In response to criticisms against the Church’s meddling on the RH Bill, Archbishop Leonardo Legaspi wrote a pastoral letter citing the Constitution’s Preamble – “We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations…” – and explained that it was “the duty of the Church to remind the government of her constitutional mandate to protect this aspiration”, and that it was the “Church’s mission from Christ which impels it to speak about social, economic or political issues.”
While the archbishop’s explanation may sound logical (and constitutional!), it is the implied corollary that makes it wrong: the statement connotes that the Catholic Church is the sole authority when it comes to God. The Preamble never said “imploring the aid of Almighty God through His revelations to the pope“; it’s just plain “Almighty God” with no reference to any particular sectarian teaching of God – and especially not to the Roman Catholic God who abhors contraceptives. No, the Catholic Church does not have universal religious authority to say what is the command of God, much less the constitutional mandate to exercise such imagined authority.
Authority is an interesting word especially in the religious context. The sociologist Max Weber theorizes about “charismatic authority” and the “routinization” of charisma:
In the case of Christianity, authority allegedly started with Jesus as he commanded charismatic authority among his disciples, who later on “routinized” it into the traditional authority of the Christian religion.
But the thing about Christianity is that its routinization over the millennia has ended up in so many sects with different beliefs that no single order can claim authority over the rest, and that is why the Catholic Church cannot invoke “constitutional mandate” to justify its meddling in State affairs because its authority ends outside the church walls. It may have some sort of authority partly based on the fear of Hell and excommunication over its own members, but certainly not among all citizens of the State.
The Constitution may have expressly recognized our country as generally composed of God-believers, but it never said anything about God being represented by the Roman Catholic Church. So no, the Church does not have the constitutional mandate to meddle with the affairs of the State. It has the constitutional right, of course – that’s called freedom of speech – but such right should not be asserted as if it carries with it a rational-legal authority tied to the established laws of the State, especially now that more and more people listen to reason than to self-proclaimed authority.
Merriam Webster DictionaryDefinition of BUGGER1: sodomite2a : a wosrhlets person : rascalb : fellow, chap3: a small or annoying thing Definition of SODOMY: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; Once again you lie and distort to suit your own agenda and bigotry: Jon Lindgren March 9, 2013 at 11:01 pmHenry 10:30 “Christian principles”Used several times, no definition. Is it “hands in the till” like happened recently in the ELCA? Is it buggering young people like happens once in a while in churches? Is is making money, $50 million, with fake healing like Benny Hinn? Need some help here.Henry March 9, 2013 at 11:38 pmJon, why are you focused on sin with those examples? And homosexuality (buggering) of all sins? You preach often about its supposed virtues. You are confused.Jon was using it in a more generic sense of some of the failings that get overlooked theft and fraud as well as sodomy.I am assuming that is the use of bugger that you intend In England, Australia and New Zealand it is used as a more general vulgarity, for example if I were to refer to you as a silly old bugger it would have no sexual connotations at all, as in definitions 2 and 3. bugger as sodomite is not gender specific. I had to look all this up, I would have assumed that with your wide range of knowledge of all things sexually perverse you would have known that. These terms may be more commonly known in your circles, they are not in mine.
just because the constitution did not mention the roman catholic God explicitly does not mean that Catholics no longer have a right to do what they believe is right in regards to advocacy. it is actually good, politically speaking that it is that way, because an imam may say the same and it will still be true and within the constitutional right of every citizen, regardless of religion. the response of the archbishop explains what we believe the Church mission is, he is not saying that no one else can and only Catholics can.
"But the thing about Christianity is that its routinization over the millennia has ended up in so many sects with different beliefs that no single order can claim authority over the rest, and that is why the Catholic Church cannot invoke “constitutional mandate” to justify its meddling in State affairs because its authority ends outside the church walls." -innerminds
1. the result of "sects" came from groups who wished to separate themselves from the Church.
2. even if there is one who claims authority over the different groups who separated themselves from the Church it should not make any difference, it will not justify anything because the Church is and should always be limited to advocacy.
no matter what people think in the end the congress is still made up of duly elected citizens who will be the only people to review bills and enact laws; everyone else including the clergy can only try to do everything they can to voice out, express, advocate, protest, and try to influence how the congress will take the bill.
[the result of "sects" came from groups who wished to separate themselves from the Church. ]
The religion behind the acts is irrelevant. The RCC has no more a right than these other denominations to voice their opinion, and no less than a responsibility to stay the fuck out of legislation if they think they can dabble in trying enforce laws that only serve their agenda.
Lets me reiterate that – you guys do NOT get any special treatment, and if you don't like it, well Schadenfreude.
[no matter what people think in the end the congress is still made up of duly elected citizens who will be the only people to review bills and enact laws; everyone else including the clergy can only try to do everything they can to voice out, express, advocate, protest, and try to influence how the congress will take the bill. ]
Or if you don't like the way the vote swings, there's always threats of excommunication and civil disobedience. You seem to be suffering from selective amnesia about the previous statements your own bishops announced not too long ago, reynor.
Of course, if things don't swing the bishops' way, there's always threatening to resort to civil disobedience and excommunications, right? Your selective amnesia regarding the CBCP's own previous statements is not doing your argument any good, reynor.
I totally agree with your comment, Reynor. The difference between you and Arch. Legaspi is that you're using the word 'right' while he is using the word 'mandate', or more precisely, 'constitutional' mandate. I do not agree with the archbishop.
Gamahiel, may you please share to us why you think this was a brilliant argument?
wow! it's a brilliant argument !
I think the archbishop was only rationalizing and using the preamble to justify their meddling with the state with the intent of ignoring the important provision that mandated the state to separate from the church. the constitution must be taken in its entirety.
when the preamble emphasized the phrase "imploring the aid of almighty God," the constitution did not give any religion the authority to aid the state whatsoever as there are no expressed provisions granting the said power to the church or religion. otherwise, the constitution would not mandate the state to separate itself from the church. It is a well-settled rule that one cannot assume what is not given.
"Verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire" (which means words ought to serve the intention, not the reverse.)
Not to mention that "Almighty God" can literally refer to any religious organization's deity. Rather conceited of the RCC to pretend they speak for every one of these groups in this sense.