The moral alternative

“O my people, you know that I have never wanted to intervene in matters of state: do you think I would do so now, if I did not see that it was necessary for the health of your souls?...Your reform must begin with the things of the spirit, which are above the material, of which they are the rule and the life; and your temporal good must serve your moral and religious welfare, on which it depends. And if you heard say that states are not ruled by paternosters, remember that this is the rule of tyrants, or the enemies of God and the commonweal, the rule for oppressing and not for raising and liberating the city. If you desire a good government you must restore it to God. Surely, I should not meddle in state matters, if this were not so.”
AN image of a resurgent Padre Damaso loomed large in Pampanga amid indignant cries of Church and State separation in the wake of the announcement of the Rev. Fr. Eddie Panlilio that he would run for governor as the “alternative moral choice.”
On my mind though, it was the image of the Dominican reformer Fra Girolamo Savonarola that flashed, with full recall of his compelling mission – quoted above – in taking over the government of Florence in 1494. Most pointedly so, as I read Fr. Ed’s take on his new vocation: “I have heeded the clamor of the laity to serve God’s people by running for public office. An extraordinary situation like that in Pampanga requires a radical option.”
First, a crash course on one of the most colorful men of the Renaissance.
A gifted preacher, Savonarola, the Prior of San Marco, electrified and terrified the Florentine faithful with his fiery sermons warning of an impending doom, a castigo de Dios, for the moral corruption, decadence and degeneracy of the people.
Riding on the French intervention in Florence in 1494 that ousted the ruling Medici family – in fact deeming it as God’s retribution – Savonarola attempted to establish a theocratic government, seeing himself as a prophet sent by God himself to pronounce judgment on Italy, on Mother Church herself.
Of Pope Alexander VI, the Friar reportedly wrote: “I testify, in verbis Domini, that this Alexander is no Pope, nor can be considered such, since, leaving aside his most execrable sin of simony, by which he bought the Papal throne and daily sells ecclesiastical benefices to the highest bidder and his other manifest vices, I affirm that he is no Christian and does not believe in God, which passes the limit of every infidelity.”
The Borgia pope promptly caused his excommunication in 1497 which validity the Friar vehemently denied.
It was this intransigence and defiance that turned popular feeling against him, leading to his arrest, torture, trial and conviction. Condemned to death for heresy and schism, he was hanged and then burned on May 23, 1498, four months short of his 46th birthday.
No, I am not saying that Fr. Ed is Savonarola’s second coming.
Though not my contemporary in the minor seminary, he has long been a good friend. I chose him to be the godfather of the most scholarly brilliant of my children, who, incidentally, has ceased to believe in the Catholic Church. Through no fault of Fr. Ed’s, though.
The contest between Gov. Mark Lapid and Board Member Lilia “Baby” Pineda has been looked at, ab initio, as a fight between two evils – illegal quarry collections against illegal gambling. Leaving the electorate no option but to go for what they perceive as the lesser evil.
Religious and civil society groups believed Pampanga voters – for all their vaunted intelligence and moral uprightness – deserve the best, not among evils, but of the bests. Thus, what better candidate than a revered Father.
Even casting aside the Savonarola story, there still obtains fear in my heart of hearts. With Fr. Ed’s joining the political fray, there could be polarization – schism would be too strong a word – not only among the clergy but in the Church in Pampanga herself. And the increasingly heated debates on the separation of Church and State are mere manifestations of a widening partisan divide among the faithful.
Already there are a number of priests who have expressed disapproval of his decision to run.
One canon lawyer even went to say that Fr. Ed should “have himself defrocked before entering electoral politics.”
Fr. Ed has said that he would ask Archbishop Paciano B. Aniceto to grant him a “temporary dispensation from priestly ministry while I try to fulfill this obligation.”
It is an open secret too that a great number of the clergy support the candidacy of their “Nanay Baby.” How will they now position themselves vis-à-vis Fr. Ed’s gubernatorial aspiration.
I dread to hear from Fr. Ed the lamentation of Savonarola over the inter-monastic jealousies of his time: “Filii matris mea pugnaverunt contra me” (The sons of my mother fight against me)?
Then comes the most important question: Are the people of Pampanga – with all their dissatisfaction over their political leaders – ready for a Reverend Governor, err, Governor Reverend?
And, lest we forget, consider the requisites to winning elections: money, men, money, machinery, money, money, money. How will Fr. Ed fare?
Of course, firm believers as we are, miracles can – and still do – happen. Godspeed, Fr. Ed.