PASTORAL GUIDELINE

On September 1, 2003, the CBCP issued the “Pastoral Guideline on Sexual Abuses and Misconduct by the Clergy,” listing the protocol that bishops should follow and observe in dealing with errant priests.⁷

It covered violations of continence and abstinence, child abuse, sexual misconduct (either heterosexual or homosexual), and cases of “priest-fathers.” The landmark document, however, was wanting.

As early as 1999, or four years before the protocol was adopted, Cruz presented a “submission”—a set of guidelines—for consideration by the CBCP plenary on how to handle sexually misbehaving priests. Cruz observed that “there was big silence and marked quiet” when he spoke before the assembly.⁸“There could be several reasons for this, One, the membership was simply engrossed in their respective priorities and agendas. Two, the paper proved irrelevant or immaterial to their own local, individual, pastoral and administrative concerns. And three, the submission actually touched on delicate and critical issue that was both precarious and difficult to address.”

Cruz believed it was the third reason that explained the “rather strange and distinct hush that pervaded the conference hall precisely because the ‘Submission’ touched on an ecclesial problem then sadly obtaining in the Church in the Philippines.”

What was in the “submission” that the bishops would rather ignore or simply let pass? Cruz proposed that priests who had sired a child should automatically be removed—not just suspended—from the priesthood. Cruz argued that a priest who has fathered a child has lost his clerical state by violating the continence and celibacy required of priests.

Second, as a parent, the priest-father is now duty bound to fulfill his parental obligation to the child or the children. By remaining as priests but ignoring their parental obligation, the priest-fathers lose the moral authority to preach about family life “when they themselves are alien to the families they authored; when they themselves do not parent their own children; [and thus] have no right to teach about fidelity to human and moral commitment when they themselves grossly violate their own priestly commitment.”⁹

Cruz also argued for the children of priest-fathers who may suffer “from subtle if not marked psychical disorientation and emotional insecurity caused by their blurred identity, plus the doubtful living and questionable doings of their biological fathers further adding to the usually cruel jokes and painful remarks they get from their peers.” These children “could rightfully feel deprived and even victimized, ultimately growing into angry and resentful individuals with antagonistic posture and hateful disposition toward others.”¹⁰

Further, allowing priest-fathers to continue with their vocation is unfair to members of the Church who are faithful to their priestly commitment, Cruz continued. This sends a confused and wrong signal to seminarians. It also affects the credibility of the Church with the laity—with the Church strict and demanding about the moral life of the people, yet allowing priests who fail the moral standards to remain with the Church.

Based on the feedback he received, bishops, as well as their respective priests, found Cruz’s position on errant priests “too canonical, rather unrealistic, simply unbearable and the like.” Bishops and priests questioned his position as lacking in charity, understanding and forgiveness “mandated by the Gospel in dealing with sinners, clerics included.”¹¹

Others posed an outrageous argument saying that separating priest-fathers from the priesthood would further worsen the shortage of priests. Some even argued that since priests are considered the alter ego of Christ, why impose an unreasonably strict and severe punishment? Still, some also argued that separating priest-fathers from the ministry would deprive them precisely of the income to support their children.

Politics 0150