The Church and State: Rendering what is Due

The Church and the State are two different institutions with different job descriptions. Religious leaders should never impose things concerning the State. Their only obligation is to take care of their flock. While the government takes charge of running the country, the religious leaders are concerned on how they affect the moral lives of their flock. Running the country is far different from running a Church. The government needs all the wealth they could get to improve the economy while religious leaders do not rely, ideally, on financial stakes to improve what is called a dogma.
In the Philippine setting, separation of the Church and State is clearly stipulated. Ideally, the Church must not intervene in the affairs of the State and vice-versa. However, there seem to be blockages on why this has never been followed. A clear example is the EDSA 1 where the famous Cardinal Sin called on all the faithful to go to Edsa. While it is obviously an exercise of every citizen to participate in the affairs of the state, it wouldn’t have happened without the cardinal’s call over the radio. Another example was the calling of the same Cardinal to former president Erap to relinquish his post. It was another political affair but without him, we could have witnessed a genuine political exercise not affected and infected by a voice from a church. With these and all the other infected affairs of the State, did we achieve the “good” that we wanted? Did we feel the “better” that we longed for?
Among Ed Panlilio’s stint was “phenomenal” as it is always described on papers. His being a Governor brought about an obvious change to his constituents. However, he was only effective as far as turning down bribes from the Palace and other illegal sectors is concerned and in bringing morality back in governance. However, he can only be effective as long as he is the leader but, he cannot be a leader forever. There are more ministrant and constituent functions to be done by a government official.
Religious leaders have a chance to help the State. It is their duty and responsibility to teach their flock of honest and morally founded governance. It is their obligation to teach their people the basic obedience and concern for others. They should be the teachers of the future leaders of the State so that the time will come that the Church needs not to intervene in the affairs of the State because they have done their duty early on.
What we see now should be a measure on how the Church is fulfilling her duty. What we see now reflects the unfinished business of Church.