Whatever the government, be it a monarchy, a dictatorship or a democracy, the hierarchy of the Church will support it; unless the government is against religious freedom or outrightly persecutes the Church, as it did in communist Russia.
According to the philosophy of Karl Marx, the father of communism, religion is the opiate of the people and the enemy of the worker. It was so because it emphasized life after death and distracted the people from their natural objective, which is to improve their living conditions on earth. It is true that the primary objective of the Church is to save souls, as it should be the primary objective of each individual, but, the Church has contributed more to the progress of civilization than any other institution. It devoted most of its energy to education in the arts and sciences and especially to literature.
But, it is a fact that the hierarchical church seems always to support the regime in power, even when it is oppressive and the people suffer from the excesses and corruption of their rulers. There is a good reason for this policy. I think it is because the Church thrives in a climate of Good Order and Discipline. Under these circumstances it can perform its work in peace. There can be no gainsaying the fact that ORDER and PEACE are twins. They go together. Perhaps, the Church thrives best under a democratic government, with a constitution which guarantees religious freedom.
However, in a democracy there can be many different structures of society. Firstly, there can be a small minority of very rich individuals and corporations at the top, a next tier of citizens with a lesser or greater degree of affluence, a third tier of working class citizens (this is the largest group) and a small number of indigent people at the bottom. Secondly, at the top the very rich, in the middle a large group of citizens, who may be described as well off, and the largest group at the bottom struggling to survive. Thirdly, a society where the ruling class are very wealthy and the rest of the population have enough to survive. The Church would prefer to work in the climate created by the third group.
Surprisingly, so would the politicians in democratic regimes because, then, the people would be dependent on the politicians to improve their living conditions.
I think the structure of our Belizean society conforms to the first example, except that our middle class is small and the number of citizens in the lowest class is large and getting larger.
In developed countries under democratic governments, society is structured with a small group of individuals and corporations at the top, a very large group of citizens of varying degrees of affluence with varying value of marketable skills in the middle and a small group at the bottom (usually on welfare). A society like this is prosperous and productive but, the most difficult to govern because, the average citizen is so well informed and so independent minded. I think this is the ideal arrangement of society for countries like Belize to aspire to.
We have been on the road to become an ideal society since independence, twenty-seven years ago, made some progress in the beginning but, our advance has been slowed almost to a halt for three reasons.
Firstly. Party politics has consumed too much of our production energy and the society has become polarized in the extreme.
Secondly. The drug barons are too powerful and their influence too pervasive.
And, thirdly, we have too many illiterate and unproductive citizens.
The people are powerless to do any thing about the first. The politicians have to come together and agree about some ground rules, or it will get like the general who said, “I am going to save these people even if I have to kill every one of them.”
The second task is more difficult. What can we do to reduce the harmful influence of the drug dealers in the society? At least fifty percent of crime in Belize is drug related.
Before addressing this question, let us look at the status quo. Belize is a transshipment point for a prohibited drug manufactured in Colombia intended for the market in America, which is huge. The Colombian cartel – rich, powerful and ruthless, are going to find a way to reach that market. Belize is conveniently located and we have present day buccaneers, who, like our forebears, are prepared to take the risks. The risks are not so great because, the drug trade is so profitable that they can pay the price of protection to all who would impede their activities. Collet Gill, a former Inspector of Police, told me that the answer to the problem is to make drug dealing, a capital offence, as is the case in Islamic countries. To those of like mind, my response is, what does it matter what the penalty is when the men who run things are so well insulated? None have ever been arrested and charged and convicted and none are likely to be. Am I saying that the situation is hopeless? Far from it. What I am trying to do is make clear the nature and size of the task we have to undertake.
The third task is to reduce poverty and make more citizens productive, which will enlarge the middle class. I contend that the first step to reduce poverty is to eliminate illiteracy. With the right policies and programs, this can be done in ten years. They did it in Cuba. Which begs the question, why has this target not been in any political party manifesto? Why has this not even been identified as a national goal? It may be that it will not fire the imagination of the electorate as much as other promises, like building ten thousand houses.
I have gone very far afield from the original subject. So let me get back to it, which is the Church and State. It has been decided that they shall be separate and so they shall remain. But that does not mean that the Church (I mean the clergy and laity) can forego their duty to the whole man, which is the physical as well as the spiritual. I think that the Church as a national institution has a duty to make its voice heard loud and clear when the society seems to be descending into barbarism.
I note that the Church has marshaled its powers of suasion against the odious practice of terminating unwanted pregnancies, which is an evil in the eyes of all who acknowledge that life comes from God and is sacred. It is particularly concerned about the attitude of legislators, now prevailing in Christian countries, that no one is harmed by the action of the individual who takes the life of her unborn child but the mother herself. It seems that the prevailing position of many governments is that the woman who conceives has the right to decide whether to end her pregnancy or to cooperate fully in the process between conception and delivery of a child.
Those who support the Church’s view say they are PRO LIFE and those who say the pregnant woman has the right (they call it freedom) to choose to abort say they are PRO CHOICE. I think these terms are improperly applied because no one in his right mind can be against LIFE.
Everyone is in favor of LIFE. And, no one can be against freedom of choice. Choice is a gift from God to our first parents.
There are many evils in the world that the Church has to fight against and its success depends upon its best use of the power of moral suasion. And, therefore, since the power to make decisions and take action on behalf of the people resides in their governments, it would seem that it is necessary that the Church engage with the state in direct dialogue. After all, this means of pursuing a desired objective is practiced by the most civilized nations. It is called diplomacy.
Finally, I think I am on solid grounds when I say that the CHURCH and the STATE are concerned with the well being of the whole person, which is both physical and spiritual. That being so, shouldn’t the Church in Belize be as much concerned with the terrible social ills which afflict us as it is about abortion?