I've shared my views on this issue so many times in various online fora that I have almost memorized my replies on every post that I make. And so, in order to have a place where I can just copy [from] and paste [somewhere else] should the need to share my views again arise, I can just access it here.
The thing about people who advocate the "separation of Church and State" is that many of them (bluntly speaking) do not know what they are talking about. More concretely, they don't know the constitutional basis for such a separation, and most take the principle for granted just so they would have something to throw against the Church.
The principle of the separation of church and state had its roots during the Enlightenment, but it's application in the Philippines is the direct result of the influence of American constitutional law. There are two aspects to the principle: (1) the Church (or any religion) is not permitted to interfere in the government's exercise of its duties; and (2) the State is not allowed to institute an official religion.
The test therefore is whether any of these two aspects of the principle is violated whenever Church officials speak out against certain or proposed governmental policies that they are against.
(From this point onwards, the term "Church" will refer to the Roman Catholic Church, which is the usual suspect when discussing this principle in this country.)
Let's take, for example, the Church's opposition against contraceptives and artificial family planning methods and see whether they pass the two-fold test.
First, is the Church interfering in the government's exercise of its duties? To answer this question, we first have to establish what qualifies as "interference". Whenever Church officials make pronouncements or mobilize people to rally against contraceptives/artificial family planning methods, do they prevent the government from doing its job? No. Ultimately, the decision to formulate and execute policy rests solely in the government's hands, and this is beyond the control of the Church. Unless somebody can prove that Church officials have usurped governmental authority, then there is no basis to conclude that the Church is guilty of interference.
What many people fail to understand is that the Church, as an institution, has the same rights as individuals with regard to the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression. Telling the Church to stop speaking out because we disagree with it has exactly the same effect as telling a friend that he has no right to disagree with you - clearly an absurd and indefensible position.
Second, is the State favoring the Church to the point that the latter has become an official religion? This test is actually more applicable to the government rather than the Church because it measures how much the government has done in establishing the Church as the State's official religion. The easiest way to do this is to check whether part of the national budget goes directly to the coffers of Church. Another is on whether any law has been passed wherein the Church has been placed at an unfair advantage over other religions.
As far as I know, there is no such law, and that no government funds are allotted for the benefit of the Church. There are of course, other ways to measure this. But in the absence of a clear law that favors the Church, any other action of the government that somehow coincides with what the Church thinks is not sufficient proof of an establishment of an official religion.
The second test rather underscores the fact that as far as the principle of the separation of Church and State goes, it takes two to tango. The State, as much as any religion, can be equally guilty of violating it. Furthermore, Church interference is only possible if the government allows such interference to take place. So in this regard, those who accuse the Church of violating the principle are barking up half the wrong tree. For example, if the current population bill sponsored by Edcel Lagman does not pass into law - whether due to being vetoed by the President, or not gaining enough votes in Congress - we can rightly say that the Church's oppostion had a part in the bill's demise. But see, it's not the Church that would vote on it, and neither does the Church have any veto power over acts of congress. The only thing they could do is lobby against it - which is perfectly legal.
In any case, even the previous example does not really qualify as interference. Church officials will always (and have every right to) speak their mind on matters which they believe are within the realm of their brethren's spirituality and faith.
= = = = = = = = = =
The principle of the separation of church and state had its roots during the Enlightenment, but it's application in the Philippines is the direct result of the influence of American constitutional law. There are two aspects to the principle: (1) the Church (or any religion) is not permitted to interfere in the government's exercise of its duties; and (2) the State is not allowed to institute an official religion.
The test therefore is whether any of these two aspects of the principle is violated whenever Church officials speak out against certain or proposed governmental policies that they are against.
(From this point onwards, the term "Church" will refer to the Roman Catholic Church, which is the usual suspect when discussing this principle in this country.)
Let's take, for example, the Church's opposition against contraceptives and artificial family planning methods and see whether they pass the two-fold test.
First, is the Church interfering in the government's exercise of its duties? To answer this question, we first have to establish what qualifies as "interference". Whenever Church officials make pronouncements or mobilize people to rally against contraceptives/artificial family planning methods, do they prevent the government from doing its job? No. Ultimately, the decision to formulate and execute policy rests solely in the government's hands, and this is beyond the control of the Church. Unless somebody can prove that Church officials have usurped governmental authority, then there is no basis to conclude that the Church is guilty of interference.
What many people fail to understand is that the Church, as an institution, has the same rights as individuals with regard to the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression. Telling the Church to stop speaking out because we disagree with it has exactly the same effect as telling a friend that he has no right to disagree with you - clearly an absurd and indefensible position.
Second, is the State favoring the Church to the point that the latter has become an official religion? This test is actually more applicable to the government rather than the Church because it measures how much the government has done in establishing the Church as the State's official religion. The easiest way to do this is to check whether part of the national budget goes directly to the coffers of Church. Another is on whether any law has been passed wherein the Church has been placed at an unfair advantage over other religions.
As far as I know, there is no such law, and that no government funds are allotted for the benefit of the Church. There are of course, other ways to measure this. But in the absence of a clear law that favors the Church, any other action of the government that somehow coincides with what the Church thinks is not sufficient proof of an establishment of an official religion.
The second test rather underscores the fact that as far as the principle of the separation of Church and State goes, it takes two to tango. The State, as much as any religion, can be equally guilty of violating it. Furthermore, Church interference is only possible if the government allows such interference to take place. So in this regard, those who accuse the Church of violating the principle are barking up half the wrong tree. For example, if the current population bill sponsored by Edcel Lagman does not pass into law - whether due to being vetoed by the President, or not gaining enough votes in Congress - we can rightly say that the Church's oppostion had a part in the bill's demise. But see, it's not the Church that would vote on it, and neither does the Church have any veto power over acts of congress. The only thing they could do is lobby against it - which is perfectly legal.
In any case, even the previous example does not really qualify as interference. Church officials will always (and have every right to) speak their mind on matters which they believe are within the realm of their brethren's spirituality and faith.
So taking everything into consideration, is the Church in the practice of violating the principle of the separation of Church and State? The answer is clearly, "No".
Hi Chito, in the Philippine Constitution, I think it is only the second principle that applies, that is, that the State cannot establish a religion and that public funds cannot be used to directly benefit a religion. It is a one way prohibition, which means that people of the cloth can be president. (Go Fr. Bernas!)
ReplyDelete