Leap from faith

MAGLAYUNAN ya ing pari, karing kalupa nang pari.
The priestly confederation, nay, communion so hallowed in that Capampangan adage sounds hollow vis-à-vis the current of events in the wake of the entry of the Rev. Fr. Eddie Tongol Panlilio in the gubernatorial fray.
Contrary to earlier public perception that it was the Most Rev. Pablo Virgilio David, auxiliary bishop, who pushed Among Ed to run, the erudite Randy David, in one of his Inquirer columns, revealed his brother bishop “up to the last moment” tried to dissuade the priest from running. To no avail, as it turned out.
Then in both print and TV interviews, the outspoken prelate, Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, arguably the top canon lawyer of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, declared the priest had “nothing to return to, whether he won or lost.”
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines likewise went to press with its disapproval of priests entering electoral politics, standing firm on the ground of Church and State dichotomy, and mayhaps in fear of renewed charges of Church politicization.
Then, a day before Maundy Thursday when priests renew their vows in the Chrism Mass, the Most Rev. Paciano B. Aniceto issued a seven-point guideline for the clergy to disengage from partisan politics, exercise fairness and focus on the education of voters.
On Among Ed, Apu Ceto disclosed: “We dissuaded him (from running) and did all we can to help him see all the possible consequences of his candidacy for governor…but we respect his personal decision.”
As there were but dissuasions, and not direct orders, it cannot be said – strictly and technically – that Among Ed broke his vow of obedience. (For the uninitiated, diocesan priests take the vows of celibacy – being unmarried, and obedience to Church authority at their ordination. Missionary priests take the added vow of poverty. So nothing out of character, moreso immoral, about your parish priest driving the latest SUV or owning large tracts of land, or maintaining a fat bank account, or engaging in commerce and trade.)
The absence of direct orders notwithstanding, the assiduity with which the bishops tried to talk Among Ed out of his decision already amounted to a command, albeit unexpressed.
Thus, a number of his peers, and the laity too, felt Among Ed defied his elders. Especially given the self-effacing Apu Ceto, who has never known to impose on his Church underlings, or on anybody for that matter.
A priest, also a canon lawyer, who was my junior at the minor seminary, held that same view when I chanced upon him at SM Pampanga.
“There will not be any dispensation. It will be a suspension that will be imposed,” he said, affirming that Among Ed did indeed commit disobedience.
I have yet to see that suspension in print though.
In a previous column on Among Ed, I expressed the apprehension that polarization might set in not only among the clergy but also among the laity.
It already has.
I have heard both priests and lay people passionately defending “on equally moral grounds” their decision to support the so-called bedeviled candidates, vis-à-vis the acclaimed “moral alternative” that is Among Ed.
A choice between two evils – even opting for the lesser one – is no choice. So said the moralists among us, heralding the entry of Among Ed as the choice of good.
But even as Apu Ceto appealed: “As a sign of respect for him, we should avoid making derogatory remarks about his person and decision,” already skeletons are being dug out of Among Ed’s closet.
This is more than your usual TV reality show. This is politics, in all its obnoxious reality.
Last Monday, I met Among Ed at the GV station. He barely recognized me at first – what with my long hair and the number of years since we last saw each other. We embraced like the brothers that we are.
Some kumustahan about the family, especially his godson, some small talk on the campaign – he chuckled when I told him I am too politically polluted to join his crusaders – and then I wished him the very best.
I can only hope – and pray – that he was right in treading the road not taken, to cite the poet Robert Frost.
It takes no small amount of deep reflection, of introspection, of discernment to arrive at a decision of leaving over twenty-five years of priesthood just to pursue what he called a “higher vocation.”
It can only be a leap of faith. Or must it be a leap from faith? For, can there be a vocation higher than being an alter Christus?
My seminary formation is shaken. My faith is polarized.







He deemed the homonymous mediation and meditation as synonymous.