
I don’t know if you’ll find this interesting, but was the conversation I had with a very opinionated friend over a his Facebook note regarding Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s $20,000 dinner in New York that suffered the criticism of Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez Jr., the chairman of Permanent Committee on Public Affairs of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. The prelate reportedly sad that "It is outrageous if it would come out that they used public funds." My friend apparently talked about the concept of the separation of the church of the state, on that note I started to comment that:
Me: (My friend) you're taking the concept of the separation of the church and the state far too literally and with air-tight definition. That separation clause mean that the church is not allowed to meddle with the policies of the civilian government, however, that separation do not prevent the church, like any other institution for that matter, to seek accountability, point out corruption, and ask relief. Is it wrong for Iniguez to point out that our glorious president spent $20,000 for dinner! I don't think so. I find that dinner, to use your words, disgusting, stupid and arrogant and a betrayal to the Filipino people whose majority can only imagine a decent meal. whether it is from her own pocket or that of the government, i don't make a distinction, because there is no distinction. she reeks corruption. $20,000 for dinner, for how many people? say 50 at most? and in manhattan? still, i find it shocking and unconscionable.
My friend: I would rather believe that my idea about the separation of the state and the church is not construed as what you say it is.
Firstly, I wasn't able to mention the word separation in my post (I used cmd+f on a Mac) ergo I wasn't pointing at the constitutional segregation of power between them.
Second, P1,000,000 is a valid dinner for a President. I would already beg your pardon if I may for I would now be assuming that you are thinking that the President should emanate how poor, some people think, their country should be. I tend to disagree with my own assumption of your supposed idea. The President, using her own personally money as I believe it be, has all the right to dispose of it in a any worthy manner she deem be exact.
Third, our own judgements are clearly blurred by our own biases albeit it is not recommended but I know it is generally the reality. However, divine as I consider myself in the context of my own judgements, I see that what I believe in is of clearer
My friend: view towards what is deemed right and just.
Fourth is the fact that the church, with all it's power, should be apprehensive to utilize, to a certain degree of affection towards it's most holy and sacred image, such ploy of lambasting criticism.
Lastly, as guardians of morality and as citizens of this country, which should weigh more? I know. They have rights. They have the freedom to express themselves. But first and foremost is the fact that they are responsible towards the people AND towards the church that they represent. With such vulgarity and open dissidence towards the President of the country that they serve, tell me, where is compassion, understanding, tolerance, and the virtue of their faith in it?
errata:
"The President, using her own personally money as I believe it be, has all the right to dispose of it in ANY worthy manner she deem be exact."
Me: Funny. But I can't find it in my heart to believe that that was her money. She can fool COA. That's not my problem. Calculate her salary and the prohibition of government officials to enter into business and I invite you to think that she could not by any means afford a $20,000 dinner. Not during her term of office. Where did that money come from? Enlighten me.
And what separates her and her entourage from the rest of her people who suffers unimaginable poverty? Does her office give her the license to splurge? Time and again, the Supreme Court challenges government officials to live frugally for the reason that the more often than not the grandeur of public office is always successful in tempting officials to steal public money.
My friend: In this point, you are now assuming that she is stealing. but if try to think about it, time and time again, isn't she richer than both you and I combined? Isn't she richer than the people who are commenting here combined? With only P1,000,000 spent for diner, would that really hurt her? I hate to admit it but as far as my family and my financial status is concerned, we won't be able to reach half of hers.
What separates her and her entourage from the people? Nothing. But it doesn't mean that they should suffer to eat a chili dog on the sidewalk of times square if they can afford to spend P1,000,000 for just a pair of shoes.
"Assumptions and Presumptions are both lies for they are twins."
Me: There are many times that I find myself disagreeing with the positions of people in the church. But in this case, I salute the church for not turning a blind eye against blatant corruption manifested by $20,000 dinner. Faith is dead when it remains abstract and cannot be animated into action.
Me: In the kingdom of the blind there is a one-eyed king. I suppose, I just don't belong in this kingdom.
My friend: I have always been a great supporter of the Church. But i was dismayed when I proclaimed this morning that I'm a Muslim.
The beauty of the Church is that it doesn't worry itself about what is physical but about what is holy and divine. The Church exists for salvation. And by further criticizing the acts of the people they deem evil, they are already punishing the ones that Christ tried to rescue from eternal damnation.
So tell me, in which part, again, do you see compassion, understanding, tolerance, and the virtue of their faith in it?
"In this world of utter darkness, when everything we believe in is challenged. All we have left is the faith that our beloved Church is protecting. But what if the one protecting our faith is in itself rotting from the core? Wouldn't we be mere faithfuls? Vulnerable for we are not protected? For our protectors deem it more necessary to speak it's mind rather than do it's job?"
-TPLVB
Me: when you see your child running towards the cliff, wouldn't you admonish him? when you see your government running amok and in disarray, would just sit at a corner and wait until everything come tumbling down. be my guest. be understanding. be tolerant. be compassionate. do not criticize. be passive. be silent.
My friend: Now I believe that you are not worthy of what you just placed here. I know that you are more than this. That you know that we don't limit ourselves to mere impulse. That our tongues aren't vipers that can just strike without restraint for there is just that need to strike.
Compassion doesn't mean negation. Nor does tolerance mean abandonment. Neither does understanding is construed with blindness. Do it like Mother Teresa. Do it like Pope John Paul II. People who doesn't need the ire nor the hate towards reaching their goals.
(I know this doesn't really sound like me, but you know how DEMOCRATIC I can get.)
This was just our part of the conversation. There are other people who said their pieces, but I am not at liberty to include them. Anyway, I am tempted to make a comment regarding my friend’s last statement, but prudence tells me otherwise.
So there, I rest my case.