Fr. Ramon Echica
What you are currently reading is a postscript to what I wrote last Sunday about criticisms against clerics. There is one issue that, because of space limitations, I did not address. I am referring to criticisms whose authors prefer not to reveal themselves. Is it justified to remain anonymous while criticizing a specific person?
My answer here would have some ifs and buts. First of all, it is personally not my style to remain anonymous. I have always preferred to stick my neck out when speaking truth to power. This has brought me some troubles but that is a price I am willing to pay for standing up to my convictions.
In the interest of fairness, someone who criticizes an individual or a system must not remain incognito. In the issue at hand, I admire Justice Gabriel Ingles for not hiding under the cover of anonymity.
Unfortunately, anonymity has become a feature in social media. I am not necessarily referring to the Facebook page, “Whispers from the Walls” which has raised some valid issues and whose style of writing I admire. Rather, it is the whole social media context where anyone can take another profile picture, under a false name, and post any comment using gutter language. I venture to state that there is a correlation between anonymity and the amount of venom posted in social media.
Social psychologists indeed tell us that a person is easily emboldened to shout invectives whenever there is assurance that the source cannot be determined. I am reminded now of a principle I learned in high school journalism: “No one should write as a journalist what one cannot say as a gentleman.” Sadly, vloggers live by a different principle.
But having criticized the use of false names, let me also add that many heroes have employed pseudonyms to fight for their advocacies. Marcelo H. del Pilar used the penname Plaridel. Andres Bonifacio wrote under the pseudonym Agapito Bagumbayan. Graciano Lopez Jaena hid his identity using the name Diego Laura.
I remember that when I was still a student at Ateneo during the dark years of the martial law period, I read some insightful articles, written under the name Benjamin A. McClosky, which were critical of the socio-political situation then. After the people power revolution toppling the dictatorship, I came to know that Benjamin McCloskey was no other than the Jesuit sociologist Fr. John Caroll who was so soft-spoken that one would think he could not hurt an ant.
So, what is my conclusion after these ruminations: Using nom de guerre can be justified if there is the danger that the person or institution being criticized can get back at the author of the criticism. Otherwise, in the interest of fairness, it is imperative to use real names.
But let me go to the second point. I want to reiterate that clerics cannot expect to be spared from well-meaning criticism. Amidst criticism, it is not one’s cassock that should shield the cleric. Rather, it is the balm of a clear conscience that can soothe him and allow him to sleep well.
Almost all who commented agreed with me. But there was one who stated that the Bible prohibits us from criticizing priests. I am not sure which Bible she was referring to. It could neither be the Hebrew Bible nor the Christian Bible. The prophetic tradition found in the Hebrew Bible contains strong condemnations of sacrifices offered by priests in the temple if these were not accompanied with pursuit for justice.
In the Gospels, Jesus who did not belong to the priestly tribe of Levi, denounced the temple establishment. He was enraged when he visited the temple. A day after the temple incident, the chief priests were among those who questioned by what authority did Jesus do what he did at the temple. The chief priests were still around when Jesus narrated the Parable of Wicked Tenants. In this parable, a man leased the vineyard to some tenants. But the tenants behaved as if they owned the vineyard, and even killed the owner’s son. The owner represents God, the vineyard Israel. But among those Jesus criticized as behaving like they owned the vineyard were the chief priests. Lest we forget, the chief priests were among those who plotted to kill Jesus. Judas betrayed Jesus to the chief priests. They were part of the arresting party. They brought Jesus to the Sanhedrin and later to Pilate. They could not bear the attacks of Jesus against them.
Citing the Bible should be more than enough to prove my point. But if one needs more convincing, he or she can read Pope Francis who calls clericalism “a perversion and the root of many evils in the Church.”