7 Catholic bishops each received a Pajero from ex-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA). This allegation was made by Margarita Juico, chair of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).
Juico told the Inquirer that GMA “moved to divide the bishops by getting some of them on her side to ensure that the CBCP (Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines) would not have a unified stand on her.” According to the Inquirer report, “Juico said that she was told by some of the agency’s old-timers that these ‘donations’ to the Church leaders had become standard practice since Arroyo faced a real threat of removal from office with the ‘Hello Garci’ election cheating scandal six years ago.
The CBCP replied by saying it didn’t accept bribes “as a group.” But it did not deny the allegations that 7 bishops were bribed with Pajeros (emphasis mine):
Msgr. Pedro Quitorio, media director of the CBCP, said the Church hierarchy as a group did not avail itself of the supposed extravagant gifts from PCSO during Arroyo’s term.
“The CBCP as a body did not have any part in that…” Quitorio said.
How easy would it have been for Msgr. Quitorio to say that none of the CBCP bishops received a Pajero? To me this is almost as good as admitting that there were indeed some bishops who were bribed by GMA.
And according to Juico, these Pajeros were given a few months before GMA stepped down. What other expensive gifts were given as part of GMA’s “standard practice” of “donating” to the CBCP?
It is not enough for Quitorio and the CBCP to disassociate themselves with the individual bishops who accepted bribes in spite of the official position of their organization. If Juico’s allegations are true, it was the dissent of these bribed bishops that ensured the CBCP would not go against GMA’s administration. This silence amidst obvious corruption was an organizational action, and the CBCP as a whole is guilty for it.
I hope the PCSO continues its investigation into this scandal. Juico’s allegations are serious, and needs to be backed by evidence. At the same time, the CBCP should do its own investigation and expose corruption within its own ranks. Otherwise, with all their crusades against gambling and corruption and immorality, they will be nothing more than hypocrites.
Comments on the CBCP President's public apology regarding the pajero scandal:
1) while the apology specifically denied any malice on the part of the requesting bishops, it conveniently did not mention anything about the immorality of the requests! Nice one cbcp.
2) A true, sincere apology carries with it some form of atonement (i.e., the immediate return of the expensive vehicles in question, remedial measures employed to prevent its recurrence, "penalizing" the offenders). Sadly, this was conveniently absent! Great job!
[Therefore, our only real alternative is to take the legal avenue where all parties can empirically be validated. Willful and knowing acceptance of “illegal goods” is unlawful, and therefore a crime, and based on this, indictments against the bishops can be secured. Anyone with cojones who likes to bring these miscreants to justice? ]
Actually, authorities have been after the Vatican's sex offenders for years. The problem is that the Vatican itself is actively trying to stall efforts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/28/us-belg…
You make a valid point.
However, keep in mind that the institution itself remains neutral with regard to their beliefs, and the money these people donate may not necessarily go to causes within the organization they believe in.
Such was the case with the Vatican telling its followers not to donate to Amnesty International because it was pro-RH
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6750887.stm
I would also add that if you look at most of the groups and political parties in the US that encourage racial a LGBT discrimination are composed of Right Wing Christian organizations. NOM and AFA come to mind.
[But to make sweeping condemnations or indictments for the evil deeds of some, I think is going a bit too far. ]
And that is why then I attack religion, I aim my barbs at either the belief itself, or at the institution that claims to uphold it
I don't normally attack people unless they prove themselves to be god-bothering bigots, or if I strongly disagree on how their faith-based morality works. It's mostly a person-to-person affair, and depending on the circumstances, I can be civil. Tit for tat.
[Nor do I believe that all Muslims are terrorists.]
I don't believe that either. However, I think it's ridiculous for moderate muslims to be outraged at minor slights such as people drawing muhammad, while remaining willfully ignorant – if not resorting to outright denial – of the atrocities committed by the extremists within their faith.
[The Muhammad cartoon controversy I believe was virtually a non-issue in the moderate Islamic states of Turkey & Indonesia, among others,and to the 150 million Muslims in India. ]
You might want to read the news then. Indonesia's muslim community was not very happy with the cartoons: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/draw-prophet-…
http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/1274304251/jaka…
FB blocked their Draw Muhammad page in India due to protests as well. http://techie-buzz.com/india-tech/everybody-draw-…
Neither did I hear voice of outrage from them against the fundamentalists who resorted to death threats that to forced one of the people who drew Muhammad to request FBI protection.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/09/16/everybody-d…
[Muhammad, a revered figure in Islam, was to the eyes of the Muslims blasphemed through irreverent depictions, and in my opinion, justified reactions of outrage and resentment. As in the case of Indonesia, Indonesia reacted commendably by resorting to peaceful protest, appealing to its people for calm and restraint, and calling upon FB to remove the event account. ]
The problems is exactly that – calling out for censorship just because somebody's religious feelings are offended. It would have been understandable for Indonesia's Muslim population to be outraged at the act, and voiced their displeasure.
It is their right after all, as is the right of anybody who decides to voice out their criticism of Islam itself, without having to worry about censorship. The problem is that it didn't stop there – and resulted in them silencing dissent against their religion by having an FB page closed down.
Thy answered with censorship.
[But given time, I think we will see in Indonesia greater freedoms accorded its citizens and more policies liberalized, including but not limited to, relaxing or revoking its censorship laws.]
As a democracy, Indonesia should learn that even if Muslims are the majority, there will be people of other faiths within the population
These people will have as much right to free speech as their Muslim kin, and should not be prosecuted for criticisms of Islam, much in the same way that muslims should not be prosecuted for raising criticisim of other religions, now matter how much it stings.
While I agree that Indonesia is making progress, it still has a long way to go.
Donations to an organization (i.e., church) can come in many forms, like cash (from the palace, pagcor, parishioners, etc.), kind (medicines, expensive vehicles, etc.), or a combination thereof. A recipient of such donation, on the other hand, has the option to accept or refuse such "gifts", depending on the nature of the gift/donation, the donor and, more importantly, the "intention" behind the donation.
Analyzing the "pajero scandal", we can easily discern the following:
1- the donation was in the form of an expensive vehicle for the exclusive use of a person (bishop) and not the organization (cbcp);
2 – the recipient of the donation was a bishop and not his organization;
3 – the donor was the state (pagcor/palace) headed by a corrupt/morally-bankrupt president;
4 – the recipient/s, after receiving the "donation", never criticized the government, either individually or as a member of their organization.
Draw your own conclusions from the foregoing, about the morality of these recipients (I personally doubt if only 7 bishops ever received these kind of gifts from the palace or GOCCs) and the organization they represent (cbcp)…
Whose name is on the Pejaros registration? Priest aren't allowed to own anything right?
So the loyalty of God can be bought. Who would have thought?
correction: the loyalty of those who *think* they speak for God can be bought.
you hear the words "This is the Word of God" so many times… funny thing is, they always come out of the mouth of men
ah yes masters of circular reasoning.
more like master of ventriloquism 🙂
God uses them as his "mouthpiece", thus they are technically his ventriloquist dummies… or just plain dummies, if you prefer 🙂
[…] Robert Reyes said that Catholic bishops got a lot more than the Pajeros allegedly given to them by ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo […]
If they can protect lowly priests from allegations of pedophilia, what's stopping them from protecting bishops from allegations of corruption? I mean, come on, isn't corruption already standard practice? If the Church selling indulgences is not corruption (which is analogous to the Supreme Court selling get-out-of-jail cards), then I don't know what is.
Purgatory being fictitious is of course the final icing on top.
I don't think he was referring to all priest.
I would like to look at the RCC just like I would any other government or corporations. The organization is bound to have some bad eggs. The biggest difference though, the RCC claims to be holy men of "God" and claim to have a vow of poverty, which they go around using technicalities.
I know of a provincial parish priest who bought my dads horse, and yes, he bought it with money, not some lame promise of entry into an imaginary place.