IF it were not ridiculously funny, I would have been gravely mortified, even devastated. But I think that the government expose that some bishops received Pajeros from the PCSO of the previous administration had no aim other than to embarrass these bishops and drive a wedge into the Church.
It’s a demolition job of the lowest and thoughtless kind, reeking of rash judgments, detraction, malice, unfair innuendoes, self-righteousness, etc. It’s a very clumsy political operation that speaks badly more of its perpetrators than of its intended victims.
Its authors try to tell people that a government agency giving Pajeros to some bishops only has one interpretation, theirs. There can be no other possible scenario. In their political game plan, they want to inflict their own exclusive twisted view on all of us.
It’s a puny declaration of war, abetted by the media, that will only go pfffft, since it would require from us that we don’t think, that we let go of our common sense, that we have to automatically think badly of some people and of some transactions, etc.
Where is the respect for freedom and responsibility, and for the dignity of persons, when people are automatically held guilty for the mere act of receiving Pajeros from a government agency?
If it were not a demolition job, then why single out these bishops? Did that agency give Pajeros and we don’t know what else only to them? Were there no other recipients—politicians in all their shifting colors, relatives of politicians, other religious leaders, etc.?
If it were not a demolition job, then why would they give the impression to the public that the mere giving by a government agency of cars to some bishops is intrinsically wrong?
Does that mean that bishops in all instances cannot receive these benefits, while others can? Does that mean that there can be no justification for such act of generosity on the part of the government to bishops?
If it were not a demolition job, why bring this accusation to the public only now? Was this practice limited only to a certain period of time, that of the previous administration? Could it not be that it is very politically motivated, since Church people are now more vocal about certain government maneuvers that clearly are immoral?
This unfortunate affair reminds me of what St. Augustine once said: “Let us never assume that if we live good lives we will be without sin. Our lives should be praised only when we continue to beg for pardon.
“But men are hopeless creatures, and the less they concentrate on their own sins, the more interested they become in the sins of others.”
This, I think, is what is happening here. We are too quick to judge others, not realizing that we all need to ask for pardon because we are all sinners, and we just have to help one another do this. The Church, let’s remember, is not so much a museum of saints as it is a hospital of sinners.
Sad to say, the right of Church leaders to make pronouncements on the morality of certain government and public issues is not yet well understood by many public officials. And I think it is not because of lack of explanations. It is more of hardheadedness of some officials, if not worse things, like atheism, agnosticism, etc.
What worsens this affair is that some clerics are buying the demolitioners’ line, falling into their web, unwittingly playing crucial roles in the demolitioners’ storybook. Obviously, this is what the demolitioners want to happen—to insert a wedge among them, bishops and priests, if not the Church as a whole.
In their reckless, off-the-cuff comments, these bishops and priests reinforce the political angle of the car donations, making blanket judgments on the acts of their fellow bishops and priests.
Sorry, but I find that self-righteous and grossly imprudent. If ever there has to be some investigation of some actuations of bishops, would it not be better to do it in a proper venue, far from where things can easily be misinterpreted? This is usually done in all cases, unless dirty politics is involved.
Obviously, not everyone has the same right to know everything about certain cases. That scenario is reserved to the Last Judgment, not here. Otherwise, we would have a mob rule, and further grave injustices can be committed. Pieces of evidence lending credence to this claim are just aplenty.
We should stop wasting our time making these reckless public accusations.
No comments:
Post a Comment