Absolute clarity, unfortunately, is not the hallmark of most clerical writing. Just check out the first encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, part of which we discussed here, and get ready for spirited but good-faith argument about what he really meant.
As for the pastoral letter, I don’t think the bishops intended to compliment the administration when they spoke of the likelihood of an "unproductive" impeachment process. But why are administration spokesmen praising the bishops for agreeing with them about the futility of impeachment? Press Secretary Toting Bunye "concurred" with the bishops that impeachment is not the way toward change and resolution.
On the other hand, I don’t think too that the bishops meant to denigrate the impeachment efforts of the political opposition, certain non-government groups and private individuals. They have filed and are continuing to file impeachment complaints. Although they already know that their cause has about a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding, they are determined to persist. But why are they sounding these days like they’ve been totally abandoned by the clergy?
Neither reaction is entirely appropriate, when the pastoral letter is read carefully, but neither is entirely unjustified too. It all depends, I guess, on how one spins it, in order to reflect one’s expectations.
The GMA administration was primed for a real shellacking, and was really concerned that the CBCP would put its prestige and power behind a revitalized impeachment process. That might have changed the momentum of the process.
When the bishops didn’t do that, the Palace was ecstatic. The CBCP stressed that it "respected the position of individuals or groups that wish to continue using the impeachment process to arrive at truth." But since the bishops admitted they were not optimistic the impeachment process would be "productive," they seemed to be throwing cold water on the efforts of those individuals and groups.
However, they were not forthright at all about the next steps that should be taken in light of the supposed futility of impeachment. That, it seems, is left to further reflection by the faithful who should not have expected the pastoral letter to be a road map to further action.
Still, House minority Floor Leader Chiz Escudero was reportedly moved to ask, "If they favor the search for the truth but not through impeachment, then through what means?" He’s not the only one asking that question.
So, let’s be candid here: Were the bishops advocating "People Power," since the House of Representatives is so allegedly captive to entrenched vested interests? Well, not quite. In fact, many read the pastoral letter as slamming the door on that option.
To begin with, the pastoral letter reiterates John Paul II’s exhortation that: "The road to total liberation is not the way of violence, class struggle or hate; it is the way of love, brotherhood and peaceful solidarity." It also repeats the Church’s Social Doctrine to the effect that, "No social transformation is genuine and lasting where people themselves do not actively participate in the process. We understand ‘people power’ to include greater involvement in decision-making, greater equality in both political and economic matters, more democracy, more participation."
Then, in the section on "Charter Change," the bishops say:"…Elections in 2007 must not be cancelled. The Church recognizes that in democracy power emanates from the people…This people transfers the exercise of sovereignty to those whom it freely elects but it preserves the prerogative [of] evaluating those charged with governing, and in replacing them when they do not fulfill their functions satisfactorily.’"
The reactions of pretty knowledgeable people to this conundrum posited by the CBCP are all over the place. Senators Ramon Magsaysay Jr. and Aquilino Pimentel confess to being somewhat stymied about what to think. Jun Magsaysay insists that impeachment is still "the best, most peaceful way of seeking the truth." Nene Pimentel, while also doubting that impeachment will succeed, says he finds it strange that the CBCP is "not convinced the complainants seek the public good."
Former Senate President Jovito Salonga is quoted in media as saying that the CBCP position will leave people with no choice but to stage another People Power revolution. But he clarified this later to note that impeachment is the only legal method for the President to ventilate her side. Closing off this avenue, which, he argued, appears to be the CBCP stance, will leave the people no other option but people power.
Former Commission on Elections chair Chris Monsod, on the other hand, still advocates elections in 2007 to decide the fate of GMA. We can’t afford, he asserts, to have impeachment proceedings every 12 months without attention being diverted from addressing urgent social concerns and electoral reforms. That, it seems to me, is the consensus even among administration diehards in the House.
Considering that the opposition doesn’t have the almighty "numbers," the majority has dared the minority to contest the 2007 elections and try to get at least 79 of them elected to the House. Then, as Majority Leader Boy Nograles quips, "What are we talking about?" He means, of course, that with the numbers, impeachment will most assuredly not be futile or "unproductive."
What he also implies is that, in such a case, even if there are no more perceived "obstacles" to the "truth," it is far from certain what that truth will turn out to be. Will this nation be prepared to accept the truth, or is each side bound inextricably to only one version thereof. If not, many wonder whether any outcome will ever achieve "closure."
Those who expected the CBCP pastoral letter to give black-and-white answers, like a Linus blanket catechism, to difficult questions which are only partly doctrinal and moral in character will forever be disappointed. To those who consider it a call to deeper and more comprehending reflection about the proper role of a Christian in the midst of political crisis, it won’t be.
The CBCP pastoral letter presented no easy answers to serve as unerring guideposts. But I’m not disappointed. In fact, I am challenged by its call.