Nalzaro: ‘San Pedro Calungsod’

Sunday, February 26, 2012

I RECEIVED varied reactions on my column last Saturday entitled “Pedro Calungsod was an Ilonggo.” Some accused me of being anti-Catholic and should be condemned and ostracized by the church. Others urged me to apologize to the church for spreading misinformation about Calungsod.

They also questioned my credibility as a journalist for using Google and Wikipedia as my sources of information, which are not very reliable.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

However, there were others who supported my position. But before some devout Catholics condemn and “hang me,” let me explain my side.

I am not anti-Catholic because I have embraced the faith since birth. I was baptized in the Catholic Church. We were raised by our parents in Catholic ways and teachings.

My lola and my mother, Nanay Doring, were very religious. I can recall that my lola would require us to pray with her every night at six in Latin. But I am ashamed to admit that I am not a devout Catholic because I seldom attend mass. However, I go to church openly and pray on my own. My relationship with my God is personal. I don’t need an intervenor like a priest. Why should I? Some priests are more sinful than I am.

Why should I be condemned and ostracized? Did I commit something grave to offend the church? I don’t need to apologize because I did nothing wrong. And was that article blasphemous? I don’t know if they know the meaning of blasphemy. Can’t the ordinary faithful like me question some of the teachings and doctrines of the church? We are no longer in the friar days that whatever our church leaders tell us, we just swallow it hook, line and sinker. What was the reason our national hero Dr. Jose Rizal revolted against the Spanish regime? One of these was because of the abuses committed by the friars in that era. Remember his book “El Filibusterismo”?

One of those who reacted “violently” to my column is a Filipino based in the US, who claims to be in the field of information technology. He chided me for using Wikipedia and Google as my source. He said in the US students are banned from using these online search engines as references because these are not reliable sources of information. He said anybody can just set up a blog and put in the wrong information. So this guy doesn’t believe in Google Earth and other information that can be found in the Internet?

He even suggested that I go check with the National Statistics Office (NSO) before I start claiming Pedro was an Ilonggo. A funny and foolish idea. NSO cannot even provide data on some people in this generation, much more on people in the 17th century.

Articles about Pedro Calungsod in the Internet are attributed to writers, not blogs from unknown individuals. And all the articles I have read say that Pedro was born in Molo, Iloilo City around 1655. Therefore, he was an Ilonggo by birth. So what’s the big fuss? Maybe the church should come up with an official website about Pedro to refute other published articles about him.

Even Msgr. Ildebrando Leyson, vice postulator and the one who conducted extensive research on the biography of Pedro, was not even sure Pedro was a Cebuano. With all due respect to Msgr. Leyson, he was just reconstructing the biography of Pedro based on various references published by Jesuit priests/historians who were conducting research for the sainthood cause of Jesuit missionary Padre Diego Luis San Vitores, who headed the delegation to the Ladrones Island in Guam.

Pedro was not specifically mentioned in the biography of San Vitores. He was only referred to as “Bissaya,” “Muchacho (helper)” and “Niño (boy).”

Pedro was not properly identified as a Calungsod and as a Cebuano. People in that generation, meaning the natives, did not have family names.

There were versions suggesting that Pedro was not a Calungsod but a Calangsor, Calungsor or Calansor. But maybe to suit the agenda of some Cebu-based church officials who moved for the beatification and sainthood of Pedro, they used the family name Calungsod because it is common here in Cebu.

Local historian Resil Mojares, in his article “The Epiphany of Pedro Calungsod,” had some doubts about Pedro being a Cebuano. Historian John Schumacher S.J., in his article “Blessed Pedro Calungsod, Martyr: An historian comments on his Philippine background,” also shared Mojares’s opinion.

But we will no longer argue whether Pedro was an Ilonggo or Cebuano because the latest update is that the Vatican has dropped the idea of calling Pedro Calungsod “San Pedro de Cebu.” He will be simply called “San Pedro Calungsod.” Amen.

(bobby.nalzaro@yahoo.com)