WHILE writing this document, I am preparing my presentation for the 4th Mindanao Peace Studies Conference in Urios University, Butuan City.
Academics, priests and religious from all over the country attended the event. The discussions focus on poverty, politics, and peace.
In a country where peace is a major challenge, the conference is not only timely but also much needed. The conference theme aptly describes the peace situation in the country. In a nutshell: peace is compromised because of corrupt politics the best indicator of which is poverty.
My conference presentation focuses on the Church specifically its leadership. Basically, it is a major institution in the country’s political life. Having said so much about Duterte, his prejudices and lapses, I also thought it fair to balance the analysis.
The current responses of Catholic both hierarchy and lay are fragmented. Partly, Duterte is successful in dividing not only Philippine society but also the Church. Apparently, the Church has not mustered the needed support from its ranks against the war on drugs. On the one hand are members of the clergy and lay who believe in the dignity and value of human life. The emphasis is on the right to life and due process of law even for criminals. Those who align themselves to this position seek to advance the gains of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines: option for the poor.
But there are also those who seek to advance the ideological and political gains of the Church’s past achievements. There are also those who seek to maintain the status quo of a privileged Church. Those who think along this line believe that whatever Duterte does is not important. After all, the Church can continue with its pietistic rituals and devotions. In other words, it is business as usual.
It is important for the Church to be involved. It is also important for the Church to be sensitive to the realities that are affecting its people. However, it is also important for the Church to be careful not to be used by ideological and partisan groups. The Church is neither red nor yellow, and its agenda is neither that of the Left nor the Right.
What I’m trying to say is this: if there is any institution that should be most prudent and discerning amidst all political turmoil, it must be the Church. It should not be an issue therefore whether in the end the Church would win in its moral crusade because at the onset a Christian is called not to win but to be faithful to the Gospel.
The different stances and directions taken by the Church specifically by the bishops, clergy, religious and lay leaders reflect the failed promises of the Church. It is the net effect of a Church that is on the one hand struggling and trying to embrace the joys and hopes of its people. But at the same time still beholden to its interests and unable to fully and willingly carry on its prophetic role due to its bureaucratic nature.
In the greater scheme of things is actually a Church that has to find herself. In the process of doing so it must not dream of its political gains in 1986 (People Power), 2001 (EDSA II), and 2005 (Arroyo Resign). The way forward involves a genuine exercise of the Church’s prophetic role without resorting to power brokering. At best it is a Church concerned with its flock more than anything else.
Come Sunday will be the solemnity of Christ the King. A fitting reminder that in the end our loyalty is not to any human authority but him whose life was offered that we would live ours to the fullest.