THE HOLY WEEK BAN ON EATING MEAT

Throughout the Roman Catholic Church, the law of abstinence and fasting prohibits the flock from indulging in meat diet on duly designated days, particularly during Lent.  Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat, according to the appreciation of many intelligent and law-abiding Christians.  For this reason, recourse to a menu of fish or similar cold-blooded creatures of the sea has been suggested and considered not at variance with the church law on abstinence.

And so, after the morning mass this Palm Sunday, my family and I proceeded to the wet market to buy lots of fish and none of meat in preparation for the forthcoming Holy Week.

I now suddenly remember that when I was a child -- that was many, many years ago -- I often asked my parents the rationale behind the Roman Catholic Church's  ban on the eating of meat during the Lenten Season.  They had always explained to me that avoiding meat during Lent symbolized self-denial and sacrifice in atonement with the sufferings of Jesus on the cross.  Indeed, if Jesus had given up His life to redeem mankind from sin, why then could not we, His followers, replicate a wee bit of that sacrifice by at least momentarily denying ourselves of, or giving up, that which we relish and find difficult to do without.  The delicious meat viands are truly one of such.

When I grew up and spent one Holy Week among some Christian relatives who lived in the mountains of Oriental Mindoro and who daily survived on hunting birds and other warm-blooded animals for food, I asked my uncle -- who I knew to be a Christian -- if they also abstained from eating meat come Lent.  He said yes, adding that, as a matter of fact, Lent was a rare occasion when they usually went -- as surely they soon would, even inviting me to join -- down the mountain to a nearby beach or fishing village, where they could savor fish for a change and buy extra servings for the rest of the Holy Week.  To them, according to my uncle, that occasion was a most welcome departure from their usual staple of birds and wild boars, of whose flesh they were nearly  "naduduwal at sawang-sawa na," in a manner of speaking.  I asked myself: was that sacrifice?

Maybe -- just maybe -- it's high time we had taken on a truer and deeper meaning than what we used to give it for so long in our traditional commemoration of the Lenten Season.

THE MYSTERY OF THE STATIONS OFTHE CROSS

It's Lent once again.  One of the more common traditions by which people commiserate with the death and crucifixion of Jesus is to kneel down and reflect on the fourteen Stations of the Cross that adorn the walls of all Roman Catholic churches.  There are two ways of doing this.  The first is singly, whereby one prays before each station from the first to the fourteenth in a given church.  The second is done in groups, whereby people usually rent a van, pack it with food and drinks, travel to fourteen different churches, and then reflect on one station per church. Both fairly comply with the penitential exercise of going through the fourteen episodes comprising Jesus' passion on the cross. the difference lies in one visiting only one church and reflecting on fourteen stations, while another visits fourteen different churches and prays also on  fourteen stations.

The visita iglesia has since not been immune from criticism.  For one thing, many considers it to be more of a summer outing -- what with the food and drinks galore in a season dedicated for fasting and self-denial -- than a truly religious penitential exercise. For another, some tends to ask: Why can't the participants make the most of the occasion by praying not before just one station, but before all the fourteen stations, per church?  They say that while the process might entail 14 times 14 or 196 stations being prayed over, all told,  it would not really take too long with the luxury of a van.  In addition, wouldn't that be far more symbolic of one's holy week repentance?

I agree with this observation.  As a matter of fact, having tried the lengthier process many times in my younger days -- taking public transport instead of a private car or van, at that -- I then felt completely fulfilled in my once-a-year penitential exercise.  (Of course, at my age I cannot do that any more).  At any rate, I am saying all these not as much to criticize those that seems to be "noynoying" in their visita iglesia religiosity as to reveal something that perhaps only very few people know.   Those visiting churches and praying over only one station, or episode, in Jesus' passion on the cross per church, may have not realized it, but would you believe that different churches nowadays display different sets of the Stations of the Cross?

For example, in one church, Jesus fell on the cross for three times while only once in another;  the wiping of the blood on Jesus' face by Veronica is common in some churches, absent in a few others; while the scene where Jesus promises God's kingdom to Dimas, the Good Thief,  may appear in one church but not in another.  And most surprising of them all is that some churches depict fifteen stations instead of the traditional fourteen.   

It's a good thing, the Internet does have a ready answer for any question.  The truth is, Pope John Paul II had removed from the traditional fourteen stations all episodes that lacked biblical reference or significance, and replaced them with those that have.  Hence, a new set of fourteen Stations of the Cross that is entirely different from the old or traditional has been in effect since Good Friday of 1991. I ask this year's visita iglesia penitents to prove this by themselves.  Chances are, having done so, some of them may have the courage to ask their respective Father Confessors: "Why are you defying the Pope's encyclical, Father?"

Happy Easter to one and all!       

TO HELL WITH POLITICAL SURVEYS!

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago has an axe to grind in vehemently questioning the authenticity and validity of the results of the two successive surveys on the ongoing impeachment case against CJ Renato Corona.  The first survey says 47% of the respondents believes Corona will be convicted.  The second, conducted much later, says 73% believes Corona is guilty and should be convicted.  Methinks both surveys are suspect for  lack of proper timing and objectivity.  Indeed, why should surveys be conducted (unless it's one-sided) at a time when only one side, that of the prosecution, had completely presented their case while the other side, the defense, had barely presented theirs to the impeachment court, and hence, to the public?  Anyway, so be it.  Perhaps -- but just perhaps! -- there are still people in our midst and times who, being born only yesterday, so to speak, tend to swallow everything they hear or read  hook, line and sinker.  Ah, not being one of them, but one who uses his common sense first and foremost, let me present my humble take on these surveys -- of which my objections do not necessarily mirror those of Sen. Miriam. .

First off, it has been in the news that the Pulse Asia survey saying 47% thinks Corona is guilty should be music to the ears of the prosecutors. Excuse me, but whoever thinks so should rehearse his arithmetic and basic logic. Even granting the far-fetched happenstance that the 47% would really reflect in the eventual votes of the senator-judges, that survey result should sound not music, but an alarm bell, for the prosecutors.  That is because to convict Corona, 16 senators, or 67% of 24 is necessary.  Now, between the date those survey results was released and the time the senators had to write their verdict, the relatively more credible thing to happen -- well, if one uses his coconuts -- is for that 47% to go down, instead of to go up? Why? Again for the commonsensical reason that the prosecution may no longer present newer evidence since they had practically rested their case, whereas the defense does have the luxury of time and the fullest opportunity to shoot down the prosecution's evidences one by one, and thus convince some into re-thinking more rightly that Corona need not be impeached. 

Meanwhile, there is reason to believe that whoever had been behind, or conveniently financing, these surveys had realized that the Pulse Asia survey results were not enough, and so, the SWS had to be engaged. The latter now says 73% of respondents believes Corona is guilty and should be convicted.  Indeed, this new number, if an honest reflection of the senators' will, may be far beyond the 67% of the senator votes that are needed to convict Corona. But then, for the survey results to rise from Pulse Asia's 47% to SWS' 73% after the defense had begun presenting their case -- during which, let's take note and get real, the prosecution's evidence had been gradually but steadily disintegrating -- is downright unthinkable from the sheer stand point, again, of plain common sense.   Unfortunately, there are still some amongst us who either doesn't have one, or, if he has, doesn't use it.  Excuse me, I'm not one of them!  

As things are, one Senator has recently opined that the SWS survey results might influence the senators' votes.  Indeed, if the 73% who believes Corona is guilty truly reflects the voice of the people, then senators running for re-election next year may admittedly tend to vote for Corona's conviction, rather than antagonize the electorates and lose in their reelection bid next year.   This is politics at work! But let us please use our coconuts once again!  If ever the senators who fear losing in next year's poll would really throw away their principles and all sense of fairness by voting for Corona's conviction (I refuse to buy that)  how many are we talking about?  Last time I looked, there are only 6, a number that is miles away from the 16 needed to convict the CJ.  At any rate, I may have counted them wrongly, so I ask the readers to take their own inventory in this respect.  That is, of the incumbent senators now in their first term and would try to win their second in 2013.

To sum up, methinks people who are "atat na atat" to see Corona out should better re-invent their strategy.
The thing is, it may already be too late at this point in time, when, let's face it, the case against Corona, has been fast collapsing.    Let us just liken he who thinks otherwise to a poker player who realizes he does not hold the winning hand but must yet at least convince others, if vainly, that he does, and try to amuse himself by replying, "Call!" to the last bet.   Happy Easter to one and all!