I fancy myself as a catholic but i am never a religious person. You have to blame my parents for that. Of course, you have to factor in the school I went to when i was younger. It was a non-sectarian school although it allowed some religious instruction. I attend mass occasionally but never took it to heart. My experiences never instilled in me the need to be close to the religion i was born with. That's the reason i shouldn't be shocked about how priests act today. But i still have the traditional views of an ordinary catholic. I still believe that priests have to show certain acceptable acts and deeds:Think of the people first before their own welfare like the kinds of priests shown in the movies. But things have surely changed. The whole world is changing and so are they.
This reminds me of the priest we have in our town. The new administrator of our parish. I have been hearing comments about him. Most of which are bad. It seems that aside from having no manners (having the gall to stop a tribute to a former member of the church choir, who just passed away recently, using the mic for everyone to hear) he is quite obsessed with money. Last November, All saint's day to be exact, He did not start blessing the tombs until we had paid his assistant and had a receipt to show him. From what I have heard from those who attended the holiday mass/es he announced that the parishioners should give more. Shouldn't he have waited for another chance or couldn't he have done it in a more tasteful way? Another encounter with him proved without a doubt his greed for money: We were asking for a special schedule for baptism. When the church worker asked him about it I overheard him say "basta agbayad da."
A few weeks after the funeral my grand aunt called to admonish me about my supposed behavior that time. I supposedly disrespected the priest because I stood up even after he has stopped speaking. She told me I shouldn't do that because it's bad karma. She even added that quarelling with a priest is just like quarelling with God. That's a lot of bovine residue! Comparing God to the priests that i know is blasphemous to say the least. Their acts do not seem Godly. It was Rizal who told women, in his essay "To the Young Women of Malolos," to raise their children according to the image of the true God. Unfortunately some of the priests i know do not represent the true image of God.
A few weeks after the funeral my grand aunt called to admonish me about my supposed behavior that time. I supposedly disrespected the priest because I stood up even after he has stopped speaking. She told me I shouldn't do that because it's bad karma. She even added that quarelling with a priest is just like quarelling with God. That's a lot of bovine residue! Comparing God to the priests that i know is blasphemous to say the least. Their acts do not seem Godly. It was Rizal who told women, in his essay "To the Young Women of Malolos," to raise their children according to the image of the true God. Unfortunately some of the priests i know do not represent the true image of God.
These kinds of priests make my skin crawl. They reminded me of the Spanish friars of old. Whose abuse of their power gave them notoriety. It only proves that things have not changed since the time of the Spaniards: the perception of corruption, divide and rule tactics, closed mindedness on suggestions from their "vassals;" autocratic rule, getting rid of their critics a la Jose Rizal, denial of human rights especially the denial of due process and other inhuman acts and policies.
Nothing is truer to what i described above than in our dear alma mater. Nothing has changed at all. It might have even gotten worse. The only indication of modernity is the electronic billboard found in the main gate. We have been hoodwinked by the claim of transformation. They were transformers alright but they are of the decepticon variety. How can people who represent the ideals of a catholic university do such things?
First of all; they are sacrificing a stable and established course and department. A department that has served countless numbers of students and became instrumental in the development of the careers of these students. Most of whom are lawyers, government employees, and not to mention the majority of instructors in the same department. Why do they favor one over the other? Why do they listen to one and not the other? Or is this a classic example of divide and rule? Pitting one against another in order to consolidate their power?
Secondly; why are they afraid of true change? Are they afraid that by implementing true and genuine change their positions are imperiled? A lot of employees have suggested a few changes but to their disappointment they were met with either indifference or hostility. Actually, these suggestions can make all our, administration's and employees', jobs a little bit easier and even increase the morale of our employees.
Thirdly; the way they treat their critics. Not a few of the employees have suffered the "wrath" of these people because of the statements they have uttered against the policies of these people. Recently an employee was dismissed because of a case filed against him. His case: sexual harassment. It could have been left at that but a deeper analysis of the situation would make us think twice about his dismissal. The employee was a critic of these people. It would seem therefore that their intention in dismissing him would be to get back at him for what he said against these people. If indeed he is guilty and their intention is to get rid of some "bad apples" in SLU how come some who did much worse acts are still among the employees of the school. Is the dispensation of justice in SLU selective? I think there is a double standard in punishing erring faculty members. You will be punished if you are a critic of these people. So if you want them to be blind to your misdeeds you better not speak against these people. Manila mayor Fred Lim's favorite quote: "the law applies to all otherwise none at all," applies to this situation. But It seems they believe more in Hannibal Lecter's famous quote: "quid pro quo Clarice, quid pro quo..."
Lastly; these people seem to act only when there are complaints. Especially if these complaints arise from their actions. Until now they haven't acted yet on our claim for compensation when we entered our classes last year arising from the confusion regarding the start of the implementation of the CBA. Those who did not attend their classes were not penalized. It therefore means they should pay us for entering our classes that time. But since nobody complained or filed a case against them they did not act about it. Isn't it that Christians should admit their mistakes if they claim to be honest? Or they are only honest if it would mean money would come out of our own pockets but dishonest when the money comes out of the school's money and goes to our pockets? Does that mean they are happy if we are suffering?
I hope that there won't come a time that our reputation will be sullied by the acts of these people. Because it seems that the university is relying only on its reputation right now. But let us not rely on this because it might not last. Let us instead work to prove our excellence as the light of the north...If they won't stand in our way.
Nothing is truer to what i described above than in our dear alma mater. Nothing has changed at all. It might have even gotten worse. The only indication of modernity is the electronic billboard found in the main gate. We have been hoodwinked by the claim of transformation. They were transformers alright but they are of the decepticon variety. How can people who represent the ideals of a catholic university do such things?
First of all; they are sacrificing a stable and established course and department. A department that has served countless numbers of students and became instrumental in the development of the careers of these students. Most of whom are lawyers, government employees, and not to mention the majority of instructors in the same department. Why do they favor one over the other? Why do they listen to one and not the other? Or is this a classic example of divide and rule? Pitting one against another in order to consolidate their power?
Secondly; why are they afraid of true change? Are they afraid that by implementing true and genuine change their positions are imperiled? A lot of employees have suggested a few changes but to their disappointment they were met with either indifference or hostility. Actually, these suggestions can make all our, administration's and employees', jobs a little bit easier and even increase the morale of our employees.
Thirdly; the way they treat their critics. Not a few of the employees have suffered the "wrath" of these people because of the statements they have uttered against the policies of these people. Recently an employee was dismissed because of a case filed against him. His case: sexual harassment. It could have been left at that but a deeper analysis of the situation would make us think twice about his dismissal. The employee was a critic of these people. It would seem therefore that their intention in dismissing him would be to get back at him for what he said against these people. If indeed he is guilty and their intention is to get rid of some "bad apples" in SLU how come some who did much worse acts are still among the employees of the school. Is the dispensation of justice in SLU selective? I think there is a double standard in punishing erring faculty members. You will be punished if you are a critic of these people. So if you want them to be blind to your misdeeds you better not speak against these people. Manila mayor Fred Lim's favorite quote: "the law applies to all otherwise none at all," applies to this situation. But It seems they believe more in Hannibal Lecter's famous quote: "quid pro quo Clarice, quid pro quo..."
Lastly; these people seem to act only when there are complaints. Especially if these complaints arise from their actions. Until now they haven't acted yet on our claim for compensation when we entered our classes last year arising from the confusion regarding the start of the implementation of the CBA. Those who did not attend their classes were not penalized. It therefore means they should pay us for entering our classes that time. But since nobody complained or filed a case against them they did not act about it. Isn't it that Christians should admit their mistakes if they claim to be honest? Or they are only honest if it would mean money would come out of our own pockets but dishonest when the money comes out of the school's money and goes to our pockets? Does that mean they are happy if we are suffering?
I hope that there won't come a time that our reputation will be sullied by the acts of these people. Because it seems that the university is relying only on its reputation right now. But let us not rely on this because it might not last. Let us instead work to prove our excellence as the light of the north...If they won't stand in our way.
Luis Perfecto
