THE princes of the CBCP should be happy with the results of the SWS survey on whether Catholics have thought about leaving the Church. In fact, I’m surprised that only 9.2 percent of respondents “agreed” that the notion has occurred to them.
You see, whether on purpose or through plain incompetence, SWS framed the premise in order to deliver a higher percentage: “Paminsan-minsan iniisip ko na baka umalis ako sa Simbahang Katoliko (Sometimes I think I might leave the Catholic Church).”
Respondents had multiple choices: “Strongly agree, somewhat agree, undecided whether to agree or disagree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree.”
If you don’t think that’s a leading question that can result in bias, try replacing “Catholic Church” with “wife/husband,” as in, “Sometimes I think I might leave my wife/husband.”
You can almost see the home-bound housewife, often waiting at night for her husband to come home from his late night “meetings,” lighting up at the question: “Now that you mention it, yes, I do think about it sometimes…in fact, often!” And you can almost see the henpecked Pinoy hubby nodding vigorously: “Yes, yes, yes!”
At any rate, the fact that 90.8 percent of Catholic respondents did not agree with the bias-inducing premise – or, at least, were undecided – suggests that a super-majority of Catholics are loyal to the Church. In fact, of the 9.2 percent, only 2.5 percent “strongly agreed” that the thought of leaving had sometimes occurred to them, while 6.7 percent were wishy-washy.
But what I think is significant is the increasing number of Catholics who infrequently attend Holy Mass, or do not attend Mass at all.
According to the survey, only 37 percent go to Mass once a week, down by 27 percent, from 64 percent in 1991, when SWS first conducted a similar poll. Because going to Mass is an obligation imposed on members of the Church, infrequent attendance is reason enough to require deep reflection on the part of the clergy.
If the Church were a corporation promoting consumer products or services, a decline of 27 percent in regular consumption would indeed be cause for alarm, with the marketing manager being fired, if not the CEO himself. Of course, some CEOs, to keep their jobs, would question the credibility of the survey – which is, what, in effect, some members of the clergy and some apologists of the Church have done.
According to news reports, Peachy Yamsuan, the communications person of the Archdiocese of Manila, belied the SWS survey by pointing out that “parishes are continuously sprouting across the country and some priests celebrate more than five Masses on Sundays.” Several bishops have also questioned the survey, offering as proof the fact that Churches continue to be full and Masses held at shopping malls are well-attended.
On the other hand, there are some men of the cloth who have confirmed the decline in Mass attendance, putting the blame on “boring” homilies and” second collections,” among other reasons.
I am, frankly, bewildered by the self-righteous indignation of some bishops, the defensive posture of Yamsuan and, at the other extreme, the blame-passing resorted to by the so-called “activist” priests, Fr. Joel Tabora and Fr. Robert Reyes.
The reason I am bewildered is because I have always looked to the clergy, particularly the princes of the Church, for guidance on matters pertaining to my faith. The actuations of the leaders of the CBCP in recent months have not been very inspiring. And their reaction to the SWS survey has, frankly, been disappointing.
I must point out that I am a Catholic, but not the kind with a special pass to heaven. I’m as human as the next guy and commit my share of infractions. I’m also an advertising man and would know exactly what I would do in a dire situation involving products or services being marketed by my clients.
But there’s the rub. The Catholic Church is not a product or a service being marketed to consumers. This makes the blame-passing, the apologizing and the denials coming from various otherwise knowledgeable sectors questionable, at best.
About the accuracy of the SWS survey, is it right for the princes of the Church to challenge it, rather than for them to look inward and reflect on why – whether large or little – there is a decline in the numbers of the faithful?
In the spirit of humility which, I have been told, is an essential quality of the vocation, wouldn’t it have been better for them to assume that, perhaps, they, as Church leaders, may have had some failings that need to be addressed?
Of course, they may ask: Is it the failing of the clergy that some members of the congregation take their faith casually rather than with their whole heart, their whole mind and their whole strength, as Jesus Christ prescribed? Why should the clergy bear the onus?
It’s not for me to answer that. But I was taught in Catholic school that God, knowing how stiff-necked His creations were, finally took it upon Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, to bear their sins and pay for them with His suffering.
Concerning Peachy Yamsuan’s stout rebuttal of the SWS survey, if she were rising in defense of Tide or Milo or even some senatorial candidates, that would have been admirable indeed. But does she really think the Church needs to be defended that way?
In the garden of Gethsemane, when Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus from those who would arrest him (even lopping off the ear of the high priest’s servant), the Lord stopped him and said, “Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?”
Concerning the criticism hurled by Fr. Reyes and Tabora, should the homilies be made “less boring” by delivering it in the bombastic manner of Mike Velarde, with loud suits and all? Should the sermons be spiced with promises of immediate miracles, for which reason umbrellas should be turned wrong side up?
Is that how Fr. Reyes and Fr. Tabora propose to arrest the decline in Mass attendance?
And should the second collection, as Fr. Tabora seems to suggest, be halted, in order to keep parishioners motivated to attend Mass?
Am I wrong in being disappointed that Fr. Tabora did not, instead, say that “God loves a cheerful giver” and that the amount one gives to the Church is not as important as the spirit in which it is given? Or has Fr. Tabora forgotten the story of the widow’s mite?
Indeed, should the Catholic Church mount a promotional campaign to attract more parishioners, offer enticements to make them attend Mass, eliminate the imposition of responsibilities to the Church, make things easier, more modern, more cool in order to pack the services?
Or should the clergy recall that the Lord never made it easy for the early Christians and for the apostles to remain in the Church? The early Christians were fed to the lions and the apostles, led by Peter and Paul, suffered persecution and excruciatingly painful deaths.
Jesus Christ said: “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.”
Perhaps the princes of the Church, as well as Fr. Tabora and Reyes, can explain to ordinary laymen like me what Jesus Christ meant by that. Perhaps, then, they will be less concerned about attracting many parishioners by making the gate wide and the road broad.
***
Email [email protected].
