Sunday, October 07, 2007 Lim: Holy or human By Melanie T. Lim Wide Awake
THE decision of the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office to dismiss all seven counts of acts of lasciviousness, child abuse and sexual harassment against Fr. Benedicto Zozobrado Ejares has drawn protest from all over. It isn’t so much the decision to dismiss these charges that riles many of us, it is the inanity of the reasons behind the dismissal that makes us fume.
It is ludicrous for anyone to opine that one cannot possibly be sexually harassed, molested or abused in a public place. Accounts of women being molested on trains and airplanes are not uncommon.
On March 6, 1983, 21 year-old Sarah Tobias was raped by three men at Big Dan’s Bar in New Bedord, Massachusetts. She was raped in full view of a roomful of men. If rape can happen in a place as public as a bar and in full view of witnesses, do we need to ask if acts of lasciviousness is improbable in a confessional?
I have heard a priest’s point of view on the “touching” issue. He claims it is not as easy as it seems. There are occasions, he says, when penitents initiate physical contact because they are in need of comfort. And priests are only human.
Let me point out two things here. One, this is clearly NOT the case with the students victimized by Ejares. Barely out of their teens, these kids were uncomfortable, at a loss on what to do, scared out of their wits. They were NOT in need of comfort. They did NOT initiate physical contact at any time.
Ejares imposed himself on these young girls. Whether or not Ejares was lecherous in his acts is not the case in point here. Whether or not what he did was his regular routine is irrelevant. Whether or not “private parts” were touched is also not the issue. Because private parts do not have to be touched for anyone to be sexually harassed, molested or abused.
There is just no justification for Ejares touching these girls, for whatever reason. None at all.
Second, priests often say, “they are only human.” I agree which is why I completely reject the notion that priests are “not ordinary human beings” as Investigating Prosecutor Alexander Acosta says of Ejares. One cannot be both holy and human. You can only be one of them. Take your pick.
And considering Ejares as the “alter ego of God” is undoubtedly the height of blasphemy. Is it not enough that these misguided souls have to use God’s name in vain? Must they use God’s name in defense of a crime guaranteed to gain all who are guilty entry into the gates of hell? With a prosecuting panel like this, who needs defense lawyers?
I cringe at the level of ignorance, incompetence and inanity involved in this case. But I say to those who believe justice has just died. Weep not. There is a higher court beyond the one that exists in this lifetime. Death is the greatest equalizer, they say. Indeed, whether holy or human, we will all get our comeuppance. One can flee to the far corners of the Earth, but one cannot flee from the gates of hell. Justice will be served.
