must tread the limits of judicial review lightly, the Church must be mindful of the separation of church and state lest it emasculate its influence in social issues.
The Church has unfortunately squandered its credibility in recent political misadventures, most notably in how it expresses opposition to reproductive health legislation. Its perceived hubris increasingly alienates young, educated Catholics. To this day, the Church has failed to articulate its opposition in secular reason, stubbornly insisting simply that the RH bill defies God (then replacing “God” with “morality” and repeating the exact same arguments). Carlos Celdran’s “Damaso” meme strikes a chord, implying that the Church would like to regress to a time when the faithful are educated just enough to pray. Cruz’s People Power threat recalls how the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines floated President Aquino’s excommunication over the RH bill in 2010.
The Church’s credibility was likewise tarnished by how bishops initially reacted to the “Pajero bishops” scandal. When certain bishops were revealed to have received government-funded vehicles, some bishops brazenly asked President Aquino to apologize for the exposé. This cavalier disdain for the separation of church and state was shocking, even if that doctrine technically applies only to the government and the bishops had technically not violated the Constitution. People believed that the vehicles were used to help poor parishioners in good faith, but they took issue with the Church’s arrogance and imprudence.
Cruz’s People Power outburst and the Church’s other unsubtle forays into impeachment, the most political of political exercises, may well be the last straw. When the Supreme Court blocked the impeachment court from compelling a bank to reveal Corona’s dollar accounts, the CBCP publicly supported the high court’s order, never mind that the impeachment court was still determining whether the high court could exercise jurisdiction over it, having “sole power” over impeachment under the Constitution. Lipa Archbishop Ramon Arguelles called for a stop to the trial, while others dismissed it as politically motivated. Other acts were clearly imprudent, if not objectionable, such as how bishops expressed willingness to mediate between Mr. Aquino and Corona, and how newly installed Manila Archbishop Luis Tagle said Mass at the Supreme Court shortly after Corona’s impeachment was initiated. Even motherhood statements such as calls for the rule of law or a speedy impeachment may be imprudent given how abstract doctrines have been given loaded meanings. Some equated rule of law, for example, with unconditional obedience to the high court’s order that would have let former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo leave the country.
The Church will continue to be intertwined with our society’s fabric and have a beloved, noble role to play as our country evolves. It must recognize, however, that this role has changed since Cardinal Richelieu and Cesare Borgia. Although the Church was indispensable in the Edsa Revolution, its most important contribution 26 years later may be a prudent distance from the democratic institutions whose existence it made possible.
Should the likes of Cruz wish to continue challenging the President to political showdowns, perhaps they should first run for office and prove that people are willing to vote them to the pulpits they have claimed. Or perhaps it would be more entertaining if we could impeach bishops who talk too much.
Oscar Franklin Tan ([email protected]) is an international corporate lawyer who works in the Singapore office of one of the world’s largest law firms.
