Irony July 12, 2006

THE FUNNY THING IS THAT ARCHBISHOP Angel Lagdameo, head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, prefaced his organization's stand by saying, "We wish to make the CBCP position clear and unambiguous on the present impeachment plans." The last thing the wording of that position is is clear and unambiguous. It is in fact so cloudy and ambiguous it has given rise to all sorts of misinterpretations.

Malacañang, in the form of Ignacio Bunye, immediately spun Lagdameo's statement by saying: "On the matter of impeachment, we concur with the bishops that impeachment is not the current way toward change and resolution in our current political concerns."

The announcers of ANC also said something along those lines immediately after Lagdameo read the CBCP position: "The CBCP," said one, "does not support impeachment as a way of establishing truth."

I myself got a lot of calls and text messages from dumbfounded friends wondering how the CBCP, given that its leadership has been wrested by progressive minds from reactionary ones, settled for this. I myself suspect the wording of the position, if not the position itself, is the product of much compromise, reflecting the continuing divisions within that body. And I myself believe the revelations of Archbishop Oscar Cruz that Malacañang tried to buy off the bishops and think they succeeded (in)famously with some of them.

But what is the CBCP really saying, or suggesting, in this confused and confusing way? The two paragraphs relating to impeachment go:

"We are undoubtedly for the search for truth. Therefore ... we respect the position of individuals or groups that wish to continue using the impeachment to arrive at the truth.

"But as Bishops, reflecting and acting together as a body in plenary assembly, in the light of previous circumstances, we are not inclined at the present moment to favor the impeachment process as a means for establishing the truth. For unless the process and its rules as well as the mind-sets of all the participating parties, pro and con, are guided by no other motive than genuine concern for the common good, impeachment will once again serve as an unproductive political exercise, dismaying every citizen, and deepening the citizen's negative perception of politicians."

Well, the CBCP's reaffirmation of its commitment to the quest for the truth--which can't mean anything else in the context of impeachment than the truth about the 2004 elections--indicates at least that the issue about Arroyo's legitimacy has not been settled in the bishops' minds. The CBCP continues to support every effort to ferret out that truth, not least by citizens' initiatives, such as those taken by Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez et al. to impeach Arroyo.

The operative phrase in the second paragraph is "in the light of previous circumstances." What the CBCP rejects is not impeachment per se but the kind of travesty we have been treated to in the past and we are bound to be treated to in the future. That is Congress overseeing impeachment with the expected results. That process won't establish the truth. That process can only be an unproductive political exercise, which will deepen the public's already deep distrust of politicians.

Lagdameo himself made that clear afterward: "The CBCP will not support an impeachment process if it will be done in the same way as it was done before." In short, what the CBCP is indicting is not impeachment, it is Congress, albeit, for quite understandable reasons, in a veiled way.

Having said this, however, the CBCP may not altogether be exculpated from dereliction of duty. At the very least, at a time when a confused flock is looking to it for guidance, the least it can do is not confuse it some more. A clearer and more emphatic reaffirmation of the importance of morality in public life was due them. If not indeed a clear and more emphatic statement about the need to resolve the legitimacy of government.

But more than that, as friends of mine have argued, couldn't the bishops have helped to guide the mind-sets of the participating parties toward a genuine concern for the common good, or at least a fear of God or the faithful in next elections, precisely by supporting an impeachment bid in Congress? Couldn't the collective voice of the bishops have been brought to bear on the congressmen to rethink their allegiance to Mammon rather than to God by suggesting that God will not look kindly on those who help themselves to the ballot boxes? The bishops' support for impeachment might not guarantee a change of heart among congressmen, not least because many of them have no hearts to change, but life offers no guarantees, only struggle.

And still more than this, if the CBCP is not supporting the kind of impeachment process we have to establish the truth, what efforts is it supporting by way of accomplishing that? Of course, answering that question invites questions about the separation of Church and State, but if you're going to talk about matters of faith and morals in public life anyway, why not hang for a sheep as for a lamb? It cannot be unknown to the bishops that the one burning issue in the minds of the faithful is: What do we do about someone who stole the vote? The way the CBCP has answered it opens itself up to charges that it's basically saying, "Bahala na kayo diyan. We ourselves can't do a thing about it." Or worse, "Pasensya na, we just want to play safe."

That is the richest irony of all. The bishops worry that by going through another unproductive political exercise we will only encourage the public to distrust politicians some more? They should worry that by taking the wishy-washy position that they have, they will only encourage the (un)faithful to distrust the clergy some more.

http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=9333