Absurd positions

Undoubtedly, the most talked about and predominant subjects in the coming elections are: (1)   the Church’s more active and direct participation in the choice of candidates; and (2) the insistence of the Comelec Chief to use the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines even if such use is not strictly in accordance with the Automation Law.

The Church involvement in the campaign has obviously dragged her into the political fray. A poll has recently been conducted and published showing that a big number of her faithful are allegedly losing interest and leaving the flock for a number of reasons. The survey figures and the reasons cited may not really be accurate. But as I have previously written, the Church should be humble enough to look into them and accept her weaknesses.

As previously pointed out, the main and the real reason why the Catholic faithful are losing interest in, or even leaving the Church is the lack of unity especially among the clergy when it comes to certain Church teachings. This lack of unity has been justified by even citing Pope Paul VI who declared that “In concrete situations, one must recognize a legitimate variety of possible options. The Christian Faith can lead to different commitments” (Octogesima Adveniens, 1971).

Such pronouncement has been interpreted to mean that “with regard to political, economic and cultural issues all of which have underlying moral implications, despite having assiduously studied and intently prayed over the matter, we can arrive at conflicting positions — with each claiming to be faithful to the Church’s teachings, each professing love for and commitment to Jesus”.

Apparently, this is the concept of “relativism” advanced by some priests that has influenced the laity who are now freely thinking and acting according to what their “own conscience” tells them to be what is right or wrong. Under this concept people should be “willing to make room for a variety of Catholic perspectives within the Church and within (their) hearts and conscience”. This is the kind of thinking and acting that Pope Francis calls the “tyranny of relativism”.

And this is the concept now being used to justify the taking of positions contrary to the Church teachings on the RH law. We are being told that there is more than one legitimate Catholic position on the RH law that promotes contraception to control our population.

It really hard to fathom how Catholics can still be faithful to Church’s teaching if he/she accepts and tolerates in this country the promotion of contraception through the use of contraceptives when it has already been shown in other countries practicing it, to have led to divorce, euthanasia, abortion, total birth control and homosexual marriage. These evils of contraception are matters of fact and not only matters of religious belief. They are the objective truth already established beyond doubt. How can Catholic profess love for and commitment to Jesus if they allow these evils to prosper in their country?

I cannot also conceive how this RH bill promoting contraction could be a “legitimate option” in “concrete situations” when it is contrary to our Constitution itself that protects the life of the unborn from conception and protects marriage and family life. Definitely there are black and white answers to these issues.

On the second subject, it should be remembered that before the automation of our election in 2010, especially after the people power revolution in 1986, candidates win elections because they have the usual “guns, goons and gold”, or they belong to political dynasties, or they are sports, movie/TV and media personalities with name recall. In other words, candidates win elections during those times not because they are the best qualified for the positions who will serve with “utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives” as required by the Cory Constitution of 1987 (Section 1, Article X1). Thus automation was conceived as a solution to this kind of election flaunts our Constitution.

Unfortunately, the automation of our election in 2010 with the use of the PCOS machines which is supposedly designed to eliminate or at least minimize these malpractices in the previous elections even aggravated the situation. Now we also have the so called “hocus picos that places in doubt the outcome of the Presidential elections in 2010. The present Comelec Chairman appointed by the President elected in 2010 has admitted that the machines used during that election has no source code required by law to be reviewed. But even without said source code he insisted on using the same machines this coming election claiming that the lack of the source code did not invalidate that election, or will it invalidate the coming election.

Obviously and whether he likes it or not, the current thinking among a lot of people is that he is just protecting the legitimacy of the election of his former client. And he is bent on using the same machines just to show that we do not have a bogus president, that the incumbent president was legitimately elected last 2010. Such stance may really be understandable in the light of the previous lawyer-client relationship between them prior to that election.

But to really show that his client legitimately won in that election and that there is really nothing wrong with the PCOS machines contrary to the claim of his detractors, he should also have considered the suggestion of a parallel manual count. Instead however he completely disregarded the suggestion without even plausibly explaining why it can no longer be done. So he has all the more given credence to the claim that the present president was elected by a machine and not by the people; and that our people will be deprive of their right of suffrage by the use of a machine not in accordance with law. This is really unconstitutional.

Email. [email protected]