In my last piece on Gov. Ed Panlilio, I slightly hinted at what I think will be a major challenge of his candidacy — that despite our country being 83% Catholic, not many may be willing to support him.
This is not ironic because I expect the Catholics to flock to him. Far from it. Elections are a political exercise and Catholics in this country are not known for block voting. There is almost a universal disdain for homilies that espouse a candidate or strip down others. Many vote for a candidate other than who their parish priest prefers, and they do so not so much to protest but to take part in the rational exercise of voting for the candidate they would want to occupy public office.
The most common reservation about Gov. Panlilio’s prospective candidacy is the issue about the separation of Church and State. In a piece on this very topic, Fr. Joaquin Bernas of the Ateneo Law School chimes in,
It should be remembered, however, that the “non-establishment clause” of the Constitution, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, is a command addressed to the State. Thus only the State can violate it. As far as the churches are concerned, they can be beneficiaries of the State’s violation of the non-establishment clause but they cannot be the violators. Thus when politicians decry a violation by the Church and churchmen of the Church and State separation principle, what they are really doing is violating not only free exercise but also freedom of speech and expression.
The key provision on free exercise is found, like the provision on non-establishment, in Article III, Sec. 5. “No law shall be made . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Not content with that, Sec. 5 adds two other clauses: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
A violation of the free exercise clause by the State can come in the form of either prohibition or compulsion.
Therefore, Gov. Panlilio does not violate the separation of Church and State principle in running for public office. He may do so however if he utilizes the machinery of the State to favor one religion or to curtail the rights of others once he is in public office.
But there is a more urgent question now — Can he run? Fr. Bernas continues,
For me, the simplest among the questions is whether a member of the clergy, particularly one who runs a parish or a diocese, should run for public office. Constitutionally, the prevailing view is that there is no constitutional obstacle for a cleric running for office. As to the obstacle arising from Canon Law prescription, it is not insurmountable. What remains, therefore, is a question of prudence or propriety. My view on this is that combining public office and religious ministry can strain Church-State relations and community unity. I would therefore follow the principle that one must choose between being fully a church minister or a public official. Combining the two can be both religiously and politically unhealthy. (emphasis mine)
Hence the demand for him to leave the priesthood.
I agree that it makes the most sense for him to leave the priesthood before the campaign begins. While he has expressed that he would like to return to the ministry in the event he loses, I don’t think he has that much of a choice. There will be a lot of uneasiness in voting for him precisely because of the question of propriety that Fr. Bernas raises. But let’s say he does file for dispensation. Will that be enough?
Earlier, some colleagues and I had a light discussion about the upcoming presidential slate. I expressed my curiosity about Panlilio’s campaign. One colleague, clearly a conservative Catholic, objected to the idea of him running. “He is an ordained priest,” she said. She found it improper for someone to turn his back on his vocation, and the fact that he’s willing to do so raises a question of integrity for her.
I imagine that this will be the case for many, particularly the conservatives. I see where they’re coming from.
Yet I would like to suggest that a vocation need not be a singular commitment. It can change and evolve. Gov. Panlilio has insisted that the ministry is his first love and that he wants nothing else right now than to say mass once again. But he is compelled to run. He has been pushed by his peers, and now finds it in himself that he can do so much more for the country by being more.
I agree that there are others as capable and even more capable than Panlilio. I also agree that he can serve this country in other ways. However, we cannot deny the fact that we are called in different ways, and that we respond to it to the best of our abilities. The lives of a priest and a public official are not so different after all. They’re both about service. They should be.
The governor very well knows the cost of leaving the priesthood. Once dispensed, he can only return by order of the Pope. It will not be easy. It will take long. Only he knows what he will have to sacrifice, only he knows what there is to gain.
What will make me feel uneasy however, is if he feels that he can win them all — then that wouldn’t distinguish him from every other politician. For despite everything I have said about him so far, I have yet to unequivocally declare my support for him. I fall among those who question the propriety of it all. Granted, he has the qualities I look for. Though I have yet to fully gauge his intelligence, I am willing to listen. It will still be me who casts that vote though. I can’t compel him to do anything I would, but I express my agreement or disagreement with a ballot.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with him feeling that God has called him to run. He is a priest. He understands the world through the language of vocation, so to hear him justify his choice as yet another vocation is to be expected of him. (Unlike say, an economist, who alludes to divine providence — that comes across as disingenuous.) However, Panlilio will have to learn the language of politics too. (So it may not help to allude to God all the time in the long run.) Being president of the Philippines is not some Christ-like ministry in Jerusalem.
It is Babylon. And with hubris, the tower comes crashing down.
Fr. Bernas raises an important point that explains the often misunderstood separation clause. I’ve also heard this explanation in a different context (the US Constitution).
I’ve long ago stopped practicing Roman Catholicism, and since I supported Bro. Eddie last election, I don’t see anything wrong with Fr. Ed running. However, I do agree that he has to choose one or the other and also understand that he can’t invoke his ties to the clergy to get things done. That is what the separation clause is about, anyway.
Jesus had a very different mission. Time and time again he avoided attempts by his followers to make him king:
“So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.” — John 6:15
“Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” — John 18:36.
He clearly wanted no part in politics. Now of course, this is Jesus. Also recall that those who perceived Jesus as a threat in the end had him killed.
Ed Panlilio’s calling may be different, and I hope he realizes that. He seems to be willing to sacrifice for the betterment of the country. He does have to remember, however, that like Babylon (love the analogy), the ultimate issue that consumes the nation is not simply one of policy and politics. It’s a heart issue.
We let this happen. We don’t mind it happening. Somewhere down there, in the depths of our national psyche, we WANT to do things we know we can get away with.