The recent pronouncements by the “united” Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines is not a surprise for me (here is their non-issue, useless statement). In fact, in a previous post, I had stated that “the hierarchy is not inclined to support any mass movement versus Gloria Arroyo, and neither it is inclined to call for her resignation, too.” Immediately, the Fortress thanked the bishops for their political stand. And there’s the rub.

(As an aside, I commented that during the Monday rallies, it rained. Reader Joyfulchicken pointed out that maybe God is pro-GMA. With the way Catholic bishops are acting, I think I have to agree with Joyfulchicken.)

The reasons being given by bishops for not calling for Gloria Arroyo’s resignation are as follows:

1. Leonardo Legaspi, OP – he says the CBCP expects her to be part of efforts to seek reform. Dear bishop, she is already at the Fortress for seven years now. What reforms do you want her to institute? If she wanted reforms, she should have done so in the past 7 years. And we only had that VAT Law so far. There are no efforts to effect changes in several problematic institutions, like elections. Do you expect her to effect reforms in the next 2 years, when she has to do everything to escape prosecution?

2. Orlando Quevedo, OMI – he claims there was no enough basis to call for her resignation. Yeah. I still remember Piux XII and the Holocaust. I’m sure there were no enough basis for the Vatican to oppose Hitler during the late 1930s.

3. Francisco Claver, SJ (retired) – he says that calling for Arroyo’s resignation could weaken the country’s democratic institutions. But, dear bishop, the said institutions are already undermined by Arroyo! How many more institutions must we allow her to undermine? If there is something that could weaken these institutions, it was already done by Arroyo! Calling for her resignation will not weaken something that is already weak in the first place. Please stop grasping at straws, and instead, pray that your God will enlighten you, that you may see what is truly happening.

4. Antonio Ledesma, SJ – he says that they did not call for her resignation because it is a “political call that’s not within the competence of the bishops.” I wonder if they had this competence back in 2000-2001 (to refresh your memories, read here, here, here, here, and here – see October 13, 2000 entry).

And the most common argument that, for me, is too grating to be ignored – that calling for her resignation is a political act, and the bishops cannot be involved in political acts.

I don’t know about you, but isn’t their call/non-call a political act? After all, they met to discuss a clearly political issue, and not calling for Arroyo’s resignation is indeed a political act – for who benefits from their decision but Gloria Arroyo alone (just look at the reactions by Fortress loud mouths here and here).

Also, remember the issue between the Quezon City Council and the bishop of Cubao? When a councilor filed a bill for a reproductive health program for the city, the bishop opposed it vigorously (too bad, the ordinance passed – buti nga). Again, filing that ordinance, debating it, and passing it – these are political acts. Yet the Church, through its bishop, participated in such a political act by opposing it. (See my thoughts on this case – The Church and the State.)

And lastly, the ultimate trump card to shred the apolitical gimmick to bits – EDSA 2.

My conclusion from this episode (and in retrospect, from the post “Confused bishops? Whatever“) is that the Catholic hierarchy can do a political action if and when it wants it to do so. And choosing not to call for Arroyo’s resignation is a political act, and a true reflection of the moral decay that we are in now. I am just glad that this time around, envelopes were not distributed. (Of course, the distribution could have been done discreetly.) Otherwise, they are no different from Arroyo herself.

MLQ3 thanks the bishops for the statement. Yes, it clearly ends the confusion, and shows where the bishops’ political standing.