The misuse and abuse of Christian charity

This is getting to be too much. Philippine bishops are getting themselves embroiled in politics too frequently and with increasing impunity. Perhaps it is time for the Filipinos to tell the difference between their faith in God and the role priests and bishops play in it.

Last Wednesday, the bishop of Caloocan City, Deogracias Iñiguez, went further than any other bishop has ever gone in meddling with Philippine politics. Iñiguez himself filed an impeachment complaint against President Arroyo.

In so doing, Iñiguez became an actual, active and direct participant in politics, impeachment being a constitutionally guaranteed political process meant to remove certain political officials.

Iñiguez was perhaps emboldened to cross the line that separates shepherds of the flock from political animals by the knowledge that a papal encyclical banning priests and bishops from engaging in partisan political activity clearly lacks teeth.

That encyclical is only good on paper. We have yet to hear of the Vatican do so much as even politely rebuke any of a growing number of Philippine bishops who spend more time talking to media about politics than in the pulpit teaching people the difference between right and wrong.

The influence these priests and bishops wield, derived from their being so-called watchers of the soul and gate-keepers to heaven, is being increasingly misused, abused and misappropriated.

For people who live off the charity of Christians and do not have to pay taxes, priests and bishops can be quite imposing with their views, even if these views no longer have anything to do with matters of faith.

For a person who is now seeking redress by way of a constitutionally guaranteed process, Iñiguez seems woefully deliberate in his total disregard and disrespect of the rest of the other constitutional mandates, such as that on the separation of Church and State.

By himself becoming an actual, active and direct participant in a political process, Iñiguez has become a deliberate and conscious violator of the very constitution he is using as a vehicle to stray from his duties and responsibilities as a church official.

Iñiguez and others like him love to portray their political meddling as part of their moral obligations to the people. That is an assertion valid only to a certain extent. It is not a boundless claim. It is limited by inherent demands on performance and priorities.

For instance, the sexual abuses committed by priests constitute a more direct and compelling assault on the moral obligations these meddling bishops love to invoke and talk about. But what have they done about these abuses? Nothing.

Or if there is something being done about them, there is no openness in the process. The sexual abusers are being shielded from public view, a luxury they are too willing to extend to their own but too rabidly deny and deprive outsiders, such as politicians.

They may argue that presidents carry more obligations than priests. Wrong. Presidents may be heads of state, but priests are shepherds of the soul. A priest may not vote for a president, but a president will always kneel before a priest to confess his or her sins.

In other words, in the matter of morals, priests and bishops are kings. When a priest rapes a girl, it is a betrayal that is nothing short of high treason. Even the sin of cheating in an election by a president who did not spend years learning right from wrong pales in comparison.

So what do we do about priests and bishops who betray us? We can take it that our Christian charity is providing priests and bishops with lifestyles many of us do not even enjoy. But when they use that charity to betray our trust, maybe some serious rethinking is in order.