|
By Francisco S. Tatad
THE Church is the assembly of the people of God,
incorporated into Christ through baptism. Both visible and
spiritual, human and divine, it subsists in the Catholic Church as a
society structured with hierarchical organs, and composed of the
clergy, the laity, and the religious.
The Catholic Church is headed by the Roman
Pontiff as successor to Saint Peter, Bishop of the Church of Rome,
head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and Pastor of
the universal Church here on earth. He fulfills his office as
supreme Pastor of the Church always in full communion with the other
bishops. Together, they form the college of bishops.
By divine institution, bishops are successors to
the Apostles. They are constituted pastors in the Church, to be the
teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship, and the
ministers of governance. By their episcopal consecration, they
receive the offices of sanctifying, teaching, and ruling or
governing, which they are to exercise in hierarchical communication
with the Pope and the other bishops.
They are called diocesan bishops when put in
charge of a diocese; otherwise they are called titular bishops. They
are bound to teach and illustrate to the faithful the truths of
faith which are to be believed and applied to behavior. They are to
preach frequently and to ensure that the various canons on the
ministry of the word, especially on the homily and catechetical
instruction, are faithfully observed, so that the whole of Christian
teaching is transmitted to all.
Everything you have read thus far is taken from
the Code of Canon Law or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. None
of it is the writer’s own. It is imperative that we start with an
authoritative statement on what a bishop is, and what he is supposed
to do, before we examine certain concerns that have been expressed
about them in relation to the political questions of the day.
They cannot take sides
This is not an easy time for Filipino bishops.
The country is predominantly Catholic, but its main staple is
politics and graft and corruption its inexhaustible topic. Many
people, both Catholic and non-Catholic, expect the bishops to lead
their political fight. They will damn them if they don’t; but many
others will damn them if they do. The bishops cannot choose one side
against the other. They have to serve both, and they can do so only
by doing exactly what the Church asks them to do.
Much of the grievance stems from the refusal of
the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to join
the call for President Gloria Arroyo’s resignation in the face of
alleged bribery in the now scuttled $329.5-million National
Broadband Network (NBN)-ZTE contract. Exacerbated no doubt by the
restrictions imposed by some bishops on the use of the Holy Mass for
the so-called search for truth, featuring the star witness in the
Senate probe of the aborted NBN-ZTE deal.
My own objection to the Arroyo presidency long
antedates that of her former allies who now want her head. I have
written countless articles and at least two books since 2002 on the
subject, and lost a Senate seat in 2004 for calling her illegitimate
in all my campaign speeches. But I am not prepared to let the
bishops do what I must by right and duty do as a lay citizen.
It is for us lay citizens, not for the bishops,
to demand her resignation. The duty of the Bishops is to denounce
evil wherever it exists. But they are not required to identify the
evildoer, or prescribe his criminal or civil punishment. If the
evildoer kneels before a bishop in confession, the latter’s duty
is not to send him to jail but to ask him to do penance, to
restitute what he has stolen, and to sin no more.
What the Church teaches
The Church’s teaching is clear.
The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World (Gau-dium et Spes) says: “The Church, by reason of
her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the
political community nor bound to any political system, nor does she
claim competence in proposing solutions to concrete political and
economic problems.”
The Catechism restates this with an added quote
from Centisimus Annus: “The Church respects and encourages the
political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.” “It is
part of the Church’s mission,” the Catechism continues, again
quoting Gaudium et Spes, “to pass moral judgments even in matters
related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or
salvation of souls requires it.”
Gentle rebuke
On June 2, 2001, in a gentle and fraternal
rebuke to the bishops for their active role in the ouster of
then-President Joseph Estrada, then-Archbishop (now Cardinal)
Jean-Louis Tauran, as Secretary for Relations with States for the
Holy See and the Pope’s representative, restated the Church’s
teaching with utmost delicacy and clarity, emphasizing the need for
“prudence, discernment, and a firm anchorage in the role of the
Church vis-à-vis the political community.”
“This is a fundamental point to keep in
mind,” Tauran said, “if we have to avoid treading on
legitimately established institutions and exposing the Church to
accusations of political interference, compromising in the process
the prophetic charism of the Church to denounce evil, the
credibility of her preaching, and the force of her
pronouncements.”
He reminded the bishops always “to speak with
well-pondered words and to act with utmost caution to keep clear of
political manipulations,” and to remember that “the Church is
Gospel-bound to exercise charity for all and at all times.”
However, the political temptation is strong.
Well-meaning laymen and women are the first to drag the most
vulnerable clerics into political issues, the resolution of which
lies strictly within the laity’s exclusive competence. Very little
respect is shown to the fact that the Code of Canon Law expressly
bans clerics—and religious—from partisan politics, public
office, and business enterprise.
The most vulnerable clerics and religious end up
believing that politics has become their mission and charism, and
that they have specific concrete solutions to problems that are
within the laity’s exclusive province. They call on laymen and
women to obey them while they are in the act of disobeying Church
law or doctrine.
This appears to be the case of clerics and
religious reported to have defied the instruction of their bishops
not to use the Holy Mass for any political road show. Since high
churchmen did it during the anti-Marcos campaign in 1986, and the
anti-Estrada campaign in 2000 to 2001, activist clerics and
religious can only look at the bishops’ U-turn as proof that they
had been co-opted by Mrs. Arroyo.
In fact, the bishops have merely decided to
correct two historic mistakes and finally reaffirm correct Church
doctrine.
Honor the Mass
The Eucharistic Sacrifice, says Canon 897, is
“the summit and source of all worship and Christian life. By means
of it the unity of God’s people is signified and brought about,
and the building up of the body of Christ is perfected.” The
Eucharistic celebration is “an action of Christ himself and of the
Church” (Can. 899). The faithful, therefore, are to hold the
blessed Eucharist in the highest honor (Can. 898).
Redemptionis Sacramentum, instruction issued by
the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
Sacraments on April 23, 2004, declares:
“78. It is not permissible to link the
celebration of Mass to political or secular events, nor to
situations that are not fully consistent with the Magisterium of the
Catholic Church. Furthermore, it is altogether to be avoided that
the celebration of Mass should be carried out merely for show, or in
the manner of other ceremonies including profane ones, lest the
Eucharist should be emptied of its authentic meaning.”
“But what are the bishops afraid of? We only
want to celebrate a ‘Mass for Truth.’ Are they for or against
the truth?” So goes the argument.
This is sophistry at its worst. The Mass belongs
to Christ and the Church and may not be appropriated by anyone for
his own purposes.
To be continued
|
