The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.
When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.
But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop. The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.
If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.
After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives. According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred". That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.
I don't know how the legal profession defines meddling in the context of church state separation, but if the church rallies its people against an unjust or oppressive government, thanks to the fact that 80% of the people are Catholics as of 2000, that's considered as meddling though I have my own contrary opinion about that. This time, the government is effectively rallying the people to use artificial means of contraception which is in direct contravention of the Papal Encyclical in the Humanae Vtae, and people don't want to call it meddling. No matter, I think I used the wrong word.
When the state starts to espouse ways and means that contradict church teachings, this is the state threading on religious grounds and effectively meddling in church affairs. Actually, the word "meddling" in this context, is too weak a word for what I wanted to put across. I should say, insulting, or mocking. In that case, I stand corrected for using a weak word.
It hardly matters that the state also supports what the Church allows. The fact is, the state is aiming to create a legal footing for what the Church considers an immoral act. It also matters little that the state is not enforcing its will on the people. When Cardinal Sin exhorted the people to rally against Marcos in 1986, he wasn't enforcing his will and the people were also free to follow or not. And yet people call it meddling. But no matter, the state is not meddling, it's just mocking the religion of 80% of its people.
I am of the opinion that the Church is
defending its turf from the "meddling" or more accurately, the affront that the state is doing. The Catholic injunction against artificial contraception is quite clear in the Papal Encyclical as early as 1968. When the state starts its population control programs espousing artificial contraception that flies in the face of Church teachings, what did you expect the Church to do, sit it out in silence?
The Church has been successful so far in preventing the passage of the RH bill by lobbying against it which anyone can do. Is that meddling? Yes, But that is the result of the State's own "meddling" in church doctrines on this issue.
The last time I read the constitution, the Bill of Rights emanating from the separation of the Church and State is directed at the State ("No law shall be made respecting the establishment..."), not at the Church which, in the same provision, is guaranteed the freedom of religious exercise. Hence, the way I see it, the Church exercises its constitutional guarantee when it actively asserts itself in secular affairs that impinge on its doctrinal authority. Situations where the state deliberately or by inaction abnegates its responsibility to protect the citizen against any form of injustice or sanctions immoral acts are all game for the Church to step in.
The spirit and intent as well as the origins behind the separation of Church and State does not envision a Godless society. That is the contemplation of communism, not in a democracy. Certainly not in a predominantly Catholic democracy. So when this government starts to stray into Godlessness, the Church sees it its moral and rightful duty to intervene and meddle.