Agenda for Hope: Democratic Governance

What should be the Relationship between our Faith and our Politics?

Raymond B. Aguas, Ph. D.

Theology Department

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines faces numerous problems – political, economic, and social.

Prices of consumer goods keep spiraling upward, and a significant percentage of the

population lives below the poverty line. Our political institutions, especially the

government, cannot seem to address these problems adequately. The government itself is

beset by numerous accusations of various scandals. Whether or not these allegations are

later proven true, damage has already certainly been done because a lot of people have

lost faith in the government. In fact, the president’s net approval rating is at an all-time

low. Filipinos seem to have lost hope in the possibility of any meaningful change

occurring.

Being a very religious nation that is predominantly Catholic, we have a Church

that is a very powerful institution. It is a social institution that seems to have more

credibility with the Filipino people than the government. As such, a number of people

look to the Church for leadership and guidance during these times of economic and

political turmoil. Since some of the people have lost faith in their political leaders, these

same people seek to find hope in their religious leaders.

 But can the Church really do anything? More importantly, should the Church do

anything? Are the fields of economics and politics beyond the Church’s scope of

responsibility? Should the Church concern itself only with spiritual matters?

THE PROBLEM

Given the reality of political turmoil and social injustice in the country, and given

the strong Christian faith of the majority of the Filipino people, the question I seek to

answer in this paper is this: how should our faith relate to our political action? Certainly,

we have to realize some serious reforms on the political front in order to address the

serious ills in the status quo. But what part does our Christianity play in these reforms?

TWO INADEQUATE ANSWERS

There are two problematic positions regarding the role of the Church in political

action which I shall address here. The first is a position some people hold that basically

states that the Church should have nothing to do with political matters. After all, there is

a separation of Church and state, right? The Church and politics operate on two non-

intersecting planes. The Church should concern itself entirely with spiritual matters.

Politics and other temporal matters should be left to the relevant authorities. I shall call

this the “no relation” position.

The second problematic position with which I shall deal in this section concerns

people who advocate for a direct involvement of the Church in the political sphere. For

these people, the Christian faith is thought to provide clear and unambiguous positions on

2
political matters. Basically, God tells us clearly and exactly what we should do, and all

we have to do is obey. I shall call this the “direct relation” position.

In this paper, I shall demonstrate how both of these positions are inadequate –

they do not do justice to either the Christian faith or the proper autonomy of the political

sphere. Having thus argued, I shall proceed to lay out a way that faith can be related to

the political action necessary to bring about meaningful social change in the Philippines.

In following this way, the Philippine Church remains faithful to both its faith and its

people, becoming an even more credible source of hope in these troubled times. I shall

call this way the “utopia” position.

SOME DEFINITIONS

Before I proceed with the argument, a few definitions are in order for the sake of

greater clarity. Different people may understand different things when terms like

“church” or “faith” or “revelation” are used. In the following paragraphs, I shall clarify

my understanding and use of these terms.

The Church is a complex reality that defies any simple definition. As described

by Pope Paul VI, the Church is a mystery – a reality imbued with the hidden presence of

God. As such, no one image or model can fully contain the totality of the Church. The

Church is an institution, with a hierarchy, with rules and regulations. At the same time,

the Church is also a community, the People of God (to use an image from Vatican II).

And there are other images that describe the Church, such as Body of Christ and Temple

of the Holy Spirit. In common parlance, when some people speak of the Church they

might be referring simply to the building to which they go on Sundays. Others might be

3
referring principally to the Church’s hierarchical leaders. In this paper, when I talk about

the Church, I shall be referring mainly to its leaders (such as the bishops) and those who

purport to speak for the Church.

Faith is another term that could possibly cause confusion. Faith could refer to

objective content – THAT which we believe. But faith could also refer to the subjective

act of believing -- that BY WHICH we believe. In this paper, when I use the term

“faith,” I mean it in both dimensions. Faith inevitably involves a subjective act of

believing in something objective. In other words, I follow the understanding of Vatican

II that faith is a total human response to the self-revelation of a personal God.

Vatican II marked a change in understanding (or at least in emphasis) of the

notion of revelation. The emphasis prior to the council was on revelation understood

primarily as propositional, expressed in things such as the Creed, to which the response

demanded is primarily in the form of intellectual assent. The council clarifies that

revelation is to be understood as primarily personal, as the self-revelation of a personal

God in word and deed expressed historically. The response required is not simply one of

cognitive assent, but a response of the whole person.

The notion of revelation is crucial to my later argument so I shall take some time

now to further clarify it. The God Christians believe in is supernatural, infinite, and

invisible. As such, all revelation from God is necessarily mediated through finite, visible

realities lest we the intended recipients fail to receive or even perceive the message.

However, since the revelation comes through historical media, these media need to be

interpreted and accepted as revelatory of God. There is no one universal interpretation

that must necessarily be shared by all; there is no medium that compels that we accept it

4
as necessarily embodying God. Thus, for Jews and Christians, we recognize God’s

saving action in the liberation of Israel from slavery at the hands of the Egyptians.

Others might see the Exodus event as simply a series of fortunate coincidences, denying

any notion of supernatural activity. Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the

eternal Word of God made flesh. Others might regard him as simply a failed

revolutionary who was executed by the Romans.

It is very important to note that no revelation comes directly from God in a pure,

divine form which requires no human interpretation or codification in language. The Ten

Commandments from the Old Testament did not drop down as such from the heavens,

nor were they dictated by God verbatim to Moses. The Israelites interpreted the events

leading to their Exodus as a miraculous intervention by God, and they subsequently

codified a set of laws which they believed to embody God’s will for them. These and

other scriptural writings are not meant to necessarily remain unchanged and fixed in

meaning for the rest of human history. They are continually to be interpreted and

reinterpreted in the community according to the signs of the times. A clear example

would be the Mosaic law which prohibited the eating of shrimps and other shellfish. In

the Church today, there is no longer any such dietary prohibition against the eating of

such food.

The last term which might need further clarification is that of “utopia.” In

common usage, utopia connotes an illusion, an impossible and unattainable ideal. This is

not how I am using the word. For our purposes, the word simply means what we imagine

is best for our current situation, given what we have in terms of resources, possibilities,

and limitations. It is an ideal vision of society grounded on one’s foundational faith, and

5
it is informed by whatever means we have at our disposal (philosophy, science, etc.) This

ideal vision serves then as a blueprint to guide our actions. For example, my Christian

faith calls for justice. My knowledge of the present situation coming from disciplines

such as economics and political science enable me to imagine what greater justice in the

Philippines today would look like. This utopian vision then enables me to determine

whether I should support agrarian reform or not, for example. My faith is brought to bear

on concrete realities such as agrarian reform through the mediation of this ideal vision of

society, informed by any credible source of knowledge at my disposal. The utopian

vision announces a hope to which we can aspire and towards which we should work. It

also serves as the basis for our denouncing any situation that detracts from the ideal, be it

poverty, or injustice, or a faulty piece of legislation. However, there is no universal

conception of utopia. Your conception of an ideal world might certainly be different

from mine even if we both come from the same faith.

Given these preliminary definitions, we can now turn our attention to the first of

the two problematic positions mentioned earlier.

NO RELATION

The “no relation” position is problematic because it is not faithful to either

Christianity or the Filipino people. In terms of Christianity, this position leads to a

spirituality of evasion or avoidance of historical problems – fleeing from the world with

the hope of simply going to heaven. To echo Karl Marx, such a position truly renders the

faith as nothing more than an opiate for the suffering masses. Such a mentality is alien to

the Gospel. In John 10:10, Jesus says that he came so that we may have life and have it

6
to the full. The meaning of this verse is fleshed out in the programmatic reading from

Isaiah at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospel of Luke (4:18 ff):

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.

Jesus did not simply tell those who were suffering to grin and bear it because they

would go to heaven. He ministered to them. The Gospel message was never about

simply leaving earth to go to the Kingdom – the message precisely is “thy Kingdom

come on earth as it is in heaven.”

Apart from a lack of fidelity to the Gospel, the “no relation” position is

unresponsive to the concrete needs of the Filipino people, especially those who are

suffering. I need not belabor the obvious here – suffice it to say that there are

innumerable problems confronting the Filipino people: economic, political, and social.

For an institution as powerful as the Church to turn a blind eye to such massive problems

on the pretext that its province is simply spiritual affairs is an affront to the sensibility of

the Filipino people and would render the Church completely irrelevant. The Church

would lose all credibility with the people, leaving it unable to effectively proclaim the

Gospel. After all, why should the people listen to such empty preaching precisely when

their own bellies are empty as well?

DIRECT RELATION

7
 Now we come to a more serious problem. After all, the “no relation” position is

not held by many, precisely because it can easily be shown to be inadequate. In contrast,

the “direct relation” position seems to be held by a larger number, whether members of

the Church hierarchy or the laity. Some leaders and members of the Church seem to

believe that this position is the only one that should be held, as a matter of Christian duty

and loyalty. What makes the problem so insidious is the sincerity of the adherents, even

though their position could be argued as misguided.

Why is the “direct relation” position so wrong? Why can’t we relate the faith

directly to the political actions and positions we deem necessary for meaningful social

change in the country?

First, the “direct relation” position is problematic on the level of revelation. As

stated earlier, no one, whether in the Church or outside it, gets a pure, undiluted version

of the Word of God. Not the priests. Not the bishops. Not even the Pope. God always

reveals God’s self through a historical medium, be it a burning bush, sacred Scriptures, or

a carpenter from Nazareth named Jesus. This revelation then necessarily requires

interpretation. Can anyone in the Church today claim that God directly tells them exactly

what position to hold as regards nuclear weapons, or capital punishment, or the US war

on Iraq? Certainly not. The most anyone can do is try to discern God’s will from

existing sources such as the Gospels or the writings of St. Paul with the help of the

teaching of the Church. And people can have legitimately different interpretations.

Second, we have the problem of historicity. Even if we know what God wants,

from the Gospels for example, we still have to apply it to our concrete situation with its

unique circumstances and exigencies. For instance, we know from scriptures that God

8
wants justice. That much seems clear and relatively unambiguous. But what would be a

just minimum wage in the Philippines today? Three hundred pesos a day? Five

hundred? Eight hundred? Certainly, God is not directly revealing the exact amount to

anyone. To make a proper determination of the just minimum wage requires disciplines

such as economics and sociology. It also requires a thorough knowledge of the

Philippine situation, something about which the Gospels know absolutely nothing. At the

end of the day, what justice means in the Philippines requires interpretation and

discernment– both of God’s will and the local situation. And again, people can

legitimately have different interpretations.

NOT JUST ONE INTERPRETATION AMONG MANY

However, while there may be different possible interpretations of God’s

revelation, not all of these interpretations are necessarily equal. The Church can rightly

claim a privileged position for its interpretation. After all, we believe that we are

founded upon the Son of God made flesh. The sacred Scriptures are the books of the

Church, written by our foreparents. We have a tradition, spanning millennia, of reading

and prayerfully interpreting these sacred writings. We have had numerous intelligent and

erudite women and men throughout the centuries devoting their lives precisely to this

task. Perhaps more importantly, the Church is considered by many to be their moral

compass. The Church is seen precisely as the guardian and interpreter of God’s

revelation. For Christians especially, what the Church has to say about God’s revelation

is certainly not just one voice among many equal ones.

9
 But even within the Church, we must be careful to nuance different levels or

kinds of interpretation of God’s revelation. We must ask first, “what is the source?” A

solemn proclamation from an ecumenical council (such as the Creed from the Council of

Nicea in 325 AD) certainly carries more weight than the teaching of an individual bishop.

A papal encyclical carries more weight than a parish priest’s homily. The lay faithful

might interpret an event (such as a statue supposedly shedding tears of blood) differently

from the way the Church hierarchy would. Some progressive theologians might hold

different positions from that of the college of bishops.

Even if the teaching comes from the same source, however, we must still be

careful in making distinctions. There are at least two further criteria which merit

consideration: a) what is the official weight accorded to the teaching? and b) how is the

teaching received? Some examples should make these clear. As regards official weight

– the second Vatican council issued 16 official documents. Of these, four are

constitutions and have rightly been more influential in the Church than some of the other

decrees. As regards reception – the teaching that murder is bad is universally recognized,

and generally followed. Let us contrast this with the practice of not eating meat during

Fridays of Lent. Not as many Catholics hold this belief or adhere to it as strongly as they

do the prohibition against murder. I am not saying that the teaching on abstinence has no

authority – but from the standpoint of reception, it is not as strongly received as the fifth

commandment.

HOW IS THE CHURCH TO ENGAGE POLITICAL ISSUES?

10
 I have argued against both the “no relation” and “direct relation” positions. But

the Church has a right to speak from its faith on certain political issues. Indeed, the

Church has a duty to bring its faith to bear on those issues which seriously affect a large

proportion of the populace. If it can’t do it via the “direct relation” route, what other

avenue is open? What we can and should do is to relate our faith with our politics

through the mediation of utopia.

How does utopia serve as a mediator between our faith and our politics? Our

vision of the best possible society today is certainly animated, guided, and inspired by our

Christian faith. We envision a society that respects life, provides adequate safety and

material resources, and promotes justice and peace (and all other Gospel values). For

example, if the Church believes abortion is against the will of God (and it certainly does),

then its utopian vision will include protection of the life of the unborn child.

So how is this different from the “direct relation” position? The key is the

mediation provided by the utopian vision. The Church can and should still argue against

abortion, as befits its utopia and in consonance with its interpretation of God’s revelation

given the signs of the times. But the basis for the argumentation is not that God directly

revealed that abortion should be illegal in the Philippines. Rather, our Church leaders, in

their prayer and discernment and given the teaching and tradition of the Church, believe

that what is best for Philippine society today is that abortion be considered illegal.

Strategically, this position is best argued from the standpoint of utopia rather than

a direct appeal to God’s revelation. First of all, there is no way to call God down as a

witness to give direct testimony on the divine will for the Philippines on this issue.

While this point may sound flippant or facetious, let us recall that throughout history,

11
numerous people have claimed that God has somehow spoken directly to them. While

we might consider some of these people as lunatics, we consider some of them (like

Jeremiah or John the Baptist) to be genuine prophets. Ultimately, it comes down to faith

– how we interpret this person’s claim. We Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of

God. A lot of people during his time, however, chose to have him crucified. In other

words, as a society, it is practically impossible to arrive at unanimity regarding any

entity’s claim to be speaking for God.

The second reason against arguing directly from the faith is allied to the first. The

Philippines is a pluralistic society. Not everyone in it is a theist, let alone a Catholic.

And while the Church teaching on God’s revelation carries considerable weight with

Catholics, it might carry little or no weight with non-Catholics. So in the case of

abortion, while the Church certainly believes that such is against God’s will, when it

argues the position in public it would do best to argue on the basis of what is best for

society. It could (and does, in fact) argue that the unborn child is a human life and should

be accorded the necessary protection by the state. It could make reference to ultrasound

technology and other similar means to buttress its claims. The Church could (and again,

does) cite the Philippine constitution’s outlawing of abortion. Strategically, this kind of

argumentation carries much more weight in a pluralistic society. Whether one is a

believer or not, one can see the ultrasound image. Whether one is Catholic or not, one is

bound by the same constitution.

IS THERE ROOM FOR A MULTIPLICITY OF VOICES?

12
 I have argued that the Church can rightly claim a privileged position in

interpreting God’s revelation. And certainly, the positions held and taught by the Church

hierarchy should carry significant weight for the faithful. But Church teachings certainly

evolve. Our understanding of God’s revelation certainly develops over time especially

given new situations. As told in the Acts of the Apostles, certain Church leaders at first

did not want to baptize Gentiles unless they first became Jews. That position was

overturned fairly early, and most Christians today have never been Jews. Earlier in

Church history, there was an understanding that “outside the Church there is no

salvation.” No one who wasn’t baptized could be saved. In Vatican II, this adage is

understood to mean that the Church itself is necessary as a sacrament of salvation, but the

Church proclaims that non-Christians of good will can indeed be saved.

Given our understanding that God’s revelation necessarily needs interpretation,

and given the changing times and circumstances, is it possible for people within the

Church to have differing positions on certain issues and still claim fidelity to the faith?

Here is a hypothetical example which might clarify what I mean. Let’s say Adam is a

Christian and he wants to bring about greater justice in the country because of his belief

in the Gospel. As a legislator, he wants to set the Philippine minimum wage for

government workers at six hundred pesos a day because his studies show that that is the

minimum amount necessary for a dignified life. Obviously, the national budget must be

rearranged to accommodate this. Let’s say Adam decides to reduce the budget for

museums and national parks to fund his ambitious wage increase. On the other hand,

Kris, also a Christian, believes that museums and national parks are important. Her main

issue on the other hand is the need to strengthen national defense. So she sets her

13
minimum wage at four hundred pesos a day, increases military spending by 20%, and

increases the VAT to 30%, and keeps spending on museums and parks at the current

level. Can Adam claim to be a faithful Christian? Yes. Can Eve make the same claim?

Yes.

As we have shown, there is no such thing as the pure and undiluted word of God

for specific situations in the Philippines today. We need to interpret God’s revelation and

we need to study the specific situation using the appropriate disciplines to arrive at our

utopia. This conception of the ideal society, this utopian vision, enables us to make

norms, and these norms then guide our choices. For example, our ideal society values

life. From this vision, we create a norm -- we outlaw murder. We then judge specific

situations on the basis of the norm. Was this act murder, or self-defense? Is it peace-

time, or are we at war? The only meaningful way we can bring the faith to bear on our

specific situation is through the mediation of what we envision is best for society.

If Adam and Kris were both vying for our votes, we would not base our decision

on the level of their faith. Both can sincerely claim to be acting from their Christian

belief. We have to decide on how they have translated their Christian faith through the

mediation of utopia to arrive at their concrete platforms of action. Which platform do we

believe is best for Philippine society today? We can then say that Adam’s is better than

Kris’s, but we are not in any way making a judgment on whether or not Kris is Christian.

THE CASE OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL

The hypothetical case of Adam and Kris above was fairly easy because there is no

strong official Church position on how much the Philippine government should allocate

14
for national parks. Such is not the case for the Reproductive Health Bill. A number of

Church leaders have come up with strong positions against the bill. Some of these are

unqualified “nos.” Some others are more nuanced. “No, however…” For these, the bill

as it currently stands is unacceptable, but if certain changes were to be made they would

support it. We can also make a distinction on the basis of the argumentation. Some

positions seem to be arguing against the bill from the “direct relation” position we argued

against earlier. Others argue against the bill from the utopia position. That is, they argue

against the bill as it currently stands on the basis of things like the constitutional ban on

abortions. If the bill allows IUDs, and if IUDs are shown to be abortifacients, then the

bill is violating the constitution. (It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail

the numerous varying positions on the RH bill).

While there are various forms of “nos,” and while there are varying levels in the

quality of argumentation, the fact remains that there is a fairly strong current from our

Church leaders against the present version of the Reproductive Health Bill. For

Catholics, this is to be taken seriously. After all, these are our bishops (among others)

and not just a solitary priest giving a homily. Furthermore, these leaders are echoing a

position held by Church leaders elsewhere, including Rome.

Is there then room within the Church for a dissenting opinion on the RH bill? I

would argue in the affirmative. Let us remember that there are different criteria in

evaluating the weight of Church teaching. The most famous ecclesial source for the

position against artificial contraception (and upon which a lot of the argumentation

against the RH bill is based) is Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae of 1968. And

while a papal encyclical is no trifling matter, Humanae Vitae has not been taught to be

15
infallible. Let us contrast this with, for example, the belief in the divinity of Jesus –

which the Church cannot teach more strongly. This teaching is absolutely central to

Christian belief, to the extent that if one did not believe it, one would not be a Christian.

Furthermore, from the standpoint of reception, the teaching of Humanae Vitae against

artificial contraception is not held universally by the faithful. Some Catholics use

artificial methods of birth control, and some Catholics believe there is nothing wrong in

doing so. In contrast, the belief in the divinity of Jesus is universally held among

Christians. While this may seem like an unfair comparison, it serves to drive home the

point that the teaching of Church leaders against the RH bill (and Humanae Vitae) is not

necessarily essential to one’s Christian identity, unlike the articles of the Creed.

Given that a large number of Philippine Church leaders have argued against the

RH bill, and given our understanding that this teaching is not infallible, is it then possible

for a Catholic in good conscience to support the bill? Yes, it is possible. But this is not

an easy yes, as though one were simply choosing between Coke and Pepsi. For

Catholics, our Church leaders, especially when there is near unanimity among them,

should be given the benefit of the doubt. What the Church teaches, even if not declared

infallible, should be given the presumption of truth.

The fact remains, however, that this teaching of the Church is still an

interpretation. The position held by these leaders stems from their interpretation of both

God’s revelation and the specific situation (based on studies in economics, sociology,

etc.) There is no necessary uniformity in divining God’s will, and neither is there in

assessing specific situations (economists and sociologists can and do disagree). And

while the Church is the presumed expert when it comes to divine revelation, it does not

16
necessarily claim the same expertise on economic or sociological matters. Thus, if one

studies the issue carefully and sincerely, and gives the teaching of Church leaders the

gravity it deserves, and one still feels bound by conscience to hold the dissenting opinion

(based on a differing economic or political understanding), then one has the right and

duty to follow one’s conscience. This belief in the primacy of conscience and the right to

legitimate dissent are both held by the Church itself, after all. Why? Because God’s

revelation cannot apply itself to specific situations. The application is always through the

mediation of the utopian vision, and the crafting of this vision necessitates the use of

other academic disciplines where legitimate differences in understanding do occur.

HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH ENGAGE POLITICAL ISSUES?

On many issues, there are Catholics that hold opinions which are contrary to what

Church leaders teach. The same situation applies to the RH bill in particular. How

should the Church deal with this issue of legitimate dissent?

A number of Church leaders are certainly doing the right thing. They are

exercising their right and duty in fighting for that in which they believe. And they are

arguing properly, on the basis of utopia – that which is best for society. Such

argumentation provides benefits on many levels. There is due recognition of the

autonomy proper to the political sphere. This kind of argumentation brings more voices

into the discussion, and allows for the flourishing of genuine dialogue. And the dialogue

and debates which ensue can focus on specifics – what exactly is best for the Philippines

and why. Such an atmosphere should certainly be more conducive to greater cooperation

17
and understanding among the parties involved, hopefully leading to more productive

solutions to the ills which plague our people.

Specifically in terms of the RH bill, once again, some Church leaders (and

spokespersons) have taken the lead in the proper form of argumentation I have discussed

above. These leaders are arguing on the level of their utopian vision – in this case, what

would be best for Philippine society given the issues of poverty, population increase, and

women’s health among others. Recourse is made to various studies – sociological,

anthropological, medical, and the like. These disciplines are accorded their due status,

and are consulted so as to enlighten the position of these Church leaders. Certainly, these

positions are met with opposition. But there is a genuine space for dialogue – on the

level of utopia, not directly on the level of faith. The debate then revolves around

statistics, and scientific findings, and the like. Such debate allows all parties concerned

to give voice to their positions, and argue why they hold such. And resolution is

possible.

As of this writing, the issue of the RH bill has yet to be resolved. On the surface,

the Church position seems mutually exclusive with that of the authors of the bill. But

there is certainly hope. For instance, given the utopian argument of some Church leaders,

I can envision the possibility that IUDs would be removed from the bill if they can be

proven to be abortifacient in nature. On the other hand, I can envision a scenario where

some Church leaders might allow condoms, not because they believe artificial

contraception is fine, but because they recognize that the bill is for all Filipinos, even

non-Catholics – and these are not necessarily to be bound by the teachings of Humanae

Vitae. I do not know how the RH bill issue will be resolved. But I am far more confident

18
that the eventual resolution will be what is best for the Filipino people if all Church

leaders follow the lead of those who argue through the mediation of utopia.

A SOURCE OF HOPE

If the Church mediates its faith and politics through utopia, it can achieve so

much. By envisioning an ideal society inspired by the Gospel, the Church can announce

to the Filipino people a concrete hope. A society where peace and justice flourish. A

society where hunger and poverty are actively fought against. And this utopian vision

frees the Church to be more militant. It enables the Church to actively denounce that

which goes against the vision. It liberates the Church to speak on important issues, not

just hot-button ones like the RH bill. The Filipino people are facing numerous problems.

The Filipinos deserve a Church that fights for them. The mediation of utopia allows the

Church to speak properly and intelligently about poverty, corruption, drug addiction, the

environment, taxation, social security, and any other issue that affects the people. And

the Church will then be speaking not just to Christians, but to all Filipinos. It can serve

as a genuine bastion of hope for Filipinos in these troubled times.

CONCLUSION

Despite all our economic, social, and political problems, we have hope. I locate

this hope in the Christian faith of the Filipino. While this faith was initially foreign to us,

brought over by the Spanish, we have embraced it and made it our own. It has remained

strong and has kept us strong through almost four centuries of Spanish occupation, the

19
American occupation, World War II, and the Marcos dictatorship. Even with all the trials

we face today, we remain faithful. Therein lies our hope.

Christian faith continues to be a very strong and significant factor in Philippine

culture. The Church is a very powerful force in our society. As a social institution, it is

credible to our people in a way that the government is not. Given our faith, our people

naturally turn to the Church for guidance and strength in these troubled times. Can the

Church provide answers? Can it indeed supply us with the real hope for which we so

yearn?

Yes, but only if the Church acts correctly. The Church can respond to the various

political and social ills that trouble our people only if it relates the Christian faith to our

political situation meaningfully, that is, through the mediation of utopia. There are two

ways of acting by which the Church will be ineffective and lose credibility with the

people.

First, it can act as though the Christian faith had nothing to say on political

matters. This would render the Christian faith totally unresponsive to the situation of the

vast majority of the people. Such a position would hearken back to a spirituality of flight

from the world that would be properly characterized as simply being an opiate for the

masses. The Filipino people, with their very real problems in the political, economic, and

social spheres, would ultimately find such a Church irrelevant. The Church would lose

all credibility, and this would be a tremendous waste.

The second incorrect way that the Church can act is by bringing the faith to bear

directly on political realities. We have already seen why such an approach will not work.

First, it is not intellectually consistent since it does not correspond with how we

20
understand God’s revelation. Second, such a position is untenable in a pluralistic society

which is not homogenous and theocratic. Third, it simply does not work because it

cannot work. Taking such a position then would severely weaken the Church in the

Philippines. It would alienate not only non-Christians, but also those Christians who may

have a legitimate though different view from some members of the hierarchy. It would

put the Church in direct competition with disciplines such as economics, sociology, and

political science. And this is a battle the Church cannot hope to win precisely because we

would be discussing economics, society, and politics.

But we have identified the way by which the Church can bring the Christian faith

to bear upon the political situation in the Philippines, through the mediation of utopia.

Through its imagination, the Church can use its faith to inspire a vision for an ideal

society in the Philippines today. In so doing, it can announce a real and meaningful

hope-filled vision for the Filipino people. It can correctly and justifiably denounce any

form of oppression and injustice that is being perpetrated on our people. Acting in this

way, the Church becomes a meaningful, credible voice in our pluralistic society –

fostering dialogue and sparking debates that are aimed at creating that which we

announce and eliminating that which we denounce.

We Filipinos have a lot of problems. But we have a strong faith. And if our Church acts

properly and intelligently (and a good number of our leaders and lay faithful do), it can

serve as a credible bastion and source of hope for our people until our utopian vision of a

beautiful and free Philippines devoid of injustice and oppression becomes a reality.

21