Separation of Church and State: Is this still being respected?

[omad]

---

_________________________________________________let go further with the law opinion it even clearly states that even religious figures can participate in elections. All other requirments being met, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo or Manila's Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales could even run for President, if they were unfortunate enough to have such an insane ambition. so if a priest can run for government office by definition of the constitution, then why is it that filing an impeachment complaint is not acceptable? so onsa man jud ato gihisgotan dinhi ang HIYA/DELICADEZA or the Separatio of Church and State as state in the Constitution?FK

yes, there's nowhere in the Constitution that prohibits the Clergy and the Religious (include the Muslims, Buddhist's, atheist's or other non-Christians) from partisan politics BUT as far as the Church (Roman Catholic) goes, they have their own laws and traditional wisdom to follow. if the Church prohibits them from active involvement in partisan politics, so what does that tell you about Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yniguez's actions?

here's an interesting take from the same site you posted and it includes some explanations and clarifications re this topic. maybe you've read them, maybe not, but I'll post it here again in case. it also doesn't hurt to share it with people reading this thread so we all can learn something from it or maybe strenghten our belief on this issue at hand.

taken from this site:
Cathechism on the Church and Politics

To be noted is the fact that nowhere does the Constitution prohibit Clergy and Religious from partisan politics. What prohibits them from active involvement in partisan politics is the Church's own laws and traditional wisdom.

22. Why should priests, religious men and women refrain from involvement in partisan politics?

As we have seen, the prohibition is not because of any Philippine constitutional provision. But the Church prohibits Clergy and Religious from involvement in partisan politics because they are considered the symbols of unity in the Church community. For them to take an active part in partisan politics, with its wheeling and dealing, compromises, confrontational and adversarial positions, would be to weaken their teaching authority and destroy the unity they represent and protect. Still, it must be admitted that sometimes even the teaching of moral principles is actually interpreted by some as partisan politics, because of actual circumstances (PCP-II, 343-344). An example was the Bishops' post-election statement in 1986 when they taught that a government that has assumed power by fraud had no moral right to govern. This teaching was considered partisan for the opposition presidential candidate and against the winner proclaimed by a subservient parliament.

[FK]

Yep the Catholic churc has their own laws and tranditions... that's why they are not allowed to run for government office. But they are still allowed to participate in some political undertakings. For example... drafting of the 1986 constitution.

Now filing an impeachment complaint is political exercise... but was it prohibited by the church? No... in fact the CBCP has said that it is part filing the impeachment complaint is one of the peaceful way to have a closure to GMA legitimacy issue.

Still, it must be admitted that sometimes even the teaching of moral principles is actually interpreted by some as partisan politics, because of actual circumstances (PCP-II, 343-344). An example was the Bishops' post-election statement in 1986 when they taught that a government that has assumed power by fraud had no moral right to govern. This teaching was considered partisan for the opposition presidential candidate and against the winner proclaimed by a subservient parliament.

The congressmen now claims that the Church is violating the constitutions separation of State and Church.

The last time the government are claiming about separation of State and the Church was during Marcos and ERAP time... both are immoral.

[FK]

Putting the principle in the context of Bishop Iñiguez’s filing of an impeachment complaint against Arroyo, Monsod asserts there is nothing in the Constitution that deals with any prohibition on the exercise of citizenship with respect to one’s religion. “The Constitution clearly states that there is no religious test on the exercise of civil or political rights. (Bishop) Iñiguez is not less of a citizen just because he happens to be a priest,” he says.

Indeed, for the government to invoke the principle of Church-State separation, Leonen says such is tantamount to disenfranchising him as a Filipino citizen on the basis of his religion

Now let's take some points from some constitutional experts if indeed the Bishop has violated the principle written in the constitution.

Now did he? or was it the government who violated the principle? By telling the Bishop that he can't file an impeachment complaint because of what?

[istoryador]

Separation of Church and State. . .

does not mean the church will keep silent in issues which involve morality...

there is an issue about legitimacy, cheating and corruption...

the church cannot stay back and watched these things being perpetrated...

if the Church is for the truth it must spearhead the discovery of the truth...

this is not meddling... this is living the faith...

what is good about faith if it is not alive... if it is not lived...

[SamuraiArcher]

Unya credible pa ba nag atong Church karong panahuna?

[istoryador]

Isn’t Gloria the one violating the separation principle? Was it not Gloria who even brought with her, to “submit” to the Pope, the fresh law against death penalty? Did she not do the same when she visited the Moslems in the past? Isn’t that favoring one religion?

Isn’t she interfering with the CBCP when she ordered Ermita to make representations with them to punish Iñiguez? If you answer no to all these, then I keep my peace.

It seems though that the little girl cannot have her way with CBCP. What she does next to further push her luck is one that I have yet to see. Taxes? No way. If she does that, she will have to tax Muslims, too, who will surely raise hell even among moderates. It wouldn’t be far when all of them will be packing their jackets with dynamites ready to blow themselves up in her presence and in the name of allah.

[craz_beautiful_ava]

bisan ang santos makasasala..

kapoya na ani puro ra ta blame sa usag usa..

puro ra jud ta ipokrito..if we seek change, start by praying na lng for everybody..

try to be agood citizen of this nation.. (if naa pa ka pinas)

[FK]

O.T>

Unya credible pa ba nag atong Church karong panahuna?

I believe I can still find more credible priest and Church leaders nowadays... compare to those politicians especially the one who lied that she will not run because she is the cause of divisiveness.

but it's not relevant to the topic.

[lalakingbisdak]

Unya credible pa ba nag atong Church karong panahuna?

Credible? Mga 1% nalang. Nagpapa affect man sila sa mga corrupt politicians. In what way? Corrupt politicians donate more money to the church para dili sila atakehon sa simbahan. If you dont give them donations, they will go to the streets to protest against you like what they are doing now against PGMA.

[FK]

O.T.

Credible? Mga 1% nalang. Nagpapa affect man sila sa mga corrupt politicians. In what way? Corrupt politicians donate more money to the church para dili sila atakehon sa simbahan. If you dont give them donations, they will go to the streets to protest against you like what they are doing now against PGMA.

so u mean GMA donated money during the time of ERAP to be supported by Cardinal Sin during EDSA II? hmmm...