Savonarola lives!
WHEN THE Rev. Fr. Eddie T. Panlilio decided to run for governor of Pampanga as “the alternative moral choice” to a contest of evils – jueteng and quarry, I came out with the piece “The moral alternative” in my Free Zone column in the now defunct Pampanga News (March 29-April 4, 2007).
I wrote then that Panlilio’s entering politics reminded me of one of the most colorful figures of the Renaissance, the Dominican reformer Fra Girolamo Savonarola who took over the government of Florence in 1494.
Panlilio’s reason – circumventing the Canon Law prohibition – thus: “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” hewing closest to Savonarola’s wordier and worthier rationalization thus: “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.”God-centered good governance, a Panlilio mantra finding parallelism with Savonarola’s ideal there.
For a better appreciation of the issue at hand, here is a reprint of the crash course on Savonarola in that PN column.
“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 rejected.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.”
So I wrote then too that:
"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.” (He was suspended from his priestly duties.) 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)?No, I am not saying that Fr. Ed is Savonarola’s second coming. So I said in my piece then. So was I wrong in saying so!
And I mean not just the number of priests who went all out for the recall of the governor.
Listen now to Panlilio.
“Tumatagos na ang impluwensya nito (jueteng) sa pulitika, sa simbahan, maging sa gobyerno. ( Jueteng’s influence has already infiltrated politics, the church, and even the government).”
So Panlilio made a sweeping indictment not only of government but of the Church herself in a statement he e-mailed to the media. So very Savonarola, damning the very womb he came from. “Our people have lost their hope in the government. My administration is one of those remaining rays of hope. Let it not be the catalyst which will move our people to rally for change.”
So Panlilio warned Interior Secretary Ronnie Puno of a castigo de nacion in a letter. So very Savonarola, the very font of all righteousness, the sole hope of national redemption.
Police matters in Pampanga, Panlilio declared, are dictated by the circle of suspected jueteng lord Bong Pineda, Rep. Mikey Arroyo, and the Rev. Msgr. Jun Mercado.
“I don’t have evidences but they have to clear themselves (of the accusation).” So was Panlilio heard and seen on national television talking.
Unfounded accusations. The burden of proof imposed on the accused. That is not only Savonarola. That is a clear travesty of fairness, of justice, of truth.
Where did this Panlilio come from?
I wrote then that Panlilio’s entering politics reminded me of one of the most colorful figures of the Renaissance, the Dominican reformer Fra Girolamo Savonarola who took over the government of Florence in 1494.
Panlilio’s reason – circumventing the Canon Law prohibition – thus: “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” hewing closest to Savonarola’s wordier and worthier rationalization thus: “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.”God-centered good governance, a Panlilio mantra finding parallelism with Savonarola’s ideal there.
For a better appreciation of the issue at hand, here is a reprint of the crash course on Savonarola in that PN column.
“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 rejected.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.”
So I wrote then too that:
"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.” (He was suspended from his priestly duties.) 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)?No, I am not saying that Fr. Ed is Savonarola’s second coming. So I said in my piece then. So was I wrong in saying so!
And I mean not just the number of priests who went all out for the recall of the governor.
Listen now to Panlilio.
“Tumatagos na ang impluwensya nito (jueteng) sa pulitika, sa simbahan, maging sa gobyerno. ( Jueteng’s influence has already infiltrated politics, the church, and even the government).”
So Panlilio made a sweeping indictment not only of government but of the Church herself in a statement he e-mailed to the media. So very Savonarola, damning the very womb he came from. “Our people have lost their hope in the government. My administration is one of those remaining rays of hope. Let it not be the catalyst which will move our people to rally for change.”
So Panlilio warned Interior Secretary Ronnie Puno of a castigo de nacion in a letter. So very Savonarola, the very font of all righteousness, the sole hope of national redemption.
Police matters in Pampanga, Panlilio declared, are dictated by the circle of suspected jueteng lord Bong Pineda, Rep. Mikey Arroyo, and the Rev. Msgr. Jun Mercado.
“I don’t have evidences but they have to clear themselves (of the accusation).” So was Panlilio heard and seen on national television talking.
Unfounded accusations. The burden of proof imposed on the accused. That is not only Savonarola. That is a clear travesty of fairness, of justice, of truth.
Where did this Panlilio come from?
posted by A.Caesar Z. Lacson at 1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home