Objection 1. It seems that the Church has no duty to criticize governments for it is said: “Pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and God what belongs to God”. (Mt 22, 21) Likewise, there is also a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other in the so-called Separation of Church and State.  

        Objection 2. Further, it seems that the Church has no right to criticize unjust governments because the Church has also its own weaknesses and frailties. Before the Church criticizes governments, it should first ‘wash its own dirty linens.’ Scripture says: “Why do you observe the splinter in your brother’s eye, and never notice the great log in your own?” (Mt 7, 3) To do so would make the Church hypocritical and self-righteous.

         Objection 3. Further, when the Church shakes the status quo of unjust governments, governments hit back at the Church, with black propagandas detrimental to the latter’s apostolate. Government propagandas against the church cause confusion and even scandal to the lay faithful. Thus, doing more harm to the Church.

         Objection 4. Further, to change government systems, it seems that the best approach is to ‘befriend’ politicians rather than antagonize them. The more their powers are threatened, the more they close their minds and reject the gospel of Christ.

         On the contrary, Scripture says: “Keep sober and alert, because your enemy the devil is on the prowl like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.” (Pt 5, 8)

        We answer that, as social beings, we have the duty to love and take care, not only of the Church but also, of the society, our so-called common house. The society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. (CCC 1886) Citizens must exercise their civic duties to promote common good. To vote for the right leaders is only one of those civic duties.  

        Citizens must take an active part in public life. (CCC 1915) It is the duty of every citizen to be critically and morally vigilant of the state. Governments derive their authority from the people. When left unguarded, when citizens fail to actively participate, governments “pervert to tyranny”.  

        Oligarchy is tyranny, not democracy. Unjust structures such as oligarchy obstruct integral human development. In such structures, humans are treated as means towards the ends of the powerful few. Patronage politics insult human nature itself. Oligarchs are the “roaring lion” referred to in the Scriptures. People empowerment does not belong to their agenda. But God does not want human beings to live under subhuman conditions. Everyone must have a fair share of God’s creation. Thus, the Church condemns oligarchy.  

        As baptized Catholics, it is a moral imperative to exercise their prophetic roles. Every lay faithful must, as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, take an active role in introducing just and humane structures. In its exercise, the lay faithful must begin with an experience of personal conversion. This personal conversion becomes his source of passion in building of God’s kingdom. This is the starting point to develop the personal virtue called social justice.  

        By virtue of their ordination, the clergy are called to respond more intensely to the prophetic vocation compared to that of the lay faithful. Their philosophical and theological trainings equip them better than those of the lay faithful. They are not only expected to be worship leaders but to be leaders of social change for justice and human rights.  

        As pastors of the Church, it is their duty to shepherd their flock, so that like the Good Shepherd, the pastors can also say: “The sheep that belong to me listen to my voice; I know them and they know me.” (Jn 10, 27) It is their duty to constantly nourish their flock with the Word of God and the Bread of Life. Shepherding is not selective, but inclusive. (Jn 10, 16) Like Bishop Oscar Romero, Maximilian Kolbe, and many other clergymen in history, the pastor must be willing to “lay down my life for my sheep.” (Jn 10, 15)

         Reply to Obj 1. This is the wrong application of the gospel passage. In fact, the passage reveals our two-fold citizenship: the Earthly City and the Eternal City . And we have duties to both. Also, when Thomas Jefferson mentioned “the wall of separation between the Church and the State”, he referred to the wall that protects the Church from State intervention, and not vice versa. (From Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802).

         Pope Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est (28) writes: “The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to awaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper.”

        Reply Obj 2. This is a fallacy called tu quoque (“ika man ngani”), an attempt to discredit a particular position of the opponent for its failure to act consistently on that position. In other words, the position is invalid if the person or institution who brought up the position failed to act on it. This leaves no room to correct evil, for no one is created perfect. The Church is both a divine and a human institution. As divine, it is holy. As human, it has its imperfections. As long as it is human, it will always be imperfect. The authority of the Church to teach [that includes denouncing the evils in society] comes from God and is never diminished or abrogated by the Church’s imperfections as a human institution. Therefore, in spite of her imperfections, it is the Church’s duty to perform her prophetic function and criticize unjust structures and evil governments. 

         The gospel passage on “splinter” and “great log” refer to human persons, not to issues of public concerns. When governments are criticized, it is the office and its laws and policies that are being attacked, not the individual persons. Even so, elected public officials, who present themselves to the public as the best “persons” to be trusted with authority, must be ready for public scrutiny – for public men are public properties.

         Reply Obj 3. The Church trusts in the power that comes from God and is never interested in the images created by men. To criticize unjust structures and evil governments are part of efficient evangelization. Scripture says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.” (Mt 10:32) Confusion and scandal among the lay faithful is failure on the part of the clergy who are supposed to enlighten their flock and inspire them to also do their share. In the battle between good and evil, the Church must make a stand, for scripture says: “So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16) Indeed, Jesus’ ministry “rocked” Jewish institutions; early Christian missionaries “rocked” the Roman empire ; through the centuries, the Church “rocks” the world – and suffered so much in the process. Yet, she’s alive and still rocking the world!

        Reply Obj 4. The Church condemns the sin, not the sinner. It criticizes positions, not individuals. To evangelize means to confront people about the truth. One cannot be charitable to a sinner unless he tells him the truth about his sins. Evangelization is different from negotiation. Prophets never negotiate the truth in the name of evangelization. Scripture says: “For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in- law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.” (Mt 10:35-36) To believe that Hitler could have been converted had the Church ‘befriended’ him would be the epitome of naiveté.

         Lastly, the proper use of the idiom on dirty linens is: “do not wash your dirty linens in public” which means, private matters ought not to be discussed in public.

FOURTH of A Series


        In fact, publicly proclaiming one’s own beliefs is a service for dialogue, because through this way others can know exactly what and how one thinks. One offers one’s thoughts for reflection to others while respecting their beliefs, but without assuming that all beliefs are equally valid.

        Attempts to enact legislation promoting anti-family programs receive huge financial assistance and provide alluring incentives to persuade our politicians to commit themselves to their advocacy. Foreign-funded lobby groups have been operating for more than a decade to openly advocate for the enactment of population control laws, as well as abortion-friendly laws in pursuit of the UN Cairo Conference objective of universal abortion rights. It makes one wonder why countries with below replacement fertility rates, desperate for babies and spending huge sums of money to encourage their own citizens to bear more children, contradict themselves by spending huge sums of money to suppress our population growth.

        All these are consistent with Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 entitled “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interest” which identified the increase in world population as inimical to the interest of West. This document has been coming out in recent public debates on reproductive health policies, and is available on the internet. Do not reproductive health advocates bow down to their impositions? Is it not more correct to say that they are the ones imposing their policies on our country?

        14. Is it morally acceptable to vote for an anti-family candidate?

        With the foregoing considerations, it would not be morally permissible to vote for candidates who support anti-family policies, including reproductive health (in the particular understanding being presented in the recent debates, which includes, among others, promotion of abortifacients, penalties for parents who do not allow their adolescent children to engage in sexual acts, etc.), or any other moral evil such as abortion, divorce, assisted suicide and euthanasia. Otherwise one becomes an accomplice to the moral evil in question.

        The gravity of these questions allows for no political maneuvering. They strike at the heart of the human person and the family and are non-negotiable. Supporting them renders a candidate unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. The right to life is a paramount issue and hence cannot be placed on the same plane of discernment as the candidate’s positions on the environment, unemployment, health care, or others. This is because, as Pope John Paul II says, the right to life is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” It is also because the family is the basic unit of society. A candidate lays down the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone if he refuses solidarity with the unborn in the first few days or months of life, or with the dying. Why should anyone vote for such a candidate?

        15. How should we Catholics engage questions related to family and life similar to the ones discussed in this Catechism?

        Whenever we explain our desire to further strengthen the Filipino family, we should base our arguments primarily on legal, medical, economic, educational, psychological, sociological and other scientific data rather than on religious teachings alone. This translation of our faith into legitimate inputs to the policy making process helps our elected officials see more clearly the reasonableness of our advocacy.

        For example, factual demographic data from the UN Population Division showing rapid ageing and collapse of the world population in 40 years, or the drop of Philippine fertility below replacement rate in 15 years, are reasonable grounds to encourage elected officials to instead opt to file bills banning contraceptive attempts to bring fertility down. The fact that contraceptives are also abortifacient and cancerous reinforces this argument. This way elected officials will see that those who promote family and life (including in their opposition to the Reproductive Health bill) are not only the Bishops, as the mass media frequently portray, but above all parents, whether Catholics or not, who truly understand the issues, not only as taught by the Church, but as supported by data from the different fields of knowledge.

        We Catholics should always remember that we are not only members of God’s People, but of Philippine society as well. Hence when it comes to voting in the 2010 Elections and even beyond, and holding dialogues with our political leaders, we should carry out our responsibilities and demand our rights as citizens. When we speak with our Honorable Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors and other officials, let us highlight our place of residence in provinces and barangays rather than our parishes, our membership in civic groups rather than Church organizations, and our occupation as office workers, businessmen, farmers, firsherfolk, bus or tricycle drivers, vendors, youth and women advocates, and others. Let us emphasize to them that we are their constituents –citizens, taxpayers and voters– who have put them into office, and demand that laws protecting the Filipino Family be firmly upheld.



        + Archbishop Paciano B. Aniceto, DD

        Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga

        ECFL Chairman