Businessman Manuel V. Pangilinan, former chairman
of the board of trustees of Ateneo de Manila University, had irrevocably
withdrawn his support for the Ateneo because of differences over mining issues
and the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.
After serving in a high post in the university’s
Board of Trustees, and as a generous benefactor to the Jesuit university’s many
programs of excellence which include the MVP Center For Student Leadership, the
sports program, the school’s debating society, the glee club and many other
projects that benefited from his financial support he decided to disengage
himself with finality on affairs that are Ateneo.
His parting message was “...we have come to the
irretrievable point where it is best and appropriate to draw the line in the
sand, to conclude that we have little or no common interest, and to say that
I’d look like a fool helping an institution which opposes my conviction
diametrically and unequivocally.”
Expectedly, a wave
of reactions, some good and some unfortunate, came from the Alumni and the
studentry of the Ateneo ensued. Many understood MVP’s situation and were
sympathetic to the decision made by him, others felt that this was a wake-up
call to Ateneans and the Ateneo not to be overly dependent on a single
benefactor and to be self reliant by rallying the alumni to be more active in
their support of their alma mater. There were those who said that he may have
been less of an Atenean because he was not really “true blue” as he had his
formative years with San Beda and only joined the Ateneo in college. A remark
like this did not go unnoticed because it smacked of elitism, a “kayabangan”
that Ateneans have been accused of by many for years long standing. It ruffled
the feathers of those alumni who did not spend their early years in the Ateneo
as this ill advised attempt at categorizing Ateneans into different shades of
blue alienated quite a few whose blueness have now been placed in scrutiny.
One could not
completely blame those who tried to make this differentiation. The hurt was
palpable and the umbrage taken was deserved; a reaction to MVP’s abrupt and
resolute disengagement with the Ateneo. Others felt that it was almost a
treasonous act, a stinging rejection of the beloved alma mater, an affront to the
revered and closely held Ignatian values. Of course, denigrating MVP’s stature
as an Atenean is unconscionable and some of those who originally felt this way
have relented and have expressed regrets for their impulsive reaction. After a
while most agreed to just let it be to have a closure to the whole thing but
the odour of it may linger for a while as sensibilities have been roused and frayed.
The Jesuit Reaction
To the credit of
the Jesuits their reaction to the event has been conciliatory and has expressed
their gratitude for all the support that MVP has lent to the Ateneo. A
praiseworthy and non-recriminate response to what could have been a tinderbox situation.
Fr. Roberto Rivera, SJ of the John J Caroll Institute on the Church and Social
Issues has represented well the Jesuits response in his article “The Jesuit
Paper”. He said: “Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes
arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful
not to lose their respect and esteem for each other” (Mater et Magistra, 238).
If indeed there has been a necessary parting of ways, it is eased by an
overriding sense of gratitude and respect.
Art Hilado of college
class 66 made a call to unity as an aftermath of this event. He said that this
may well be a wakeup call to Ateneans to be more united and to be more active
and dedicated to their support to the alma mater. Perhaps, after the
reconciliatory note, the Jesuits could also review the treatment and regard
they gave a benevolent man who gave unstinting support to them and their
institutions. Was there an inordinate focus and a zeroing in on mining, an
industry where MVP had a lot at stake and may also be a cash resource to fund
other ventures that he had audaciously launched?
Another sore point
in the MVP Ateneo relationship is the contrarian stand that he had made against
the stance of the Catholic Church. Should he be taken to task by the Jesuits
for siding with the pro RH Bill proponents? In this issue, the Jesuits, even amongst
themselves are not one in their stance against the RH Bill.
The Golden Mean of Mining
Was the language used in the Jesuit paper on
mining really just a “talking point” or did it actually identify and underscore
the non-negotiables, the values and bottom-line stances?
The Jesuit paper suggests that these are
guidelines to SJSA and its members who would study and mull the issues in
mining. If it is such then it should not
be taken as dictates coming from the church. But the way the paper was nuanced and crafted it conveyed almost
unequivocally, was that most of it were non negotiable and are bottom-line
values and stances to be maintained. If the Jesuit guidelines on mining are not
absolute, negotiable and for further debate and discussion, then MVP’s rash
reaction would seem uncalled for, immature and a tad hysterical. It is an MVP
reaction that is easy enough to understand and not surprising to us and to the
many of us may who consider it to be adverse to him.
Did the Jesuit paper reinforce the CBCP general
statement that mining is evil…the Mining Act of 1995 destroys life, and categorically
opposed mining per se? Calling the paper as “talking points” may well have been
just Jesuitical doublespeak?
Despite the schism that
exists within the Ateneo, the Jesuit paper echoes the official position of the
CBCP.
The bishops as a group may
have lost some traces of credibility. They have this penchant for making
general statements without any empirical proof to support their
statements…worded like sermons and homilies to parishioners, invariably left
unchallenged. As Catholics we allow ourselves to accept the veracity of the church
acclaimed mysteries as an act faith but to carry this further in issues that
are lay and political in nature is going beyond their bounds. There is some amount of arrogance amongst some
of the clergy who seem to feel that they are still the Spanish frailes that can
talk down their parishioners without fear of contradiction. Not everyone, even
those who profess to be practicing Catholics, are as tractable as the faithful
of old. The church must realize that they no longer have the supreme authority
to prevail on people, to impose their stand on all issues, lay ones included. In
the mining issue and to a certain extent, in the RH Bill, persuasion through
reason should have been the tact and not merely on the strength of words
emanating from the pulpit.
Has the church been overly politicized? The Jesuit
Paper puts forth a political and pro poor position by allowing the poor subsistence
miners despite their disregard to the sins that big scale mining have been
indicted for. It is kind of “laissez faire” that contributes to a national
habit of mediocrity, an anathema to excellence, a coddling of those who choose
to be inefficient and an encouragement to the “puede na” fractured mentality. It
is a pro poor attitude that makes us a poorer nation...big scale mining in the
long term will alleviate the poor. Instant amelioration and transformation of
the poor man's plight is a myopic view and has never worked. Responsible big
scale mining will benefit all in the long term.
The Church together
with militant socio civic groups had always been suspicious of the motives of
industry and big business. They have good reason to be. A series of corrupt
government administrations in collusion with cronies in business (varying only
in degrees of greed) have earned them this regrettable regard. Perhaps a
lifting of the cloud of suspicion should happen since never have we had a more
honest and sincere leadership whom we can trust to do good on the citizens
behalf. Might it not be different under Pnoy whose track record has remained
unsullied thus far? Does Pnoy have cronies in business and industry? Is MVP one
of them?
It is true that MVP
should not have been rash in his decision to disengage with the Ateneo but it
would be naive to expect that somebody who has felt that he has been mistreated
by an institution that he has showered with his time and money and that the
least that the Ateneo could have done was to have refrained from taking
positions in public that are diametrically opposed to those of MVP’s. He may
have felt that the Jesuits with their paper on mining have singled him out by
attacking mining, an industry where he has a lot at stake and may be a fund
resource to fuel his other audacious business ventures.
One has to ask, why
mining? Why not fishing, logging, manufacturing, insurance, education plans,
banking, the medical business, beverages, the foods business, etc. etc. All
businesses and industries should attract the attention of those who seek to
protect the environment, correct social injustice, cultural warping, minority
group displacements, labour exploitation and other ills which you can throw in
to criticize any profit motivated venture and institution could easily be
criticized for. The same fine tooth comb should be applied to them as was done
to mining. If we were to make a Golden Mean for all these industries and
businesses our economy will be hamstrung by so many restrictions and probably
ground to a halt.
MVP, in his mind,
may have asked why mining? And why the Jesuits had to pick up the cudgels for
this cause? Are these the reasons why MVP chose to dissociate himself from the
Ateneo or are his daring investment and acquisition ventures souring up and he
needs a gracious exit from his predicament? The
mining issue which he might have depended on to fund his other ventures seem to
have reached an impasse and that he had
expected the Jesuits to be a bit more sympathetic of his woes because of the
favours that he had showered on them. The mention of plagiarism case may really
be just an additional beef (pamparami ng
sumbat), Trillanes’ accusation in the China deal didn’t help quiet his
discomfort and elicited another emotional outburst of threatening to pull out
his investments in more clement business climes like Hongkong.
It may seem that
the Jesuit involvement in this is a puzzlement, but then again, maybe not, as
morals and ethics are necessarily involved here.
Is there some form of Jesuit hubris at play here? Was this a way of
saying that we have not been bought by all the contribution MVP has made; not
beholden by any means and will not be acquiescent to his expectations of
support in mining.
