Is there really a Catholic vote?

TOWARDS the end of 2009 the debate on the controversial Reproductive Health Bill pending in the two houses of Congress registered several decibels higher when two presidential candidates voiced support for the measure. For a while supporters of the bill thought the endorsement by Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III and former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro would finally give the bill the focus and attention needed to get the nod of lawmakers.
The RH bill was still up for plenary debate for second and third reading in the House of Representatives. The Senate has not even started its floor deliberations and debate on its counterpart bill. But less than two months later, Aquino and Teodoro backtracked from their initial position. And then Congress adjourned without any action on the bill. In short, the measure is now dead. The simple explanation: it’s a highly charged issue that politicians dreaded to tackle.
The Reproductive Health Bill, or House Bill 5043, seeks to provide education about reproductive health, facilities to improve maternal health, and essential medicines and supplies to couples raising their own family. Nowhere is abortion legalized, supported, or mandated in the bill. Neither does the bill promote promiscuity or make pornography more widely available. Completely absent in the bill – in both spirit and form – are additional powers for the state that would infringe on a person’s right to freely practice religion or live out virtues such as abstinence and chastity.

‘Election catechism’

And yet, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) asserts -- through an “election catechism” in the form of 20 pages of “election guidelines” -- that “it would not be morally permissible to vote candidates who support anti-family policies, including reproductive health, or any other moral evil such as abortion, divorce, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Otherwise one becomes an accomplice to the moral evil in question.”
A candidate’s position on the RH bill is thus the basis on how a Catholic should vote, the CBCP suggests. CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life Executive Secretary Fr. Melvin Castro would further suggest that when casting their votes, Filipinos must consider social interest over self-interest, and decide guided by moral principles.
The suggestions, however, come somewhat forcefully. With these come the threat of a candidate losing a sizeable number of votes due to their support for the bill, and the attendant promise of the Church endorsing candidates who oppose the bill. .
The veiled threat obviously paid off. Speaker Prospero Nograles on Feb. 2 said the measure would not be discussed in the last two session days of the House as it was too contentious and had little chance of being voted on. Feb. 3 was the last session day at the House.

Turnaround

In explaining his turnaround, Teodoro said the debate over the measure had become so “acrimonious” that the stakeholders totally forgot about the problem of population.
“The big debate is whether or not the government can shape a moral choice. And that is the argument of the Church. That the government should not actively advocate for making a moral choice. The debate stopped there,” he said.
Teodoro indicated that he agreed with the Church position, and said that the government should be “neutral” but should support the “moral choice” of every individual with resources. “I'd rather have resources to support a moral choice rather than fight over a bill,” he said.
For his part, Aquino pointed out, “There are provisions that I cannot support.” After saying last October that he was in favor of making contraceptives available in all government hospitals, Aquino later said he now believes the RH bill must be amended. And like the other presidential hopefuls, Aquino would now leave it to parents to plan the number of children they want and to educate them on the issue.

Constitutional separation

By its involvement in the electoral process, specifically in how voters choose and what side of the issue one must side on, isn’t the Church in violation of the constitution separation of Church and State? How decisive is the Catholic vote really, and is marching lock-step with the Catholic Church the politically safe thing to do?
The first question can be answered most easily from a legal standpoint. Both University of the Philippines sociologist Randy David and constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas are in agreement that when it comes to the constitutional provision of the separation of the Church and State, only the state can be a violator.
Sec. 5 of the Bill of Rights states, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious text shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
These commands can be interpreted to mean that our political system will not allow the adoption of an official state religion, nor the banning of any religion or sect. Every citizen is free to choose and worship as he pleases, and that belief in a Supreme God is not required to enjoy one’s political and civil rights. Moreover, Sec. 28 of Article 6 provides tax exemptions to all charitable institutions, churches, convents, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and lands and buildings used exclusively for religious, charitable, and educational purposes.

Only State can violate

Fr. Bernas concludes that only the State can be in violation of the separation of Church and State either by prohibition or compulsion. In an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, he wrote, “Thus only the State can violate it. As far as the churches are concerned, they can be beneficiaries of the State’s violation of the non-establishment clause but they cannot be the violators. Thus when politicians decry a violation by the Church and churchmen of the Church and State separation principle, what they are really doing is violating not only free exercise but also freedom of speech and expression.”
But this will not suffice. Even Fr. Bernas would admit that the real question whenever we feel uneasy about the Church’s advocacy against the RH Bill or about priests who endorse politicians in their homilies is not one about legality, but about propriety.
This unease is best explained by the sociologist David who often argues that our country is in a state of transition from one that is traditional – relying on forces such as family honor, clan loyalty, and the power of the pulpit – to one that is more modern, where society is further subdivided into spheres with their own set of norms and laws. Hence, modernity recognizes the bonds of family, the truth of the Bible, the power of the constitution, and the judgment of the individual.
Hence, he sees the Catholic Church as a traditional force that is trying to make its way into the modern world. It is still grasping for its place – at times thinking that it still has the power to make kings – and it is still in denial about the harsh reality of our times: 78% of Filipino adults support the Reproductive Health Bill and, if we aggregate the survey results of the leading candidates supporting the RH Bill, more than 60% are inclined to vote a candidate that supports the controversial legislation.
Thus, politicians who try to curry favor with voters by falling in lockstep with the Church are equally confused. If their plan is to secure the Catholic voting bloc, there is none; or if they fear a Catholic backlash if they support the bill, there isn’t one either. They will neither gain nor lose votes, but their positions can suggest how they intend to move our country forward, or whether they are transformational or traditional politicians.
Hence the irony of a democracy is that the Catholic Church too can have their say, but their voice is a dwindling one, lost in the wilderness and tempted by their own power.