Wednesday, October 18, 2006 Nalzaro: Lifestyle check needed By Bobby Nalzaro Saksi
In the monthly recollection of the Cebu clergy on Dec. 13, 2005 at the Sacred Heart Center, His Eminence Ricardo Cardinal Vidal reminded priests to live a simple and modest life. The message was the banner headline of the Dec. 18, 2005 issue of “Ang Bag-ong Lungsuranon,” the official newsletter of the Cebu Archdiocese.
In that gathering, Vidal told the priests that, as servants of God, they should not enrich themselves from what they received from their flock and other fund raising activities.
Following the theme, “Becoming Good and Faithful Stewards: Solidarity, Participation and Service,” the cardinal reminded the priests of the three things they should practice in their vocation.
The first is mindset, which means sharing their blessings. The second is lifestyle. The cardinal reminded them that they should live within their means. The third is outlook, which means that the dignity and value of a priest is not based on the material things he possesses but through his real and genuine intention to serve his flock.
Contrary to Vidal’s reminder, some priests do enrich themselves and have high-profile lifestyles. They have luxurious vehicles and amass questionable properties.
While priests, especially under the archdiocese, are allowed to own properties, some acquire these under allegedly questionable circumstances, like in the case of Pardo parish priest Constantino Diotay and his assistant, Fr. Domingo “Sunday” Tapic.
In his counter-affidavit, Diotay admitted owning some of the properties listed in the documents distributed to the media by a group of Pardo parishioners. The parishioners are demanding the transfer of the two priests for alleged immorality and non-transparency in the use of the donations that the church received.
So where did Diotay get the money to buy the properties? Tapic, for his part, came up with a general denial, saying the allegations were lies and fabrications.
Will Church leaders swallow hook, line and sinker the version of Diotay and Tapic on the issue without looking at the documents distributed by the parishioners?
The archdiocese has formed a grievance committee composed of Monsignors Rommel Kintanar of Mabolo and Adel Abella of Mandaue that investigated Diotay and Tapic. But is it true that while the committee has recommended the transfer of the two priests the cardinal rejected the recommendation? Was there a threat to expose the other priests who also amassed properties under questionable circumstances?
If true, this development is very intriguing. Why won’t the archdiocese conduct a lifestyle check on priests, especially those assigned in big parishes?
