A: 29th Sun of OrdTime (22 Oct 2017) - AS IF CAESAR WERE NOT FROM GOD - Mt 22:15-21

“Very well, give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar – and to God what belongs to God” (Matt 22:21).

This statement of Jesus logically leads us to affirm the universal chorus on the byword “Separation of the Church and State”. Religion and politics are two separate entities, one dwelling on the spiritual while the other on the physical. The former is God’s concern, while the latter is man’s. But it is meritorious to ask: Is religion really meant to separate the two concerns?

Originally in history it was never like that. Religion, derived from the Latin word “ligare” (i.e., “to bind”), points to the human duties one has to fulfill in order to be both communally acceptable to the civil society and to the cultic traditions. This usually involves ritual and secular practices meant to bind one to both the king and to the deity… which at some periods in the Roman empire are one and the same: the emperor can be god himself with an imperial edict. The concept of religion as something devoted merely on the spiritual realm started only in the monastic times, but had its clear-cut delineation in the Protestant reforms, particularly in the writings of Calvin. In his book “The Myth of Religious Violence” William Cavanaugh says: “the separability of religion from politics, economics, culture, and other institutional forces in ancient and medieval times–is absent from the historical record” (2009:82).

When Jesus appears to separate the two in the Gospel, he is not actually dichotomizing the worldly and the heavenly leaderships. Instead, it is the Jews who were making that division. Take for example the Passion Narrative in John 19 where in his trial Jesus was accused of being an opponent of the emperor (v.15) and all those who would support him (v.12). Jesus, on the other hand, was establishing that being a friend of Caesar and a friend of God are not contradictory terms. Rather, Jesus declares implicitly that it is the presupposed norm that a king (and any earthly leader) should not impose laws that would be in contradiction to God-values since his mandate comes from God: “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above” (v.11).

Outspoken Filipino bishops and clergymen who criticize the government have been castigated by the public for interfering with political matters since what they do is unconstitutional. Contrariwise, Art 2 Sec 6 of the Philippine Constitution talks primarily on the equal freedom to exercise one’s religious preference and doesn’t mention a regulation barring the Church from talking against the State. Yet, counterblows are orchestrated against them for doing so. Take for instance the latest fake news that circulated in social media (Oct 17, 2017) reporting that the CBCP was furious on the military’s killing of the two prime terrorists in the Marawi siege. This is only one of the indications of the public’s discontent when the Church “meddles” with ostensibly civil affairs. It comes from a pretense that it is contrary to the ministerial practice of Jesus.

However, we need to ask: How can Jesus be truly prophetic if he only talks about the spiritual realm without denouncing the evils of society? We should note that in the next chapter of our gospel (Matt 23), Jesus would lambast the religious leaders with strong words via his so-called 7 Woes. Therein, he points not only their cultic scrupulosity but also their oppressive acts against the poor: “For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (Matt 23:23).

When the Church begins to be critical against societal leaders, it is with the intent of enjoining them to observe “justice, mercy, and faith” and to remind them that even Caesar’s authority comes from God.

- Rex Fortes, CM