A cross Monsignor Dakay does not deserve

We are witnessing an unprecedented assault on Monsignor Achilles Dakay. He is taken to task in an increasing intensity that, if it were war, could be likened to the time when German V-1 rockets rained indiscriminately and destructively on Great Britain. Of course, the prelate is not subjected to any physical battery not even the kind of whipping we saw inflicted by Pacquiao on Marquez. For some though, not excluding me, it is worse. Mons. Dakay is getting tremendous flak for declaring (others call it blaming) a gay florist as the very source of a current unpleasant brouhaha and the debilitating attention it is undeservingly attracting.

If emotions were not allowed to interfere, and the things were examined with utmost objectivity, we would probably recall Shakespeare. There is just too much ado about nothing. I could hear “much ado” from radio air lanes. Commentators, what with their modulated voice, are ponderous in their searing attack and their listeners react with more vituperative language. Have I discerned, from the harshness of their words, a disregard of the person of Mons. Dakay? Yes, I could read “much ado” from the incisive columns written on the issue. And in remembering Shakespeare we could realize that the prelate was, after all correct.

I wish to advance the belief that Mons. Dakay was correct in his assessment of the situation. Having said that, I am of the opinion that he does not deserve this continuing chastisement. Why do I say that? Apropos to his calling, he was factual and realistic in his discourse. But, because he is now nailed to the cross of public opinion, it is important that we extrapolate from his statement.

We must remember that this incident really resulted from an overexploration of the gay florist’s sexual fantasies. His mind was, as indicated by the result, wild, while his corresponding act, furious and necessarily deviant. Such weirdness of thought and action could be gleaned from his actively seeking a partner of his same gender. Perhaps, in the passion of their reckless encounter, they overdid what was possible. One kinky act leading to another ended with an eventual disaster they were quite unprepared for.

The bishop, in attempting to lay the predicate of his declaration, might have stated it rather differently. Most of us were likely unprepared to accept his observation or worse, predisposed to reject it. It was possible that some of us, bigoted by our own unconditional acceptance of the prevalence of gays in our midst, never wanted to say anything hurtful to the cause of the third sex as if admitting a certain fact as declaration of war against them.

Nevertheless, I am comfortable in the thought that the essence of Mons. Dakay’s declaration was not at all lost notwithstanding criticisms against him. He was correct that, had not the gay explored the limits of his deviance, we would not be talking about this incident.

It is for us to build from that foundation of Mons. Dakay’s observation rather than vilify him. In our social desire to rectify what was behaviorally wrong or better still avoid its repetition, let the profundity of his words, initially painful though they may be, be appreciated by the gays. His caution must forewarn the third sex that man’s body has certain limits which should not be breached and that certain excitement need not cross the natural barriers posed by man’s anatomy.

At the same time let the words of Mons Dakay sink into the psyche of many other professionals. In the event there are lurid violations of the normal physical limits, let the professionals, who may be called for their expertise to remedy the situation, be faithfully bound first by their respect for fellow beings and second by the spirit and letter of their oaths. When these are observed, I submit that no incident similar to that which happened to the gay florist may recur.

*  *  *

Email: [email protected]