It has been some days since the anniversary of the infamous declaration of Martial Law. I saw posts from friends and former students attacking activists with questions (and sarcasm) like “Kahit naman sinong presidente, ayaw niyo pa rin, kailan ba kayo matatapos sa kaka-rally?!” or “Akala ko ba mataas presyo ng bilihin? Eh bakit nakagastos pa kayo para lang makagawa ng effigy na susunugin?” I write this in response to these. I write this not because I find my friends who post it to be stupid (although if they share fake news they sure are hopelessly stupid). I write this because I, too, once thought on the same lines. My own journey from passivist to activist Politically, I’m neither red nor yellow, in fact I want to assure you dear friend that I transcend all colors because I think therefore I am (wink to Descartes!). If we are in Europe, I might be called a left-leaning centrist: I seek to balance my conservative beliefs with my liberal ideals. I am someone who will offend both left and right since I always stands with Aristotle’s in medias res. But I have not always been like this. When I was in high school, the same age most of my “right-wing” former students, I am more of ultra-right wing, activist-detesting, nationalistic ideologue. I, too, question the worth of activism and their untiring efforts. I view them as hindrance to national progress and their criticism as unhelpful and infantile. And then I learned that I am the infantile one. When I took the PUPCET, I was so repulsed by the sight of anti-government streamers and placards. For me, this is vandalism. I wanted to enroll in another school, a Catholic University maybe, where my place in the ivory tower of well-maintained cuticle, immaculately clean shirts, and intellectual superiority will be safeguarded against the virus that was activism and communism. Yes, I was too Americanized I already have bias against that which I do not know. But God writes through crooked lines. I did not enter a private university so I have to stick with PUP where “activists and communists” thrive. Upon entering I made a pact with myself: 1.) Never join a frat; 2.) Never fail a subject; and 3.) Never join an activist group. I managed to fulfill the first two (although I almost missed number 2) but the last one I did not. I was taking AB Philosophy. I thought the loftiness and sophistry of philosophical ideas will save me from the dirt of social awareness but I was wrong—it soiled me more into social responsibility. The words of our great professor, Ka Abe Tuibeo still rings in my ears: “Kung wala kang ipinaglalaban sa buhay, you’re a worthless animal.” I began my philosophical studies hating Marx and ended haunted by his words, “Philosophers should not just question the world; it is they time to change the world.” In front of my own social security I found myself guilty of the very destituteness of the Other as Levinas gazes more and more on me. I realized that Thomas Aquinas’ quinque viae of proving God’s existence first proves to me that my neighbor exists and if so and if God exists too, then I am infinitely responsible to him. Even in Nietzsche’s proclamation of God’s death, I am still bounded by the look of the Other that Sartre said is also objectifying me. I am more and more becoming a social animal that a true human being is. And so awake from my dogmatic slumber, with Kant and Heidegger as my guides, I joined a moderate activist group. First it was just a matter of being pragmatic: I joined them then I got friends and tutorials on some subjects, I can even borrow books I need. But later on, I have really committed myself. Our group’s advocacy then is not too political but since politicians and capitalists almost always are brothers, then it becomes political. We advocate the restraining of greedy mining. I have not participated in a rally or a “hiking” and I left the group when I also left PUP and entered the seminary. But the lessons of social responsibility and beyond is still with me. Now I am just an “arm-chair activist” with no other weapon but my words. Still, as Ka Abe always say to us then, “Words are more violent than arms struggle.” Weapons will kill a man but words can give life to humanity. And so, I write this because I understand both sides of the fence. “Gawa nang gawa ng effigy na susunugin, aksaya lang sa pera” With the effigies to be burned and arm-chairs to be thrown, I too share the sentiments of many that it is just a waste of money. Yet one must not forget the symbolism these acts convey. In a sense, making an effigy and burning it is a form of an art and art is not just for consumption of us in the middle-class visiting a museum where artworks that cost billions were exhibited, art is the self-expression of the artist. Behind the seeming waste of resources, activists whose thoughts words can no longer present use these visual arts to express themselves. In denouncing them because of “wasting money for their cause” then we also denounce Pablo Picasso’s works which are his self-expression and rebellion against the capitalistic realism of his time, we denounce Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy where he denounces the corruption of both the secular and ecclesiastical authorities of his time, we denounce Juan Luna’s Spoliarium that so vividly present the brutality of colonial rule as just a waste of oil and canvass. Again, the words of the cop that became viral sounds right: “May pinaglalaban sila.” Puro rally at pagtuligsa sa gobyerno, wala naman naitulong sa bayan… My answer to this is a flat, loud “You’re wrong dearest.” Most of the liberties we take for granted in a modern liberal state is not inherently part of democracy and were only successfully installed when people rose up and incessantly “rallied” for it. Examples? The 8-hour maximum work-time, the illegality of minors working, and slavery. When modern democracies sprung up in the late 18th century, capitalism is also on the rise. It is just normal to see people working 12-14 hours a day with a wage depending on the employer (yes, there’s no minimum wage) and children as young as five years old as workers. Only when people “rallied” against it that it was scrapped. Universal suffrage. When states adopted democracy, suffrage or voting is reserved only for men—white men, educated, bourgeoisie, white men. All others are excluded. It is only thru activism that states adopted the universal suffrage. And of course, how do you call Rizal’s works if not a form of activism? Did not Rizal help shape the destiny of this country? Kailan ba matatapos ang pagrarally ng mga lintek na aktibistang ‘yan? NEVER. Yes, you read it right, never. When revolutions become successful and the former slaves become masters, it is inevitable that the former revolutionary will someday morph into a dictator. This is an irrevocable burden of justice: justice carries violence even as it fights violence. A former critic who successfully overthrows the governor and becomes himself the governor may one day find himself silencing his own critics (the Bolsheviks of Russia is an example with Stalin as the apex). That is why the French Jewish Philosopher of Responsibility, Emmanuel Levinas, tells us that there is a need for a continuing revolution. A justice that always seek improvement. Like Hegel’s dialectic, the human dilemma is that every synthesis becomes a thesis and as such needs an anti-thesis to perfect and correct itself and make a new synthesis and the process repeats. An idea becomes polished only when challenged. The human condition is that we are innovative animals—we cannot just sit idly looking at what we have and say, “Hey, it’s already beautiful I won’t change it.” Change, according to Heraclitus, is the only permanent thing in the world. Even when opposition seems pestering and annoying, its views are still beneficial to the improvement of a project. Conclusion We cannot achieve utopia (in fact that’s why it is called u-topia meaning a place that does not and will not exist) but as human beings we have to try and try and try. The constitution enshrines it with the words: “in order to build a more just and humane society.” The catechism tells us that human life on earth is a preparation for heaven, and if so then we should strive to let His “Kingdom come” and His “will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It is a daily call. Complacency always leads to social perdition. Whether you choose to go to the streets, or write a critical essay about our social condition in the silence of your room, or try to live out your daily life trying to change the world in your own small ways, these are all what makes as human and humane. Only he who comfortably sits, cellphone on hand, spewing hatred against socially-committed persons, sharing fake news, secure in his world with his enclosed mind is not worthy to called a human being. - Anonymous Lenz 09/25/18
Christianity is founded on love. It espouses the doctrine of loving thy neighbor, not judging others, and forgiveness. These are the opening words of Miss Mocha Uson, the celebrated celebrity-turned-political analyst, in her article in the Philippine Star entitled “Is the CBCP anti-Christ?” (12/6/16). And yes, indeed, the Catholic Church has just closed the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy. So, the question remains: Why is the Philippine Church reacts violently against the burial of the late dictator at the cemetery for national heroes? Is the Church being hypocritical once more teaching forgiveness while not giving it to a dead man? Before I begin answering her questions, it might be good to state first that indeed I am biased. Yes, I am. I know some of her loyal followers will do a Character Investigation on me and will find that I am a seminarian so naturally I am biased on the side of the hierarchy of the Church. Another is that before entering the seminary I studied philosophy at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines whose philo department is known for leaning to the left. Technically most of them will critique this article using a lot of ad hominems and ad baculums but to the open mind I ask to have an intellectual conversation. And so yes, I am biased but, as Paul Ricœur said, we cannot actually remove our biases and prejudices but the challenge is to choose the right biases. Shall I now proceed? The Catholic Church and the Philippines Textbook history always depict Spanish colonial rule as oppressive and non-humane in the images of fat friars with native concubines. When the student reaches college or anytime he seriously reads Rizal, this belief will strengthen just looking at Padre Damaso. The problem with this stereotyping of history is that it is stereotyping – a hasty generalization. One tends to forget Padre Florentino of El Filibusterismo or the fact that the GomBurZa, who were priests, were Rizal’s inspiration for his nationalistic passions (in fact, El Fili is dedicated to them!). It must be noted that the negative aspect of the Church in the Philippines only appeared in the latter part of Spanish Colonization (i.e. after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe) and does not actually constitute the whole Church nor the whole Philippine archipelago. When Legazpi began the conquest of the Islands, the Augustinian Friars with him are often the ones who defends the natives having learned from the experience from Latin America. The reason why the Aztecs, Incas, and other native races of Latin America died is because the Conquistadores did not see them as human beings. This the missionaries fought with Fr Bartolome Delas Casas being the most notable one although it may be said to have failed. Having learned thus, the first missionaries in the Philippines fought for the human treatment of the Indios. This actually went so far as the Synod of Manila where the Church declared that it is not permissible to enslave nor mistreat the natives. One good example here is the martyr Saint Pedro Bautista who has been assigned in the Philippines for a long time before being sent to Japan and died there. He reprimanded the Governor-General in public when the latter approved of mistreatments against natives. Of course they have also their faults like the wiping of indigenous religious articles and practices but we can still say that the first batch of missionaries are actually first-class religious. As the world saw the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte in France and threatened the whole of Europe, the European missionaries went back to the continent and so an amazing vacuum of priests was thrown to the face of the Philippine Church. This made the Archbishop of Manila encourage the natives to join the priesthood. This new batch are what Canon Law, or the Church’s law, calls the “secular priests” or what is now called diocesan clergy. They do not belong to any religious congregation as compared to the religious or what by then is called the “regular” priests and they do not answer to any other superior but to the bishop directly. This is the group where notable Filipino priests like Fr José Burgos, Gregorio Aglipay and the like belongs. But things began to shake when at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, a new breed of religious friars were once again sent back to the Islands. Most of these are the friars Rizal and other Propagandistas met at their time. Indeed, the struggle for liberation started with the Filipino priest’s struggle to regain parishes that are rightfully his from the Spanish friars. At this point is Miss Uson first wrong. Rizal did not hate the Church as a whole (in fact, he is close to the Jesuits) but only some in the Church. And, in fact, this tension can only be felt in the Archdiocese of Manila (back then comprising almost three quarters of Luzon) the Diocese of Nueva Segovia (Upper part of Luzon) other dioceses like Cebu, Jaro and Nueva Caceres saw harmonious relationships between their religious bishop and secular priests. So at the end, Miss Uson you have jumped to conclusions and committed a hasty generalization and are historically wrong.
First things first. Is the Catholic Church against the burial of FM? No. Nothing has been stated about that. Most of the Church leaders are against the burial of FM at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. The logical question will be: Why? We should remember that the LNMB is a resting place of heroes. An editorial of a broadsheet in the Philippines, one of those that still operated in Martial Law days, stated that the LNMB’s dead are not actually all heroes because some are presidents and national artists and scientists. I dare to disagree. The latter are still heroes in their own way. The former presidents who were not expelled by the Filipino people and the national artists and scientists are heroes because of what they have done. Martyrdom might be the highest heroic proof o be honored in the pantheon of national saints but it is not the sole criterion. Thus to bury the late dictator is to encourage more the culture of impunity in the country: i.e. run for public office-steal public funds-a case will filed against you-after long year you will be acquitted-and lo and behold you’ll be buried at LNMB. Thus to bury FM at LNMB is symbolic of enthroning his statue in place of Rizal at Luneta and declaring two scores of history null and void. Does this mean that the Church is unforgiving to a corpse? By no means. In fact, it must be recalled that after the Marcos family fled to Hawaii, it is Jaime Cardinal Sin (whom Miss Uson accuses of propagating the “yellow” bias) who asked the Filipino people to forgive the Marcoses and not harbor ill feelings. Furthermore, the Church or any of her ministers cannot forgive a corpse – because only the living can ask for forgiveness. Indeed, Christ himself said that there is actually one sin that cannot be forgiven – the sin against the Spirit. What is this sin? The sin against the Spirit is unrepentance and repentance cannot happen only privately if your sin affected a wider audience. Mercy must always be balanced with Justice and that is a basic Christian tenet. “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts” (Hos. 6: 6) but “if you offer me holocausts, then let justice roll down like waters” (Amos 5: 24). Given the case that FM really did repent, the answer of the Filipino people must remain a no since there has been no acceptance of guilt (publicly) and retribution (publicly). Why do I insist that these will be public? Well, the only answer is that because Ferdinand Sr’s sins are not only sins against God but crimes against mankind – crimes against humanity. Thus it is not only the Church who must forgive him but all of humanity. But since neither he nor his family has even accepted a single guilt then there is no room for forgiveness. Another note: Miss Uson accuses the Church to encourage people to hate and desecrate a dead person to which I answer that the Church do not. Rather, it is the Marcosian lie itself that encourages people to place him at the gates of hell.
Further, love and hatred are not contradictories. You may hate the one you love even as you still love him. The opposite of love is hatred. Thus reprimanding the sins of the past and encouraging others to hate the unrepentant who tries to deceive them that what he did is good is actually another form of love – that is what we call, fraternal correction. Then what is an anti-Christ? For me, it is the pointing finger. for a very good account on the clergy's role in the Philippine Revolution, see Schumacher, Revolutionary Clergy (ADMU Press); about the Philippine heroes especially Rizal and Burgos, see Nick Joaquin's books and Ambeth Ocampo's Rizal without the Overcoat (Anvil)
|
anonymous lenzJust a traveling someone in this reality we have fallen in love with... this we call our world... "What is essential is invisible to the eyes..." Tags
All
"The absolutely other is the Other" Archives
September 2018
"There is only one corner in the universe that you can be certain of improving and that's your own Self" |