Down with the Church! (Part 1)

I’ve always imagined my ideal death to be one that’s offered as a sacrifice—dying for one’s faith, for instance. Such would be the ultimate expression of a life lived for love and faith—unconditional love and blind faith, just as Jesus died.

The past couple of weeks have seen an unprecedented upsurge in anti-Church statements and sentiments, making writing for and in defense of the Roman Catholic hierarchy not only unpopular and sort of a counter flow of traffic, it’s downright suicidal.

But here I am, attempting to make some sense of things (in two parts), as both a supporter of individual choice and free will, and a staunch believer in my faith. And because I know the pro-choice rabids will fight to the death to prove their point and pass the RH Bill—to the extent of condoning, worse, praising the insolence committed on a sanctuary of faith—so too should I, in deciding to share my views on a looming exodus of the faithful from the Philippine Church, be ready to ‘die for my faith’ and, in a sense, be prepared to go down with the Church, if needed be.

Human Policy vs. Church Dogma

My experience in policy tells me that government action is based on facts and data, its interpretations, and the interventions it chooses to introduce to address or counter such abnormal deficiencies and excesses expressed in the results of scientific research. In other words, it has little to do with faith as it has almost everything to do with fact.

Morality, and all its variations, may be a consideration in policy formulation, but it isn’t always a requisite in creating laws considered responsive to the needs of citizens. The most effective governments—in Europe and the Americas—have policies that legalize divorce, abortion, even prostitution and drugs—activities mainly considered immoral by average Catholic standards.

As evidenced by supposedly more advanced societies and economies, a government could (and would) succeed even if it didn’t take Church teachings into account in the development of policy. This is mainly because of the fundamental difference between the State’s and Church’s mission and vision, goal and direction. It’s an immiscibility rooted on the Temporal versus the Eternal.

When one goes over the frustrating number of maternal deaths, unwanted pregnancies that’s lead to abortion, the ever growing number of children born into poverty and destitution, add to that the countless lives and relationships ruined by HIV/AIDS and other STDs/STIs because of ignorance and misinformation, adopting a comprehensive RH Bill should make perfect logical sense. But we all know that faith has nothing to do with the senses.

And so the possibility of sharing a common ground between the Church and RH advocates is rather slim, and if at all, it wouldn’t cover much.

Mutual Respect and Understanding

But even if an agreement cannot be forged, we should all still try to agree to disagree. Threatening to excommunicate the President and calling for civil disobedience is something I particularly do not appreciate. Although the CBCP has since clarified the statement of the bishop involved, it should still remind its ranks to be more sensitive and prudent when issuing statements to the media, lest it alienates further a flock already dangerously detached (in practice, at least) from the Church’s teachings.

The same goes for those who believe RH is the solution to many of our problems, for Church believers and nonbelievers alike. No cause, man, or man with a mission, not even the worthiest of causes and missions, has any business disrespecting my place of worship.

(To be continued next Saturday)

* * *

Tonight’s The Bottomline with Boy Abunda: Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez takes the hot seat as he clarifies and defends the Church’s controversial position against the RH Bill. Watch it after Banana Split on ABS-CBN. Encore telecast at ANC, Sunday, 1:30 pm.

* * *

Email: [email protected]