Fr. Fran Villegas Post: May 13, 2022

 MUSING: #memalang

1. Some acts are in themselves evil that no amount of reason or circumstance can change, e. g., abortion, corruption, oppression (directed esp to the poor), peddling lies, EJK, etc. Circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice (Veritatis Splendor #81).

2. Political issues are moral issues. This is obvious in many magisterial documents. Issues may evolve, but that does not necessarily mean we cannot evaluate their moral bearing. We don’t have to wait for a nuclear bomb to explode to know that it can erase an entire barangay, to say the least.

3. It is morally permissible to pass judgments on human acts and if deemed evil, violators should be held accountable. Mercy builds on justice, not at the expense of it.

4. You cannot make a good jar from petrified clay unless you put a good amount of water on it. Yes, we are all a work in progress, only and only if we allow ourselves to be formed by what is true and good. Resistance and cover-ups will just thwart or even make “progress” impossible.

5. When we anchor our moral appreciation of human acts on “evolution” and “fluidity,” that ushers us into the threshold of relativism and situation ethics which the Church rejects. “It would be a very serious error…to conclude that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man” (Veritatis Splendor #103).

6. We can only accompany and help those who, in the first place, have accepted that they need help or are at least open to help and accompaniment. We cannot force ourselves on people. Even Our Lord didn’t do that. We can only help someone in as much as he/she is open to help and accompaniment.

7. Yes, Christ gave greater attention to sinners. But His attention was also a scrutinizing one. “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinner,” said St. Peter (Lk. 5:8). “Lord, I will give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount,” Zacchaeus said to Jesus (Lk. 19:8). Part of this giving greater attention is the call to repentance and reparation.

8. The “man” we want to be saved is not a disembodied spirit. That ”man” is a substantial union of body and soul. Therefore, the approach should be integral. While our goal is heaven, we should not be blind to the injustices around us or indifferent to the plight of others, or unconcerned with the proliferation of lies. We cannot hail Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life while unabashedly doing the opposite because that forfeits the salvation of man you project to care so much.

9. We have domesticated Jesus; He’s so tame and sweet. But that is not the Jesus in the Gospels. He was compassionate but uncompromising. He was gentle, but he called spade a spade.

10. Never use Our Lord to hide one’s true political color or to defend the morally reprehensible and the indefensible. These are not part of the work of God (opus Dei).

Retrieved:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=3057802547816139&set=a.1455197121410031

MUSINGS: Priests & Partisan Politics

MUSINGS: Priests & Partisan Politics

(This post is just an excerpt of a non-published article I made last year. This is my opinion. You may disagree with me. But I will defend my position in a respectful dialogue.)

1. “Priests should be non-partisan” - The injunction is not as absolute as others present it to be. Magisterial pronouncements regarding the matter are not as rigid as some people think. 

2. The Church has the obligation to give some moral principles or issue guidelines concerning political matters. The Church as an institution does not endorse a certain candidate or party. She guides. She is non-partisan. However, it seems to me that passing moral judgements on issues related to political affairs is unavoidably partisan. And the Church somehow admits this one (Second Plenary Council of the Philippines #344).

3. A priest may publicly express his support to a particular candidate as long as such is a product of a prayerful discernment, based on facts, for the common good, and not done in the pulpit. In good and informed conscience, when a priest expresses support to a particular candidate and persuades others to do so, I don’t think he is being condescending or that he engages in “clericalism.” His action is still in accord with Church teaching. He is neither violating any ecclesiastical law nor committing impropriety. A prophet is neither mute nor deaf. A prophet knows how and when to speak. 

4. One big objection against such act is unity. The CBCP says that “the Church prohibits Clergy and Religious from involvement in partisan politics because they are considered the symbols of unity in the Church community” (Catechism on Church and Politics, Part III, #2). This is correct. But such unity or harmony should be based on justice (Can. 287 § 1). What is it that unites us? What is unity when injustices and other social evils abound and we remain silent? Should one remain indifferent when justice is violated? When corruption proliferates? When extrajudicial killings become prevalent and supported? Should a priest remain silent when convicts run for public office? Should a priest remain in his cold neutrality when Gospel values and the common good are at stake? Should a priest remain silent in the face of all these? Is that the kind of priest Jesus wants for His Church? Is that the kind of priest the lay faithful want — silent because he does not hold the same view that they have?

5. Politics is good and vital but it isn’t a perfect science. So, when the fundamental rights of people are in peril or violated, when political malaise exacerbates, should a priest remain neutral and silent? He needs to side with the common good, truth, justice, and other Gospel values. Making a stand is not easy and it requires patience and discernment. In doing so, pastoral prudence is to be exercised. 

Thank you. God bless.🙏🌸

MUSINGS: A NOTE ON THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

By: Rev. Fr. Fran D. Villegas, Ph. L., M.A.

Since the issue on the separation of Church and State resurfaces, let us clarify this matter once again. Let this be my little contribution to a reasoned public discourse. 

It is commonly believed that there is an impervious wall separating the Church and the State. And when church people (bishops, priests, & nuns; by the way, the Church is bigger than this triumvirate. The laity — you — forms the biggest part of the Church) say something against a bill or policy or misdeeds done by the government, some would mindlessly parrot, “Separation of Church and State! Huwag makialam ang Simbahan sa politika!”

The Constitution says that the "separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable"(Section 6, Art. II). This provision is more of a restriction on the powers of the State than on the Church. This is actually an injunction imposed by the State upon itself. This section also must be taken in conjunction with Section 5, Article III of the Constitution, which also provides that "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof." 

According to the highly respected Constitutionalist, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., Section 5 of the Bill of Rights contains two essential parts — (1) the non-establishment of a religion clause, and (2) the free exercise of religion clause. The first one (1) is a negative command of the Constitution directed to the State that it cannot establish a state religion. Then the second one (2) is the pertinent part of that constitutional provision for church people for it commands and guarantees the free exercise of religion. 

However, this does not automatically mean that the State cannot intervene in church matters. This rather means that when a certain religious belief becomes an act destructive to the society and goes against the laws of the State, for example: polygamy, human sacrifice, and other crimes, then that falls within the police powers or regulation of the government. Let me give a concrete example: in 2015 the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) protested and questioned the authority of the Department of Justice, then headed by Sec Leila De Lima. Its members shouted, “Separation of Church and State!” However, it must be recalled that there were allegations of crimes and charges were filled before the Department of Justice. This department is mandated by law to investigate and determine probable cause. The trial is a secular matter, not a religious one. Therefore, the “Separation of Church and State” cannot be applied. 

In the same manner, there is nothing in this constitutional provision that bars or prohibits church people, most especially the clergy and nuns, from voicing out objections and criticisms on matters considered “political.” It is utterly non-sensical for one to deny the Church its right of freedom of speech and opinion. Just because the Church is a religious group that it cannot voice its concerns or criticize wrongdoings. To argue on this ground is wrong. And let us be reminded that these same church people are citizens of this county who have constitutionally guaranteed rights like anyone else.

They say, “Huwag makialam ang Simbahan sa politika!” Is this correct? Do you want a church silent in the face of crimes and injustices? Then the Catholic Church is not for you. She refuses to suit your cheap taste. Ang isang mabuting Katoliko dapat may alam; dapat makialam. Patay lang po ang walang pakialam. Or as I say in Cebuano, “Ang Simbahan wala manghilabot, kundili nangilabot.” A church that just keeps silent before all evils is a traitor. She is betraying her Master. Just read the Gospels and know Jesus and His works. Those who keep on silencing the Church are not on the side of Jesus, for sure.

It is preposterous, therefore, to use this “Separation of Church and State” against the Church. And when this provision is not correctly understood by Filipinos, then it can be used to marginalized the Church from public discourse. When conscientious Catholics allow this falsity to foster, then it can be a powerful weapon to further silence the Church. These we should not allow to happen. For those who persist in their misinterpretation, let the light of truth extinguish that darkness of ignorance in you. 

I will end this discourse with a quotation from the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines which says, “the more basic principle which governs the area of politics and binds all Christians, whether cleric or lay, at all times. And the principle is simply that politics, like all human activities, must be exercised always in the light of the faith of the Gospel; and the requirements of the Gospel in regard to human dignity, justice, charity, the common good, cannot be sacrificed on the flimsy pretext that ‘the Church does not engage in politics’. Concretely, this means that both clergy and laity must be involved in the area of politics when moral and Gospel values are at stake” (PCP II, 344). The love of Christ urges us. The Gospel values impel us. This is one of the duties of the Church — to speak the truth in love “in season and out of season.” After all, only love can break the impervious wall of separation. 

~Fr. @Fran Villegas, CFD National Spiritual Director

MUSINGS: VOTING A PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE IN THE PHILIPPINES

MUSINGS: VOTING A PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE IN THE PHILIPPINES 

In defense of BBM, his apologists would quote the words of Cardinal Ratzinger to justify their position that in certain circumstances a Catholic may vote a pro-abortion candidate. Cardinal Rarzinger says, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

Though not comprehensive, but let me offer the following notes:

1. There is no circumstance or reason that can justify the direct killing of the unborn. Abortion, in the constant teaching of the Church, can never be justified. Rape and incest, for example, are not sufficient to end the life of the unborn. There are other acceptable interventions (moral, psychological, etc.) available. 

2. It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such act would be considered “Formal Cooperation” to something that is intrinsically evil (abortion). The candidate would push for its legalization once elected.

3. Now, a Catholic may vote a pro-abortion candidate, but votes for such candidate for other reasons. Such act is considered “Remote Material Cooperation.” However, as Cardinal Ratzinger notes, such remote material cooperation can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. That one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate because of proportionate reasons means that other candidates support policies that are equally evil to abortion or outweigh it. 

4. Moral issues do not have the same moral weight. In the Philippines, what reasons could be given, being supported by other candidates, that are proportionate to the intrinsic evil of abortion??? Reasons such as same-sex union, death penalty, territorial disputes, or any similar pressing societal issues in this country and in our times are simply lacking in proportionality.

5. Since abortion has been defined by the Church as a serious sin and intrinsically evil, the question we have to honestly ask ourselves as we choose our candidate: WHAT REASONS DO WE HAVE THAT COULD POSSIBLY OUTWEIGH OR COULD BE PROPORTIONATE TO JUSTIFY A CATHOLIC VOTING FOR A PRO-ABORTION CANDIDATE??? If there is none, then, those who vote such a candidate are his accomplices in killing innocent and defenseless unborn. 

PS: 

Ang aborsyon ay isang uri din ng pagnanakaw: (1) ninanakaw ng tao mula sa Dios ang kapangyarihan sa buhay, at (2) ninanakaw ng tao ang buhay ng isang inosente at walang kalabanlabang tao sa sinapupunan ng kanyang ina. 

Kung hindi nirerespeto ng isang kandidato ang inosenteng buhay ng sanggol, ilang inosenteng buhay pa kaya ang kaya nyang kitilin, patayin?!?

ON ABORTION AND RAPE

ON ABORTION AND RAPE

By: Fr. Fran D. Villegas

Q: Does the Catholic Church oppose abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape or incest?

A:  The Catholic Church’s position on abortion is clear. In the magisterial document Donum Vitae (The Gift of Life) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed that “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life,” (Sec I.1) Direct abortion, or the intentional killing of a human being living in the womb, is always seriously immoral because as persons the right-to-life is the most basic fundamental right we possess. Even in light of this clear teaching, some questions that afflict people of conscience like the one being asked. 

In Romans 12:21 Paul says that we should not be conquered by evil but that we should conquer evil with good. The act of rape is a grave sin and an injustice that claims too many people, most often women and children, as victims.  The Church teaches that victims of rape deserve immediate medical, emotional, and spiritual care. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (#36) states that Catholic healthcare providers have to provide this care and prevent the contraction of disease or the conception of a child. However, if a child is conceived in a pregnancy caused by rape, then this child is just as innocent and precious as the woman who was victimized and he or she should not be killed because of the actions of the rapist. The Church teaches that through mercy and love, a non-violent solution for both mother and child is far superior to helping a victim of violence (the raped woman) commit violence against her child through abortion.

(NB: The moral principles Formal and Material Cooperations are not included in the discussion