Crisis shakes the Philippine Catholic Church

IN THE WAKE of the sex scandal rocking the Archdiocese of Boston in the U.S., which elicited both reproach and condemnation from the Pope, the Philippine Catholic Church has of its own accord ripped the curtain to the inner sanctum of its priesthood, revealing not only “pots” but also “feet of clay”. In a fashion never seen in the past, the Church, through the powerful Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), candidly admitted to “a wide range of sexual misconduct” within its own robed ranks.

In the same breath, however, the Church apparently tried to control the crisis by cutting the overblown issues to their right proportion.

Bishop Socrates Villegas, spokesperson of the Archdiocese of Manila, stated that while errant priests constitute only 1.6 percent or fewer of the entire clergy, 5 percent are “very good, holy and exemplary priests.”

“The greater majority, which comprises more than 90 percent, are struggling hard to be good, praying hard to God and serving quietly their people,” Villegas said in defense of the “Stained but Beautiful” Catholic clergy.

Apparently, the corporate expression of remorse from the CBCP was a spontaneous outpouring stemming from a renewed recognition of the depraved human nature which afflicts even those who choose to respond to higher spiritual calling.

But it was also an exigent response to the demand for openness emanating not only from the victims and their families, but also within the Church itself.

The Pope’s proclamation that sexual offense is “not only a sin but a crime” has reverberated to all corners of the Catholic world, emboldening victims to step forward and speak up.

The Philippines, the only country in Asia whose population is more than 80 percent Catholic, has consequently experienced more than just a ripple effect. It is as if the epicenter of the upheaval had shifted to the Archdiocese of Manila itself.

Victim after victim has stepped forward with his or her own account of sexual molestation by, or forcible sexual relations with, priests. In an echo of the case now being tried in the U.S., some hazily recall incidents as far back as their childhood.

Although what triggered the worldwide crisis is the charge of pedophilia, a crime punishable even in the secular world as acknowledged by the Pope himself, the issue has been widened by those with an ax to grind against mandatory celibacy.
Rev. Tax B. Rosaldo, president of the Leyte-Samar Married Priests and a member of the national council of the Philippine Federation of Married Priests, Inc., jumped on the issue to win public attention to, if not sympathy for, his unpopular cause. Rightly, he argues, “The sacraments of matrimony and priesthood are not exclusive insofar as biblical theology is concerned.” He calls mandatory celibacy a “device for control by a Church that has come to adhere to too much ‘ecclesiasticalism.’”

Even those who remain loyal to the Church, like Sr. Nila V. Bermisa, MM, of the Women and Gender Commission, have taken advantage of the issue to call attention to the marginal role of women within the church.

In a related development, Sr. Lydia Ebora, who heads the Religious of the Good Shepherd (RGS) that runs the RGS Heart of Mary Villa in Malabon, admitted that the center has been looking after women made pregnant by priests.

Endless debates have been carried on positing causal relationships among the disparate issues being raised, i.e., pedophilia, mandatory celibacy, marginalization of women, etc.

Lumping sexual issues ranging from the patently criminal, like pedophilia, and institutional violations, like disavowal of celibacy, certainly lends stridency to the call for openness of the church.

The crisis cannot be understated. Given the entrenched role of the Catholic church in Philippine society, a thorough response is in order to prevent the breakdown of its spiritual, political and social leadership—realms that the Church has deemed itself fit to appropriate.

Firstly, an institution that claims exclusive right to the spiritual guardianship of the people has a lot of explaining to do if it is caught red-handed with or covering up a crime, especially of the nature that its spiritual mandate is supposed to subjugate.

Secondly, a church with a weakened moral authority loses as well its legitimacy to speak on political issues, a sphere of activity that Jaime Cardinal Sin has staunchly propounded as the natural extension of his spiritual authority. The role of the church in the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada , as well as the Church use of the pulpit to speak on various political issues, cannot be underestimated. The present crisis threatens to stifle this voice.

Thirdly, the Catholic Church, has been one of the unifying forces in an otherwise factious society. The Filipino exposure to ecclesiastical authority under colonial rule has preceded that of secular or political authority. The church is central to Filipino social life. If church authority crumbles as a result of this crisis, an important social foundation for forging consensus can be greatly undercut.

The Catholic Church is rightly seeing this crisis as an opportunity for “purification.” As early Christian church history shows, however, the successful pursuit of spiritual life presupposes the creation of practical, institutional conditions conducive to it.

The atmosphere of openness brought about by this crisis is a good starting point. While “holiness” implies being “set apart” for God, one cannot use the institutional church as a veil to hide the human frailty of its priestly servants, for the same reason that Christ has removed the veil for us to see directly the glory of God.

The apostle Paul himself openly scolded the sexually immoral in his letter to “those sanctified in Christ” in Corinth. Indeed, only by stepping forward into the open can the church prevent the “fellowship” of light with darkness. *

Back to top