THE ENORMOUS FIGURES of seized ivory smuggled "through" the Philippines--5.4 tons in 2009; 6.1 tons from China in 2006; 7.7 tons in 2005--prove the huge market of ivory in the country. It may be argued as a mere transhipment affair; but from all indications, it may not be so alone (why in the first place would smugglers from China passes through the Philippines? Does that make Philippine shipments to China safe by reputation?). By these figures alone we can surmise that these smuggling activities happen year in and out. With 2007 and 2008 reporting no cease or seizing of shipments, you can only presume that the supplies reached their intended receivers.
I noticed in Brian Cristy's National Geographic article "Ivory Worship" the perceivable excitement in the Catholic clerics he interviewed when speaking about the ivory icons. The reports from icon-makers in Manila on the regularity of Catholic clerics, religious and laity in their shops to purchase icons made from elephant tusks appeared consistent to such excitement.
The statement of suspended Monsignor Cristobal Garcia in describing a method of smuggling ivory icons illustrated an effective method widely used in protecting smuggled ivory goods from the eyes of the Philippine Customs. He even suggested to the journalist to place an ivory icon inside a casket for shipment to the United States. That statements betrayed a blatant disregard of the ban against elephant tusks.
Father Jay knew very well that the ivory materials used in making icons were smuggled from the Muslim South, and even defended the acceptability of smuggling when he said, "It’s like straightening up a crooked line: You buy the ivory, which came from a hazy origin, and you turn it into a spiritual item." This smack of rationalization reminded me on how certain bishops justified accepting gambling money from Pagcor. That is exactly how money laundering works, coated in religious rationale or you may say justification. It sounds to me like "cleaning" the ivory materials in the same way that casinos had been known to "clean" illegally obtained monies. Didn't it sound more like letting religious devotion be inserted into the laundering process?
Nonetheless, Cristy failed to clarify whether the Garcia collection had been obtained before 1989, the year the ban had been placed worldwide. Such a failure brought a cloud of uncertainty on the legality of those purchases which we could presume to be antics, that is bought before 1989, thus completely legal. And you know in situations like these smoke can be more damaging than fire.
What we could not deny was the knowledge of Garcia and Father Jay in the ins and outs of ivory smuggling in the Philippines. And the leadership in the Catholic Church of the Philippines simply brushed it aside in the past; that is, before the Cristy article exploded. A denial from Archbishop Jose Palma could not remove the fact that the Church tolerated the participation of certain of her priests in the smuggling of ivory in the name of religious freedom, because such participation made at least the Catholic market a valuable Philippine market.
At the end of the day, so much of those who were to uphold morality had to be expected to live that morality too. And finding out that the teachers themselves failed to live up to what they taught could be a devastating affront both to the teaching and to the authority to teach. But these recent discoveries are welcomed events that could bring graces for the renewal of the Catholics as a whole. Oftentimes, a drowsy person had to be slapped hard to wake him up.
Comments
Post a Comment