[/caption]The fact that Catholic believers are launching an all-out war against the passage of the RH Bill into law is no cause for alarm. By all indications, it does not mean that we are going back to the middle ages when there's no distinction between the state and the church. It isn't a return to history. Far from it.
We should rather see the role especially of the Catholic Church in a different light. When the Catholic Church is vehemently opposing the RH Bill, in my opinion, it assumes the role of the lobbyist. The Catholic Church thus becomes one among many players of our democratic system that tries to use state apparatus to protect its special interest. Shutting its members from the debate over the passage of the RH Bill because it is entirely a secular matter betrays the democratic ideals that we espouse.
This, I realized after reading Robert Samuelson's Lobbying is Democracy in Action.
"We are a collection of special interests, and one person's special interest is another's job or moral crusade," writes Samuelson. "If people can't organize to influence government—to muzzle or shape its powers—then democracy is dead."
In the Philippine political context, it so happened that the Catholic Church wields considerable power so that it can influence the government like no other other interest groups can.
But the Catholic hierarchy should be too careful to not get lost along the way. While it has the right to oppose the RH Bill, it may be well to remind its hierarchy and its members that the state does not exist for Catholics alone.
Manuel L. Quezon III had it right when he issued this caveat: "our Republic does not exist for Catholics alone, and this means that their faith and morals cannot be made the exclusive basis for state policy."
I think the idea of giving Catholics an "informed choice" is a misnomer considering the bias the Catholic Church yields in Philippine society.
ReplyDeleteCase in point: consider the diametrically opposing views of the Ateneo and its faculty on the issue of sex education. The faculty have a stronger case on education but somehow the Church can harp on morality as if it was a legal argument.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteYes, you can't expect the Catholic Church---having an interest to protect and advance, too---to be totally unbiased.
The point is that when it flexes its muscle---to borrow MLQ III's phrase---to shape the law, in this case the RH Bill, within the framework set by the Church, you certainly can't call it undemocratic.
It is no different from peasant organizations' attempt at making CARP favorable to the farmers.
Keep in touch.
^ Agree definitely.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that when it flexes its muscle—to borrow MLQ III’s phrase—to shape the law, in this case the RH Bill, within the framework set by the Church, you certainly can’t call it undemocratic.
I think you meant "democratic" in that statement? Our democracy allows for freedom of religion, but I wonder how we can allow for "religious legislation" under that right?
Peasants can lobby for CARP clearly and rightfully affecting their interests, but the Catholic Church lobbying where the affected parties are not just Catholics or Christians is something else.
[...] Arvin Ortiz wrote a good piece on lobbying in a democracy, specifically referring to the Catholic Church lobbying for its side in the heated [...]
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeleteNo, the word is undemocratic, anti-democractic, or whatever you call that which is contrary to democracy.
According to Samuelson, myth has it "that lobbying is antidemocratic because it frustrates "the will of the people."
But he adds "just the opposite is true: lobbying is an expression of democracy."
but the Catholic Church lobbying where the affected parties are not just Catholics or Christians is something else.
There's the rub. Although majority of Filipinos are Catholics, the Church can't just go out and say they have a claim to the hearts and minds and souls of those Filipino Catholics. And they need to protect them by opposing the passage of RH Bill.
In the end, as MLQ III put it, it's up to the followers whether they'll follow their Shepherd's lead.
The bottom line is that the Church has every right to lobby as much as it wants, and this right is protected by our laws and our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of "religious legislation" in this context is a total bogey. The Church's stand on HB 5043, for example, is not exclusively Catholic. By opposing the distribution of abortifacients (which the bill will implement), the Church takes a pro-life stand, which is consistent with the teachings of non-Catholic groups.
HB 5043 isn't wrong because the Catholic Church says it is. Rather, HB 5043 is wrong and that is why the Church opposes it. it is wrong to see it as a Church vs. Whatever issue. The Church is not alone although the bill's proponents would like to fool us into thinking it is.
By lobbying against the bill, the Church is not just protecting its own interests, it is protecting the lives and rights of Filipinos, both born and unborn. And they don't have to be Catholic Filipinos either.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteThough my parents are members of Couples for Christ and I am studying in a Catholic school, it does not mean that I am a Catholic apologist.
What just bothers me is that there are some who narrowly perceive the actuation of the Catholic hierarchy and its followers as unconstitutional, citing the Constitutional provision that says the separation of the Church and state is inviolable. They want Catholics, as represented by their Bishops, to shy away from the debate over the passage of HB 5043.
Well, the Church has EARNED the label of being an unconstitutional abberation. Everything they do in the political arena seems to fly in the face of our secular foundations.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason, I think, is that we have a bad experience with the Church, especially during the Spanish times.
ReplyDeleteWhoever told the clergy that their doctrines can be the basis for any country's morals? That smacks of outright arrogance and bigotry.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, it is your statement that smacks of outright arrogance and bigotry.
ReplyDeleteAny moral system could, in theory, be the basis of a "country's morals" (presumably encoded into its legal system). So why rule out that of the Church?
Take note that 80% Filipinos are Catholics so there is basis for general agreement over a wide range of moral issues. If we are to choose any existing moral system as the basis of our "country's morals" there is no better candidate.
But that is beside the point, really. Catholic morals do not just benefit Catholics alone. The Church takes a stand on certain issues because such a stand is right, not because it is "Catholic". The Church's moral stand in issues are for the benefit of all Filipinos.