MANILA, Philippines-FOR ME, THE SIMPLEST AMONG THE QUEStions is whether a member of the clergy, particularly one who runs a parish or a diocese, should run for public office. Constitutionally, the prevailing view is that there is no constitutional obstacle for a cleric running for office. As to the obstacle arising from Canon Law prescription, it is not insurmountable. What remains, therefore, is a question of prudence or propriety. My view on this is that combining public office and religious ministry can strain Church-State relations and community unity. I would therefore follow the principle that one must choose between being fully a church minister or a public official. Combining the two can be both religiously and politically unhealthy.

Another important question touches on the substance of preaching by the clergy and religious. By preaching I do not simply refer to sermons and homilies in church. I include any public or semi-public pronouncements.

Should the clergy and churches limit themselves to teaching general moral ideas, or may they advocate as conclusions specific political actions? Certainly no one will deny the clergy the right to preach about morality. That is their task and they would be remiss in their duties if they habitually avoid moral issues. Thus, no one should deny them the right to discuss publicly whether abortion is moral or immoral, or that the rich should or should not help the poor, or that employers should or should not pay workers a living wage, or that homosexual acts are or are not sinful, or that wars are or are not morally wrong. This is all part of ordinary religious preaching.

It is a different matter, however, when out of general moral teachings, specific public positions are advocatedósuch as impeachment, Charter change, or even the closure of videoke bars. Of course, there are specific conclusions that flow naturally from general positions. For instance, if a priest believes that consensual sexual acts of homosexuals done in the privacy of their bedrooms are not harmful to the public, the natural conclusion will be that they should not be criminalized. But specific practical conclusions do not always come out naturally. The fact that an act is clearly sinful does not lead to the easy conclusion that it should be penalized. If it were, our prisons would be more crowded than they already are.

Why is it that people sometimes do not want their religious leaders to tell them what specific actions they should take or what political conclusions they should make? I believe that it is all part and parcel of being a citizen of a democracy. ìI have my own mind. Donít insult me. Let me draw my own conclusion!î This is a perfectly legitimate attitude. To avoid alienating people who have such an attitude, a cleric must carefully and respectfully present his conclusions. If the practical conclusions are presented as the product of oneís own study and are presented for people to agree or disagree with, then no one should feel insulted or offended.

Another objection to specific pronouncements by clerics is that their competence and their access to needed facts for drawing conclusions are limited. Rarely is their expertise related to economics, law, sociology, or politics, etc. But specific conclusions about the morality of economic or political decisions can depend very much on the dynamics and nuances of these specialized fields. If the cleric has competence in these fields, then his conclusion can be more persuasive. But it is also good to remember that the people whose task it is to make important decisions that impact on the lives of people, e.g., lawmakers, do not always have the needed expertise on what they may be talking about. Some lawmakers easily talk through their hat. But this is no reason for a cleric to be reckless.

While a cleric, however, should not be reckless in his statements, neither should he be inordinately pusillanimous. There are political and economic decisions that have great moral significance. These should be faced, with prudence, yes, but not with cowardly avoidance of conflict. Risks are part of the apostolic mission.

Clerics do make mistakes, out of carelessness perhaps, or through excess of zeal or even for more foolish reasons. But in my own estimate, mistakes and all, a courageous stand of clerics and churches do more good than harm. The courage of the churches in the Philippines has made significant contributions to improving our economic and political life.

More Inquirer columns

Previous columns:
Churchmen and politics (Part I) ? 03/05/07
A time of testing ? 02/26/07
University rankings ? 02/18/07
The dismissal epidemic ? 02/12/07
An afternoon at Holy Angel University ? 02/05/07
Watching Saddam die ? 01/29/07
Davide?s ad interim appointment ? 01/22/07
Court packing ? 01/15/07