Offending an Arse's Feeling.

Unless you live inside a cave, Carlos Celdran has been slapped by the MTC with “Offending the Religious Feelings” under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) for his Padre Damaso stint in 2010 at the Manila Cathedral while in the middle of a Mass service.

Damaso. http://rcmcorner.multiply.com/journal/item/51/

In 2010, I wrote an article thinking that his bravado was a futile attempt to cut his RH message across. Sure, it got media mileage, but at the expense of looking like a failed Ibarra. The article received a lot of flak from friends and not-so-friends alike, but some agreed on my points. My main problem with Celdran’s act was that it offended people who went there for the pure reason of celebrating faith. Call me old-fashioned all you want, but my when I am communicating with my God, I want to do it without someone making a mockery or fuss out of my celebration.

If he wanted to offend the Catholic Church, there are ways and means of doing it. Anybody from the left to the hackers can easily give him pointers. But offending people who celebrate faith was an entirely different concept. I ended it with a question that if the people from Muslim faith made similar issues with the RH Bill, will Carlos do the same stunt inside a Mosque? Beats me.

There’s an ongoing clamor to free Carlos now, particularly in online sites such as Twitter and Facebook. People think that Carlos has already said sorry for his offense, and as such, he should be off the hook. Some even argue that he is merely exercising his freedom of speech and of expression, as guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution.

But committing an offense and consequently saying sorry are not synonymous to freedom from punishment. “Dura lex sed lex” is a common Latin phrase in any first year law student’s notes, which means the law may be harsh, but that is the law. We clamor Congress to pass laws such as the Sin Tax, RH Bill, only to question the efficacy of the provisions thereof years from now. True, the RPC was drafted in 1927, and it may no longer reflect the current tides of change. But as long as it has not yet been amended or repealed, we have to face its consequences. We can’t always eat the proverbial cake, and complain of a toothache afterwards.

Reading Article 133 of the RPC, it appears that the proclivity to be notoriously offended lies with the flock. I haven’t read the complaint/information, but I bet the Catholic Church/CBCP was a party to the case. Thus, if the case proceeded, this simply means that the Catholic Church/CBCP didn’t make any attempt to dismiss the case.

Whether the Catholic Church is for forgiveness as what Christ teaches will be magnified in the succeeding days. The pressure from online people and mass media might also add impact on how the situation pans out. Between you and me, we still silently root for Carlos’s, even if we were slighted a bit by what he did. Because, admit it or not, you have buried the deed in the recesses of your psyche, and view him now as a hero who stood his ground at whatever’s cost.