Feeling me softly

The latest quasi-legal brouhaha: Judge/Justice/ Commission on Election’s Harriet Demetriou’s lawsuit against exorcist priest Fr. Winston Cabading. Her plaint: Her religious feelings were offended.

You might be wondering what she’s on about, especially since Fr. Cabading is a leader of the very church whose religion she was espousing. I’m scratching my head too.

Let me try to dissect the sequence of events as reported in the press. In 1948, Mama Mary was seen as an apparition in a Carmelite monastery in Lipa, Batangas. Now, that could have been news then, it still is news to me now. Apparition? What apparition? This one was named “Mediatrix of All Grace” and there are many religious persons (“devotees”) who believe in this apparition (patience, this is coming from a very lapsed Catholic).

One such devotee was Demetriou, and it would be interesting to research what history there was in the formulation and foundation of her devotion (material for a movie, perhaps?). Long and short of it, Demetriou believes firmly in the apparition and that Mama Mary was indeed in Lipa, land of horses and solar farms.

But, here comes Fr. Cabading, taking the position that the Vatican (represented by a “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith”) decided that the 1948 event didn’t have a “supernatural origin”. This decision was allegedly approved by one of the Popes Pius’ in 1951.

For some reason, as late as 2016, or 65 years later, even the authority of Pope Francis was invoked to affirm that no supernatural apparition in Lipa occurred. This was affirmed by Philippine Bishops in 2016 --and so we have here a situation where many men of the faith have denied Mama Mary ever showed up.

A few years later, and much like an apparition, this issue again arises. Demetriou accuses Fr. Cabading of (1) Denying the existence of the apparition (2) Preaching that demons can appear in many forms, even as angels and (3) Mocking Mary Mediatrix of All Grace and her devotees. As an undesirable result, she has impliedly “become a victim of his blasphemous indulgence”, and her religious feelings were offended.

But she’s a lawyer by training knows that under our 1932 penal code, she can prosecute him for a two-year jail sentence. Fr. Cabading was issued a warrant of arrest and spent the weekend in jail, celebrating Mass to the penal flock. Meanwhile, we now have this holy ruckus to contemplate.

One wonders whether this law should still serve to penalize anyone if the alleged offender is a member of the same faith, and the two parties are having a dispute about their articles of faith. If one disagrees with the other’s interpretation, and is offended, does that count? What if, as is the case here, one party has a superior position in the interpretation of religious doctrines? Wouldn’t his interpretation hold sway, and no matter how offended the member of the faith is, as a “mere” member, the interpreter’s interpretation trumps the beliefs, sensibilities, and yes, the feelings even, of the other?

In the context of the Catholic faith, (male) priests are supposed to be the conduits to their god. Females are just flock members, who should meekly follow the instructions and teachings of the male priests. How can a single wee lamb in the flock now dispute this exorcist’s particular teaching, and then use the local (secular) court system to repel what’s being taught on the ground that her feelings are offended?

We are on some tricky ground here, and we are sure to enjoy some ground-breaking jurisprudence as a result of this case. There are many other perspectives to consider, such as whether this law should even remain in our books.

I’ll bleat as soon as I have news (sorry, couldn’t resist the lamb/flock pun).

"We are on some tricky ground here, and we are sure to enjoy some ground-breaking jurisprudence as a result of this case. "