Today is the Feast of All Saints in the Roman Catholic Church and also in many of the mainline Protestant churches.

While the Roman Catholic Church on All Saints Day remembers the canonised saints in heaven (the church triumphant), we also remember the saints on Earth (the church militant) and the saints awaiting final judgement (the church suffering). Tomorrow, November 2, is the Feast of All Souls, when we pray for the ‘church suffering’ (the souls in purgatory).

The ‘church militant’, defined as all Christians on Earth, is different from a specific organisation within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of America formed in recent times under the name ‘Church Militant’. This group, seems mostly concerned with exposing mortal (or serious) sins within the clergy and bringing them to justice.

Exposure of sins has its advantages and disadvantages. I assume you know the advantages, but the disadvantages of ‘washing dirty linen in public’ are more than merely the embarrassment. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, it has the disadvantage of detracting from the good that so many have done.

For example, the Roman Catholic Church is the biggest provider of social charity in the world. Who remembers that now when exposure has caused detraction from the message? Who listens now when they are reminded by the saints on Earth that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is sin and “under no circumstances can it be approved”? (Number 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Who listens now to the saints on Earth when the church speaks against birth control and abortion when the sins of individuals within the church are exposed? Is this why a parliamentarian now sees this as an opportune time to pursue legislation in support of abortion, since very few now listen to the church?

I read an article on the Internet that advertised Australia as one of the easiest countries to which to migrate. One of the reasons given for the Australian Government making it easy for foreigners to migrate was the aging population of the Australian workforce.

How much, if any, is Australia’s aging population due to its national acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriages in Australia since the 1970s? How much of that is due to Australia’s acceptance of birth control and abortion? I do not know.

In the USA, where homosexuality between consenting adults is legal, there is no such problem as an aging workforce, but is this because they have so many immigrants which US President Donald Trump wants to curtail? In any event, Australia legalised homosexuality in the 1970s, and perhaps they are now feeling consequences that other nations might feel later.

Great Britain legalised homosexuality in the 1960s, but they have had a partially immigrant workforce since the end of the World War II. Will Jamaica need an immigrant workforce in 30 years if we legalise abortion and homosexuality?

Who will listen to the saints on Earth who discourage abortion if they are Roman Catholic like me in the present circumstances of negative exposure? The only solution is for the saints on Earth to teach people to concentrate on the truth. All good footballers and cricketers would make great messengers for Jesus Christ if they concentrated on the truth in the same way that they concentrate on the ball in a match.

Last week I wrote in my article ‘Changing meanings: From welfare to welfare’ that, unfortunately, the meaning of ‘human rights’ has changed to mean groups that ‘take up’ for criminals. Defence of human rights by saints on Earth should neither be clouded by changed definitions nor by exposure of sins of some of the clergy.

The choosing of the canonised saints is done by a process where a miracle involving candidates for sainthood is taken as proof that the candidate is definitely in heaven since only God can perform miracles. I have argued often that in our Jamaican honours system we could learn from the canonisation process in the Roman Catholic Church when determining who should be awarded.

Two weeks ago in my column ‘Rodney, Belafonte and credit unions’ I mentioned the irony of Harry Belafonte being honoured by a Jamaica Labour Party Government. In 1982 a Jamaica Labour Party Member of Parliament (now deceased) sought to have Belafonte declared persona non grata for criticising the Government.

In a response online, someone sought to lecture me because Maxine Henry-Wilson (a former Cabinet minister in a People’s National Party Government) was also honoured. But it is a traditional procedure to award honours to long-serving parliamentarians of both sides going back to 1969. Of note, Henry-Wilson’s accumulated tenure in Parliament as a senator and later a Member of Parliament spanned more than 20 years.

Let us look at one example of playing politics in the history of our national awards. The original intention was that Sir Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley would be made national heroes after their deaths. But Norman Manley died in September 1969, weeks before our first National Heroes Day awards ceremony. All of a sudden the rules were changed to include Sir Alexander Bustamante while he was still alive.

Common sense tells us that the change was made because the Jamaica Labour Party felt that it would be politically unwise for the People’s National Party to have a national hero without the Jamaica Labour Party also having one. So Bustamante became the only living national hero (up to now) until his death in August 1977.

The Roman Catholic Church decanonised some of its saints. Will Jamaica ever take a second look at some of our national awards? When these things can be looked at dispassionately, a later generation of historians might well decide that St William Grant was the real hero of the oppressed masses and not Sir Alexander Bustamante.

Michael Burke is a research consultant, historian and current affairs analyst. Send comments to the Observer or ekrubm765@yahoo.com.