Pubdate: Mon, 14 Feb 2005
Source: Mindanao Times (Philippines)
Copyright: 2005 Mindanao Times.
Contact:  http://www.mindanaotimes.com.ph/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2980
Author: Tony Vn. Figueroa
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?1043 (Christianity)
Bookmark http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Summary+Executions
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/areas/Philippines

HAS THE CHURCH GONE MUM?

WITH an average of one murder occurring daily on the streets of Davao
City, perhaps the most unsettling thing that an ordinary man has
observed is the seeming meekness the usually assertive religious
sector, as a whole, has been showing towards the carnage.

For a collective institution that has been very vocal in its defense
of human rights and life, its reluctance to issue a stinging statement
against human slaughter, collectively or otherwise, has made it a
conniving party and an approving accomplice to all the extra-judicial
killings.

All through the years that this bloodletting has been going on, we
have yet to hear from the Catholic leaders come out with a fearless
condemnation. But what we got recently was a strong denial against
jueteng and the position of the Church to turn any offer of tithe that
will come from spurious sources and parties tied to illegal gambling.

Even the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP), the
Iglesia ni Cristo, the Jesus Is Lord, the ACQ Ministry (that is
tantalizingly close to the powerful leaders), and the pro-life
organizations have been holding their punches, creating a suggestion
that this roster of concerned parties is amenable to the wasteful
butcher of lives in city streets.

Which brings us to the question a friend recently posed: Has the
Church gone mum?

Religion, as a social catalyst, is a philosophy that seems to have
lost the meaning in the way the collective church has been addressing
the street murders.

Except for faint and indistinct voices of dissent and outcry of
disgust, the strong voice that usually churchgoers turn seems to have
lost authority, and this disengaging change may have only provided a
stronger resolve for the vigilantes to poke fun on the influence the
Church has.

Even church groups like the Catholic Women' League, Legion of Mary,
Couples for Christ,  Cursillo groups or the Knights of Columbus have
been oddly reluctant to raise their respective voice of antipathy
towards the executions. If silence is meant as defiance, such position
does not really mean anything before the public at large cannot hear
it.

At the pulpit, inside catechism classes, during Bible-sharing, or when
attending the Mass, religious leaders always make it a point to say a
prayer or two for those who are departed.

But sad to say, we have yet to hear a priest, a nun, a pastor, or a
lay leader openly quoting the "Thou shall not kill" commandment before
a congregation as he criticizes the irrefutable ineptitude of law
enforcement agencies in arresting suspects of these regular
bloodlettings.

Of course the Church is not a law enforcer. But its role in society is
something that cannot be simply undermined because it possesses the
clout to say what it wants, and the membership to magnify before the
bar of public opinion the positions it deems inappropriate and unethical.

In fact, the lack of enthusiasm of the Church to openly shoot the
blame on the police and the City Hall has only created a false
perception that its being a powerful institution and the guardian of
the oppressed is more a figment of imagination than a social reality.

The only consolation that has so far come out against these paid
murders is the weak vibration that you hear in the press, the NGOs,
and ordinary people talking behind doors. Everybody is cowering in
fear, and it looks the Church is synchronizing its voice on that note.

The longer the Church is stymied by its inability to bravely confront
the odds and mount a strong position that will condemn the street
murders, the more pathetic it has become in the eyes of the community
that has always looked up to it as the ultimate defender of justice
and rights.

Has the Church become the unwilling mouthpiece of pro-vigilante
advocates? Or, has it voluntarily reneged on its obligation to
safeguard public morals from the excesses of society?
- ---