Why Cardinal Tagle did not answer my question

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.