Faith and political life

THINGS must have been triggered by that Vatican document, "On Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life."

This was issued a few months ago, but I think there is now a storm of debate about how the relationship between the Church and the State should be, and where a Catholic politician should draw the line between private faith and public duties.

That document is hotly discussed in many US circles, but the Philippines is not spared either. I am sure it also must be a hot topic in many other countries. There are those who think that with that document the Catholic Church is trying to gain power and influence in the country's political life. What madness!

Several reactions have come out, and I would like to focus on some that say that between the Church and the State, between one's faith and his public duties, absolutely nothing should mark their relationship.

I find this, of course, a bit funny, because the most elementary common sense would readily tell us that though the Church and the State work with different aims, with different methods, in different levels, they involve the same people. There just has to be some relationship between the two.

As to faith and civic duties, again while they have different areas of concern, both are supposed to figure prominently if one has to have a unity of life. What is faith if it's not expressed in deeds, including those involving public duties?

Remember that passage from the Letter of Saint James: "What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but does not have works? Can the faith save him? ...O senseless man, faith without works is useless."

Anyway, the "absolutely-nothing" model is supposed to have been espoused by no less than the first and so far the only Catholic US President, John F. Kennedy.

The unfortunate and clearly erroneous position of JFK was that religion is a purely private matter that has no legitimate bearing on a statesman's public responsibilities.

Historians claim that JFK articulated that position because when he ran for the US presidency in 1960, he faced fierce opposition from American Protestants who were concerned that he would allow the Pope to dictate US policy and impose Catholic moral teaching on such issues as contraception and divorce.

In short, he had to face a sea of bigotry and intolerance. Nowadays, I have reason to believe that things in general have improved. We however can still see pockets of bigotry and dangerous ghettos of intolerance in many societies.

The Kennedy predicament was aggravated by the fact that most American bishops at that time also remained silent on the issue, perhaps fearful that by talking they would just damage JFK's chances of becoming the first Catholic US president.

This radical view should be reconsidered. It really would sound funny if one were to insist in holding on to this position.

It should be quite clear to all that if only everyone, but especially our politicians, would just be more consistent to their faith, which teaches us to be good, holy, honest, virtuous, efficient, to be men and women of integrity, then we can expect more peace and order in our society, more justice, not to mention, more prosperity.

Separating faith and religion from political life can only mean disaster for us. The gap created by such separation would be the fertile ground for both devil and unscrupulous men to do their tricks and carry out their evil plots and schemes.

There are of course some differences of doctrine among different faiths and churches, not to mention, discrepancies between official teachings and personal life.

This phenomenon, which is normal and not at all surprising, should provoke a more genuine interest to enter into continuing dialogue with everyone, rather than harden in the view that there is absolutely nothing in the relationship between the Church and the State, between one's faith and one's public duties.