This is just as well, considering that there are outspoken bishops who are bound to go against their own organization when it comes to endorsing certain candidates. Like the Genuine Opposition, the CBCP needs better teamwork.
The Catholic charismatic group El Shaddai, which like the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) is known to vote as a bloc, is reportedly voting 50-50 for the Senate bets of GO and the administration’s Team Unity.
There is an El Shaddai vote, and an INC vote. Is there a Catholic vote?
In several elections in recent years, the CBCP has been roundly rejected by its flock.
Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin openly campaigned against Fidel Ramos in the 1992 presidential race and endorsed his rival, Speaker Ramon Mitra Jr.
But the powerful Sin could not rally one individual to his side. The devout Catholic Corazon Aquino and the machinery of her administration supported Ramos, who became the country’s first Protestant president.
As the economy boomed under Ramos, Sin confessed that he actually voted for the former defense chief rather than Mitra – a revelation that earned Sin a lot of derisive flak.
After Ramos, the Church suffered another rejection. It actively campaigned against Joseph Estrada, a man who loved wine, women and gambling. Erap won the presidency by a landslide, with the largest margin ever (the figure was surpassed only by the winning margin of the vice president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo).
The Church was also rejected in its campaign against Juan Flavier, an amiable physician and a member of Ramos’ Church who dared to push artificial contraception when he was Ramos’ health secretary.
Catholic Church supporters like to point out that their campaign prevented Flavier from topping the Senate race. But Flavier managed to land in the top six and earn a six-year term – not an easy feat when everyone and his mother is running for the Senate and you have an entire Church demonizing you.
But even in this role the Church has been faltering. One proof of this was the dismal size of the crowd that showed up in Rizal Park last year ostensibly to give thanks in a prayer rally after the ill-conceived people’s initiative to amend the Constitution was aborted.
When that rally flopped, the Church was besieged with recriminations from the various factions of the opposition that were prevented from turning the Mass into a political event.
Every rejection can be perceived as a symptom of the diminishing influence of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in political matters.
That can only be bad news for a Church that has long been considered a major power bloc in this country.
Filipinos should hope it would also be bad news for groups that use religion for political clout in getting favors from the government.
It’s not just politicians who embark on pilgrimages to the INC and El Shaddai during election season to get the groups’ support.
Even police and military officers, members of the judiciary and prosecution services – anyone for that matter who wants an appointment to a government position, a promotion or a juicy assignment – turns to the two groups for an endorsement to improve their chances of getting what they want.
Some individuals even become members of either of the two groups to improve their chances of career advancement.
This has perpetuated a system that rewards connections rather than merit. It’s hardly different from the system of political patronage that has nipped in the bud any attempt to create a meritocracy – an indispensable building block in a functioning democracy.
What’s bad news for religious groups can be good news for our democracy, which even has the doctrine of separation of Church and State enshrined in the Constitution.
It can still mount a general campaign against candidates who are known to be corrupt. Okay, that might eliminate all the senatorial candidates.
How about campaigning against candidates who lead immoral lives, as defined by Catholic doctrine? That could eliminate several competent ones.
How about campaigning against grossly incompetent candidates? That could eliminate those who aren’t too corrupt or who lead virtuous lives.
Given the choices in the forthcoming elections, telling the faithful how to vote can be a slippery slope for the Church.
Candidates who court the support of religious groups are fully aware, given the country’s history, that such endorsements do not come free.
One day those religious leaders are going to cash in their chips, and the winning candidate will be hard-pressed to say no. And what’s good for religious leaders may not necessarily be good for the country.
In refusing to endorse any particular candidate this time, the Church is on its way to assuming its proper role in a democracy.
Focusing on spiritual matters may even restore what the Church is starting to lose: influence in national affairs.