LONG a zone of contention among a number of littoral states, the South China Sea is fast becoming the focus

of one of the most serious bilateral disputes between America and China. Over the weekend Chinas foreign ministry summoned an American diplomat to express strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition to a statement issued by the state department on August 3rd. Tensions in the sea have mounted this year, especially between China and the Philippines on the one hand, and between China and the Vietnam on the other. Although there has not been a serious armed clash in the sea since 1988, and none is likely now, there are worries that in the current climate some low-level confrontation might escalate by accident. The specific Chinese complaint this weekend was over Americas criticism of its recent upgrading of the administrative level of Sansha city, on one of the Paracel islands (known in China as the Xisha), from a county to a prefecture, and the establishment of a new military garrison there. In its riposte China judged its own decision to be normal and reasonable, though only a few hundred people live on the islets covered by the vast new maritime prefecture. More broadly, China complains that America is taking sides in the many territorial disputes in the sea. China and Taiwan both claim virtually all the sea. Vietnam claims the Paracels, from which it was evicted by China in 1974, as well as the Spratly chain further to the south. In the south both overlap extensively with the exclusive economic zone the Philippines claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Further complicating things, Malaysia and Brunei also have smaller territorial claims, and the regional club to which they, the Philippines and Vietnam all belong, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), has tried to play a co-ordinating and mediating role. America insists it is entirely neutral on the territorial disputes. However China has long seen it as a troublemaker, especially since, at a security forum in Hanoi two years ago, Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, declared the United States national interest in the affairs of the sea. China blames America for encouragingand perhaps even instigatinga more aggressive approach from both the Philippines and Vietnam. It asks why the American statement chose to turn a blind eye to what China sees as provocations by (unnamed) other countries. This is a reference to Vietnams adoption of a maritime law asserting its territorial claims, and to recent disputes with it and the Philippines over fishing and the opening of disputed waters to oil and gas exploration. One reason tempers are rising is that the seas are so abundant in resources. The most serious recent confrontation, between the Philippines and China over the Scarborough Shoal, has eased after both sides withdrew their armed patrols and competing fishing boats, as storms approached. But the Philippines says the Chinese boats left the mouth of the lagoon roped off to prevent other fishermen from entering.

The American statement backs the multilateral approach to the disputes championed by ASEAN. Its members are still smarting over their failurefor the first time in the organisations 45-year historyto agree on a joint statement after their annual foreign ministers meeting, which they held last month in Phnom Penh. It was blocked because Cambodia, a faithful Chinese client, refused to accept wording on the South China Sea demanded by some of its fellow members. Dogged Indonesian diplomacy subsequently managed to cobble together a palatable, if bland, ASEAN position on the sea. China is working (ever so slowly) with ASEAN towards a regional code of conduct to lessen the risks of conflict. But it insists the territorial disputes are a series of bilateral issues. It does not want its smaller neighbours ganging up on it, still less if they are backed up by America. It has a point when it says that the American statement was one-sided. And it must be suspicious that, despite its denials, America is backing its rivals claims. Mrs Clinton, for example, has taken to using the term the West Philippine Sea. It is also understandable for China to fear that America is trying to capitalise on the disputes, to cement its position in the region, in keeping with the global rebalancing of its military posture in favour of Asia and the Pacific. That the American approach is broadly appreciated in the region, however, must give China pause. There are two reasons for the welcome to America. The first is the perception that China has become more strident and more of a bully in asserting its claims. The second is that it remains unclear what those claims are based on. China couches many of its statements by reference to the islands, islets and rocks over which it claims sovereignty, and their associated waters, as if it were following UNCLOS. But it has not renounced the nine-dashed line (see map) which it says gives it historic rights over virtually the entire sea. Chinas neighbours have reason to worry China sees their sea as its lake. The specific Chinese complaint this weekend was over Americas criticism of its recent upgrading of the administrative level of Sansha city, on one of the Paracel islands (known in China as the Xisha), from a county to a prefecture, and the establishment of a new military garrison there. In its riposte China judged its own decision to be normal and reasonable, though only a few hundred people live on the islets covered by the vast new maritime prefecture. More broadly, China complains that America is taking sides in the many territorial disputes in the sea. China and Taiwan both claim virtually all the sea. Vietnam claims the Paracels, from which it was evicted by China in 1974, as well as the Spratly chain further to the south. In the south both overlap extensively with the exclusive economic zone the Philippines claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Further complicating things, Malaysia and Brunei also have smaller territorial claims, and the regional club to which they, the Philippines and Vietnam all belong, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), has tried to play a co-ordinating and mediating role.

America insists it is entirely neutral on the territorial disputes. However China has long seen it as a troublemaker, especially since, at a security forum in Hanoi two years ago, Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, declared the United States national interest in the affairs of the sea. China blames America for encouragingand perhaps even instigatinga more aggressive approach from both the Philippines and Vietnam. It asks why the American statement chose to turn a blind eye to what China sees as provocations by (unnamed) other countries. This is a reference to Vietnams adoption of a maritime law asserting its territorial claims, and to recent disputes with it and the Philippines over fishing and the opening of disputed waters to oil and gas exploration. One reason tempers are rising is that the seas are so abundant in resources. The most serious recent confrontation, between the Philippines and China over the Scarborough Shoal, has eased after both sides withdrew their armed patrols and competing fishing boats, as storms approached. But the Philippines says the Chinese boats left the mouth of the lagoon roped off to prevent other fishermen from entering. The American statement backs the multilateral approach to the disputes championed by ASEAN. Its members are still smarting over their failurefor the first time in the organisations 45-year historyto agree on a joint statement after their annual foreign ministers meeting, which they held last month in Phnom Penh. It was blocked because Cambodia, a faithful Chinese client, refused to accept wording on the South China Sea demanded by some of its fellow members. Dogged Indonesian diplomacy subsequently managed to cobble together a palatable, if bland, ASEAN position on the sea. China is working (ever so slowly) with ASEAN towards a regional code of conduct to lessen the risks of conflict. But it insists the territorial disputes are a series of bilateral issues. It does not want its smaller neighbours ganging up on it, still less if they are backed up by America. It has a point when it says that the American statement was one-sided. And it must be suspicious that, despite its denials, America is backing its rivals claims. Mrs Clinton, for example, has taken to using the term the West Philippine Sea. It is also understandable for China to fear that America is trying to capitalise on the disputes, to cement its position in the region, in keeping with the global rebalancing of its military posture in favour of Asia and the Pacific. That the American approach is broadly appreciated in the region, however, must give China pause. There are two reasons for the welcome to America. The first is the perception that China has become more strident and more of a bully in asserting its claims. The second is that it remains unclear what those claims are based on. China couches many of its statements by reference to the islands, islets and rocks over which it claims sovereignty, and their associated waters, as if it were following UNCLOS. But it has not renounced the nine-dashed line (see map) which it says gives it historic rights over virtually the entire sea. Chinas neighbours have reason to worry China sees their sea as its lake.

Beijing also urged Manila to return to the right track, meaning bilateral negotiations to resolve the dispute. In a statement, the DFA said Chinas action will not interfere with the process of arbitration initiated by the Philippines on January 22, 2013. The arbitration will proceed under Annex VII of UNCLOS and the 5-member arbitration panel will be formed with or without China, it said. under Annex VII of UNCLOS and the 5-member arbitration panel will be formed with or without China, it said. Ma reiterated Chinas often stated position that it has indisputable sovereignty over the entire South China Sea encompassed by its nine-dash line claim. This excessive claim is the core issue of the Philippines arbitration case against China, the DFA said. The Philippines remains committed to arbitration which is a friendly, peaceful and durable form of dispute settlement that should be welcomed by all. The DFA summoned Ma last Jan. 22 and DFA Assistant Secretary for AsiaPacific Affairs Teresa Lazaro handed her a note verbale. The diplomatic note contained the Notification and Statement of Claim that challenges before the Arbitral Tribunal the validity of Chinas nine-dash line claim and to desist from unlawful activities that violate the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Philippines under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). DFA Secretary Albert del Rosario said the Notification initiates the arbitral proceedings under Article 287 and Annex VII of UNCLOS. The Chinese embassy maintained that disputes in the South China Sea (West Philippine Sea) should be settled through direct negotiations by the parties concerned. Del Rosario said the initiation of arbitral proceedings against China on the ninedash line is part of President Aquinos policy for a peaceful and rules-based resolution of disputes in the West Philippine Sea in accordance with UNCLOS. Chinas nine-dash line claim virtually lays claim on the entire West Philippine Sea, which the Philippines believes must be challenged in order to protect its national territory and maritime domain.

The Philippines formally invited China last April to bring their claim before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) for a legal and lasting solution to the territorial dispute. However, China rejected the Philippine invitation. In raising an argument to evade the ITLOS, China viewed the submission of maritime dispute to international arbitration as a weird thing in international affairs.
Beijing announced on Monday that it planned to intensify its supervision and control over disputed territories in the West Philippine Sea. Beijing made the announcement a few days after it rejected Manilas notification inviting China to participate in the arbitration of the dispute before the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal. Wu Zhuang, chief of the South China Sea Fishery Bureau under the Ministry of Agriculture, told China Daily that on top of their priorities for this year, was to make more patrols on the Spratly Islands, one of the three major islands in the area. He added that patrol missions will be carried out around the Xisha Islands (also called the Paracel Islands), Beibu Gulf and the Huangyan Islands. As far as China enlarges the fleet of patrol vessels, the number of supervision missions will increase. Chinese law enforcers will also continue to supervise regular patrols in Panatag shoal. With the growth of law enforcement capacity, the country will speed up the routine patrols, especially in the waters near the Nansha islands, Wu said. He added that the routine fishery administrative patrols will be conducted to better safeguard the legitimate interests of Chinese fishermen. The Foreign Affairs Department earlier said that the patrols was part of Chinas excessive claim and violates provisions of the United National Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international laws. Foreign Affairs Commission on Maritime and Ocean Affairs secretary general Henry Bensurto said that even after the Philippines submitted its case before the Arbitral Tribunal, it can still file future protests against Chinas excessive claims on Philippine territories. Panatag Shoal was the focal point of the dispute since this was where the conflict started in April 2012, when Chinese officials prevented the Coast Guard from arresting Chinese fishermen who were caught poaching in the area.

Since then, Beijing had made several aggressive moves, including building permanent high-rise buildings in disputed territories. The buildings are expected to be completed by next year. Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario earlier said that three Chinese vessels are still anchored just outside the Panatag Shoal and Chinese maritime officials even installed ropes around it to prevent Filipino fishermen from entering the fishing area. China has consistently insisted that it owns 90 percent of the resource-rich West Philippine Sea based on its ninedash line found in old Chinese maps. The Philippines, however, branded the claims as excessive and invited China to prove the validity of its claim before the arbitral tribunal which was created under the 1982 Unclos. Manila and Beijing, among others, are signatories to the convention that delineated ownership of the coastal waters, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves of each country. Aside from the Philippines, other claimants on some islands and waters in the West Philippine Sea were Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. Taiwan, on the other hand, shares Beijings claims in the region.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. Although the concept of separation has been adopted in a number of countries, there are varying degrees of separation depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. While a country's policy may be to have a definite distinction in church and state, there may be an "arm's length distance" relationship in which the two entities interact as independent organizations. A similar but typically stricter principle of lacit has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as [1] Denmark and the United Kingdom have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a [2] generally secularized public sphere. The degree of separation varies from total separation mandated by a constitution, as in India and Singapore; to an official religion with total prohibition of the practice of any other religion, as in the Maldives.

PHILIPPINES
In Article II "Declaration of Principles and State Policies", Section 6, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares, "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable." This reasserts, with minor differences in wording and [65][66] capitalization, a declaration made in Article XV, Section 15 of the 1973 Constitution. Similarly, Article III, Section 5 declares, "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."; echoing Article IV, Section 8 of the 1973 constitution verbatim.

Religious views
Beyond law and philosophy, some Christians refuse to vote, carry arms, or participate in civil government in any way, often leading to their persecution, as happened toAnabaptists, their descendants including the Amish and Mennonites, Quakers, and, in the 20th Century, Jehovah's Witnesses in many countries, believing by not participating they are closer to the Kingdom of God, since "Jesus answered (Pilate), 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (to defend him).' " - John 18:36. For them, the term "Christian nation" cannot be a valid governmental position, leaving only Christian people, possibly in Christian communities, beyond which are the "things which are Caesar's" - Matthew 22:21. [edit]Ahmadiyya According to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's understanding of Islam, Islamic principles state that the politics of government should be separate from the doctrine of religion. Special preference should not be given to a Muslim over [75][76] a non-Muslim. [edit]Catholicism The Catholic Church teaches, in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom, that all people are entitled to religious freedom and that such freedom should be recognized in [77] constitutional law. While the Church teaches that church-state separation is permissible, it does not endorse a [78] separation of religion and politics, as it is the position of the Church that the proper role for religion, and the Church [79] in particular, to guide and inform consciences, thereby serving as check and balance to the power of the state. The Church teaches that the right of religious freedom (enshrined in the U.S.'s "free exercise clause") is doctrinal, while the question of the degree of separation of church from the state such as a prohibition on an established religion (enshrined in the U.S.'s "establishment clause") is variable, depending upon the history of a nation; hence it is acceptable and consistent with religious freedom for countries such as England, Malta, Costa Rica, and Denmark to have an established religion as long as they grant religious freedom to all: If, under consideration of historical circumstances among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of a society, it is necessary at the same time that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be acknowledged and maintained.
[80]

The Catholic Church takes views on political issues, and tries to influence legislation (affecting all the residents of a country, not just Catholics) on matters it considers relevant. For example, the Catholic bishops in the United States adopted a plan in the 1970s calling for efforts aimed at a constitutional amendment providing "protection for the [81] unborn child to the maximum degree possible". [edit]Friendly

and hostile separation

Scholars have distinguished between what can be called "friendly" and "hostile" separations of church and [82] state. The friendly type limits the interference of the church in matters of the state but also limits the interference of [83] the state in church matters. The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to the home or church [84] and limits religious education, religious rites of passage and public displays of faith. The hostile model of secularism arose with the French Revolution and is typified in the Mexican Revolution, its [85][86] resulting Constitution and the Spanish Constitution of 1931. The hostile model exhibited during these events can [84] be seen as approaching the type of political religion seen in totalitarian states. The French separation of 1905 and the Spanish separation of 1931 have been characterized as the two most hostile [71] of the twentieth century, although the current schemes in both countries are considered generally friendly. France's President Nicolas Sarkozy at the beginning of his term, however, considered the current scheme a "negative laicite"

and wanted to develop a "positive laicite" more open to religion. The concerns of the state toward religion have [87] been seen by some as one cause of the civil war in Spain andMexico. The French philosopher and Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafter Jacques Maritain noted the distinction [88] between the models found in France and in the mid-twentieth century United States. He considered the US model of that time to be more amicable because it had both "sharp distinction and actual cooperation" between church and state, what he called "an historical treasure" and admonished the United States, "Please to God that you keep it [88] carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one." Alexis de Tocqueville, another French observer tended to make the same distinction, "In the U.S., from the beginning, politics and religion were in accord, and they have not ceased to be so since." Many of us wonder why there is a separation of church and state. Under this policy, the church does not interfere with the affairs of the state and vice-versa. In extreme cases, the separation of church and state involves limiting the exercise of religious beliefs only in church structures or within the private confines of the home. The display of faith in public is prohibited. In some countries, one is not even allowed to carry a Bible or a rosary in public view. Why is there a need to separate Church affairs from state affairs and vice-versa? Is such separation borne out of necessity? Is it a prescription for good government? Or is it because there are different types of religion and the state does not want to favor anyone? The internet provided some interesting answers, although most of them are quite indirect and incomplete. Thomas Jefferson explains that Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faith or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within the religion itself. Erecting the wall of separation between church and state, therefore, is absolutely necessary in a free society. What happens if the government favors a particular religion? Harry Blackmun has this to say: When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some. What if there is no separation of church and state? Robert Heinlein tries to answer this question. He said that Almost any sect, cult or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Is it possible to have a middle ground in the principle advocating the separation of church and state? Ronald Reagan declares that Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. How is the principle of separation of church and state applied in some countries? In one country, while its constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the state collects some taxes from recognized religious communities upon their request and a fee is charged for the service. Religion is taught in some schools but no teacher can be compelled to teach the subject of religion because the state considers itself as neutral as far as religion is concerned. But those who teach religion are required to secure prior permission from their religious community. In another country, the King is also the head of the state church. Its constitution requires that more than half of the members of its legislative body are members of the state church. The same constitution guarantees freedom of religion but while it guarantees such freedom, it also designates one type of religion as the official state religion. And the church propagating this religion is administered through a government department. In another country, while there is separation of church and state, the Pope had accepted the ordination of a bishop who was pre-selected by the government for a Catholic association. In another country, the separation of church and

[47]

state means the separation of religion from political power. While it protects religious expression from state interference, it also puts a limit to public religious expression to ensure that public power is insulated from the influence of religious institutions. In another country which has Islam for its religion, conversion to another religion is totally prohibited and any violation is punishable by death. In Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Councils Declaration on Religious Freedom, the Catholic Church teaches that all people are entitled to religious freedom. However, while it permits the separation of church and state, it does not support a separation of religion and politics. It believes that the proper role of the Church is to guide and inform the people of their rights. In the Philippines, the Catholic Church has always opposed any bill that seeks to impose the death penalty. It is now also strongly opposing the passing of the Reproductive Health bill, which aims to guarantee access to methods and information on birth control and maternal care. Which policy therefore is best for a country complete, partial or no separation at all of church and state? In a democratic setting, it is the people who decide what is best for their country and their preference is expressed in their constitution and statutes. But what does the Bible say? Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods (Mark 12:17). It also says: But Peter and the apostles answered, We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) and again in Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. How do you apply these Biblical prescriptions to a particular country? The answer to this question may vary from one country to another for indeed, the practice of faith, whether by individuals or by countries, is a subjective decision.

On the Separation of Church and State

by Carlos Antonio Palad The supporters of the RH Bill in the media and in Congress often cite Separation of Church and State in order to muzzle the opposition of the Catholic Church. But do they really believe in their own propaganda? Apparently, they are using this principle only for their own ends. This only shows that the supporters of the RH Bill are cynical and manipulative. While defending the RH Bill, Rep. Janette Garin said that the opinion and support of the Iglesia ni Cristo is important for the Bill. This admission was recorded in many newspapers and can easily be found in the Internet. One of the Philippine medias most rabid supporters of the RH Bill and one of its harshest critics of the Catholic Church, Anne Marie Pamintuan of the Philippine Star, said in her column for September 22, 2008, Monday, that: Maybe women should join the Iglesia Ni Cristo, which is supporting the bill. And will someone ever file a case questioning violations of the constitutionally enshrined principle of separation of church and state? In two sentences, this vociferous critic of the Catholic Church calls upon women to join the Iglesia Ni Cristo because it supports the RH Bill. At the same time, she calls on people to drag the Catholic Church to court. Wait a minute! We thought that these people are against any Church meddling in legislative and state matters? Obviously, this meddling is bad only when it goes against the preferences of certain politicians and of certain media people. The Iglesia Ni Cristo is praised because it supports the RH Bill while the Roman Catholic Church is condemned and spat upon by these pro-RH people because it opposes the Bill. It is clear that these people do not really care about the so-called principle of Separation of Church and State. What they simply want is to terrorize the Catholic Church and make it comply with their beliefs. To this end, they will support a church

that does what they themselves will consider as meddling if that church supports them. Thus, they praise the INC, with its legendary animus against Catholicism and its reliable support for artificial contraception. And, as we shall see, these people who support the RH Bill have a wrong and ignorant understanding of the meaning of the separation of Church and State. PART 2: WHAT DOES SEPARATION REALLY MEAN AND WHY RH BILL SUPPORTERS DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS In their fight for the passage of the RH Bill, not a few of this Bills supporters have, once more, invoked the Separation of Church and State in order to muzzle the Catholic Churchs opposition to the RH bill. According to these people, the Catholic Church is violating the principle of the Separation of Church and State by daring to speak out against the Bill. As we shall see, the supporters of the RH Bill are, in fact, very ignorant of what the Separation Clause really means. What Separation of Church and State really means is that the State does not have any State or Established Church, it does not subsidize the Church or pay the salary of its clergy, and that no Church has any official access to the instruments of State power (e.g. it cannot use the armed forces to fight other churches or to enforce its beliefs and practices on citizens). Furthermore, in the Philippine legal and constitutional context, the Separation clause has its origins in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Take note: the phrase Separation of Church and State can never be found anywhere in the US Constitution) As a US Congressional Report noted in 1854, What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist (cited in p. 31 of David Bartons The Myth of Separation; Aledo, Texas, Wallbuilder Press, 1992). In short, in a true situation of Union of Church and State, the State will force its citizens to adhere to a particular Church, with punishments for those who do not want to conform. Where there are no such penalties, there is no question of an Established Church In modern times, the Establishment clause has been broadened in some countries to include the non-use of government property or funds in order to promote the beliefs of a particular Church or religion over that of other churches and / or religions. Nevertheless, the principle that no Church must be established by the state has never been understood to mean that no one has the right to speak out in public in accordance with his or her religious beliefs. In short, the Separation of Church and State was established in order to prevent the government from forcing a particular church down the throats of its citizens, and from encroaching upon the rights of the Church. It was established in order to protect the Churches, not the State. All of these conditions continue to apply to the Philippines, which has no state religion, which does not subsidize the Catholic Church or pay the salaries of its priests, which does not require classes in Catholic beliefs in public schools, and which has no provision for forcing non-Catholics to follow Catholic beliefs and practices at gunpoint. Indeed, non-Catholics churches and religions also have a strong voice in the affairs of state and have considerable public influence in the Philippines. Therefore there is true separation of Church and State in the Philippines. Separation of Church and State does NOT mean that Church officials cannot speak or try to influence state policy. In a democratic republic, any citizen has the right and duty to use his influence and moral suasion in order to persuade the government to take a particular course of action. Since Church officials are citizens, they continue to have the right to speak out in favor of their beliefs, as long as they use purely moral, non-violent and legal means of expressing these beliefs. This is

what the CBCP does. Its members are only exercising their rights under the Constitution, and they have certainly not resorted to violent means. Separation of Church and State does not mean that Catholics are required to leave their religious beliefs in their private life, and that they should act like they have no Catholic beliefs at all in the public square. To force Catholics to think and act like they are not Catholics, outside the confines of their private lives, is plain and simple discrimination. In the final analysis, to require Catholics to abandon their religious and moral beliefs in matters of public policy is the same as requiring these Catholics to believe that their religious beliefs are not really true. After all, if you believe that something is true, you will stick to it anywhere and everywhere and in all things, and not just in your private life. The supporters of the RH Bill, in attacking the defenders of the pro-life position for upholding their Catholic beliefs, are in effect attacking the congressional defenders of the pro-life position for having the guts to stick to their moral and religious convictions. This is absurd! In any democracy, it should be expected that people will stick to their moral convictions and make decisions according to their conscience! Furthermore, if we are going to condemn the Catholic Church for violating the separation of Church and State by speaking out against the Bill, then why should the INC not be accused of committing the same violation when these support the Bill? After all, if speaking out on a proposed Bill in Congress is a form of interference in State matters, then it does not matter whether a church speaks out FOR or AGAINST the Bill; what matters is that the said church spoke ABOUT the Bill. If the Catholic Church is to be condemned for violating the separation of Church and State, then the INC should be charged guilty of the same violation. This paper was circulated in the House of Representatives by pro-life advocates in 2008. Some minor edits have been made for this particular posting.

POPES RESIGNATION

The resignation of the pope, whatever the reason that motivated it, may well have a consequence far beyond that of its intended purpose. It reveals that the papacy is simply a job, an office. And by so doing, it rightly challenges some of the cult of personality that has built up around that office, as if the job affords the office holder some special proximity to God. It doesn't. The purposes of the almighty do not flow exclusively through the narrow weir of the papacy. But this news isn't really news to Protestants, nor indeed to the English. Henry VIII, admittedly one of the greatest cultural criminals of English history, created the Church of England as a means of having his way with Anne Boleyn. His vast destructive ego demanded a legitimate male heir at all costs and that required marriage. If it also required a break with Rome, then so be it. Nobody was going to tell Henry what he could or couldn't do, not even the pope. He wasn't especially enamoured of those earnest Protestant reformers and their new European ways. They were just a means to an end. Still to this day our coinage reflects Henry's belief that he could shoulder the weight of Catholic Christianity on his own, without the pope. "Elizabeth II DG FD" is what is still written on all our coins. FD is an abbreviation of fidei defensor defender of the faith. It was the honorific given to Henry by the pope several years before the break with Rome. And he wasn't going to give that one up. So he effectively made himself the English pope transferring the glamour of papacy to the English crown and appropriated the wealth of the monasteries, knocking to the ground these traditional strongholds of Vatican power. He cared little that the monasteries were the National Health Service of the medieval world. He cared little that they were great centres of education and learning. That is why he was a cultural criminal of world historical proportions. But he wasn't a Protestant ideologue. Henry created a new church because the old one said no to him. Henry's original sin is loaded into the constitutional DNA of the Church of England. "Is this a Protestant church or a Catholic church?" is a question tour guides at English cathedrals get asked every day. And the answer is

completely baffling to visitors from mainland Europe: "It's both." It is pretty much impossible to explain to a Spanish tourist with broken English how this can possibly be. And it seemed pretty much impossible to several generations following Henry VIII as well. Yet I would describe myself as a Catholic, just not a Roman Catholic. And that is not simply because I like smells and bells. Catholicism is bigger than the job description of a bishop of an Italian city. To be a Catholic is to regard oneself a part of the universal church, one the stretches back in time, yes, but one also that spreads out over the four corners of the earth. Catholic Protestants, like me, believe in a form of Christianity with a far greater degree of institutional subsidiarity, a religion that is not just top down and doctrinally authoritarian. I guess that is why, at a certain level, we take a certain pride in our theological squabbling, however unedifying that may be at times. Politically, we are natural democrats. And democracy is messy, without the dangerous glamour of any cult of the strong leader. The Church of England was born in disgrace. This has always seemed to me its strongest feature. What better way for a church to be inoculated from the outset against its own self-importance?

Pope's resignation reveals a Catholic Church heading for disintegration

by Vicky Pelaez at 22/02/2013 13:35

"Human existence has two aspects -- natural and supernatural -- and each should be governed by an appropriate authority." (Jose Ortega y Gasset) Pope Benedict XVI's decision to resign his post came as a shock not just to the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, but to the entire world community. There have only been six occasions in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, beginning in AD 33 when the pope resigned. The last pope before Benedict XVI to step down was Gregorio XII, back in 1415. In his resignation statement, Benedict XVI explained that due to his advanced age, he had to recognize his "incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry" entrusted to him. But many have serious doubts that this is the main reason. Just hours after the pope announced his resignation, lighting struck St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican -- an event that some interpreted as a sign of God's discontent, while others saw it as the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HARP) in action. The United States' HARP project has been designed to control and modify global weather conditions and ionosphere processes. Conspiracy theories aside, Pope Benedict XVI hinted at the possibility of stepping down in an interview a few years ago with German Catholic journalist Peter Seewald. The interview was later reproduced in Seewald's 2010 book "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times." In it, Benedict XVI admits that "if a pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, he has a right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign." Benedict XVI's trip to Cuba and Mexico last year also sparked rumors of his imminent resignation. Benedict XVI's sympathizers argue that the actual reason for his resignation is Vatican infighting and the constant intrigues among church officials, who resist any attempts to clear out the cobwebs. Journalist Pablo Ordaz reported from Rome that "the Pope is surrounded by wolves, who become all the more blood-thirsty at the sight of the color purple." But Ordaz failed to mention that Joseph Ratzinger had himself been part of that pack of wolves since 1981, and that he is well versed in the system's ins and outs. The secrets, the gossip, the intrigue, the ambition, the shady deals, the pedophilia and the corruption of the Holy See's monsignors, bishops, and cardinals were exposed in the book, Gone with the Wind in the Vatican. In response, the Vatican launched proceedings against one of its authors, Monsignor Luigi Marinelli. As "one of the Roman Catholic Church's greatest and most lucid minds," according to Seewald, Pope Benedict XVI could not possibly be unaware of the Vatican's inner workings. It was actually that knowledge that ensured his rapid ascent to the top of the Catholic hierarchy.

As a 14-year-old seminary student, Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth and went on to serve in a Nazi air defense unit during WWII. After the war, he resumed his theology studies at various German universities, and then embarked on an academic career. In his early years as a scholar, he embraced many progressive ideas, only to renounce them following the student riots of 1968 in Europe. Ratzinger soon gave up his research career for the ministry, and in 1977 he was nominated Archbishop of Munich and Freising. He subsequently became a cardinal, and was dubbed "Panzercardenal," a nickname alluding to the German WWII-era tank model characterized by high precision, speed and maneuverability. No doubt those qualities, manifested by Cardinal Ratzinger in his efforts to uphold the Roman Catholic Church's conservative traditions, motivated Pope John Paul II's decision in 1981 to appoint his future successor as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the post known in the Middle Ages as the Grand Inquisitor. Ratzinger soon earned himself another nickname, "God's Rottweiler," due to his relentless attacks on priests, theologians and laymen seeking to modernize the Church and to uphold human rights in the face of social injustice, inequality and hunger. According to one of his theology students, Brazil's Leonardo Boff, Cardinal Ratzinger has always felt a certain reactionary nostalgia, "sticking to the image of the Church filled with Latin-language liturgy, incense, and piety. This is not an image of a reconciliatory Church, but rather that of a fortress Church, which defends itself against the world. He craves a Church that is no more." His piety kept him confined within the boundaries of traditionalism, and he was ruthless toward everything and everyone that, from his dogmatic point of view, could undermine the seeming harmony of his conservative church, increasingly out of touch with modern-day realities. And, sure enough, Grand Inquisitor Ratzinger had no mercy for the Latin American priests who in the 1960s'80s, a period of military dictatorships across the region, started a progressive movement that became known as the Theology of Liberation. When Boff accused the Catholic Church of misinterpreting Christ's true teachings, Prefect Ratzinger consigned him to one year of silence. Ratzinger could not bring himself to accept the Liberation Theology, which seeks to build a paradise on Earth instead of aspiring for heavenly life after death. November 23, 1984, saw the publication of a Vatican statement condemning Liberation Theology as a religious thinking contaminated with Marxist ideology. According to Ratzinger, this world is meant for suffering, and it is only in heaven that we can achieve eternal peace. The Holy See condemns theologians who seek sources of terrestrial happiness, and has their books censored and banned. Paola Freire's The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Gustavo Gutierrez's Liberation Theology and Enrique Dussel'sLatin American Liberation Ethics are just a few of the titles banned by the Vatican. During his tenure as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger consigned to silence some of the prominent Liberation Theology advocates, including Helder Camara, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, Leonidas Proano, Jose Maria Pires, Raul Silva Enriquez, and Ernesto Cardenal. And the list goes on. As a cardinal and later as pope, Ratzinger cracked down on all things progressive and liberal, but was extremely soft on corruption. He famously stood by Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, Pope John Paul II's confidant, who was involved in a financial scandal around the Ambrosiano bank. The bank's chairman, Roberto Calvi, dubbed "God's banker," served as the key link between the Vatican, on the one hand, and the Mafia and the Masonic Lodge P-2, on the other. In the '80s, Calvi was found dead, hanging from a bridge in London, and his death was officially classified as a suicide. The Vatican has been through many similar scandals since then. One of them involves former Banco de Vaticano head Gotti Tedeschi, a confidant of Benedict XVI, who is currently serving time for money laundering. The most controversial aspect of Benedict XVI's papacy is, perhaps, his handling of pedophile priests, which dramatically undermined the Church's moral authority. Speaking in front of John Paul II's tomb, he once promised to "clean the Church of filth." But in a letter to the faithful of Ireland, he described one of the pedophilia cases in that country as "a manifestation of insufficient saintliness rather than perverse conduct." Benedict XVI defended the founder of the Legion of Christ, Marcial Maciel, accused of repeated sexual abuse of children and teenagers. And he also protected Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony

by hiding evidence against 124 priests accused of abusing 500 minors. The Church had to pay $660 million to the victims in compensation, or $1,200,000 each. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) is now suing the Vatican for its involvement in the cover-up of sexual abuse and other crimes against children across the globe. According to SNAP surveys, the victims include 100,000 minors in the United States alone. If that figure is correct, the US Catholic Church will have to pay out as much as $132 billion in compensation. These and other Vatican-related scandals - including those revealed by the pope's butler, Paolo Gabriele, and dubbed Vatileaks - are the reason behind the current exodus from the Catholic Church. Many of them convert to Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, or become atheists. In the US, donations to the Catholic Church have in recent years shrunk to $6 billion per year, down from $12 billion. In Brazil, the country with the world's largest Catholic population, the percentage of Catholics has decreased over this same period from 73.9% to 68.4%. And Mexico, the world's second largest Catholic nation, is experiencing the same trend. Yet, instead of focusing on apostolic and pastoral work to reach out to parishioners, the pope looks for support among the rich and powerful. He has appointed Goldman Sachs executive director Peter Sutherland as his financial advisor; his geopolitical assistant is one of former US president George W. Bush's most hawkish advisers, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the staunchest advocates of pre-emptive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These advisers are joined by reactionary allies such as Opus Dei, the Legion of Christ, and the Communion and Liberation Movement. The Roman Catholic Church is growing increasingly out of touch with the grassroots. And this spells doom for a church. Perhaps the Vatican's "most lucid mind" has finally realized this, and is now washing his hands of any responsibility.