I get the feeling that some bishops are beginning to sound like heads of a political party. Consider this recent news: “Bishop says Church has the numbers in Congress to defeat RH bill in a vote” (Inquirer, 8/16/12). That the bishops seem to control about 140 Philippine lawmakers is an unavoidable inference from this claim. Of course, it is a violation of the Constitution for religious leaders to influence and impose their will on elected politicians. But the bishops, who are not elected representatives, even had the audacity to publicly threaten to campaign against pro-RH lawmakers in 2013.
Where do the bishops get the sense of entitlement such that they feel they can meddle in temporal concerns of the state? In “Humanae Vitae,” we find the Church, like its Founder, “destined to be a ‘sign of contradiction’.” A line from this encyclical: “The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.” To a moral pacifist, the absolute prohibition of artificial birth control methods is preferred. The idea that it is morally justified for one, who is without any means of sustaining the child beyond Grade 1, to cause the birth of every single zygote is nonsense. I don’t see any good reason to take “Humanae Vitae” seriously on this point. Ruling out artificial birth control makes no sense.
Lawmaking should not be made into a tool of, by and for any one religious group. While it is true that a few lawmakers are subverting the constitutional provision of religious liberty by siding with the dictates of their church, lawmakers should be responsible to all groups and obligated to none. It’s one thing when lawmakers are guided and informed by their beliefs; it’s another when they impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the country, and worse if they do so at the expense of helpless and poor mothers and their children.
I’m not saying that lawmakers should disavow their religious beliefs, or refrain from voicing their conscientious objections. We do not elect public officials on the basis of their faith. But we do elect politicians on their vow to protect and defend the citizens, and to uphold the Constitution. If there is an apparent conflict between their conscience and the national interest, then they should resign.
Obviously the bishops have the luxury and commitment that lawmakers don’t. They can easily refuse to cooperate and insist at the same time that their teachings are correct. The nature of religious doctrines dictates they should defend them at all costs, even if it means going to war. The Church sees its enemy as “heretics” and considers all human laws subservient to God’s. To this end, the Catholic Church started a campaign much more insidious than those done by political parties.
—ALLAN ESPINOSA,
aespinosa@y7mail.com