The Catholic priests and the election

By Edward Era Barbacena

THE past elections saw the nation divided between the BBM-Sarah team on the one hand and the Leni-Kiko tandem on the other. News reports of the period of the campaign bear out the observation, already made by many, that while Leni Robredo joined the race "to prevent a Marcos presidency," Marcos did so because he wanted a chance at leading the nation.

It is no secret that Leni threw several punches at Marcos — and the refrain was picked up by her adoring fans that were obviously brainwashed and blind  supporters. The alleged horror stories from the martial law era were revived. Bongbong's academic credentials (or lack of them!) were made an issue against him as were the ill-gotten wealth cases filed against his family. But all of these efforts were indeed futile.

Members of the academic communities of leading universities made it appear that the choice for Leni was the choice of the intelligentsia and that only the unenlightened and the obtuse would settle for Marcos. The well-heeled also threw in their support, announcing the color pink to be the color of the "disente" and the "marangal." In some speeches, homilies and posts on social media there was no attempt to conceal disdain: the choice for Marcos, it was thundered, was the choice for complicity in murder, plunder and deceit.

More unfortunately, some leading members of the Church, priests and religious waded deeply into the murky waters of partisan politics. Despite clear magisterial and papal pronouncements about keeping lines clear between laying down the moral and doctrinal requirements of a just society and the common good on the one hand and indulging in direct political action on the other — through the open endorsement of candidates, some bishops and priests made the contest between Robredo and Marcos a choice between good and evil! For this reason, many accused them as hypocrite servants of the Lord.  

Some would even use their social media platform to persecute voters who have different political preferences and even called Marcos as the modern day Barabbas .  One of the highly critical priests against the government since Duterte came into power was a priest with twitter account name @pads_nosi.  This blatantly curses the so-called BBM supporters calling them ignorant and stupid. 

 And now, we must learn from the results of the elections. In 2016, many bishops and priests came out openly against Rodrigo Duterte because of his imprudent loquaciousness. But the nation gave him 16 million votes. This time, in the face of every insult, slur and charge, the nation gave Marcos 30 plus million votes. It might be difficult to pin down what exactly the voters saw, felt or found in Marcos that caused such a wave of votes to carry him to Malacañang. The only thing that can be said is that the people identified with him. The Filipino penchant for supporting the underdog must have played a part, but it was also the repudiation by the multitude of the anointing by the elite, the posturing of the supposed "intelligentsia," the disente. It made very clear the social and economic divide — although, surprisingly, Marcos got a good share of votes from classes A and B as well!

I am sure that Marcos will not do a Duterte in respect to the Church, but we have lessons to learn. Prior to the elections, voters' education in many parishes was ill-disguised "miting de avance" for Leni and Kiko. The president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a letter on behalf of the CBCP that clearly took a swipe at Marcos. It bemoaned "historical revisionism" — the end, clearly, to make the people remember that the scion of the martial law autocrat was in the running. People in the churches sat through the mandated reading of the letter. Fortunately, none walked out — as far as I can tell. I was asked by the pastor of the Cathedral to read the letter. I complied by asking the commentator to read it for me because it was a letter that I was convinced should not have been written, much less publicized in the midst of a divisive campaign period.

The questions we should be asking now are many. I will pick a handful. Pope Francis exhorted pastors, early on in his ministry as pope, not only to be with the sheep but to "smell like the sheep." So, how close to the sheep are we really, knowing now that our exhortations and endorsements notwithstanding, they take the opposite position? I am not saying that bishops, priests and religious people should have voted for Marcos. But do we know how and why the people in an overwhelming, incontrovertible majority did? Have we bothered to find out? The synodal journey was supposed to get us in the Church listening to each other. Did we listen to our faithful during the campaign period, or were we intent on getting them to listen to us?

It starts with characterization and labeling. When you characterize a candidate as evil and label as unworthy someone in the running, of necessity you take a partisan stand, you make a partisan choice. But if, as teachers of the faith, we tell our people what it is to have a just society, what the Church believes should be a well-ordered body politic, what the common good requires, we are doing what we were ordained to do and living the practical consequences of the vows we took. Undoubtedly, these elections — as well as those held six years ago — amply prove that our people will not walk with us when we choose to take sides, when we wear political colors, and repeat partisan refrains, unless our endorsements resonate with their thoughts, sentiments, aspirations as well as idiosyncrasies. If we are serious about synodality, this is what it takes, because, clearly, in these elections the people and many members of the clergy and leaders in the Church walked separate paths. I maintain the position that synodality is best served when, in matters that pertain to political choice and similar issues, the Church maintains a posture of being "mater et magistra" — mother and teacher to all, whatever choices they may make.

One bishop said that all the facts are in, and that the evil of martial law is amply established. In the first place, I do not think that all the facts are in. Of course, many of the reports of egregious violations of rights have proven to be true, as have many allegations of the abuse of power. But I think that it would serve the nation well, and the administration of the incoming president, to form a body — similar to the Truth Commission of South Africa — that will do a thorough inquiry into the martial law era. But I think that sorely lacking on our part as members of the clergy was fidelity to the clear Gospel injunction against judging. We judged, and our judgment was harsh — but the people did not concur!