For a theologian, let alone a Cardinal, one would think that
he knows a thing or two about secularism and atheism. Yet this is what I think
happened when I attended Cardinal Tagle’s 25-minute press conference in
Kingsgrove NSW in South Sydney, Australia last Aug 1 as part of his talking
tour: the Cardinal dodged it saying “it would need a semester to cover that
question.” Okay I might have taken a bit longer to explain my question, about 2
minutes, which explains something about my lack of knowledge on the nature of press
conferences, but that is nothing compared to the ridiculously long and vague
ones asked by five other media reporters before me. And why is it that after I
was cut off halfway through my question, the moderator, telling me to be quick
due to time limitations, allowed two more questions? The Cardinal was also
scheduled to deliver an hour long speech in the chapel next door. Was he
concerned more about his talk than meeting the press? Was he afraid to engage
an atheist like me? Couldn’t he just explain in a few sentences what his thoughts
about atheism and secularism? So why didn’t he answer my question? I would not
know. I would not pretend to know what his motivation was at the time. And
since the Cardinal did not provide any word about my question, I will write my
side of the argument here and hopefully the Cardinal himself had the generosity
to explain his side.
My question was simple: what is the attitude of the Catholic
Church towards atheism and secularism in the Philippines? The last time
Cardinal Tagle spoke about “atheism” was to address the Catholic faithful not
to fall for “practical atheism” where, in his own words, he lamented that “during Sundays, we profess our faith to God. But starting
Monday, cheating happens because of money… we take advantage of other people
for our own interest.” It is clear the Cardinal has a very low view of atheists. He
implied that atheism is the complete absence of morality, a degeneration of positive
human values. And he cleverly did that without even engaging real atheists.
I
also pointed out that the Cardinal confused secularization and secularism. In
2013, the Cardinal spoke about the “effects of secularization and the media on
the modern family.” For the record, the secularization thesis has been debunked and
abandoned. I don’t know of any secular humanist who still promotes the secularization
thesis. Secularism, on the other hand, states that best way to deal with religious differences is to
come up with a morality that we all share and a morality not based on religion.
Secularism actually enables us to build a strong democratic society by giving
all religions equal voice in society. Secularism is consistent with the 1987
Constitution principle of separation of church and state. Therefore supporting
secularism makes sense because it promotes equality and fairness. For a
Cardinal, secularism is a topic that should be encouraged and not avoided.
So it is with sadness that the moral and spiritual leader
of the Philippines Catholic Church would refuse to engage this question.
