Fr. Wilfredo T. Dulay, mdj
the people of God and realpolitik
When the 2nd Vatican Council defined the Church inclusively, it wasactuallysetting the record straight. Consequently, the many other ambivalent, incomplete and outdated descriptions attached to the Church such as – “the pope, the bishops, the priests and religious”, “the hierarchy and the clergy”, “Christendom”, “the last functioning monarchy”, “the collectivity of all the baptized”, “the Roman Catholics”, “the churches recognized by the Vatican”, “the Kingdom of God”, “breathtaking Romanesque and Gothic structures”, etc. – all fell away.
The Council’s definition – the people of God –made it clear that the Church is a place where God calls people into communion. It is a place where to gather, not to scatter; a place that welcomes everyone; a place to find oneself among other children of God. It is an oasis of living waters where the shepherd tends to his flock (cf Ps 23). As the title itself of the Vatican Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium (“Light to the Nations” in Latin), clearly tells it – the Church is a place of light.
Similarly, the definitions attributed to politics[1] are also many and confusing. But one, realpolitik[2], is a stand-out. In contrarian fashion to the definition of the people of God as a place of light, realpolitik or, politics as commonly regarded, is a dark place where to get lost because it is a political system based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. In other words, realpolitik is a political system with no principles. It operates on the basis of convenience and gain (profit).
It is alarming that today a growing number of politicians has transformed politics into a murky domain where honor is bartered and corruption budgeted, a place where false dreams are peddled, a place where the people are betrayed. But because politics affects their lives directly and unavoidably, people are drawn to it like moths to the fire. That’s where they get lost, their welfare measured least and their sorry plight considered last.
For so long the Church has been called forth to enter politics. To this day the political situation remains an open invitation for the Church: that is where the people are. However, the Church may not go there to engage in partisan politics and play the profit-sharing game with the powerful. Or, foolishly try to outsmart them. (Jesus issued the warning that the children of this world are smarter in matters not pertaining to God’s reign.) She must enter the political world conscious of her designated task. And lest she forgets, the Church must keep in mind that her calling is to share in a non-profitable way the mission of the Lord who was “anointed to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to captives, and new sight to the blind; to free the oppressed and to announce the Lord’s year of favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)
the silence of the lambs & the silence of shepherds
The lambs are silent because they are scared. Most of them are. But that ought to surprise no one. Their fear is well-founded. How many petty drug peddlers and poor drug addicts have been killed? How many laborers, lumad Filipinos, farmers, activists and union organizers have been “neutralized” by members of government armed forces, hired assassins and vigilantes?
Yet, many activists keep on protesting. That’s what is surprising. They are scared but they persist risking limb and life to set aright what is not well!
What is not easy to understand is the silence of the shepherds. What’s keeping their mouths shut and their eyes closed? Are they also scared? Surely, they, too, must be scared. But, their silence is more difficult to comprehend. The reasons more complex, or, at least, made complicated by circumlocution. In the real world and recognizing realpolitik for what it is, we are aware that some members of the clergy, in particular those of the hierarchy, are known for their use of influence peddling. It is argued that maintaining cordial relations with those in power could be useful in helping Church people and the poor whenever they get in trouble with the authorities.
In other words, there is the implied adherence to the casuistic idiom that “the end justifies the means.” A prominent Church figure, an archbishop, whenever criticized for accepting donations of questionable provenance was often heard rebutting: “I don’t care where the money comes from, as long as I could use it to help the poor.” A modern saint when asked why she accepted money from a notorious former First Lady was also quoted that “It doesn’t really matter if the money were from the devil himself, if by it I could feed the hungry.” And what about the perks that come with coalescing with the elite and powerful – the places of honor at dinners and social gatherings, generous gifts and donations for their charities in behalf of the poor, attention if not recognition, and photo-ops, among many other prerogatives?
All the same, neither the Cardinal Archbishop famous for his political savvy, nor the canonized saint known for her asceticism, is the reference point for Christian practice. They are not the yardstick of Christianity. Rather, “It is the Lord” (Dominus est). The way of Jesus is the true measure of Christian living.
Christianity is not power-based. Has never been and will never be. That is, if we go by the teachings and deeds of Jesus as we know them by faith in both the Scriptures and Tradition. Christianity is a manner of being human exemplified by the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Is not the Incarnation of the Word of God a radical renunciation of power? More than just a lifestyle, it is a way of life undergirded by love, humility and service, values unregarded by the power brokers of this world –
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:5-7)
the separation between Church and State
Every time a conflict between Government and the Church would arise, either party would invoke the principle of the separation of Church and State, depending which side feels aggrieved. In many countries, including those in Latin America and the Philippines, when the Church denounces abuses against human rights, dictatorial governments angrily tell the clergy to keep to the sacristy and mind their own business. And when governments threaten to tax church property, the hierarchy would cry foul and invoke the freedom of religion. This happens everywhere the Church is perceived by the powers that be as a threat or, as a force to reckon with. They seem not to bother as much where the Church is a tiny minority, or a non-entity, as is the case presently in China. [a quick digression: Perhaps, the Chinese Communist Party has not yet heard that demographers have been predicting that by 2030 China will be the largest Christian country in the world, surpassing Brazil and the United States.[3]]
Even though it might only have the value of a footnote in our history books, it’s good to recall that when the members of the Constitutional Convention drafted the Philippine 1987 Constitution and inserted the concept of the separation between the Church and the State into the document, they said they were following the lead of American jurisprudence, and that they were basing themselves on the US Constitution. Unfortunately, without verifying their claim.
In fact, even though “in our own time the judiciary has embraced this figurative phrase (namely, the wall of separation between Church and State)[4] as a virtual rule of constitutional law and as the organizing theme of Church-State jurisprudence, the metaphor is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution.”[5]
