An Atrocious Response

I am referring to how the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) "rationalized" how embattled priest Monsignor Cristobal Garcia could possibly be "forgiven", with regards to his involvement is a sex abuse case.

This should be good enough?

(Courtesy of watchdogblog.dallasnews.com)

Garcia has been in the news as of late, thanks to a National Geographic article (in their October 2012 issue) by Bryan Christy. In it, the writer tries to trace the ivory trade route, and stumbled upon our country as a port from where ivory is then brought to other destinations. Christy is led to Cebu, where Garcia is stationed, and the priest, a collector of religious figurines, some of which are made of ivory, regales the writer on how to effectively smuggle ivory.

(See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/christy-text )

Now comes the news that the Catholic hierarchy has stripped Garcia of his official functions and responsibilities, and the CBCP says it has nothing to do with the NatGeo story. 

Apparently, this removal of duties stems from the fact that the Vatican is still in the midst of an ongoing investigation in Garcia's involvement in a sex abuse case. After that story broke, Garcia flew back to the Philippines. He also claimed that it was he who was "seduced and raped", and not the other way around. This is validation for Brooks Egerton, who initially reported about Garcia's case, back in 2005.

(See http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/vatican-finally-suspends-priest-who-admitted-sex-with-boys.html/)

In the CBCP press conference, it was inevitable that this issue would be brought up; Monsignor Acilles Dakay, Cebu Archdiocese media liaison officer, gave this response:

"What happened in the States could be a crime. If it was also a sin on his part, it was forgiven. He had repented."

(See http://globalnation.inquirer.net/51430/vatican-sacked-cebu-priest-months-ahead-of-ivory-scandal-says-church-exec)

I will leave it up to you how you would view this response. The title of my post puts it clearly what I think of this: heaping atrocious indignation on top of this unimaginable atrocity. (Dakay's response is clearly an admission that it happened, otherwise, what is there to be "repented" for?) Nowhere in the article does it indicate that the priest will be turned over to civil authorities.

We've heard it all before: it's an internal matter. We'll handle it ourselves. No need to concern yourselves with this. We know how best to deal with one of our erring members. In the vernacular, kami na bahala, wag na kayo makialam. (We'll take care of it, don't interfere.)

How utterly convenient. How throughly unacceptable.

It smacks of an arrogance I am all-too-familiar with, as this country has more than its fair share of religious zealots, the kind who exact some nefarious glee in judging others, but when the moral spotlight is turned on them, steadfastly cling to a single dialogue: I will not be judged by men, only by my God.

There's a word for people like that. And yes, it will "offend religious sensibilities".

The truth has certainly been getting a bad rap these days.

In Defense Of Society Pages (?)

Having gone through my "news feed" at Facebook awhile ago, my interest was particularly piqued by a thread that seemed to suggest that "not all society page characters are bad".

The benefits of having society pages.

(Courtesy of nocaptionneeded.com)

I've never had so much money that I can afford to take a private jet to Belize just to catch the sun from that part of the world, so if you think my commentaries about society pages seem to reek from some form of jealousy, I would like to state that it's more a matter of not comprehending where these characters are coming from: why would I need to flaunt where I traveled or what the f*** I just ate in some rustic villa off the coast of some "millionaire's playground", to be printed in some glossy or newspaper, in a country as poor as ours? (Majority of people here cannot afford three meals a day. Don't deny that we are a poor country.)

Talk about rubbing the calamansi on an open sore courtesy of malnutrition.

If I suddenly had to switch hats and become one of society pages' biggest defenders, how would I go about doing this task? What can I possibly say to give it a positive spin?

1. "Society pages provide jobs for editors, fashion consultants and everyone in the magazine who push these overpriced goods! We are job creators!"

2. "Our newspapers are printed on recyclable materials! Society pages are part of the environmentally-conscious sectors of society!"

3. "Tourism industries blossom because Mrs. What's-Up-Her-Butt went clubbing in ____________! We support the various tourist destinations of First World countries, who need even more money!"

4. "Think of the rich people and the social climbers! Where will they spend money if these pages aren't published? We are humanitarians who love showing (certain) people the way (to throw their money away)!"

5. "How selfish can you get? When you have pretty and nice things, you must share these blessings with the world!...no, no, we're not rubbing it in the faces of people who can't even feed their kids, we are sending them a message of aspiration, so that they will want to have a better life, to have all the nice things we have, even though we all know that they never will have those in this lifetime!"

6. "This is a chance to teach the "others" about life: The pursuit of beauty, like most things, has a price. It's a steep one. Pay up to enter this world."

7. "I've donated naman 10,000 pesos to my charity, ah!" (Socialite saying this while carrying a bag worth 2.5 million pesos, a dress for half a million, shoes for another half million, in a car that costs 10 million pesos.)

8. "We are not inciting envy. When we flaunt the goods we have and the places we go to, we are actually building up your self esteem. If you don't buckle from feeling bad because you will never have these things even if you work 20 hours a day, we are contributing to your personal and emotional growth!"

9. "There's too much ugliness in the world. We are championing the opposite."

10. "We're just more upfront about the correlation between human nature, pride and greed. You?"

That's all I have, so far.

"World Peace" According To Miriam

As a country obsessed with beauty pageants, I have little doubt that most Filipinos know the stock answer of every beauty pageant contestant, should a "difficult" question come up during their Q and A portion, oftentimes the deal breaker, determining who gets to be coronated as the winner in the said contest.

"World Peace."

I have made my feelings patently clear about these sorts of pageants, in my previous posts - anyone who uses physical attributes to replace the concept of their own self worth must not have a very substantial emotional or mental life - and while the issue of "allowing" transgenders in the Miss Universe contest is all the "rage" these days, I paid nominal attention to it as beauty contests are as relevant to my life as Mikey Arroyo claiming to be the representative of tricycle drivers and security guards.

Getting home late last night, I come in to find Arthur watching Tonight with Arnold Clavio, and the show's topic: Transgenders and beauty pageants.

I internally started rolling my eyes, but then he said: "I don't like what she (Miss Universe 1st runner up Miriam Quiambao) is saying and how she's saying it. It reeks of condescension."

To those who argue that beauty contests are "substantial", I rest my case.

(Courtesy of codamon.com)

Which immediately laid my eye-rolling to rest: A fortunate receipient of the adulation of this country's obsession with physical appearances finds something to be condescending about?

The guests that night were Quiambao and STRAP (Society of Transsexual Women of the Philippines) Chairperson Naomi Fontanos.

As I am watching the show almost near its end, I really only have the segment I viewed to comment on, so the context will be based purely on that. (I am giving no weight to either participants' statements before the part I did catch.)

Fontanos talks about how she knows she was born with male organs, but that she has always felt a woman on the inside. And when Clavio cheekily asks whose "fault" it was for her predicament (of feeling like a woman despite being born a man organ wise), she responds humorously "yung doktor".

Later, Miriam takes the hand of Naomi, and starts off her "We Are The World" monologue: how she understands where Naomi is coming from, how in Naomi's mind these feelings are perfectly valid, and then she begins to veer away from it by saying that there are only two classifications of human beings: man and woman, and that her "beliefs" validate this view. (She's not saying the word "religion" although it is clear this is what she meant, and she will reveal this later.)

Fontanos responds by saying that she also respects Quiambao's view, and is hoping that Quiambao will return the same respect when she states how she feels internally. In short, she - paradoxically - is the better representative to espouse that oft-quoted "World Peace" line, where she advocates allowing people to have their own belief systems and not to let one's personal beliefs dictate how and what others should do in their own lives.

Alas, Miriam does not take this sitting down - I imagine the dialogue in her head to be something along the lines of "How dare this transgender talk to me, and lecture me about acceptance and tolerance! I, an almost-Miss Universe winner in 1999, who recently posed for the cover of Playboy, who knows and was trained how to verbalize World Peace in more than one way, being schooled about the "World Peace" concept!"

She does the next "logical" thing: she invokes her God.

"Pero, hindi naman yan katotohanan ko, katotohanan yan ng Diyos." (But it is not my truth, it is the truth of God.)

And as we all "know", once a person invokes "God", you supposedly cannot make any more rebuttals or criticisms, as that would be akin to "attacking" a person's religion.

I'd laugh harder at this kind of "reasoning", if only the consequences weren't so dire for us who have to live with this level of intolerance whilst those who claim "religious freedom" as their cornerstone for sprouting hateful missives adopt some illusory mantle of moral superiority and continue - pun intended - lording it over everyone else they deem inferior by the mere fact that others choose not to believe in the same god they do.

Hey, Miriam, religion is a choice. Get over yourself. Get off your soapbox.

I will not delve into the pros and cons of "allowing" transgenders into superficial pursuits. Even Naomi admits that beauty pageants are shallow and demean women. That pro-and-con list has been dissected over and over and most everyone has give their 5 (Philippines) pesos worth of opinions on.

You may have your own religious beliefs, Miriam, that is guaranteed under our Constitution, and under the laws of any democratic country. It is the very reason why - sorry, CBCP (Catholic Bishops's Conference of the Philippines) - there is no "state religion" in any democracy, as it infringes on an individual's right to choose what belief systems would be most compatible with their particular, individual lives.

In the same breath, you do not have the right to impose your own beliefs onto someone else, and force them to conform to something you have elected to subscribe to as a matter of personal faith. You may think Naomi is "lower" than you, that she is "not a real woman", and I'm sure your religion says much more delightful things about her, more than I can think of if I had to spend a whole day thinking of demeaning things to say under the imprimatur of "religious righteousness".

You're not an actress, Miriam, so don't bother trying to pass this off as a "misunderstanding" of your stance. The fact that you can smile while sprouting off such intolerant statements makes me cringe, but then again, we've had our local CBCP, Falwell, Santorum, Palin, Bush and many other religious zealots giving us practice on this very act: having an innocent, plastered grin while telling those who don't believe "in the same way as I do" that they will be put to death "in the next life".

One of the "heavy" arguments mentioned to me against allowing transgenders to join beauty pageants is that a popular question of this circuit is "what is the essence of a woman?", and the most deemed "correct" response is "to be a mother", and since transgenders are biologically unable to do so, then they should be barred from the contest.

So barren and reproductively challenged women are not "real women" as well?

And a woman who clings to her "religious beliefs", the ones that tell her that sex outside of marriage or artificial insemination are "sins", who do not have children given their particular situations, they are also "not real women"?

Should Miriam herself be declared "not a real woman" since, you know, she hasn't given birth? (Strangely, as Jessica Zafra pointed out in her recent piece, beauty pageant winners are stripped of their titles if they become pregnant during their "reign". Talk about mixed messages.)

And if you're going to be all huffy about being "right with God", you better make sure you've never signed divorce papers, effectively having your marriage "torn asunder".

Was this approved by your religion, too?

(Courtesy of getitfromboy.net)

Hey, if you can dish it, you should be able to take it. And the fact that you can't even uphold your own religious guidelines (I don't think getting a divorce and appearing on the cover of a "men's magazine" qualify you for your religion's Best Representative position..unless there are loopholes, yet again?), that's just a bonus.

Akala ko pa naman "world peace" ang isinusulong ng mga contests na to. (And here I thought "world peace" was a central thrust of contests like this.)

Just more magnificently applied lipstick-covered lip service.