Solitary detractor

Manny Pacquiao has found one unique detractor in his very own bishop. Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez of the Diocese of Marbel, which happens to include Sarangani province where Pacquiao is the lone congressional representative, disapproves of boxing in general, and of Pacquiao continuing to engage in the sport in particular.

To Bishop Gutierrez, contact sports such as boxing, which essentially involve hitting the body, are a sin. The human body, according to him, is the temple of God, and willfully hitting it to inflict harm, even if done in sport, is no different than attacking that temple.

All Christians indeed understand that the human body is a temple of God. But they understand it in the context of their religious beliefs. I do not know if they can see the bishop’s point when it comes to sport, which is essentially a contest and a form of entertainment, in which case their is no real and willful intent to inflict harm.

If contacts sports such as boxing, which have been around for a long time, were such a bad idea as far as religion is concerned, one would have thought that the pope himself, who is God’s representative here on earth, would have condemned them himself and not wait for some obscure bishop to do the talking for God.

But the pope, who is considered infallible by all Catholics, has chosen not to speak out against contact sports, not even when the Olympics, among whose most popular games include boxing, wrestling and judo, was held right in his own backyard in Rome. The pope, God bless him, knows the difference between fun and sacrilege.

But since Bishop Gutierrez has opened the topic, it would be interesting to find out what he has to say about all the other assaults on the human body, which are clearly not for sports but to alter what God has designed for his living temple on earth. Has Bishop Gutierrez ever spoken out against those so-called aesthetic procedures that alter what people are born with?

I am sure that whenever the good bishop celebrates Mass, there are certain to be seated on the front pews some of the most well-heeled matrons in his diocese. And I am equally sure that from his vantage point from the pulpit, he can look down on their faces and see that how certain noses have been lifted, cheeks pulled back, and sagging chins tightened.

These aesthetic procedures may also include sucking away unwanted fats from bulging tummies and flabby buttocks, or boosting up sagging breasts. I have not exactly formed an opinion, pro or con, regarding these developments in the aesthetic sciences, but I bring them up now to see what Bishop Gutierrez has to say about them, in case he honestly missed them.

I do not think, however, that the bishop missed all that is happening to human bodies in mankind’s consuming drive and preoccupation with youth and beauty. If he is not personally aware of anyone engaged in such alterations, which is of course stretching credulity too thin, at the very least he must have taken notice of all the advertisements promoting them.

So what could be the reason why Bishop Gutierrez missed one of the most sweeping human preoccupations in the field of beauty and physical well-being and yet sit up and get nettled by what one boxer does in his sport, even if indeed that boxer happens to be the most popular in the world at this point.

Maybe the bishop and Pacquiao have not really connected, despite their proximity. Maybe there is just a little miscommunication between the two, you know, like Pacquiao maybe not giving Gutierrez the recognition and respect he anticipates from such a famous and influential personality in his midst.

You know, one naughty reporter actually had the temerity to ask the bishop whether Pacquiao has given any donations to the diocese. That was not a good question to ask, and the bishop sputtered and refused to answer. But come to think of it, why not indeed? Has Pacquiao shared his blessings with the diocese or not?