Faithful and Politically Discerning

Faithful and Politically Discerning

Various church organizations have signified their intention to project a Catholic vote in the coming elections. There is nothing phenomenal about this project since Catholic organizations are known to decide and act collectively on serious social and political issues based on their understanding of the social teachings of the Church. However, the direct endorsement of certain personalities vying for the next elections seems different from the usual projects that they have undertaken in the past. The endorsement signals the emergence of a new trend in the biggest religious faith in the country.

Critics may belittle its impact but they cannot discount the idea that this could start a new tradition which may yet prove to be enduring and solid in the coming years. Of course, the ideological and cultural foundations upon which a solid vote maybe predicated seems weak, if not lacking, at this time. For one, the Catholic Church is never really known at coercing its believers into supporting a particular person or group of persons during elections. Save in instances of statement of personal preference, the leaders of the Church have not directed its members to vote for any particular candidates. Moreover, they have never openly chastised anyone for endorsing any candidates during elections.

The religious have rallied their flocks in the past to engage in collective actions to address politically charged situations. This is seen in the two People Power revolts that have resulted to the ouster of at least two Philippine Presidents. The leaders of the Church justified these collective actions in the name of morality and the common good. However, critics thought that such justifications may be missing in regular political exercises such as the coming elections. As such, they are claiming that it could hardly be expected that the call to make a solidarity vote can achieve much at this time.

Voting for a particular person or group of persons may be justified as a Christian option when an election involves a clear moral question. While political neutrality may have served the religious faiths in many instances in the past, exceptional situations may prove that political neutrality can defeat rather than serve the common good. An option for political involvement may be demanded by the circumstances surrounding an election if the latter cannot be separated from issues affecting social morality and common good. Thus, religious believers are expected to be politically discerning to give appropriate response to existing social and political situations.

“Remain faithful and politically discerning,” this may be the call of the day for Catholics and believers of other faiths. The Christian faith is not just about Sunday celebrations. It is a living faith and governs both the personal and social aspects of the life of a believer. While the religious are called to minister even to people who are “politically sinners,” they could not use their ministry to hide from the truth that certain responses are demanded of them by the difficult social and political situations confronting their mission. Their mission is to help people find salvation by living the message of love and redemption in the midst of complex economic, political and social conditions. Certainly, political actions are parts of Christian duties since Christianity is a faith which breaths, lives and dies with those who are seeking salvation.

                                                                                      

Whether it is called Catholic Vote or White Vote or Solidarity vote, its meaning remains clear. Changing the economic, political and social structures that breed and perpetuate evil is a Christian duty. In the coming elections, the faithful are called upon to perform their Christian duty to evangelize the world. Their mission does not end inside their homes and churches. They are called upon to go out and establish a society that promotes the common good and brings people nearer to God.

Access!

Access!

Poor thing! Despite of her beauty and wit, Thumbelina could not just become Miss Universe. Mother Nature denies her of what seems to be admirable of women- length, shape and size. And it’s doubly misfortunate that people don't want to adopt a criterion that would allow her to compete despite of her shortcoming.

            However, people are known to violate many of nature’s decrees.

It used to be that only certified women could join the Miss Universe Beauty Pageant but Donald Trump, the pageant’s owner, lifted the veil to give the not-so-original ladies the chance to join it. He changed the rule in the name of fairness. He gives everyone the chance to claim the crown of the universe.

In one instance, critics have been demanding equal chance at entry for lesbians and gays in the uniformed services.People and institutions have condemned the disparate treatment of persons belonging to the “third gender”. Sexual preferences do not make the real distinction that could justify a different treatment insofar as entry to the armed forces is concerned. Eventually, military and police institutions have to adopt a non-discriminatory policy to appease the crying public.

            And just recently, some pretending experts on economics and poverty have claimed that many are poor in the Philippines because the illiterates and have-nots are denied essential reproductive health services. The debates have been so intense. They have been saying that equal access to reproductive health services would help the poor improve their lot. Eventually, the lawmakers conceded to this non-sequitor equation.Congress had passed a law which would allocate billions of pesos for distribution of family planning devices to the poor in the name of access and non-discrimination.

            Equality and fairness have become convenient justifications for these affirmative actions.The State, the great equalizer of society, has the prerogative to change public policies to institute conditions consistent with the ideals of equality and fairness.

            However, certain inequities remain unaddressed by the great equalizer in our society. Many things remain separate and unequal. It seems that the State is powerless to correct what needs to be rectified.

            Access to justice is still dim for the poor.

            Access to education is denied to poor children.

            Access to elective positions is shut off to those who don’t have influence and resources.

            Access to the military and police positions is withheld to those who lack the height and the size.

           

             Some economic, political and social forces tend to obstruct all efforts and attempts at equalizing these concerns. Also, the State looks powerless in the face of inequities which treat people separately and unequally because it is hostage in the hands of the privileged few. Moreover, the insensitivity of politicians who wield power and lord over our public institutions shut off the poor from essential public services and opportunities for better future.

           Cure: not election but revolution!