Of far greater importance to the Church is the crying need to keep and in fact strengthen its place as the single, most abiding and deeply persuasive moral authority in this predominantly Roman Catholic, though fractious, country.
At no time is this crying need more palpable than now when the Church itself is being shaken from within by sex scandals and other abuses that are just beginning to emerge and which, while still unable to seriously erode people's faith, have in fact made them more questioning.
That the Church in the Philippines appears to be more politicized than those in other countries in the region may perhaps be answered by the fact that the Philippines is in fact also the bastion of democracy in these parts.
Perhaps it is fated that, in a nation whose citizens get to enjoy and exercise far greater freedoms under a stronger democratic system, the Church in that nation also gets to be drawn into a far more prominent and aggressive role as moral and political arbiter.
That having been said, it is perhaps the reason why prominent Church figures, like the late Cardinal Jaime Sin, got to be accorded the kind of prominence that ordinary men on the cloth do not normally get to enjoy.
Indeed, if the truth be told, Cardinal Sin was more powerful as a political arbiter than he was as a Church official. As a Church official, Sin was merely the archbishop of Manila. But as a political arbiter, he was a man who helped topple two presidents.
The departure of Cardinal Sin left the Church with no single leader charismatic and enigmatic enough to succeed him as political arbiter. That role the Church itself as an institution will have to fill, and so it recently did.
No sooner had Cardinal Sin departed than the country was plunged into a political crisis that clearly needed his influence to resolve. With him gone, the Church, through the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, stepped in.
The CBCP, in a stand that was greatly anticipated as the country teetered on the brink of another uprising, called for sobriety in the people and discernment in the national leadership. It did not join calls for the resignation of Arroyo, which would have plunged us into chaos.
But while the CBCP stand was very clear, certain individual members of the Church continued to issue personal opinions, most of which directly contradicted the official CBCP stand and thus seriously undermined its authority as moral and political arbiter.
This the Church should not countenance. The CBCP should rein in these recalcitrant and intransigent priests and bishops.
The Church cannot be effective in its role as moral and political arbiter if it cannot put up a united front itself.
Divisiveness, even in opinion, can be very damaging to the Church, given its role as an arbiter. While differences in opinion cannot be avoided, these should be settled internally and once the Church comes out with a stand, not a single contradictory word should be heard.
For the consequences of having discordant voices can be far ranging, especially for those who act as arbiters on the conduct of life by society. We shudder to think of a church whose leaders and members cannot agree on what is right and what is wrong.
It is both ridiculous and dangerous if one priest screams for Arroyo to resign while another screams for support for the president. Such divisiveness, if tolerated, will pretty soon encourage other priests to take jueteng bribes even if yet others say it is bad.
If the Church demands obedience from its flock, it must be able to impose the same demand for obedience from its shepherds. It defeats the purpose of shepherding if one shepherd takes his flock to the left while another takes his to the right.