Praying for priests

In a few days we will begin the dawn Masses or simbang gabi; our priests can use more prayers from the faithful during this season when their days become more hectic than usual.

Indeed, as we have heard some of our priests lament, between dawn and night Masses, there is hardly any time left for deep reflection in order to prepare edifying homilies to feed the Lord’s sheep.  So, in gratitude to God and in fulfillment of a Christian’s duty we share their burden by praying and offering sacrifices for them.

Since the earliest days of Christianity, the people of God have always been praying for priests.  Acts 12:2-5 says, “He put Peter in prison, assigning four squads of four soldiers each to guard him in turn… All the time Peter was under guard the Church of God prayed for him unremittingly.”  In Thessalonians 5:25, Paul concludes his inspired letter thus, “Pray for us, my brothers.”  The first pope (Peter) needed prayers then; the present pope (Francis) needs prayers now.  The Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) asked for prayers; so do priests and religious now, whether in the metropolis or in mission lands.

The priests with us in the most densely populated regions where distractions and temptations abound, need our prayers—intensified prayers.  This call to prayer might seem to some a mere spurt of piety, but truth to tell, it’s arising from my remembrance of certain homilies at some of the simbang gabi Masses I have heard over the years.  Sad to say, ill prepared (albeit well-intentioned) homilies—would make these Holy Masses sound more like entertainment than worship.

With all due respect, I say that it is not poor time management that results in mediocre homilies or robs the priest of the vital moments for silent prayer.  These are but symptoms; the real malady may be a fading sense of the Eucharist’s importance in the priest’s ministry.

Once, I happened to be sharing a meal with a priest and a handful of laypersons.  Shortly before the scheduled Mass, one of us said, “Father, we’d better get going; Mass starts in 10 minutes.”  The priest, grinning while emptying the wine bottle into some guests’ half-finished glasses, said, “Relax.  You’re not going to be late.  Mass will not start without me.”  Silence followed; we laypersons exchanged meaningful glances. 

“Mass will not start without me”—uttered with impunity, as if the Mass were all about the priest.  I heard this line again from two other priests on separate occasions (one during simbang gabi season), that I began to wonder if this was a standard joke among priests.  If it’s a joke, it’s certainly far more damaging than any off colored one. 

St. Teresa of Avila, the first woman Doctor of the Church, made praying for priests a principal duty of her Carmelite family.  In Chapter 3 of her book The Way of Perfection, she writes with empathy:  “These (preachers and theologians) have to live among men and associate with men and stay in palaces and sometimes even behave as people in palaces do in outward matters. Do you think, my daughters, that it is an easy matter to have to do business with the world, to live in the world, to engage in the affairs of the world, and, as I have said, to live as worldly men do, and yet inwardly to be strangers to the world, and enemies of the world—to be, in short, not men but angels?”  Then she adds, “This is not the time for seeing imperfections in those who must teach”, and urges her nuns to occupy themselves begging God’s help for the Church’s pastors.  Following St. Teresa we close our eyes to our pastors’ flaws and focus instead on “the beautiful hands of a priest”, actually the title of the following poem by an unknown author.

We need them in life’s early morning,
We need them again at its close;
We feel their warm clasp of true friendship,
We seek them when tasting life’s woes.

At the altar each day we behold them,
And the hands of a king on his throne
Are not equal to them in their greatness;
Their dignity stands all alone;

And when we are tempted and wander,
To pathways of shame and of sin,
It’s the hand of a priest that will absolve us,
Not once, but again and again.

And when we are taking life’s partner,
Other hands may prepare us a feast,
But the hand that will bless and unite us
Is the beautiful hand of a priest.

God bless them and keep them all holy,
For the Host which their fingers caress;
When can a poor sinner do better
Than to ask Him to guide thee and bless?

When the hour of death comes upon us,
May our courage and strength be increased,
By seeing raised over us in blessing
The beautiful hands of a priest.

Defending Francis

This is to fulfill a promise made to a friend who emailed me—soliciting my comments—a 12-page document chronicling the liberal pronouncements of Pope Francis that have shocked, stunned, angered, and frightened certain Catholics because they are seen to give enemies and critics of the Church reason to rejoice.  I promised to make those comments and for whatever they’re worth publish them in this column.  I didn’t try to make a coherent, individual article out of it; as requested I merely typed my comments casually as the lengthy email unfolded.  So here goes—for clarity, the quotations from Pope Francis are in bold type, my comments follow in regular font.   

“The Church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, little rules.” 

So what’s the fuss about?  Note that Francis said SOMETIMES.  He didn’t say ALWAYS.  There could be some truth to that.  Small things and little rules could worm their way into our consciousness until we, the Church, are so bogged down by the work of the Lord that we neglect the Lord of the work.  It’s just a word of caution.

“Heads of the Church have often been narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers.”

Now, Francis should have used the word “some” to refer to the “heads of the Church”.   Without that “some”, this statement sounds generalizing, ergo, unfair.  Francis here probably has in mind certain heads of the Church—for doesn’t that happen sometimes to anyone who speaks and gets carried away?  Or maybe he did say “some heads” but the reporter dropped it.  Forgive him, and look around.  Do we not also see some Church leaders who are just as Francis says, “narcissistic, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers”?  If we’re honest enough we might even add more adjectives in the same vein.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods…. The Church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.”

How touchy could we get about this?  Perhaps Francis is seeing something off-balance, some flaws in the pro-lifers’ approach, who knows?  It’s just a remark—he didn’t make an encyclical around it, so take it as a challenge to examine ourselves.  Sometimes we pro-lifers do something counter-productive, too, like in-fighting, an indication that our zeal is misguided.

“We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards.” 

I see nothing wrong with that statement, except that for me, balance is balance, no such thing as “new” or “old”, and balance translates to equanimity, a grace we receive when we (as Mary says in Cana) “do as He tells you to do.”

“The Church is or should go back to being a community of God’s people, and priests, pastors and bishops who have the care of souls, are at the service of the people of God.”

Fantastic! Any prophet would have said that.  Priests, pastors and bishops ought to care for souls, and to be “at the service of the people of God.”  What we ought to ask is, Why did Francis say “the Church should go back….”?  Does it mean he thinks priests, pastors and bishops have ceased to serve as anymore as curers of souls?

(Address to inter-religious assembly at Refugee Service):  “Many of you are Muslims, of other religions, and have come from different countries, from different situations. We must not be afraid of the differences! Fraternity makes us discover that they are a treasure, a gift for everyone! We live in fraternity!”              Wise words.  It doesn’t mean Francis is converting to Islam, or denouncing the tenets of the Catholic Church.  Shouldn’t those words give hope and encouragement to the assembly?  A sense of fraternity—no fear of the differences and a conviction that we are all brothers—is the beginning of inter-religious dialogue.  Put a holier-than-thou person at the head of a peace mission and that mission is doomed from the start.

(Address at Shrine of St. Cajetan): “Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest.”

Great!  This simply means Francis wants us to stop talking and instead start living our faith!  Words alone, or an unexamined desire to convert others, can never convince people to become Catholic.  It’s our actions that do attract others to the faith we profess.  Words come from our mouths; the light of Christ radiates from within. 

“The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old.  The old need care and companionship; the young need work and hope…This, to me, is the most urgent problem that the Church is facing.” 

Francis says specifically, “This, to me..”  Three important words—meaning it is but his opinion, he doesn’t claim to speak for the College of Bishops.  He only speaks as and for himself, Jorge Bergoglio, and he is just one man, and every man has a right to speak his mind out, even if he is pope.  And here Francis is simply reminding us there are other serious issues to address.  This is a good reminder, especially to those who fight only the big fights, to be in the limelight, to be known as crusaders, in other words, those soldiers with self-serving intentions.  (If you say “Ouch!” then perhaps you are one of those Francis is reminding).

      Furthermore, Francis here sees that unemployed youth go astray (trying to find meaning in their life through drugs, free “safe” sex, hedonism, and a make-love-not-babies mentality—the very evils we pro-lifers are fighting!  Francis sees that the loneliness of the old could dispose them to suicide, thereby tending to justify the champions of euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Why should his words be taken as denigrating pro-life efforts?  Why mock him if he sees youth unemployment and loneliness of the old as “most serious of the evils…”?  Isn’t he merely pointing to two of the roots that cause the evil we are fighting against now?  Francis is in fact (by opening our eyes to those roots of evil) making the fight lighter for those to come after us.  Give the guy the benefit of the doubt—he’s on our side!

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" 

 Francis says IF, that is conditional.  IF someone searches…and has good will… who is he to judge?  Who are WE to judge?  IF implies that the gay person seeking the Lord with good will is going through a process—and that takes time—and a judgmental attitude from us (straights) would surely threaten to derail him from that path to the Lord.)  This statement is not to be taken as a papal push for “gay rights”—perhaps just a spur of the moment utterance from a man who acknowledges his own sinfulness.

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does He endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?'  We must always consider the person.”

Isn’t this very Christ like?  Francis evaded the trap of the provocateur by firing back with a question leading to a truth—God looks at everyone with love.  Again, this shouldn’t be taken to mean Francis is poised to defy the teachings of the Church on such matters; he’s simply being kind, just as Jesus would be kind to, say, the adulterous woman about to be stoned.

The pope is human, too.  Just like some of our bishops here (who, by the way, sometimes admirably speak as ordinary citizens but are quoted by media as the voice of the whole Church), Francis can speak as an ordinary citizen, too, and may be misconstrued by an uninformed media.  Francis is not always speaking ex cathedra—we can glean from his context that sometimes he speaks as Bishop of Rome, as an ordinary parish priest, or as ex-archbishop of Buenos Aires; at times he makes off-the-cuff remarks that make him sound like an ordinary Catholic guzzling beer at a billiard hall.  We have to try and see where Francis is coming from.  Have faith. Hang on.  Pray more for Francis.  If we are so easily angered by his statements that the enemies of the Church feel triumphant about, then—believe it or not—we are lending our strength to these very enemies.  And that’s the truth.

Intimate sharings

Something strange happened to me one afternoon I was on my knees praying in a small obscure chapel somewhere in Italy.  I was alone, wrapped in the silence and the faint smell of incense, when the door flew open, somebody rushed in and noisily knelt down on the pew opposite mine.  I turned to see an adolescent boy in school uniform—then he started sobbing shamelessly.  And then I started weeping—feeling nothing, but weeping.  “Lord, what is this?”, I thought, judging my situation as weird.  I’m not a cry baby, I didn’t know the guy; for all I know he was sobbing because the school principal had reprimanded and sent him home off time, so why were tears coming down my face when I was numb as a stone?  Not understanding my tears I simply thought: “Lord, whatever it is causing him so much grief, come and comfort him, that he may know You are real.”  I don’t know how long it took but I stopped weeping when he calmed down.

Tears.  I was to later hear that there is such a thing as “gift of tears” but over the years I have not had the slightest interest to google its definition or purpose.  I did not care if my tears were a gift or not—it was enough to let it be, content to believe that in His own time, IF He so wishes, He would let me know what my weeping meant.

That involuntary tear jerking incident was to recur in Sta. Cruz church (in Manila, Philippines) where I sat next to a woman crying while I was savoring solitude in a crowd of strangers.  I again wept without feeling anything but found myself thinking “I have no idea what this woman wants from You, Lord, but please make her feel Your love before she leaves this church.”  

This passive-commiserative crying-praying experience would be repeated a few more times so unexpectedly, and my one-of-a-kind “prayer response” would vary, from “Please solve his problem fast so he and his family will know Your power!”  to “What if I stroked the old man’s back to comfort him, would it be Your touch he’d feel, Lord?”  Everything was so crazy and off the cuff that I just learned to accept these incidents without question.  It’s humbling for a hard-boiled heart like mine to be unable to control my own tears, but God is God and has every right to be weird and wonderful.

Next episode, in my office: two persons were conversing within earshot about Fr. So-and-so wanting to leave the Church.  I didn’t know the priest in question—apparently a mutual friend of theirs—but again, I wept with zero feeling.  Good thing I was poring over my computer and had my back to them, thus they didn’t notice I was blotting off my tears.

No impromptu prayer came out of me that time, but on a similar occasion, when the priest being talked about was someone I knew, something different came.  My tears “waited” until as I was alone, taking a break with the Blessed Sacrament in the CBCP chapel.  I remembered what we’d discussed about the priest, and I wept as usual without emoting.  And then an unspoken question dawned on me: “Why, Lord? Do I weep like this because something’s going on that’s hurting You?”  I realized it was a question that did not expect an answer.

Since then my secret weeping over persons or situations acquired a tenderness, a poignancy that was neither personal nor impersonal.  I would come to see or hear about something that would trigger the weeping and revive the question, “Do I weep like this because something’s going on that’s hurting You, Lord?”   I need not be emotionally involved with the person or in a situation for the tears to be shed.  There would be no casual prayer, no words uttered, although I know I’m praying somehow, somewhere deep.  There would simply flow quiet tears blending sadness and serenity—as I had shed a couple of hours ago (and which would continue despite my replying to mundane texts), while watching footages of super typhoon Yolanda on television.

Certain images of devastation combined forces to tamper with my heartbeat and spur my imagination.  Fallen electrical posts seemed like public servants powerless and helpless before nature’s wrath.  The mad scramble for wet sacks of rice spilling out of a damaged warehouse made me wish people would rest from posting food pictures on Facebook.  Coconut trees with their tops blown off standing erect against the sky but shorn of glory, like defrocked cardinals. A teenage boy confessing to the world, “I am not a thief, but yes, I stole from that store—we’re hungry! We will die from hunger!”  An odd Pieta

came to mind as I watched a young mother cradling a baby in her lap and inconsolably sobbing on global television “I’ve lost my husband and my two other children; where are we to go now?”  One elderly man was just as remorseful, “Child, I am sorry, forgive me, forgive me, I could not save you!”  A young husband tried to sound strong but his broken voice betrayed him, as he addressed his wife, “You’re in Australia, but I know you will see this… I only want to let you know our children, our two boys… they’re gone… they’re gone.”  Small children huddled together in sleep—how

will this experience affect their future?   

Just as Yolanda’s victims direly need food and other materials to help rebuild the devastated provinces, they also need healers to rebuild their lives.  They need “shock absorbers” to nurse them back to normalcy, and to prevent their faith in God from being snuffed out by this tragedy.  A wild desire wells up within me: I want to be there to help carry their cross…I can’t offer much but I can listen to anyone who desperately needs a listener.  I am prepared to weep with them, too.      

Reading the popes

Adding to the confusion of our country’s already misinformed (under-catechized) majority is secular media’s perception and resulting presentation of the pope and bishops as mere political leaders who are expected to “be involved” by making pronouncements on hottest issues of the day and egging on activists to push their “narrow-minded, outdated” agenda.

            Catholics or not (judging by their misrepresentation of the Catholic Church), most media people do not know Church history and structure, what Magisterium means, or for that matter, even how a man responds to the call to priesthood.  Thus, when the pope or a bishop opens his mouth, his voice is heard through a secular megaphone that distorts or filters out the meaning of the message.

            Case in point: the hoopla generated by headlines like “Church ‘obsessed’ with birth control, abortion and gays,” referring to a recent interview with Pope Francis that came out in an Italian magazine.  Whether people read only the headline or the whole second-hand report, it is the headline that will most impact them for it is supposed to carry the gist of the story.

            To people too busy or uninterested to read or analyze the original interview, it would appear that the pope is going against the teaching of the Church.  They would not care that while Pope Francis actually said “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods…” he also said:  “The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”  Did he say the Church is “obsessed”?  No—it is the media who said it.

            So, what is Pope Francis really trying to say?  Media have painted Pope Francis as a “different pope”, a “reformer” of the Church, and they are but too quick to color his words to suit their taste.  Even some Catholics tend to put the pope in a box: a Jesuit box, for instance.  Are we not guilty, too, of seeing the Holy Father as a mere politician and the papacy as but a power play?

            Every pope has his particular contribution to the evolution of the Church.  Every pope leaves his fingerprints on the papal chalice, so to speak.  Each pope responds to the challenges of the age, as well as adapts to and utilizes civilization’s technological advances in meeting the needs of the flock.  Let us take a quick glance at the three popes our country’s predominantly young population has known.

Blessed Pope John Paul II

            Soon-to-be-saint Blessed John Paul II will be remembered by the faithful for throwing wide open the doors of the Church to the world, becoming the most widely-traveled pope in history.  In a world where young people were asserting their independence from parents, John Paul II discerned the youth’s search for parental authority and affection, some direction in life, and he offered them Jesus.  He hugged them, kissed them, dialogued with them, danced with them in the World Youth Day celebrations that have for decades attracted countless young people to Christ.

            Sensing the growing sexual unrest in the modern times, he wrote Theology of the Body to tell us, among other things, about the male and the female in God’s plan for humanity.  Seeing the need to remind the faithful of the crucial role women play in the sanctification of the Church, he came up with Mulieris Dignitatem.   Possessing media savvy, he would revive our interest in Pope Paul VI’s Inter Mirifica and add his own The Rapid Development to stress the need for the Church to use mass media in delivering the message of salvation in the “new culture”.  He would reach out to the young through Friendster way before the age of Facebook and Twitter (which his successor Pope Benedict XVI was to use during his time).

            If his lighthearted approach to evangelizing endeared him to the young, his humility in working for peace and unity won for the Church the respect of other religious leaders, particularly when he did something none of his predecessors of 2,000 years had done: trembling and with slurred speech from Parkinson’s disease he publicly begged God’s forgiveness for the offenses of the Catholic church against the Jews, heretics, women, gypsies, and other native peoples.  And in the years when his eyesight was dimming, John Paul II was to open our eyes to the value of five more light-filled episodes in the Lord’s earthly life—which were to be hailed in due time as the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

            Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI—opened his papacy with the encyclical Deus Caritas Est, a rich exploration of the word “love” in a world that was increasingly feeling alienated from a benevolent God.  With a serious mien, he remained to be a sobering presence in the Church.  When the Eucharist was being celebrated this way or that, almost by the whims of parish priests or by popular demand, Benedict XVI set our sights on the transcendent nature of the liturgy, promoting the mystery and solemnity of the “summit and source of Christian life.”  Ever the gifted theologian possessing grace and clarity in his manner of writing and speaking, he was also the perfect person for stressing the indispensability of study in the ministry of communicating God to the people.

            A man of great humility and pastoral sensitivity, he ached for Christian unity, and desired to welcome back to the Church’s embrace those who have left.  He must

have empathized with them, understood their wounds and the reasons they broke away from the fold.  For him, forgiveness, which is the backbone of reform, “is not a denial of wrong doing but a participation in the healing and transforming love of God which reconciles and restores.”

            Benedict XVI did what no pope had done in nearly 700 years: step down from the papal throne.  In the eyes of those who deny the existence of mystery, it was a sign of weakness in a leader; to the faithful, it was their leader’s way of opening our eyes to humanity’s gaping need for God in our day and age, and to the futility of merely human efforts in linking man and God together.  His resignation was a cry for a return to what matters most in a world growing too self-centered and ruled by increasing relativism: prayer as a way to union with God, and therefore harmony with man. 

            Seeing how much evil had seeped through the cracks of the Church—clerical sex abuse and corruption scandals left and right; alleged in-fighting in the curia; priests and nuns succumbing to the temptations of the age and subscribing to strange teachings that erode their faith; shepherds and their sheep engrossed in evangelizing strategies bereft of divine inspiration—Benedict XVI must have felt like our Lord Jesus who, when asked by His disciples why they could not drive away the evil spirit in a boy (Mark 9:14-29), replied:  “This kind can come out only by prayer and fasting.”

            And so the pope of almost eight years took a leap of faith to pray and fast, tacitly setting an example for the shepherds the world over to follow.  In resigning he chose to be an ordinary priest, hidden, unknown, in prayer united with and sustained by the Father—very much like Christ who, weary from a day of teaching, touching the sick, and being pressed upon by the needy, would seek a solitary, hidden place to be alone with the Father.

Pope Francis

            Enter Pope Francis, a hot issue from Day One of his papacy.  To the media he was a novelty, shirking off the trappings of his post—no limousines, no fancy throne, no pricey ring, no red shoes, no papal apartment—that the charmed reporters instantly anointed him as a “revolutionary pope.”  He would be quoted, misquoted, and quoted out of context, and not a few times concerned Catholics following his coverage by media would fret that he might be changing Church doctrines on his own.

            A handful of priests I have poked for comment reserve their thoughts on Pope Francis’ candor in dealing with media, adopting a wait-and-see attitude, but a visiting, young Filipino priest studying in Spain actually told me, “His style of shooting from the hip is rather dangerous.”  In a knee jerk reaction I myself would tend to think with this young priest, knowing what deluge could descend upon the Church if and when the devil and the media hold hands and kiss, so to speak.  Watching the World Youth Day papal parade on television, I was horrified to see Pope Francis riding an open pick up truck without a bullet proof bubble, shaking hands with the masses, catching gifts thrown at him from the crowd—bags, packages, souvenirs, shawls, sometimes almost to his face.  What if one of those bags contained a bomb?, I gasped.  I thought the pope was taking unnecessary risks—but, no terrorist shook his hand, and no assassin came to grab him; he is still alive after getting what he wanted, so who am I to question the prodding of the Holy Spirit?

            Just after WYD concluded, media read too much into what Pope Francis said about being compassionate with gays.  A few days back media would again be titillated by quotables from the outspoken pope who sounded as though he were gagging zealous pro-lifers.  Eight months into his papacy Pope Francis, in the eyes of some, “has created enormous difficulties for the Church” with his “problematic statements too numerous to document.”  Reportedly, some Catholic commentators are already approaching the brink of fatigue doing damage control.  Neo-Catholic explainers of What The Pope Really Means are also reported to be “overwhelmed by their task… as Francis has dropped far too many bombshells to defuse”.

            The supposedly explosive statements Pope Francis has sporadically been making sound dramatic and liberalizing, causing world media and the Church’s enemies to hail “Francis the Awesome,” the “rebel pope”, the “slum pope” as their new ally, the “enlightened pope” they have all been waiting for.  In the United States alone, satirist and television host Stephen Colbert saw Pope Francis as “a seismic ripple throughout the world of Catholicism”, and comedian Chris Rock, announced that “Francis is the greatest man alive”.  So called “rebel theologian” Hans Kung was said to be “overwhelmed with joy” at Jorge Bergoglio’s election, while activist Jane Fonda allegedly tweeted “Gotta love new Pope.  He cares about poor, hates dogma”.  RH champion Barack Obama was “hugely impressed with the pope’s pronouncements”, while from the National Abortion Rights Action League came— “To Pope Francis: Thank you”.  If the Successor of Peter is causing anti-life forces to jump with joy over his statements and headlines like CNN’s “Pope speaks against Catholic traditions”, can the faithful be blamed for starting to worry?

            Is there a real reason for the faithful to worry?  Worry about the pope or about irresponsible journalists?  According to the Vatican, the infamous interview quoting the pope on the birth-control-abortion-gay-marriage issue turned out to be a reconstruction after the fact, since the writer, Eugenio Scalfari, an atheist, did not tape it at all, nor did he take notes.  Any self-respecting journalist would record such an important interview—why did he not?  Didn’t he, really?  Who can say now what Pope Francis really said or what he really meant? 

Through the eyes of faith

            I personally am not bothered by even the most careless-sounding utterances Pope Francis makes during off-the-cuff exchanges with journalists because while I understand that he is coming from somewhere unfamiliar to me, I know that he did not enthrone himself in St. Peter’s seat.  Remember the black smoke and the white smoke?  If we believe it was the Holy Spirit who made him pope, His will manifested in the Cardinals’ choice, isn’t it logical that we believe, too, that he is being guided by the same Holy Spirit, appearances notwithstanding?

            I choose not to be carried away by the irate reactions to the Holy Father’s perceived boo-boos, for media bias has much to do with it as well.  I’d like to look at his admirable qualities too, for instance his personal austerity, which I believe he deliberately insists on to set an example for men of the cloth who have become oblivious to their vow to be poor, obedient and chaste like Jesus.  His challenge to shepherds to “smell of the sheep” is likewise meant to spur priests out of a stupor induced by a too comfortable lifestyle.

            When he urged the youth in Brazil to “shake up the Church” and “make a mess in your diocese” I believe he said so not with a clenched fist but with tongue in cheek, fully aware his audience would be fired up by drama—it’s the Latino in him.  Same thing when he said about gays, “Who am I to judge?”—I have a feeling it was calculated to win the gays over, for Francis sees evangelizing as “entering their door so that they may later enter yours”.  I saw his point, too, when he said “we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods”; his was just a word of caution lest in our crusade against anti-lifers we totally neglect other issues just as vital to the Church, for instance the formation of our youth who will become tomorrow’s parents.  If we form our kindergarteners properly now, we will not have to bend over backward stopping them from contracepting in the future.

            I would like to view this controversy through the eyes of faith.  The impression created by the present pope’s eyebrow-raising media pronouncements results from his personality and style; in no way does it imply that Francis is “making a mess” of the Magisterium, or losing his faith in the body of Christ.  In his first encyclical, Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis reminds us that “Christ, on the eve of His passion, assured Peter: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail’ (Lk 22:32).  He then told him to strengthen his brothers and sisters in that same faith.”
           I believe Pope Francis is proceeding in the light of faith, challenging and strengthening us, albeit in such an unorthodox fashion.  It is the same light of faith that illumined the paths of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Blessed John Paul II to carry out their duties as the successors of Peter and turn our troubled times into seasons of grace.  Our trials are many but we will walk on undaunted.  We have our Lord praying for us that our faith may not fail—how can the Father fail His Son?

By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS

CBCP Monitor

Listening to gays--and loving them

Part 1:  What do gays really want?

            They’ve done it again—secular media misrepresenting Pope Francis, this time zeroing in on his words "If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?... these persons must never be marginalized and they must be integrated into society…"  spoken during

the press briefing held on his return flight from Brazil’s World Youth Day celebrations.  The Holy Father said something perfectly Christian, yet gay marriage advocates would be quick to take that as a sign that this pope is pro-gay and will be the one to deliver the Catholic Church from the dark ages, quote unquote.

            The more countries come to legalize same sex marriage, the more convinced I get that advocates and legislators of gay marriage alike neither understand nor accept the meaning of the word “marriage.”  At least that’s what I observe.  In spite of their insistence that in their same-sex marriage advocacy all they want is “equal rights” for gays, what they actually want is for everybody else to change their view of reality.  In the process they sometimes get themselves in ridiculous situations that seem to uncover envy as the root of their cause, like this garden wedding held at a restaurant in the suburbs.

            The waiters were giggling in the kitchen because they had heard the pastor say to the couple, “Ang churva ng Panginoon, magmahalan kayo…” Churva is a word found in the Filipino gay vocabulary, as followers of local noontime television only know too well.  It turned out the pastor was gay, and so were the bride and the bride.  One of them wore a white party dress, the other sported manly attire; the pastor wore a chasuble.  The wedding was replete with cord, candle and veil, with corresponding sponsors, and the pastor used grape juice instead of wine for the “consecration”.  At the reception that followed, the newly weds cut a wedding cake and fed each other a spoonful, while

the pastor teased a boyish looking waiter (in Pilipino), “Are you circumcised?”, giving the kitchen staff more giggle time.

            What are gays and lesbians really after when they lobby for same-sex marriage, I asked a gay friend.  He replied, “We are envious—kayo lang ba ang may karapatan?  We want to have beautiful weddings like you guys, to publicly declare our love for each other, to live together openly!  We want commitment from our partners, it would be nice to be someone’s one and only forever and ever…”  He knows it is wishful thinking, though; he would not dare march in the streets to get his heart’s desires because even admitting he’s gay would be his undoing.  He is Muslim, and his father in Mindanao would disown him if he found out his son “is a woman trapped in a man’s body.”  He continued,  “I have a cousin who’s also gay.  When in our hometown, min kami, we act and sound like men, malaki ang boses namin at saka barako kaming mag-aasta, pero sa men’s room, tita, naga-apir kami, ahahay!  Dito lang sa Manila ladlad ang kapa namin!  Otherwise, babayoo, inheritance!”           

            This gay Muslim friend studied in and graduated from Catholic universities, so he knows the Church teaching on marriage—a sacrament involving one man and one woman, a gift from God to humanity leading to procreation, the foundation of the family, etc.  He is quite resigned to his fate that one day he will have to court a woman, “My family and my community expect me to get married and

 have a family.  In fact, my father even wants me to run for mayor—poor, unsuspecting papa, bless his soul!  In a way I am lucky because my life at least follows a relatively safe path, unlike those gay marriage advocates who are lost.  I’m gay, I understand them, but I really think they’re lost.  If you tell them about marriage being a sacrament, they’ll laugh at you!  They don’t care what the Church teaches; they feel deprived and discriminated against, all they care about is to get even by crying for the same privileges as the heterosexual couples.”

Part 2:  Gay marriage in the Philippines?

Would the same-sex marriage movement allegedly gaining ground among First World governments catch on in the Philippines?  I don’t think so.  Homosexuals from conservative families (like my Muslim friend) or those in sensitive occupations like teaching or civil service would be too resigned to care or dare to join lobby groups, knowing they have much to lose if they did.

The gays from the masses—like the four street dwellers I met at a soup kitchen who live in a kariton—believe that being dirt poor they have nothing to lose anyway so they just do their thing.  They scavenge for a living and all their belongings are in their kariton; they sleep where the night finds them; they rely on broken fire hydrants, the Pasig River, and public toilets to wash themselves and their clothes.  What’s more important for them is their survival, and not supporting some alien concept they have no need for. 

Same sex marriage pressure groups abroad might hope to find some sympathy and support from the high profile gays, but in our country the latter enjoy more privileges than the average Filipino, so how can they possibly feel deprived or discriminated against?  They are not only tolerated or accepted, they are even admired and adored—they are celebrities who host radio and TV shows, star in movies, endorse products in big time advertising, hobnob with the elite whose parties they write about in their lifestyle columns.   They have big businesses (not only fashion-related) and make no efforts to hide their sexual preferences; they even let media friends publicize the plush homes they   Would they need to march in the streets in the name of “equal rights”?  They don’t need to change laws to make them happy—they can fly off anytime to have their gay wedding in Las Vegas.

share with their long time lovers.

So, what kind of gays might be influenced to join the gay marriage bandwagon?  One group could be the “un-churched”, those who grew up without being taught the social and moral value of marriage but want the ritual ceremony anyway.   

Another would be the “incurable romantics” who, in spite of their membership in a church, tend to blindly follow fads and ape their celebrity idols.  Here belongs the parlorista who used to cut my hair—a biological male who insists he is a girl and uses birth control pills to make him look like one.  He is young enough to sincerely hope and pray that his boyfriend will give up his girlfriend in order to marry him.

Comprising the third group would be those who had been traumatically rebuffed by their family and society for being “queer” children—this may include similarly wounded intellectuals who have come to reject the moral guidance offered by any religion.

A fourth would be those who equate being openly gay with being cool, relying on First World militant gay support for affirmation—or for higher popularity ratings as in the case of certain celebrities who have recently come out of their straight closet.

Unable to see beyond their own satisfaction, these above-mentioned gays, whether male or female, are not in a position to care about the long-range effects of homosexual relationships on public health, national economy, peace and order, and population growth.  They would hardly be conscious of the hidden agenda of gay marriage advocates nor would they likely scrutinize the demands of same-sex marriage advocates before taking the latter’s side.  For them the issue is simply one of belonging—by identifying with the militant gays they believe they belong, they feel empowered, they acquire a voice.

Part 3:  I love gays

Are gay marriage advocates really asking for something special?  In my humble opinion, yes and no.  Through centuries of being seen as abnormal, “freaks of nature” and Creation’s laughable mistake, homosexuals have come to believe they are society’s rejects.  In our age when freedom of expression is considered an undeniable human right, they speak up, naturally!  But I believe that behind all the noise they create, deep in their heart of hearts all they want is to be accepted just like any other human being.  In that sense, No, they are not asking for anything special.  But some of them who may have deeper wounds than others could, in wanting to be accepted, unwittingly abuse their freedom of expression, and thus clamor for “gay marriage”, oblivious to the fact that they are overstepping boundaries and trampling on the heterosexuals’ rights and religious liberty to preserve the meaning, purpose, and institution of marriage.  In that sense, Yes, they are asking for way too much.

For the record, let me just say here: I love gays—of both genders.  And they love me, too.  Whether strangers, colleagues or friends, the gays in my life easily     open up to me like I were the reincarnation of Tia Dely Magpayo—they air their woes and fears, ask for my advice and prayers, bring me gossip, daydream in my presence, give me beauty tips, and in moments of euphoria talk to me about their bed habits until I blush.  They need not pretend with me.

Encounters with gays both amuse and educate me and offer me glimpses into the human condition, and when they speak most sincerely from their guts, sometimes I am led into a different world—like that time I interviewed in the mid-70s the first Filipino sex-change patient; or that instance when a priest sighed to me about his inner struggle as a covert, non-practicing homosexual bound by a vow of chastity; or when another gay friend just “born again and accepted Jesus as his savior” over a cholesterol-laden dinner asked me, “Does the Lord really want me to give up everything?  Can’t I keep even only one boyfriend na lang?”

Sometimes I think gays open up to me because they sense I have an ear and a heart for them.  A   It’s her kind of gay that’s most poignant to listen to, because she hasn’t quite come to terms with herself—she fumes when people ask if she’s gay.  She insists she will marry a man someday, but while Mr. Right hasn’t come along, she revels in same-sex affairs.

lesbian friend says that with me she feels “like a tilapia in a tilapia pond”, at home and cozy.

I feel blessed to have gay friends, for they can be some of the most honest and brutally frank people around.  And while they bare their souls to me, they also take wholeheartedly what I have to dish out—whether advice or admonition which I dispense with clinical detachment.  I never have to mince words with them, like some days back when the subject of same-sex marriage popped up as we were having cocktails at a movie premiere.  My limp-wristed friends asked me if I’d been to a gay wedding.  I said no, but told them about the first hand report on the churva garden wedding I mentioned earlier (in Part 1 of this series).

My friends thought my little story was a blast; we were the noisiest table in the room.   In a burst of optimism one of them said, “There is hope for gay marriage for Catholics since Pope Francis is pro-gay.”  I snapped, “Sorry to disappoint you, guys; the pope may be pro-gay, but not pro-gay marriage—same with me,” and then I gave them a mean piece of my mind:  “I love you all, you know that, and whatever you do with your boy toys is your business, really, but don’t try to change the dictionary, pleeeze!”  (“Mother, we’re not changing the dictionary, we’re crying for equal rights!  Kayo lang ba ang may karapatang magpakasal?”)  “By all means, fight for your equal ek-ek rights,

privileges, opportunities, whatever, I’ll march to Malacanang with you if you are getting inhuman treatment from anyone, but leave marriage alone!  (“But we want lifetime commitment, fancy weddings, love in the open, mama!”)  Legalizing your union, hindi kaya ng powers kong pigilin yan, but don’t call it a marriage.  Don’t try to create a “new normal” and call it by an old name—it won’t work.  Marriage is between a natural male and a natural female, created for the propagation of the human race, foundation of the family.  To make another human being you need sperm from the male and ova from the female.  That’s a fact of life, and a law of nature.  Even Grade 5 pupils know that. Sperm and sperm, ovum and ovum—no way!  Male plus male equals a swordfight.  Female plus female, clanging cymbals.  Gets nyo?” 

LOL!  Mwah-mwah!  Apir!  Everybody’s happy—a win-win situation.  Despite the blunt language they get my drift.  I think it’s because deep down inside they know that—I love gays, not because they’re gay but because they are human beings.  And that’s the truth.