THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, which triggered People Power that toppled corrupt dictatorships, confronts today a historic window of opportunity: a surge of people?s organizations bent on dismantling ?unequal power relations.? It could work fully with them to curb festering poverty, writes theologian Fr. Aloysius Cartagenas. Or it could ?grow secure in its alliance with an elite few and in privileges offered by dominant power structures.? The cost would be prohibitive. The Church would ?lose its credibility as sign and sacrament of God?s special predilection for the poor.?

?Aspiration to equality and participation is a concrete exercise of human freedom and a path to development,? the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines stressed in 1991. ?Translating that moral agenda into effective nationwide pastoral strategy is another story,? adds this San Carlos Major Seminary professor.

His analysis is sketched out in a paper titled, ?Limitations and Prospects of the Roman Catholic Church for the Democratization of the Filipino Polity.? Excerpts from this study:

The landless and powerless have ?the single most urgent claim on the nation?s conscience,? the bishops asserted. They backed the agrarian reform law. Four administrations have come and gone since. But ?no prophetic critique from the hierarchy? expressed solidarity with the peasants, as exemptions to favor the landed and lack of political will gutted reform.

Nor did Church leaders re-examine ?historical ties with the urban and rural landed class. [There] is no collective willingness to renounce privileges this arrangement offers... [Thus] a church for the poor has not yet become a church of the poor.?

The Church harnesses institutional and human resources for clean polls. And Church leaders blast corrupt officials for beggaring the nation.

Historically, the Church?s moral interventions swirl around the axis of these valid concerns. This is fixation over process. It glosses over the need to unmask ?viciousness of a political structure that promotes a predatory oligarchy, a patrimonial state, and weakly institutionalized political parties.?

Nor does it address how elites manipulate state apparatus to promote their class interests. ?It is a serious failure not to advocate for birth of genuine political parties of the poor or parties based on policies that represent them.?

The Philippine hierarchy is not as homogeneous as it is touted to be. Church ?witnessing? can waffle and sow confusion.

Two issues reflect this fact. One was the clash over whether former President Joseph Estrada should be granted presidential pardon from conviction for plunder. The second dealt with ?sealed envelopes? stuffed with cash ladled by the Arroyo regime ?without strings? during the second impeachment.

Many spurned them, but they didn?t ?rock the boat? and chose to be mum. Other bishops ?returned to their poor dioceses? where they used the money for the poor. Nonetheless, ?the absence of institutional stance, condemning such implicit bribery by the highest public office of the nation was appalling.?

Many Church leaders prefer the ossified framework of ?Church-State? relations. Here, the Church morphs into a power-broker, instead of an institution with moral ascendancy. ?In the Philippine experience, the poor easily becomes excluded.?

Several cultural factors reinforce the atrophy. One is ?dominance of and dependence on patrons.? Filipinos don?t see welfare policies as obligations of the state. Another is ? hegemony of family and kin.? Filipino families are prone to exact ?compliance and loyalty over and above common welfare.? And ?a culture of impunity? distorts democratization.

?A historic surge of people?s organizations that seek to transform unequal power relations? is ongoing today. Distinct from the state apparatus, these groups? basic thrust is ?to contest state power, individually or in concert.? They offer alternative visions and concrete experiences. The ?vibrant public discourse? brings to the public agenda a host of concerns, particularly those of the marginalized.

The Church?s social tradition consistently valued the role of citizens and their organizations. These economic, social, cultural or political groups often ?facilitate the attainment of the common good.?

In 1991, the Second Plenary Council decided to form basic Christian communities, whose social commitment would ?leaven the Church.? As each diocese reshaped the program, BECs moved drastically from its ?prophetic framework.? Many today limit themselves to spiritual concerns. Others act as ?the longa manus (long arm) of the hierarchy?s agenda.?

The Church?s chosen social location is crucial in the effectiveness of its pastoral mission. The Church ought not to miss the historic opportunity and seek, instead, a new social location in civil society.

?A Church interacting with civil society can resist the simplistic discourse of corruption or the reliability of electoral contests as main axis of its moral interventions in the political sphere.? It should shift to a ?Church-in-Civil Society paradigm.?

The Church could get bogged down in the old quagmire. ?[Then] its prospects as a credible and effective social force for the common good will run out,? Cartagenas cautions. ?A Church that hesitates to be prophetic against power structures that prevail cannot be God?s sacrament for the ?fullness of life? that Jesus came to inaugurate.?

(E-mail: juanlmercado@gmail.com)