LET me begin with my main thesis: we need more than just a Bishop David if we want our Church to be a leaven of Philippine society.
The election of Bishop Pablo Virgilio David as CBCP president has been welcomed by many. It is not just the “churched” (those Catholics who are closer to the hierarchy or those who are in touch with the Church) who have expressed jubilation over his election. Even those who have been somewhat critical of the bishops are hopeful that a new direction shall be taken by the Conference.
I shall not say anything on the personal qualities of David as I am not in the position, nor do I have the qualification to do so. I would remember however his Pastoral Letter in July of 2020 that pointedly described the Philippine situation as one that still has a “semblance of democracy” but where the Filipino is like that “proverbial frog swimming in a pot of slowly boiling water.” He was referring to the perceived authoritarian tendencies of the current administration.
When he wrote the letter, he did so in his capacity as an acting president of the CBCP. Gauging the magnitude of his message, I would say that it was “prophetic” of him to release those words despite the fact that he did so only as an “acting president.” For why should an acting president of the Bishops’ Conference speak of so much concern when the “real president” then (Romulo Valles) was safe, measured, and relatively passive in his approach towards the Duterte administration? Of course, we cannot conclude that just because Valles is the Archbishop of Davao – such is the reason for his attitude towards the current administration. But let things be as they are.
In a country where a lot of the clergy would prefer to be silent for fear of Tatay Digong’s expose’ -- David stands as a champion of genuine witnessing. A Church and its churchmen full of baggage cannot sometimes carry out its ministry of proclaiming the Gospel in the social sphere without being ridiculed and labeled hypocritical.
So the election of David is a “sign of contradiction” even as it has been welcomed like Jesus during his triumphant entry in Jerusalem.
Yes, it is a sign of contradiction, for while many hailed his assumption as CBCP president, but we are not sure the extent to which the “other” Philippine bishops would willingly take to reform the Church’s own internal ranks. And while David has been a vocal defender of human rights, some members of the clergy are themselves not sold out to the idea of human rights itself. We need not mention that some bishops are either silent or ambivalent on the many contestable issues under this administration. Either these bishops do not care about what’s going on or are simply afraid to be dragged into a political mess.
But more importantly, Bishop David who shall soon lead the Conference cannot just spend his whole term merely focusing on political issues. For all we know the Philippine Church has its own problems to solve even as it takes pride in the 500th year of its presence in the archipelago. It is a Church that also needs to clean its own backyard in the face of sex abuses and scandals. It is a Church that is not different from the government when it comes to the issue of financial transparency. And above all, it is a Church that is divided not just in matters of politics and economics but even in faith and morals.
What can the CBCP do in the face of a people who are confused, victimized, and exploited for various political gains from all forces of society: left, right, and center? What should the bishops say to the young Catholic population who no longer feel that they are connected to their Church? What should the bishops say about their own clergy – some of whom are even at odds with the hierarchy for reasons of perceived inequity and favoritism when it comes to parish assignments?
These are questions we cannot expect Bishop David to answer by himself. It is a question that must be answered collectively and honestly by our bishops.