__________________________________________________________________

What Catholic vote?

by Eleanor R. Dionisio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
June 15, 2010

ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IS RISA HONTIVEROS-Baraquel, Akbayan’s bright star and a Liberal Party senatorial candidate in the last elections. My esteem for her is shared by respected Inquirer columnists. It is not shared by some members of the Catholic Church. So Risa had reason, recently, to speak well of the triumph of the “secular vote.”

But the secular vote is not a new development. Since our first national elections in 1907, the vote has been secular, because Roman Catholics, who make up the majority of voters, do not vote mainly according to Church teaching. Most, though no fault of theirs, do not even know the Church’s teachings on many issues. A meaningful Filipino Catholic vote has never existed.

Would it be bad if such a vote existed? If Catholics were to vote in uncritical obedience to the hierarchy, yes. That would show an electorate that is more immature than some bishops say it is now. In any case canon law forbids bishops and clergy from engaging in partisan politics and therefore from endorsing candidates.

But were Catholics to vote according to an idea of the common good shaped by Church social teaching, a Catholic vote would not be bad. To vote according to any idea of the common good would be progress. The Church’s social justice imperatives and preferential option for the poor are creditable standards for judging candidates. Nothing prevents non-Catholics from sharing them.

The Catholic commitment to life, as caricatured by foes and fervent advocates, often seems to end with birth. But it is not a bad standard. At its best it equally protects the unborn, the poor, potential victims of state and individual violence. True pro-lifers oppose war and the death penalty. They support anti-gun laws, pro-labor laws, agrarian reform, human rights, health care for all. But at its worst, fixated on life in the womb, the pro-life principle can be manipulated for political ends. It has been used in this manner in the United States, as a bludgeon against pro-poor laws such as health care reform. This country may not need a “Catholic vote” that makes the unborn enemies of the poor.

Yet some Catholics here, emulating US conservatives, seem to define a Catholic vote as centered on the right to life of the unborn and unconceived, at the expense of other life causes. In January the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (ECFL) of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a “Catechism on Family and Life for the 2010 Elections.” While disclaiming any intention “to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote,” the Catechism says “it would not be morally permissible to vote for candidates who support anti-family policies, including reproductive health.” The term is defined polemically and “facts” are presented in a manner that could mislead. For example, contraceptives are described without qualification as “abortifacient and cancerous.”

The Catechism says that RH laws and other “anti-family” policies 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 so it cannot be placed on the same plane of discernment as the candidate’s positions on the environment, unemployment, health care, or others, as if such issues were not right-to-life issues.

This statement may lend itself to misinterpretation. For instance, a candidate who is indifferent to social justice might, by opposing condoms, be seen as more acceptable than an RH advocate fighting consistently for Catholic social justice principles.

This is not the space to debate whether reproductive health is anti-family and anti-life, although it must be said that the debate exists even in Catholic moral theology. The ECFL is not the Church; neither are all the bishops. But the CBCP put out no other election Catechism, making it seem as if the RH issue was the ultimate test for moral voting. So did Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales’ Mass for two presidential candidates who had signed a covenant to block the RH bill and other “anti-family” laws. One was suspected of corruption, while the other was a neophyte politician whose adherence to all Catholic teachings has not been tried in real political battle.

And yet the CBCP’s pastoral documents on the 2010 elections called on voters to consider other issues: social injustice, corruption, political violence. So did the CBCP president, Bishop Nereo Odchimar. A “Matrix of Presidentiables on Key Issues” from the CBCP’s Media Office listed not just the RH bill but also agrarian reform, the environment, the Visiting Forces Agreement, nuclear power, constitutional change as important issues. Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, one of the most reasonable voices in the local Catholic hierarchy, urged voters to assess candidates not on the basis of a single issue but by a balance of all issues important to the nation.

Back to Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel. Her political journey began with the love for the poor that she learned from Catholic social teachings. As a legislator she shared many advocacies with the Church: agrarian reform, environmental protection, health care for children, pro-labor laws. But she supports the RH bill, and for this reason, some Catholics refused to vote for her. But it was not reason enough for the anti-RH lobby to throw a party. Conrado De Quiros’ endorsement alone may have boosted her numbers more than their boycott reduced them. But if a Catholic vote, as some would define it, excludes candidates like Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel from consideration, Catholics may want to rethink it.

BACK TO COMMENTARIES PAGE