Thinkpiece no. 4

On Elizabeth and Absolute Power

The movie, which retold the early years of the reign of Elizabeth I, was grand and emotional. It was aptly nourished with extravagant costumes and setting, which is a trend of productions relating to the Golden Age of England (Shakespeare in Love, for instance). The casts were also very much suitable for their roles. What I don’t really appreciate in this movie is its storyline. I feel that the real story behind it was so rich with important events that the writers had troubles in choosing what to highlight, or simply include in the movie. They were successful in presenting the character of Elizabeth I, but for the rest, their roles are not clearly established. I know that time is a limiting factor here. But I think that it would have been more helpful for people like me who are not really familiar with English history, if the script explored more the motivations behind the actions of Sir Francis Walshingham, Robert Dudley and the French and Spanish royalties. Was it only power that motivated them? Maybe I’m just not being simplistic and at the same time skeptical of the story the movie presented (since Hollywood has its own way of curving the truth for its pleasure).

Anyway, moving to the real business of this thinkpiece, absolute power was probably the theme of this movie, hence its tagline “Absolute power demands absolute loyalty”. To be more specific, I think the movie is concerned with the hardships and stakes of achieving absolute power. Being in the position of power, automatically bequeath one with numerous foes and a meager number of trustworthy friends. Man’s pursue of power is so strong that he would do anything just for it. Thus, if one is successful of attaining power, he has the grave responsibility of defending his throne against both his known and faceless adversaries. Elizabeth I was surely a perfect exemplar of this scenario. Considering that she was considered illegitimate at a young age and she is a protestant, her claim for the crown was apparently questioned and criticized both by the Catholic Church and other dominant figures of Europe. Fortunate enough, she had the courage of restating that she is the one in power and she will rule as she wishes. Plus she had the wisdom of figuring out who to trust and not.

The symbols used in the coronation of Elizabeth I were evident of her absolute power. At first, her absolute power seemed unclear to me, she was standing on shaky grounds and was surrounded with a council whose intentions are murky. But when she suggested the retirement of Sir William as her adviser and made him a Lord instead, it became evident that she was indeed in absolute power. This would soon be more established when she addressed the parliament regarding the uniformity issue of religions. In her exercise of power, it is unquestionable that she is crafting her decisions towards what she thinks would be beneficial for her people. Being both the leader of the state and the church, she was able to influence England in wholly.

The idea of absolute power is hard to grasp for someone like me who was raised in a state where power is never confined in a single body. For Elizabeth I, the political system during her time was on her side. Provided that the Church would be separated from the state, she would have a harder time dealing with the clergy’s moves and decisions which would be beneficial for the preservation of their power. The country would never be united because the people would have to abide with the policies of two different bodies, which often than not, would often be conflicting with each other. Her tolerance for Protestantism would never be appreciated by the Church, thus devout Catholics would always contest her decisions for the state. But luckily enough for her, she was powerful both in the state and the realms of religion, and her time of power would soon be known as the Golden Age.

Giving a leader absolute power seems too scary for he or she might abuse it. Assurance that the lives of the people would be better after a system of absolute power was implemented would be my sole condition to concur with such arrangement. However, assurance of anything seems to be out of the question. We would never be assured unless we subject ourselves to a situation that would test its outcomes. The possibilities of a having unified country sounds too pleasing but the stakes of giving someone absolute power are very high that we fear the idea alone.

Thinkpiece

My previous thinkpieces are already in the archive of my blog. Here's the URL so you won't have to spend extra time looking for them..
http://jesysmile.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_jesysmile_archive.html

My 3rd thinkpiece however could be found below.
thanks. Good day!

cherry blossoms

Someday, I'll be able to visit Korea, the most beautiful country for me.
^^ love their beautiful trees so much
love their culture, their fashion and of course the Korean stars.

my blog has a newlook..that's good.
might as well get one, uhm..maybe not now.

love this show!!!

dumb and careless (^^) hahaha...

Today, guess what ? I slipped in AS STeps.
of all the places..thank God! di ako nagtuloytuloy pababa! 1 step lang..hehehe
good thing, i have one of my classmates in Korean to help me, the incident would be more embarrasing if I was alone. Bec. if that would be the case, I can't laugh at myself, that would make me look more stupid.

Thinkpiece no. 3

Q: What should be the proper arrangement between church and state?

We are made to believe that the concerns of the church and the state are distinct from one another. The Church takes care of the morality and faith of its members while the state ensures adequate access of necessities in aim of attaining a good life for its people. However, the boundaries that should have been clear was shuddered by both parties as the pressing issues of society overlap with both of their affairs.

We won’t have to go far to cite an example for such incident, here in the Pearl of the Orient, the Catholic Church and even other religious institution would always have something to say in regards to the political issues that are sensational as of the time being. Unsurprisingly though, our politicians would always clamor for the support of the major religious institutions of our country come election time. As a result, they would always have to respect and give consideration to the stands of the Catholic Church (or any religious institution, atypical however) in performing their legislative functions. For instance, artificial contraception was always opposed by the Catholic Church, thus the government could not successfully advocate it, which of course is among the reasons why the Philippines is overpopulated.

I would want to answer the inquiry of proper arrangement between the Church and state in the Philippine scenario alone, the extent of my knowledge could only reach that far and besides what I ought to think regarding this matter may not be effective in other countries.

Tracing from our history, we could see that the influence of the Church has always been a factor in the governance of our leaders. The Spanish colonization period, where the different religious orders are almost in full control of the affairs in our country, is the most evident conjunction of the Church and the government. Given this situation, it won’t be surprising that the members of the Catholic Church are vocal with their political and social views.

In my opinion, the Church must not meddle with the affairs of the state if they are doing so only for their own interests. However, if they are advocating the true interest of the people and the government is no longer considering the welfare of the majority, then they could serve as means of voicing out the sentiments of the people, especially if moral issues are involved.

Let us consider how politically active members of the Catholic Church are right now. Archbishop Oscar Cruz, (I was surprised to see that he has a blog: http://ovc.blogspot.com/) for instance, swerved from the usual religious affairs of his diocese to stand up against the immediate family of the president in aim of revealing the influential people behind Jueteng. Fr. Robert Reyes, is popular for his hunger strike as a way of beseeching the president to resign, of course among other priests and bishops. On the other hand, the present administration was relieved when the CBCP did not asked for PGMA’s resignation.

If the morality is really the issue, then the Church are held by duty to air out their opinions and provide ample ways to solve the problem. However in doing so, they must be careful so as not to appear as if the are imposing their views to their members, which in some sense, might have a political effect. It would be ideal if they stay true to their mission and duty, which is bringing the people closer to God and His way of life. Other than this, the Church has no business in regards to politics, unless, as I have stated before, the welfare of the people is at stake, and the government is no longer following constitutional processes and serving for the good of the people.

Today we ask ourselves, “As Bishops what can we offer to our people? Can we provide some clarity and guidance in the present confusing situation?” We can only answer these questions from who are. We are not politicians who are to provide a political blueprint to solve political problems. Rather we are Bishops called by the Lord to shepherd the people in the light of faith. With Pope Benedict XVI we do not believe in the “intrusion into politics on the part of the hierarchy.” But we are to interpret human activities such as economics and politics from the moral and religious point of view, from the point of view of the Gospel of Jesus and of the Kingdom of God. We are to provide moral and religious guidance to our people. This is what we offer in the present crisis. Not to do this would be an abdication of our duty.

From Restoring trust: A Plea for moral Values in Phil.Politics