Here he goes again. Mr pro-choice apologist, Mr supporter of the views of pro-RH, Mr constitutionalist-first-before-Catholic-priest, Mr liberal Jesuit. In the Inquirer today, in his Sounding Board “Unfinished debate over the RH law,” Fr Joaquin Bernas, SJ, once again mouths off his opinion.
First, he distinguishes between two US presidential candidates–John F. Kennedy and Rick Santorum. Kennedy said, “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President–should he be Catholic–how to act ….” Santorum said, “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute. …. To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up.” Well of course Mr Bernas sides with Kennedy, and that makes me throw up.
First, Kennedy was a womanizer and thus not a true practicing Catholic, while Santorum is a devoted family man, a true practicing Catholic. He would have made a great US President, but the Republicans chose someone else, and the Americans chose Obama. But that is another story.
Second, Santorum is right and Bernas is wrong. Separation of Church and State is intended for the State not to establish a national church, and not to pass laws against the free exercise of religion. It is not intended for Church people or people of faith to say nothing about matters of state. They are after all citizens and should be involved in affairs of state. By the way, note that in the USA today, the government under Obama is assaulting religious freedom. And as I have repeatedly said, the Roman Catholic Church is the primary target of global RH forces.
Mr Bernas says, “I am rather disturbed by preachers who use their opposition to the law as a way of defeating electoral candidates who favor or have favored the law.” First of all, the hierarchy and clerics are very prudent and they do not campaign for or against individuals, much less name names. However, they do have an obligation to preach against what is immoral, corrupt, unjust, or bad for the people. This is their prophetic role. They have to do this. Second, Mr Bernas mentions “the law.” So now that RH is a law, Church people can no longer speak against it? This is precisely one reason why global pro-RH forces want to legalize contraception (and later the other abominations), so that they can say it is legal, and so no longer the subject of contention. Sorry Mr Bernas, but no way. The fight has just started.
Mr Bernas says he is not impressed by the constitutional arguments against the law. He reduces the arguments to one sentence: “The law is unconstitutional because it does not hew closely to the teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception.” Excuse me, I am going to throw up again. AS USUAL MR BERNAS, YOU MISREPRESENT THE PRO-LIFE VIEW. You know very well that the argument against contraception is because it is contrary to the natural law, aside from the many undesirable consequences. For Catholics we can and should bring up Catholic teaching (which you by the way oppose). But for the nation and Filipinos we do not resort to Catholic teaching. Contraception by itself is not evil because the Church says so, but because it is intrinsically evil.
Mr Bernas says all this “is a throwback to pre-1908 political society in the Philippines.” Prior to this he said, “As to religious influence on the life of society, we are too aware of the excesses of churchmen, ….” Mr Bernas is among those who depict clerics as Padre Damasos whenever it suits his purpose. He not only is a supporter of RH, but he is also now among those who would weaken the moral authority of the Church. He is part of the enemy within.
Well, at least Mr Bernas is right on one thing, as his commentary headline says, “Unfinished debate over the RH law.” Yes, Mr Bernas, the fight has just started.
God bless the Philippines.
“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Phil 1:21)