Papal Bull

THE RESIGNATION of  Joseph Ratzinger as Pope has been in Philippine news media—in TV, radio, and print—from the time he first announced his intention to resign the Papacy up the present, when the focus of the Philippine press has shifted to the preparations for the conclave of cardinals that will choose the next Pope, and on who he’s likely to be. It’s understandable: because some 85 percent of Filipinos are Catholics, anything that has to do with the Church the Philippine media correctly think is news.

For over three weeks the Philippine media have reported on the resignation itself and the reasons for it; Pope Benedict XVI’s changing the rules to allow it and the immediate selection of his successor; his new status as Pope Emeritus by March 1 and how he will henceforth be addressed;  where he will reside; his last public appearance and the faithful’s reactions, particularly those of the Filipinos who either reside in Italy or who have travelled there on a pilgrimage to the Vatican; and the inclusion of the Philippines’ Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle among the 12 leading candidates for the Papacy.

Conspicuously absent, however, was any account, and even more so, any analysis, of Benedict XVI’s eight-year reign; the more substantial changes he introduced if any; how he addressed the most urgent issues facing the Church; and the overall impact of his reign. And yet what the next Pope will have to do is either continue with what his predecessor had done, or else depart from it, given the problems that confront the Church, primarily its increasing alienation from the realities and needs of modernity and the subsequent diminution of its flock worldwide.

Church attitude towards the modern scourge of AIDS, for example, is among the contemporary issues that have a bearing on its frankly dated views on human sexuality. Throughout his reign Pope Benedict XVI did not budge from his condemnation of the use of condoms to prevent AIDS, and had even claimed, before he was Pope, that condom use helped spread AIDS, a view out of sync with the reality in several African countries, where resistance to condom use has made AIDS endemic.

Equally relevant to the Church’s future as an institution, as well as to its standing as the moral guardian of billions of men and women all over the planet, is its response to the sex abuse scandal that has rocked it for over a decade. But despite statements condemning the clergy guilty of the abuse of children and expressing his sympathy with the victims, Benedict has been accused of minimizing the issue and its impact on the faithful in an attempt to protect the Church, and treating erring priests with kid gloves.

Of even more relevance is the Church position on social change. The institutional Church’s  response to injustice and poverty has been to emphasize the fundamentals of Catholicism in opposition to the pro-people involvement of nuns and priests in such issues as environmental protection, militarization, and human rights violations.

The ensuing tendency of activist priests and nuns to condemn the dominant structures of power and social relations in the poor countries of the world Joseph Ratzinger while Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Inquisition), had denounced as legacies of liberation theology—which his patron Pope John Paul II had taken great pains to expunge among the clergy.

And yet it was that kind of involvement in behalf of human suffering that brought both priest and Church closer to the people of the communities and nations besieged worldwide by unjust social and political structures, environmental destruction, imperial dominance, and the resulting poverty and injustice that’s the fate of billions.

The result of the Church position since John Paul II and as echoed by Benedict XVI is the view among progressive Catholics that rather than affirm the need  for a preferential Church option for the poor and oppressed, and to fight for them, the institutional Church has chosen to align itself with the powerful and their interest in keeping things as they are.

None of these issues crucial to the present and future of the Church to which most Filipinos belong were examined by, or even mentioned in the Philippine media, in  contrast to, say, the US and European press’ focus on Benedict XVI’s record rather than on trivia. This failure has a bearing on how the Philippine media will evaluate, describe, and explain to their mostly Catholic readers, viewers, and listeners how different—or how much the same—Joseph Ratzinger’s successor will be once he’s chosen, consigning Filipino Catholics to clueless acceptance of what happens in the Vatican, and worse, reducing Catholicism to ritual observance and the convenience of habit.