What have we learned?
The misinterpretation of Manny Pacquiao’s comments on homosexuality had longer legs than expected, and wider ripples than anticipated. Yet almost everyone who proudly gave their two cents’ worth (even at the expense of Pacquiao himself), never really read or heard the full comment he made. With all this haze surrounding the matter, what have we really learned?
Pacquiao was taken out of context. The saddest part of the non-story that gained international attention is that Pacquiao’s comments were taken out of context. The original interview included his stating his compassion for his countrymen regardless of their sexual orientation. Editing for the sake of brevity is always a challenge in broadcasting, but this smacks of sensationalism at Pacquiao’s expense. If the entire quote had been included, or the other important parts also mentioned, the situation would have been much more peaceful, and there would have been a lot less hate-mongering around.
People only read headlines. Have we gotten so lazy that we fall victim to the skill of a crafty headline editor? We get riled up over something that is designed to get attention, not give us the full account. The headline is a “welcome, please come in” sign. You don’t say a coffee shop serves great lattés if all you know is that they have a nice sign outside. As a society, our reading public is very impatient. There is what is quoted, what was actually said, its context, and the potential biases of the person or entity that published the quotes. Despite all our protestations to the contrary, we often choose to judge books by their covers.
Filipinos enjoy being hysterical. People feel this pressing need to have their say, even when the issue is over. They want to jump in, weigh in, as if they really are never heard. But what is it that requires us to have loud, emotional, personal confrontations instead of sober, intelligent discussions about ideas? Granted, some of what has been tossed about is offensive to most any person. But few people seem to want to assume the high moral ground and either discuss it placidly, or let it pass as a celebrity simply making his opinion known. Twenty-four years ago, a small church in Quezon City started celebrating Tridentine mass (pre-Vatican II celebrations the Catholic church followed before 1976). When the Philippine Catholic church asked the Vatican if they should be sanctioned, they were told to let the other church be.
People are not as forgiving as they say they are. Let’s face it. These verbal jousts bring out a viciousness and vindictiveness in us Filipinos that is not admirable. There is a habit – partly fed by decades of slapping, hair-pulling and spicy one-line zingers in our drama series – of raising the volume and heat in anything we disagree with. Strangely, this has not really translated into laws, unlike in countries like Russia where religious and cultural minorities are told by the government to leave.
The majority is speaking up. Many people jumped on the bandwagon and started bashing Pacquiao without knowing the full story. But there are millions more who appreciate him for having risked life and limb to make an honest living and bring recognition to the country. The majority is starting to speak up against the vocal but very small minority (some statistics say as low as four percent) who, without full knowledge of the facts, smear the man’s name entirely. The majority of those who found Pacquiao’s comments offensive simply resort to name-calling and dragging up old issues that have already been resolved, as if they themselves were incapable of making mistakes. Sadly, the great majority does not really discern who it looks up to. As long as someone makes them laugh, feel romantic, or feeds them, they’ll offer their loyalty, even their votes, and simply endure consequences they could have changed at the outset.
The church has kept quiet. Is it because Pacquiao has not been a practicing Catholic? The deafening silence of the Catholic church has been one of the biggest disappointments for Catholics in the Philippines. For all the differences, Pacquiao was, after all, quoting the Bible, the bedrock of the Catholic faith. The church missed a golden opportunity to take a magnanimous stand and win over the millions who embroiled themselves in this small issue. Having said that, we’ve also learned that...
The Bible must be interpreted properly. Holy Scripture also says “Thou shalt not kill.” But that is not absolute. Selfdefense and protecting a pregnant mother’s life are justifiable situations for terminating someone else’s existence. Are we to stand idly by when our loved ones are threatened with mortal harm? Again, the Bible was written by humans (with God’s guidance) over 2,000 years ago. It has to be contextualized and understood. None of us are experts on theology, yet we grasp one thread of a verse, and defend it with all our might, without fully grasping its significance. The Bible also said that there is only one commandment, and that is love. Are we being loving when we insult and name-call someone simply because they disagree with our lifestyle? That’s not being a good Christian, that’s being a hypocrite.
Pacquiao is steadfast in his beliefs. Pacquiao’s caveat is that he cares for his countrymen, but disagrees with the actions of some, which is how it is in a democracy. As for the shoe company that dropped him, that deal had already been cold for years, though Pacquiao, ironically, has publicly been loyal to the brand. Whatever you say about him. This speaks volumes about his character. And incidentally, despite all the uproar, it will not cause the postponement of the fight with Timothy Bradley. The bulk of advertising and tickets and pay-per-view monies will come from the US, not the Philippines.
Ironies abound. It seems strange to me that the most vocal critics who reacted to Pacquiao’s statement are no paragons of virtue, either. When you think about it, even if boxing is a harsh sport, you are still attempting to do physical harm to a consenting adult. Some of those who’ve attacked Pacquiao have built their wealth on vulgar humor, insulting unwitting victims, and digging into the private lives of others, giving half-hearted apologies when the public reacts adversely. Many have reacted with a certain sense of entitlement, a superiority which Pacquiao himself has never brandished. This writer finds it a disturbing observation.
The real issue is the Filipino’s belief system. We have to continually ask ourselves: what do we stand for? Are we amused by vulgar entertainment, do we vote for people who don’t have a track record? And do we entertain the foolish notion that celebrity or expertise in one area makes someone good in everything? We all have that dark, corruptive little voice inside us that tarnishes us little by little. How much do we give in to it?