Wall of separation

Let’s not taint the election of officers of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) with some political color. It is really not so significant that the next CBCP set of officers specifically its next head is supposedly “close” to Malacanang.  Bishops are Pastors of the Church mainly concerned with the moral and spiritual welfare of her flock, of all those who embrace the Catholic Faith. As Pastors they really have to be in constant touch with them. And the incumbent Malacanang occupant, her family and most of her staff are unquestionably part of that flock.

The Pastors of the Church are concerned with the morality of every man’s act or “its condition of being good or bad which depends on whether or not it leads to man’s end — God — and therefore to his happiness”. In addressing this concern their primary task is to guide all members of the flock, rich or poor, the high and the lowly, the powerless and the powerful especially those in the government. It is under this light that some Bishops’ “closeness” to the Malacanang occupant should be viewed. There is nothing political about it.

The belief that the close reciprocal relationship between some Pastors of the Church and the Head of State may lead to a possible violation of the principle of separation of Church and State is rather misplaced. Obviously it arises from a misunderstanding of said principle. No wall separating man from God can be built based merely on the fact that man happens to be the head of an earthly institution like the State concerned with purely temporal affairs. The encyclical of Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magestra, 4, is very instructive on this point:

“The main task of the Church is the salvation of souls. Man, however, can reach salvation only if he strives to establish in his society the order of justice and charity that is desired by God. During His earthly life, Christ — while stressing that his mission was the eternal salvation of man — showed concern for solving material needs”  (Faith Seeking Understanding, II, 237 edited by Fr. Charles Belmonte)

Indeed God is calling man “to serve Him in and from the ordinary, material and secular activities of human life….everyday, in the laboratory, in the operating theater, in the army barracks, in the university chair, in the factory, in the workshop, in the fields, in the home and in the immense panorama of work” (St Josemaria Escriva, Conversations, 114); and more importantly perhaps, if I may add, in the corridors of power where the affairs of the State are discussed and carried out.

Of course the Church recognizes the legitimate autonomy of temporal institutions but “if by the term ‘autonomy of earthly affairs’ is meant that material being does not depend on God and that man can use it as if it had no relation to its Creator, then the falsity of such a claim will be obvious to anyone who believes in God” (Gaudium et Spes, 36). This is because the intrinsic values of created nature stem from the Creator so any attempt to make them independent from the Creator will render them void (Ferrer, The Social Doctrine of the Church, Faith Seeking Understanding II, 239).

Hence when the CBCP expresses its objection to the RH bill because it transcends norms of morality by promoting artificial drugs and devices that lead to abortion or cause more harm and illnesses to mother and children; by violating the sanctity of family life or intruding into the primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of their children; and by undermining the rights of couples to found a family according to their religious belief, it is not really breaking the principle of Church-State separation.

The wall of separation is actually established to limit the exercise of State power with respect to religion on two main aspects: (1) the State cannot set up a church or pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another or openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious groups or associations and vice versa; (2) the State cannot control or regulate the freedom to believe and to a certain extent, the freedom to act on such belief.

 Violations of the principle of Church-State separation are therefore usually committed by the State. In some instances however it is also possible that religious groups or association may transgress this principle by openly or secretly participating in purely State affairs. But in these instances, the State itself through its officials is the first one to penetrate the wall of separation by pressuring or influencing religious groups to support their stand on certain purely political issues. The classic example here is the reported efforts of the Palace people to convince CBCP to take a stand against the impeachment of the President. Apparently the CBCP as a body refused although some of its members like its incoming President reportedly supported the President. If this is true, it is still not a violation of the principle of separation because it is only personal stand of a member and not of the CBCP.