On February 25, 2022, 115 Jesuits had a full-page advertisement from the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The advertisement (full text below) was titled, “Statement of individual Jesuits in support of Leni Robredo and Kiko Pangilinan.” The first lines read,
“What is at stake: Our collective soul as a people–The basic values we aspire for have been threatened these past years. We grew accustomed to incompetence and impunity. We cheered vulgarity and indecency among our leaders. We tolerated widespread corruption and violence, especially in relation to extrajudicial killings. All these compromised our values, beliefs, and actions, and this compromise resulted in real and tragic consequences on the ground, especially in the loss of our collective soul, and we seek conversion.”
The above text had a tricky use of the pronoun ‘we’–this triggers the question, who exactly are ‘we’? This short essay wishes to untangle this use of ‘we’–it postulates that the Jesuits’ opening use of ‘we’ refers to the Filipino people. The succeeding use refers to themselves. There is no explanation for this scheme; this essay dares an interpretation.
The campaign chatter created by this coming election is deafening. There is a heightened antagonism between the supporters of the survey front runner son of the ex-dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr., Ferdinand Jr, and vice-president Leni Robredo in a far second. Unlike others, the Jesuits posited an insight that arrests the ongoing melee.
Obviously, as a campaign scheme, various groups endorse a candidate. But, how influential are these groups for voters to follow them? The standard endorsement comes in this form: candidate X is with character Y let us vote for candidate X. The Jesuits are different; the Filipinos caused their own trouble A, candidate X has the character to solve A, let us vote for X.
In concrete terms, the Jesuits appropriated the cause of the disturbing political condition to the Filipino people. They implied apathy and disregard for the wrongdoing of the Duterte administration and the uncritical acceptance of false claims and historical revisionism on the nature of the Marcos dictatorship. Call this a practical embrace of evil by the Filipinos. The Jesuits’ use of ‘we’ was to soften this point. They also humbly share in the blame. Unlike other statements of similar nature, the Jesuits distinctly blamed the Filipinos for their plight. This way, the solution is directed to the exact cause of the problem–the Filipinos.
The Jesuits are familiar with upheaval. Upon the prodding of European monarchs, they were suppressed in 1773 by Pope Clement IV. The cause of the suppression was the envy of their possession and influence. The suppression lasted for 41 years until Pius VII lifted it. Thus, this shows their predisposition to collide with rulers. To blame themselves for the plight of the Filipinos is incongruent to this predisposition.
In 1974 the military raided the Jesuit novitiate hunting for communist leader Jose Ma. Sison. Instead, they arrested Fr. Jose Blanco and several students attending a seminar; this could have started the rift between the Catholic Church and the Marcos dictatorship. Several Jesuit personalities were involved in the anti-Marcos dictatorship until the EDSA revolt in 1986. These Jesuits are Benigno Mayo, Romeo Intengan (both former provincial superiors), Blanco, known for his work with the poor and non-violence advocacy, and Guido Arguelles also worked with the poor and was with Radio Veritas. All four Jesuits have passed away. It would be safe to assume that younger Jesuits have stepped in to replace them in their advocacies.
Among the many who added to the political chatter, this Jesuit statement pointed to the fault of the Filipinos. It calls for conversion, a necessary condition to arrest the ongoing melee.
Red Lion Oratory 