OTWOMD | Bluepanjeet.Net

It was on February 26, 2007 that the Filipinos waited till the early evening of Tuesday this week for the result of the CBCP emergency meeting. People held on to their boob tubes awaiting for news of the bishops’ statement regarding the current political crisis in our country. Until about the time that the News program from a certain network had almost said their last set of news, a reporter suddenly appeared on air, breaking to the people the result of the CBCP’s conference. “Kung tungkol sa pag reresign ng pangulo isang maikling wala ang kanilang kasagutan” was the deafening reportage of the network that broke into thin air. I admit, I was one of those who were very very disappointed with the statement of the CBCP. The faithful were expecting a much stronger version of their statement compared to the last one they made. We the faithful are waiting for the last bastion of hope to beat the drums as one. But unfortunately, the tune of the CBCP was not in accordance with the people’s clamor, at least with what one expects it to be. But what is real reason behind the CBCP’s statement that they hang the people’s expectations in nowhere? Let us analyze some possible reasons.

First and foremost let us define the law which governs the Catholic Church. Canon law is the term used for the internal ecclesiastical law which governs various churches, most notably the Roman Catholic Church. Contained in these laws are provisions that states the nature and limits of responsibilities of the Bishops. Therefore, the bishops, priest and religious are governed primarily by the Canon Law in virtue of their religion and office, and secondarily the Constitution of the Philippines in virtue of their civil status and citizenship. The actions of the bishops in matters of morals and doctrines are guided by the teachings of the church. The Divine law, the Decalogue and the dogmas are their shield in executing their teaching authority. While in administrative cases and judicial function of the church, it is the canon law that governs them. But in case of national interests, the bishops are also tied to the Constitution of the Philippines as Filipino citizens that are obliged to abide in the rule of the secular law. Suffice it to say that the bishops and clerics are more defined when it comes to their actions because of these various laws. A lawyer and an ordinary citizen have only the Constitution to be worried of while the clergies and bishops are bound to various laws which their individuality and office dictates them.

So what’s the connection of the Canon law in the statement of the CBCP? let us further dissect the issue for various reasons and considerations.

1. They are pastors and not politicians.

The bishops are the pastors of the people in terms of faith and morals of the Catholic church. They shepherd the faithful in the Sacraments of the Church which sanctifies them and aid them in knowing by heart the Paschal Mystery of the Savior. In English, they are the moral and doctrinal guide of the church both in faith and in the Sacraments. Yet their function is not only limited to their teaching authority, they can also care for the temporal needs of the people, inside and outside of the church. That is why some clergy and religious are engaged in apostolates like orphanages, social centers, charities etc.

Bishops are not just overnight leaders. Like a candidate in a contest, they are evaluated thoroughly and are scrutinized through their credentials. The Vatican has some guidelines in picking the right bishop. In Canon 378 of the Code of Canon Law it states:

1 To be a suitable candidate for the episcopate, a person must:

• 1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfill the office in question;
• 2° be held in good esteem;
• 3° be at least 35 years old;
• 4° be a priest ordained for at least five years;
• 5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law, from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least be well versed in these disciplines.

2 The definitive judgment on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See.

Ergo, Bishops are well picked, well versed and well educated. Though this law is not all the times absolute of their results because some bishops tend to lose their grip on holiness and moral judgment and ascendancy, yet we are assured that we have the best of the best among millions of clergy around the world, no matter how a handful fall short of their duties.

To become a bishop needs virtues. As what was cited above, Prudence and Wisdom is very essential in their office for without these two, their judgment may fall short, hence will just become impulsive and irresponsible mouthpieces to their flock when the time comes that issues must be deliberated thoroughly. Remember that they are the voice of the faithful. They are the ones wherein people turn to them in matters that cannot be solved by priests and laymen alike. During these times, the Bishop must not just act according to his emotions, personality, temperament and judgment, but also according to his duties. That is why bishops are often very careful in their dealings with the faithful in issues of morals because they cannot just delineate who is evil and who is good in the absolute sense of the words. Everyone is given the benefit of the doubt and everyone is given the chance to convert no matter how evil they may seem to be. Proof of this is the consistent and firm resistance of the Catholic Church towards Capital punishments because without sin there will be no conversion. (Well that is another matter that we also have to discuss). Their responsibility towards the people of God should be unconditional. Canon 383 affirms this:

1 In exercising his pastoral office, the diocesan Bishop is to be solicitous for all Christ’s faithful entrusted to his care, whatever their age, condition or nationality, whether they live in the territory or are visiting there. He is to show an apostolic spirit also to those who, because of their condition of life, are not sufficiently able to benefit from ordinary pastoral care, and to those who have lapsed from religious practice.

Bishops and clergy in any way cannot mingle or involve himself in matters of politics. This point has got to be the most misunderstood concept about the Bishops and the clergy so let us clarify things in a perspective that will explain their opinion in some political issues. According to Canon 285 it is very clear:

1 Clerics are to shun completely everything that is unbecoming to their state, in accordance with the provisions of particular law.
2 Clerics are to avoid whatever is foreign to their state, even when it is not unseemly.
3 Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power.

In the case of Governor Ed Panlilio of Pampanga, (the Priest turned Governor), he was allowed to take part in the political arena by the bishop, not by virtue of ex-communication, but by virtue of suspension. The difference between the two virtues are Categorical. That he asked for the permission of his bishop before responding to the call of people for him to run as Governor is in itself prudence. Thus he was permitted and given a suspension. If he ever disobeyed the order of his bishop, he would have been stripped of his clerical status permanently and this we call dispensation, and worse, ex-communication (case to case basis). In Religious duties, either if you are a nun, priest, brother, or seminarian, obedience is the highest virtue that should be practiced because obedience is the first fruit of humility. Among Ed is suspended from his priestly duties thus becoming an ordinary layman. But his suspension is temporal because after his three year stint as Governor, he would leave politics and resume his priestly duties in the Church. The case of Among Ed is a special and isolated case. Cases varies therefore, the priests who are planning to do another Among Ed should know that what applies in Pampanga would not be applicable in other areas. The people needed help from a very credible and honest man (which we have already seen during the “P500,000 bribe given to the governors by Malacanang), so the action of the bishop was to support Among Ed not as a political move but as a pastoral move in lieu of the moral status of the province which was beleaguered by corruption. Yet the bishop prudently manage to abide in the Code of Canon Law, thus separating the affairs of the Church and of the State. So if you are going to ask if at this moment, Among Ed is bound to obedience to the bishop in light of the rule of the Canon law, the answer is NO. Because he is suspended from his priestly duties. Therefore, Among Ed acts and executes his rights and judgment according to the Constitution of the Philippines by virtue of his secular status as a citizen of the Philippines, and by virtue of his public office as the Governor of Pampanga. Yet he is bound to the Ten Commandments, Divine Law, Dogmatic teachings and Morals of the Church by virtue of his being a Catholic.

The case of Among Ed is the nearest local example of the case of Separation of Church and State. But How about the issue of Bishops having a say in political matters?

Bishops have no authority when it comes to politics. It may just seem that they have because most of their statements are addressed to our public leaders, but what they are after is the Moral issues included in every actions of the politicians, primarily because they are Christians or if not, still they (Politicians) are entrusted to the bishops because they reside in the bishop’s diocese (as stated above in Canon 383). As a Catholic country, there is no single place here in the Philippines that is not governed under the jurisdiction of the bishop because everywhere you go, there is a place under the care of the diocese. If we were in Saudi Arabia or China, the case might be different. Secondarily, the people they are leading are also under the care of the bishops and again stated on the Canon that I have mentioned above, it is the bishops’ responsibilities to provide the temporal needs of the people entrusted to him. Thirdly, public leaders are models of the people, therefore they are expected to act in a manner that would be acceptable to society–thus the issue of morality enters here. and lastly, the responsibility of the bishop to have a say in politics with regards to moral issues are therefore scoped by the first three considerations I cited above. To better understand this,we have to discuss in passing and very briefly the theology of social justice and sin.

Social justice refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. The term can be amorphous and refer to sometimes self-contradictory values of justice. It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church have thought us, we are all united under the Fatherhood of God, regardless of religion and race. Ergo, bishops as Alter Ego of the Apostles of Christ, is bound to lead his flock and uphold equality and justice among them as brothers of Christ under the Fatherhood of God.

Another one is the social implications of sin, wherein sin has a tremendous effect on the society: whatever you have done against a person, has a ripple effect on the society. For example:

A simple case of poverty. A man was unjustly fired from his work. He is bound therefore to provide income for his family in order to survive the daily burden of nourishment. But without any proper education, the man is only limited to work in blue collared jobs. In his desperation, he was forced to rob money from people in order to survive his family. He chose a clueless woman coming from an ATM Machine. He then snatched the bag of the woman and runs away with the money. The money that the woman withdraw from the Machine is for his daughter’s recruitment fee bound for abroad. Her daughter needs to go to abroad because his husband is in dialysis. Without no further resources to produce the money, the daughter was not able to work abroad. His husband died, living 2 other children under her care. Without income from the husband and without the support of the daughter, the woman was forced to enter as a maid. In her work as a maid, she was tempted to steal from her employer just to sustain his two other children. But without luck the woman was caught and she find herself in prison.The children without proper care from the woman grew up in poverty and like the case of the man unkjustly fired, they would later become robbers and snatchers.

The cycle of sin is endless. It affects every lives of people. Imagine the ripple that was caused by the simple injustice that the company have done to the man. The chain goes on and on, twirling in a vicious cycle.

Social Justice and Implications of sin to society are just among the reasons why Bishops has a voice when it comes to moral leadership of those in the public office. In the Case of the NBN-ZTE deal, the $130 Million dollars worth of kickback is not a joke. People are the ones who will pay that amount which could have been the food of malnourished children, houses of flood stricken residents and education for financially challenged children. This is the reason why bishops makes noise in politics. They are after their flock and not the matters of governance. Imagine the lies that palace officials go through just to protect two or three greedy individuals? Sin has become contagious in a sense that the subordinates have no choice but to follow their superiors in fear that the burden of responsibility and effect might fall on them. The Bishops, particularly the CBCP does not “command” the politicians, they are “asked” to choose between their current predicament or the moral suggestion and teaching of the Catholic church.

Ergo the statement of the CBCP is more of a “pastoral move” rather than a “political move”. (We will deal later with the statement per se of the CBCP after I have laid down all my points). It was a Pastoral move because they are pastors of the Church and not Politicians. To ask the President to resign is a political move which the CBCP is very much avoiding. Why? Let us further go deeper into the history of the Church and Politics in the Philippines to understand well the CBCP’s position.

2. The Cardinal Sin Phenomenon.

To understand the psychological effect of People Power to Filipinos, we must first dwell on the person who have shaped our country’s history through his pastoral and ecclesiastical office and the stories that comes with it.

History might always repeat itself but not on the degree of necessity and situation. I mean, the case is always different and cannot be applied from a particular situation to a current disposition.

Cardinal Sin’s case is very different and special as I may say. We cannot duplicate another Cardinal Sin or his actions for that matter in lieu of our political Crisis. But what makes Cardinal Sin really special in the harts of Filipinos, in the pages of history and in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the Philippines?

Sin was born in New Washington, Aklan, Philippines to Juan Sin (of Chinese ancestry) and Maxima Lachica (of Aklanon ancestry). He was the seventh of sixteen children. He is the brother of Dr. Ramon L. Sin. He eventually left his childhood home and his family to study in seminary. He entered St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary, was ordained to the presbyterium and became a priest of the Archdiocese of Jaro on April 3, 1954. He was appointed its auxiliary bishop on February 10, 1967. Following his appointment, he was ordained as bishop of the titular see of Obba on March 18 of that year. On March 15, 1972, Sin was appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of Jaro, taking on administrative roles in the archdiocese, while holding the titular see of Massa Lubrense. On October 8, 1972, Sin was appointed Archbishop of Jaro, taking full control of the archdiocese.

Sin’s service as Archbishop of Jaro ended with his appointment on January 21, 1974 to the larger archdiocese seated in the nation’s capital of Manila. Sin was officially installed as Archbishop of Manila at the Manila Cathedral on March 19, 1974. On May 24 of 1976, Pope Paul VI summoned Sin to the Holy See to be join the College of Cardinals, being created Cardinal Priest of the titular church of Santa Maria ai Monti. He remained the youngest member of the College until 1983.

During the Marcos Era, Cardinal Sin was criticized due to his complacency on matters involving violations of the Human Rights. Although Cardinal Sin was really speaking againsts the current political crisis back then, but it was far softer compared to his activism in the years before the EDSA revolution had begun. We can simply understand this in lieu of the Vatican leadership. At that time, the Pope was Paul Paul IV, the same pope who installed him as one of the College of Cardinals in the Vatican. The Church then was just flowering and adjusting to the changes brought by the Vatican Council II. The pre-vatican era was very conservative and any political statements against governments are not actually prohibited, but more precisely frowned upon. When John Paul II came to seat in Rome, the church then bloomed together with the combined openness and conservatism of the Pope. Cardinal Sin and John Paul II were contemporaries and friends. That is why, during the rise of John Paul II’s papacy, the Church also grew with him in a more open, quite liberal and very accepting Church to the Faithful. Credited to these changes were made possible by his predecessors John XXIII and Paul VI. With John Paul II’s leadership, Cardinal Sin’s liberty to oppose the Marcos regime had a blessing, knowing that the Pope also had the same experience in his country during his younger years. Suffice it to say, in a very simple explanation, the activism of Cardinal Sin in morality of politics had the full support of the Pope, for he was a political activist himself. We can therefore note that during the Leadership of John Paul II and Cardinal Sin, we have seen the strongest condemnations and statements against political harassment and hiuman rights violation in church history, maintaining of course the limits of separation of Church and State (I hope you understand where I am coming from).

But do not misconstrue me, the Vatican did not order the Philippine Bishops to stage a revolution. The EDSA Revolution was unplanned. It happened, all in the right time and with the right leader. It just so happens that the needs of the people to air their grievances was heard by an equally politically-aware Bishop of the Catholic Church in the Philippines in the person of Cardinal Sin. If my memory is correct, John Paul II even praised Cardinal Sin in restoring moral ascendancy to the seat of the Philippine Presidency down to its subordinates. The need then was different. The Clamor of the people was very much gagged. It all happened as a fortunate accident because as I have said in my previous entry, the EDSA revolution was originally intended as a purely military operation with no civilians involved.

After the 1986 Revolution, the People Power Phenomena was repeated again in the year 2001 in the ouster of President Estrada. This was the time that the Vatican had already opposed to Sin’s role in politics.

In the investigative story published by Philippine Daily Inquirer on January 21, 2008, Juliet Labog-Javellana narrated from his sources that Cardinal Sin’s involvement in the uprising of the people in relation to the Estrada impeachment trial was frowned upon by the Vatican. A directive confirming this came on January 18, 2001– two days before the popular uprising. Even the Philippine Clergy was asked not to be partisan in the politics and was said to stay neutral. The order did not came from the Pope but from an unnamed high official from the Vatican. This is understandable because it gives credence to the relationship of John Paull II and Cardinal Sin because as I have said before, John Paul II had full confidence on Cardinal’s Sin’s actions and judgment, not just being his contemporary and all, but also because the Pope share the same political views on human freedom, social justice and morally upright governance. The order from Rome came because of diplomatic reasons: there will be implications on the Catholic church’s mission to Vietnam, Russia and China specifically because the Church was worried about its apostolic mission in these countries. It (the intervention of the Church in political events in the Philippines) might create apprehensions that it’s risky to let the Catholic Church come in because it might meddle with the government of the said countries. But Cardinal Sin was firm. He threatened the Vatican that he would resign if the directive was to be pressed. Another order came from the Vatican, this time asking Cardinal Sin to withdraw the people at the EDSA Shrine, but it was too late because the people was already holding their vigil there for two consecutive days. The Conflict between this Vatican official and Cardinal Sin only ceased through the Mediation of former Supreme Court Justice Artemio Panganiban. This story was not revealed to the public even after the death of Cardinal Sin on July 21, 2005, three months after the death of his friend and pontiff John Paul II.

Cardinal Sin during his reign as the powerful Archbishop of Manila was given an “unofficial” title by the Vatican as the Primate of the Philippines, equal, at least in titular definition, to that of the Pope who is the Primate of Rome. With this we can understand the role played by Cardinal Sin and the Vatican regarding the past two people power revolution.

But what made Cardinal Sin so powerful and charismatic that at the beck of his call, thousands upon thousands of people respond to him? Aside from the Charismatic personality of Cardinal Sin, he had also in his hands various resources for his disposal.

According to former Justice Artemio Panganiban’s Column “With Rue Respect” on December 2, 2007, Sin was very powerful because the Archdiocese back then was solely administered by Him. Upon his call, 300 hundred Parishes and 70 Parochial schools responded to him producing 500 participants each. Thus with his beck and call, he can summon up to 200,000 faithful that can stay at the EDSA shrine indefinitely without worrying provisions. The Archdiocese back then was so organized that food was not a problem. But after the death of Cardinal sin, the Archdiocese of Manila was divided into six dioceses (Diocese of Caloocan, Diocese of Cubao, Diocese of Novaliches, Diocese of Parañaque, Diocese of Pasig and, of course, Manila [composed of Manila proper, Makati, Mandaluyong, Pasay and San Juan]), acting independently on their own at the command of their respective bishops with different priorities, political stands and expression of social activism. Activism is actually a pastoral work, which, if romanticized further, it is credited in heaven as an act of heroism. (note that the Italian Blessed Pierre Giorgio Frassatti was also a political activist during his time).

Going back to my point, without Cardinal Sin, no one in the present CBCP has the stature and command that can equal the late Archbishop. This is the reason why we see other Bishops so quiet on the issue while others like Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iniguez, Dagupan Bishop Oscar cruz, Bishop Teodoro Bacani and Bishop Lagbayen and Bishop Socrates Villegas are very vocal in their call for GMA to step Down.

Cardinal Rosales, present Archbishop of Manila was formerly the Archbishop of Lipa. I have met the man personally several times during my stint as a seminarian in Lipa. As one of the assigned head of the Liturgical Committee for our annual seminary feast day, I always had the chance to talk to the Archbishop in his Palace with my mentors of course. As I have known him then, he was very holy and dedicated to the spiritual growth of his flock. I have heard his homilies several times and I can attest that he is a man of deep devotion and prayer.

The criticisms against Cardinal Rosales of having been aloof with the press media is due to his personality. The Man is deeply spiritual, prudent and simple that involving in the political circus is not his priority. He is more attuned to the spiritual nourishment of his flock, which can attest why he was installed by Benedict XVI to join the ranks of the college of Cardinals in the Vatican. Worthy also to note that he has his own style of Activism to social issues, which is why the program called “Pondo ng Pinoy” (which originally came from the Archdiocese of Lipa and was set up in the Archdiocese of Manila upon his takeover of the seat) was revived in Manila in oder to cater to the needs of the poor. He is an activist in his own right, but the political arena is really not his cup of tea. Even during the 1998 Mayoral bid of Vilma Santos in Lipa was supported by then Bishop Rosales himself, but the active role of talking and persuading Vilma Santos to run just to break the dynasty of the incumbent Mayor, belonged to the clergy, specifically under the leadership of Msgr. Madlangbayan. Therefore, like the case of Cardinal Rosales, the people should understand the bishops’ own uniqueness and personality. Cardinal Rosales is not Cardinal Sin. There is only one Cardinal Sin. But if ever Bataan Bishop Soc Villegas would be assigned in the Archdiocese of Manila, then Corrupt politicians should be prepared, because Bishop Soc is the apprentice of Cardinal Sin and shares the same political convictions of the latter. But presently and in reality check, this is not the case.

3. The CBCP as a whole.

Therefore, with all the political and church background I laid above, we can claim that the CBCP stance on the issue of the NBN-ZTE deal is sporadic and neutral. It is fitting to assume that (a) with the present bishops handling the Archdiocese of Manila and neighboring dioceses, (b) the change in Leadership of the Papacy in the person of Benedict XVI and (c) the previous conflict of Cardinal Sin with the unnamed Vatican Officlal, the CBCP has in no way issuing “at this moment” a much stronger statement against the NBN-ZTE deal controversy, less they face political conflicts inside the Catholic Church, which they would not risk. Primarily because, as I have stated above, they are pastors and not politicians which act in Prudence according to the laws and circumstances that govern their individuality and as Boishops of the Catholic Church.

Thus I conclude that the statement of the CBCP is in itself:

1. an act of Prudence because since they are not lawyers or politicians governing the state, they withhold their judgment “as a group” as they wait for the events to unfold. Remember that in making a statement as a Group (as CBCP) they are representing the whole Catholic Herirarchy. And condemning a person without giving him or her the benefit of the doubt is purely uncharitable and imprudent. Though the CBCP, contrary to what others are saying that they are deaf to the clamor of the people with regards to the issue involved, they did not prohibited other bishops in stating their indignation and support for the ouster of the President, precisely because their actions are of their own capacity as bishops of their respective diocese and not as CBCP. Whenever a bishop or a priest makes a statement, the media always interpret it as act of the Catholic church as a whole. Like in the case of my previous entry regarding the 18 Pampanga priests who prayed over the GMA and stated publicly their support to the President, some media networks and tabloids interpreted it as a support coming from the entire Catholic Church in the Philippines. This is what the CBCP is trying to avoid because a personal statement is very different from an ecclesiastical and pastoral statement.

2. Pastoral move. The statement is a pastoral move since the issue is morality and not politics. We never heard any CBCP statements that condemns the ouster of Speaker de Venecia or the appointment of the President’s cohorts in Malacañang, precisely because they are all political moves. The CBCP have to tow the line between what is pastoral and political. Since the issue of the NBN-ZTE deal has implications to 1. Moral Leadership of the President and her minions, 2. Social Justice and 3. Implication of Sin to Society, the Bishops have to focus on what they are made to do in virtue of their ecclesiastical authority and that is to stick only to the moral issue and its implication to the people of God. Asking the President to resign is a political move since it will include the Catholic Church in the Philippines as a whole. When Cardinal Sin asked for the ouster of Marcos and Estrada, he is speaking as the Archbishop of Manila and in behalf of his Jurisdiction and not in behalf of the entire Catholic Church in the Philippines even though many bishops supported his call. Added to this is also the moral implication of both leaders to the moral sanctity of the Presidency. In analogy, if Bush will call for the resignation of the GMA, it will be both a diplomatic and political move since Bush represents the whole of USA in virtue of his mandate. The call of the CBCP for resignation of the President in the near future is not impossible and will be further evaluated and decided among the bishops in accordance to their office as Pastors and not as Politicians.

3. a statement of Charity, Objectivity and Fairness. They have given Gloria arroyo an act of Charity since she is also a Catholic, stripping of course her privilege as the President. Like many sinners in the Church, CBCP gives the President a chance to renew and convert herself for the last time because she has the right to conversion as a christian and not as a President. A virtue also of fairness to the people clamoring for her removal. Setting aside the personal beliefs of the bishop in matters of ex-cathedra (an authoritative teaching in behalf of the church), the CBCP was objective in their statement, meaning they made their statement in unity with the whole bishop present at that time, in consideration of different views and opinion.

4. An act of defiance. Asking for the eradication of the controversial Executive Order 464 is an act of defiance to the moral force field of the President. This EO 464 has clouded the President’s moral truth that is why the CBCP wanted it to be obliterated so that the truth will come out. Reading from the minds of the bishops, if GMA has really nothing to hide, then why hinder the truth from coming out? The bishops are “asking” and not “commanding” the President to abolish the said order but with a strong defiance to her stance on the EO 464, not as the President of the Philippines but as a Catholic who has the responsibility in upholding the truth and morality at all times.

5. a Process. The statement represents a process because in matters of moral culpability, Bishops cannot judge without full knowledge of the truth. This is the reason why they are asking the Palace to abolish the EO 464 so that the investigation may continue and when the truth is finally out, they can make a more stronger recommendation and statement to the people. The question of why the Bishops are asking Arroyo to lead in stripping the Government of corruption where in fact she is the center of the spider’s web of anomalies and lies? This is because, in due process, only the President has the power to remove all her cabinets and officials, eradicate extra-legal obstacles in finding the truth and at the same time the only one one who has the choice to lead the country in moral ascendancy or moral bankruptcy. But then again, if the President does not do anything about all of this dilemmas in her government, the rod of the CBCP will lash out her administration. The President is given the choice to change without the exception of her culpability that she has to pay later, both in the process of impeachment and in criminal and civil courts. The statement of the CBCP is a process within a process of discernment.

6. a call for Vigilance. Precisely what this statement is all about. While not asking the President to resign “for now”, the Bishops are asking the faithful to be vigilant on this issue. This is an active role of the bishops as Pastors because they are commanding the faithful to standby, become aware and discuss the issue on the light of truth.

7. a Condemnation. The lighter and stronger side (as I may add) on the CBCP statement is the fact that they condemned the corruption practices of the office of the President down to its subordinates. This is a proof that the CBCP is not deaf to the allegations of the people. A piece of truth came out yet the CBCP wanted the entire truth to be told in consideration of the people’s voice and the sanctity of the Presidency as a an office (???).
8. in accordance with the Constitution. As Bishops of the Philippine Hierarchy, they are also citizens of the Philippines and are all bound to serve and uphold its constitution. That is why with the help of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, the statement was made without going over board or going against the norm or law. Though the statement is indeed in obedience to the provisions of the constitution yet the statement also kept its stance in moral ascendancy by criticizing the government through its direct condemnation of its practices. Being constitutional and at the same time critical of the government.

9. Not finite. The CBCP statement is not final. As some of the bishops have claimed. They are waiting for the progress of the issue and when the President failed to heed the call of the people (to bare all the truth), that is the time that the CBCP will make a follow up statement. We do not know what it will be but the hope in all of this is that it is not yet final. That at least is the people’s assurance while the process takes place.

10. is a Confusion. A very confusing statement due to the fact that the CBCP has failed to include explicitly in their statement, that it is not yet final and that at this time, they are focusing more on the truth to come out. Summing up in layman’s language: “ilabas ang katotohanan at saka ang katarungan”. But even this context has failed to satisfy the faithful. Even Priests are disappointed. The confusion of the faithful still persists and I think the Bishops have to make an assurance that they are just waiting for the events that will take place in order to make a sound and rational judgment of the issue. moreover, with the CBCP statement with “no resign” stance and some bishops calling independently for the President’s resignation, the faithful is now left with the question of who to turn to in matters of Pastoral Authority which brings to another consideration that the statement is…

11. is Misinterpreted. The Filipinos are accustomed that Bishops will lead the call for the President’s resignation as what Cardinal Sin had done in the past two EDSA Revolution. It is both a flattery and a curse, that CBCP is being patterned to the leadership of Cardinal Sin. One cannot blame the people because of their hunger for a Charismatic person that will not only lead them but also will serve as their hero amidst all these political turmoil. Yet we cannot also blame the CBCP because they have a function, organization and own Canon Law to follow, and that the times have changed since the death of Cardinal Sin. This statement gives so much misinterpretation that we are all (Clergy and laymen alike) brought into a dead end. But like what I have stated above, we have to wait because Bishops act not of their own will as CBCP, but through the promptings of the Holy Spirit which guided the EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 people power revolt in the past. The Spirit guided them then, the Spirit will still guide them now. It’s just a matter of right timing before every people who will have a part in the ouster of the President will take their position for the truth (And I’m speaking of Neri and the Military).

To say that the statement is a safe mode is a big Yes.

To say that it is utterly disappointing is also a Yes.

But to say that the statement is in support of Malacañang is a big NO! for everything that the CBCP states is not just a stupid consensus of personal preferences and beliefs but a deep reflection and prudent action that is discussed in the power of their Pastoral and Ecclesiastical office.

Taking the words of Bishop Oscar Cruz, Bishop Deogracias Iniguez and Bishop Teodoro Bacani that they are contented with the “no resign” CBCP statement while at the same time calling for the President’s resignation is already a hint to the faithful that in due time, in the proper moment and in the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the CBCP will have a stronger statement at hand in the background, just waiting to be written in accordance with all of the Bishops agreement and in lieu of their Pastoral office as shepherds of the people and guardians of morality and in the discernment of things to come.

With the amateur opinion, layman analysis, and fundamental commentary that I have written above, I think it is clear that what I ask our brethren who were disappointed like me, is to view issues in a wider perspective and more open weighing of things. Because in this critical period of our Nation’s history, it is in the intellectual parlance that we can make sound and proper judgment, without prejudice to the anger and clamor of the voice of the people against our corruption driven government. It is the time to act “communally” in search for truth, and the rest will be history. Let us all wait as the events unfold, after all, Patience is Virtue. With this, I rest my case a Catholic and as a Citizen of this Nation.

May God guide us all in our pursuit of TRUTH.

Pax et Bonum!

[poll=3]

_______________________________________________________________
References:

• Seeking the truth, restoring Integrity
• The Code of Canon Law
• Catechism of the Catholic Church
• The Bible on Suffering: Social and Political Implications
• Catholic Social Justice: Theological and Practical Explorations
• Why the Trillanes Caper Failed
• Cardinal Sin Opposed the Vatican Order
• Jaime Cardinal Sin
• The Edsa Revolution Website
• History of the Archdiocese of Manila

Related Blog Entries:

• Ang sabi nang CBCP: Urge Gloria to take the lead in stamping out corruption
• CBCP Pastoral Statement originally from CBCPOnline.net
• Crisis of Truth
• I promised not to talk about politics…
• Seeking the Truth
• Controversial Arroyo EO 464: To lift or not to lift?
• One Day More
• Gloria wears Prada
• CBCP: Go Back to saving souls
• CBCP Statement has no accountability clause
• An Open Letter to the CBCP
• The CBCP Leading Us Nowhere
• A reaction to the Recent CBCP Pastoral Stetement
• Catholic Bishops Colluded with Pidals
• Twisted CBCP Statement
• The Lucky Bitch, Again?