Is Carlos Celdran a hero?

Celdran's 'Damaso' protest has sparked an outcry of 'separation of Church and State'

MANILA, Philippines - We are living in the wake of Carlos Celdran being found guilty of “offending religious feelings.” This follows the 2010 incident of Celdran making a scene at an ecumenical service. He dressed up like national hero Jose Rizal and held up a sign that read “Damaso,” evoking images of the friar who fathered Maria Clara in Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere. And as it was a protest in conjunction with the RH Bill, rest assured that every sort of opinion and knee-jerk reaction is currently out there, flooding timelines, newsfeeds, and airwaves.

For example, there is, once again, an outcry of “separation between Church and State” and the Church’s supposed desire to quash freedom of speech. What needs to be clear here is that the freedom of speech also allows freedom for an entity such as the Church to oppose what it believes to be contradictory to its faith. Even if it is racked with scandals from priests who’ve fallen out of line or accepted gifts they weren’t supposed to or even did unspeakable acts of horror, the Church as an institution is well within its rights to make its voice heard on any issue it disagrees with. If the court happens to rule in a manner that is favorable to the Church, it is the court that should be held accountable. The State is protected by this separation in the fact that it has no responsibility to agree with or even to take the Church’s opinion into consideration outside of a hearing or complaint.

 What the State has to listen to, however, is the law. As we have learned from the unfortunate passing of the Cybercrime law, once it is written into law, how we feel about it doesn’t really matter. It is the law, and it must be followed. And unfortunately for Celdran, we do have a law that prohibits anyone from coming into a place of worship or disrupting any religious ceremony with any act that is offensive to the practice of that faith. If Celdran was offended by the way the Church was advertising its opinion on the RH Bill and thus refused to have the Church’s stand imposed upon him, neither can he expect to simply walk into someone else’s place of worship and impose his judgment on its leaders and their congregation.

Double-edged sword

Then there is the complaint against the “archaic” nature of this law. The use of the term “offending the religious feelings” makes it open not only to ridicule, but to interpretation, which is what makes it such a double-edged sword. And while there should be some clearer parameters as to what constitutes an offensive act, it is also a law that protects others who wish to practice all manner of religion. It’s easy to overlook because we are a predominantly Catholic country, but there are minorities who practice different faiths and also need some measure of security. To do away with the law completely in the wake of this incident is rash, especially as it does not deal solely with Catholicism.

 But let’s talk about that for a second, because of all the religions that could have been involved, it happened to be Catholicism. Catholicism is the black sheep in the family of spirituality. It’s not chill like Buddhism or all the rage like Scientology. It’s uncool, stringent and wrapped in the contradiction between tradition and humanity. It tells us when sex is acceptable, but is steeped in the controversy of more than several clergy members taking sexual advantage of young churchgoers. Its representatives can be alarmingly judgmental and offensive, but its teachings are rooted in the ideas of love and forgiveness. It makes itself far too easy a target for mockery, especially when it speaks out so frequently and so strongly against political issues.

 Still, if Celdran had pulled a similar stunt at a mosque and was consequently arrested for “offending religious feelings,” no one would think twice about it. In an episode of The Good Wife, there was a case involving attacks against Christians, and the police officer involved was asked about whether or not the complaint would’ve been taken more seriously if it came from, say, a Muslim. The witness said that of course it would be different, because then you have to take into account the capacity for violence. This is, of course, not meant to speak ill of any of our Muslim brothers and sisters in any way. It’s simply an observation that opinions come forth so much quicker when the fear of retaliation is absent.

Church and state

 There are then the people who say that because representatives of the Church were inappropriately pushing the Church’s stand on political issues within its walls, it was already defiled way before Celdran picked up his little placard. As a Catholic, I have very strong feelings about priests who choose to talk politics instead of preaching the gospel during Sunday Mass. I also have strong feelings about priests who abuse their positions as trusted stewards of a congregation. I have my own questions about the things that are taught by the Church, especially in relation to issues like homosexuality. But the clear abuse of the pulpit in no way validates the act of someone violating other people’s right to practice their faith peacefully. The right to a dissenting opinion doesn’t supersede all other freedoms, and no one should be able to justify an act of such vivid intolerance simply by saying, “Well, I think your religious institution isn’t being run the way it ought to be.” Regardless of whether or not you agree with someone’s faith, their freedom to worship is of equal importance as everyone else’s freedom of speech.

 Now, I don’t believe that Celdran deserves a maximum sentence because of that incident, and I do think that to do so possibly sets a dangerous precedent for any similar cases that may follow. I believe that he was well within his rights to protest, had he done it elsewhere. I believe that he is also well within his rights to contest the charge. I definitely agree with the statements following the incident saying that we should ask more from our religious leaders, that we should demand for accountability where it matters, that we should question, that there should be more open avenues for communication between those leading and those following. I also believe that this case shouldn’t take up as much time or coverage as it already has, when we are a nation that is in so much need and have cases that deserve far more attention. (Like, say, the Maguindanao massacre. Are we just going to pretend it never happened?)

 What I don’t believe in, however, is calling Celdran a hero. Petulant behavior and activism are two very different things, just as theatricality and heroism are two concepts that should never be confused for one another. There will always be a place for human decency and respect, even in times of passionately opposing views, and it is a value we cannot ever afford to lose. Because while we may deserve more from those we look up to at the pulpit, we also deserve more from those we put on the pedestal.

* * *

Tweet the author @gabbietatad.