Reading 01

[OPINION] FINDING GOD IN DRAG:

A CATHOLIC TAKE ON PURA LUKA VEGA
JUL 15, 2023 10:00 AM PHT
PAT E R N O R . E S M A Q U E L I I

'How can vile comments against Pura Luka Vega constitute a defense of a faith that
teaches love, not hate?'

“What was your visceral reaction when you watched the video?” a colleague asked while
we were buying lunch a few days ago.

The talk of the town was the performance of Pura Luka Vega, a Filipino drag queen, who
dressed up as Jesus while the crowd danced to a rock version of the “Ama Namin” or “Our
Father.”

“I felt uneasy,” I told my friend.

I was born and raised a Catholic, I studied in Catholic schools and was even a sacristan
in grade school, and I continue to practice, study, and teach my faith now in my mid-30s. I am
used to the rigid structure of Roman Catholic liturgies, where all the words said at Mass, except
for homilies, have to be approved by Rome as part of a centuries-old tradition. The “Ama
Namin,” as I know it, is more like a slow and sentimental love song, not rock and roll.

But visceral reactions, driven by instincts, can be wrong. I needed to step back, reflect,
and view the issue through a different lens. Is there a way for a Catholic to interpret this not as
a form of blasphemy, but as an act of faith?

I am writing this not to pass judgment on Pura Luka Vega’s performance, but to open
our minds to a Catholic perspective that goes beyond black and white, good or bad,
blasphemous or not. Many things in life, after all, are gray areas filled with tension in our
complex world.

Different expressions of faith

First, we need to understand that religion comes in different shapes and sizes. When I
took post-graduate courses in religion in Singapore, and until now that I teach religion reporting
at a Catholic university in the Philippines, our classes would start with one basic principle: there
is no single, universally accepted definition of religion.
 Is religion a belief in God? But there are religions, such as Buddhism, that do not believe
in a supreme being. Is religion the practice of going to church? But there are religions, such as
indigenous ones, that do not use church buildings. “‘Religion’ may seem like a straightforward
term,” wrote my British professor, Paul Hedges, in his 2021 book Understanding Religion.
When we start to contemplate certain “categories and definitions,” however, “we soon find
ourselves facing a range of problems.”

We cannot put religions in a box with clear and distinct parameters.

It gets more complicated when it comes to individual religious practice. While churches
have rules and regulations, believers can have different ways of expressing their faith. Many
Filipinos blend folk superstition (e.g. sukob, pagpag, tabi-tabi po) with Catholic beliefs, for
example, to the dismay of bishops and priests. In Filipino-Chinese communities, many Catholics
put the Santo Niño side-by-side with Buddha for good luck. Every believer has the right to
express faith in his or her own way.

But, one might ask, what if the believer expresses faith in the most inappropriate of
places?

Which brings me to my second point: We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that
God can be found only in church buildings. From a Catholic perspective, God became man –
Jesus of Nazareth – and entered all dimensions of human existence. God experienced hunger
and fullness, friendship and betrayal, desire and sacrifice. God trekked the hills, slept in boats,
prayed in a garden, and died on a cross.

God, who “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness (Phil.
2:7),” can enter the most secular of human activities.

My third point is closely related to the second: Why do we associate the sacred only with
the serious? Humor can be holy. As a Catholic, I refuse to believe in a God who became “fully
human” but never laughed and just looked like a church statue all the time. Faith involves a lot
of imagination, and I always love to imagine Jesus smiling. Did he laugh boisterously at his
disciples’ jokes? Did he dance, did he jump with joy along with other guests, after turning water
into wine during the Wedding at Cana?

If Jesus lived in the 21st century, I wouldn’t be surprised if he also joined parties. And if
God is truly ever-present and all-powerful, how can any creature declare that finding God in
drag is impossible – and blasphemous?

‘God meets us where we are’

The Jesuits – the nearly 500-year-old religious order whose members include Pope
Francis – have a phrase for all these: “finding God in all things.”

Founded by the former soldier Ignatius of Loyola (whose feast day we mark on July 31),
the Jesuits emphasize that God can be found even in the mundane aspects of human existence
– eating at a restaurant, watching movies, sweeping the floor, or playing one’s favorite sport.
This is why we have Jesuits from Ateneo de Manila like Joaquin Bernas, the constitutionalist;
Bienvenido Nebres, the mathematician; and Jett Villarin, the astrophysicist. Pope Francis
himself is a chemist.

Whenever I join the Retreat in Daily Life organized by the Jesuits, my retreat guides
would remind me that I can pray while commuting, walking, or doing daily chores. And whenever
I lack time for formal prayer, that is, the usual five decades of the rosary or the occasional
weekday Masses, I can whisper a short prayer to God (a simple “I love you, Lord” or “Lord, have
mercy”), and make my work my prayer.

There is no place God cannot enter, and as the Jesuits would also say, “God meets us
where we are.”
 Saying it was her way of praising the Lord, Pura Luka Vega told GMA News Online that
she intended “to embody a version of Christ that is one with the queer audience.” On Twitter,
she said that while people call her performance “blasphemous, offensive, or regrettable,” they
“shouldn’t tell me how I practice my faith or how I do my drag.” The drag queen makes a valid
point about her faith.

I understand that despite her reasons, many Catholics still found her performance
offensive. I acknowledge this, and their criticism may be valid. Whether her performance was
an act of blasphemy – an “arbitrary concept,” as sociologist of religion Jayeel Cornelio wrote in
a Rappler article – is for another conversation.

Mockery of faith

Let me end, though, by zooming out to the big picture.

How did many Filipinos react after Pura Luka Vega’s performance offended their
sensibilities?

Homophobic remarks flooded Twitter after Pura Luka Vega’s video was posted on
Monday, July 10, going viral with more than 18 million views on Twitter as of posting time. “Sa
impyerno kang bakla ka! (Go to hell, you gay!)” said Twitter user @maginoongtunay in a public
tweet. “Ulol kang bastos ka! (Rude person, you fool!)” said @DownByTheRive20.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Pura Luka Vega’s performance was indeed
offensive. What did the Lord say about people being hurt by other people? In the Gospel of
Matthew (5:39), Jesus said, “When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other
one to him as well.” In another verse, he said, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who
persecute you.” (Mt. 5:44)

How, then, can all the vile comments against Pura Luka Vega constitute a defense of a
faith that teaches love, not hate? How are we defending God if we mock, curse at, and gang up
on a fellow human being who, according to the Book of Genesis (1:27), was created in God’s
own image?

Which is the real act of blasphemy: dressing up like Jesus at a drag party, or wearing
the mask of faith while keeping a hateful, rotten spirit? Rappler.com

Reading 02

[OPINION] ART, COMEDY, AND THE ‘RIGHT’ TO OFFEND

JUL 16, 2023 7:30 PM PHT
JOHN MOLO

The filing of criminal charges against drag queen Pura Luka Vega has been brought
up. Can 'offensive' speech be punished under the law?
 Drag queen Pura Luka Vega is in hot water after a skit performed inside an event
circulated beyond its intended audience. Dressed as a religious figure, the performance was
accompanied by a religious song central to the Catholic faith. National leaders have weighed
in. And the filing of criminal charges (e.g. the Revised Penal Code’s Article 133, Offending
Religious Feelings) has been brought up.

Is there a constitutional “right” to offend? Textually, no. But there is a right to speak freely
(Art III Sec. 4 of the Constitution). And within that, is the right to advance an opinion that may
“shock, offend, or disturb.”

This doesn’t mean that free speech means a free-for-all. In the Philippines, freedom of
expression is subject to several exceptions based on the: (a) kind of speech; (b) context (ie time
place and manner); or (c) speaker (ie lawyers under the newly revamped Code of ethics).

So, can “offensive” speech be punished under the law?

The nominal answer (such as in a Bar exam) would be yes (subject to the elements of
Art 133). But, really, the question we should be asking in this case is. “Should it be?” Law is
littered with nuance (which is why people hate lawyers). And of all the topics under
Constitutional Law, I’d daresay that free speech is the most nuanced of all.

No freedom from consequence

Saying “Yes” means that one is okay to send people to jail for offending someone’s
feelings (religious or not). This is the tricky part. Existing laws already address “fighting words,”
“true threats,” and defamation. These benefit from a well-defined set of elements that took
courts decades to hone.

What is “offensive” however, covers the unpleasant, the unpopular and the irreverent. If
it becomes punishable, based on the group chat fights I’ve seen, all of us might end up in jail.

Still, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. If it is the right of a performer
to insult and offend, then the rest of us have the equal right to express approval, or in this case,
offense. True, the audience doesn’t get to decide what jokes a comedian can tell. However, a
comedian cannot dictate how an audience should react. The right to offend, should
accommodate the right to take offense. Neither side however, is justified in using violence
because that’s where the constitutional protection ends.

In the case of comedy clubs, these are venues where anything goes. You buy a ticket
and go inside, not knowing what the comedians will say. Traditionally, it used to end there. But
in the age of smartphones and social media, whatever is said inside these clubs inevitably gets
shared outside. Once it’s out there, anything goes. Consider how Jokoy was “cancelled” (for
mocking his fellow Filipinos), same as Dave Chappelle (for jokes about transgenders). Both
shows were on Netflix.

Double-edged sword

Art, as well as comedy, is a form of expression. This is true. But this is a double-edged
sword. If a performance can freely offend the religious, then the same right would be invoked
by comedians who offend progressive/liberal sensibilities (such as in the case of Dave
Chappelle). Excepting hate speech, artistic and comedic license can protect both sides but,
always in a precarious balance to avoid real-world harms.

It would be disingenuous if I didn’t disclose that, as a Catholic, I took offense. But should
it mean criminal punishment? I had to remind myself of the disparity in power that lies in these
situations. The three branches of our government are all dominated by Christians. On the other
side, is one performer, whose infraction is quite literally offending all of us.
 Besides, does my faith impel me to ask that the full force of the law be mobilized against
this drag performer? The Holy Father, Pope Francis, has been focused in making the Church
much more inclusive. I had the privilege of being in the Vatican with Maria Ressa for the drafting
of the Declaration on Human Fraternity. It starts with the Pope’s words reminding that: “We are
diverse, we are different, we have different cultures and religions, but we are brothers and
sisters and we want to live in peace.”

I feel that the Holy See wouldn’t be threatened by a drag performance inside a club. The
pillars of St. Peter’s Basilica are made of much sterner stuff. What would weaken any church,
however, would be intolerance. Tolerance doesn’t mean suffering quietly. One can call out,
express disapproval, and refuse to patronize shows. But not every “offense” should lead to
criminal litigation.

I’ve yet to see a Papal encyclical asking the faithful to teach blasphemers “respect and
humility” by threatening them with jail. But I have seen strong words from His Holiness
condemning corruption, violation of human rights, and weaponization of the law. He has in fact
said, “we have to raise our voice” against those who abuse the judicial system. With these, I am
more “religiously offended” by those to whom the Pope refers to in his speeches, not a lone
drag performer.

Besides, dusting off Article 133 for use in this context calls for reflection on its origins.
The Revised Penal Code stems from the Spanish Codigo Penal. As their colony, it doesn’t
require imagination whose “religious feelings” the Spaniards prioritized back then. Not a few
native Filipinos must have suffered the consequence of “offending the religious” during that era.
It would be ironic if several hundred years later, we the current majority would perpetuate how
this tool was abused by our colonizers. If Article 133 should remain in the statute books, perhaps
it should be only for extremely narrow purposes.

Speech, meet your consequence

Finally, the need to “punch upwards” is both understandable and lawful. But it should be
done with great care, and with the long view in mind. It’s a lesson I learned from my mother who
used to be the leader of all the public-school teachers in Manila. Senator Risa Hontiveros’
statement appeals for the right balance by not just asking for “self-reflection, compassion and
healing for both the religious and LGBTQIA+ communities.” Rather, she potently reminds that:
“Our platforms should build bridges.” Advocates need to weigh if the path to greater societal
acceptance is best served by poking the bear through targeting what it holds quite dear.

Once the video went viral, it was inevitable for some of us to react the way we did. This
is natural. If one intentionally provokes, then one must deal with the reaction. Speech, meet
your consequence. We, the majority, however, should be mindful about flexing our political
might and getting official state actors involved.

The path to co-existence doesn’t lie in revenge and legal persecution.

The fallout from the incident requires introspection. Not calls to arm. Our country is
besieged by a storm of disinformation. We need to maintain spaces that are safe from
algorithmic manipulation and prevent operators from using incidents like these to fan societal
divisions. We all lose if they drive us further away from each other. Escalation will only hold all
of us back. – Rappler.com

John Molo practices litigation and arbitration. He has argued several cases before
the Supreme Court. He is chairperson of UP Law’s Political Law Faculty Cluster, a trustee
of the Philippine Bar Association, and the chairperson of the Board of Editors of the IBP
Law Journal.
Reading 3

‘Ama Namin’ blasphemy? Bishop unearths ‘seeds’ from Duterte years

JUL 15, 2023 5:31 PM PHT

PAT E R N O R . E S M A Q U E L I I

A drag song and dance against the ‘Ama Namin’ offends indeed, but some matters
are more offensive than this,’ says Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas

MANILA, Philippines – Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas challenged

Filipino Catholics on Saturday, July 15, to look at themselves and examine their consciences
even as they criticize the “blasphemous” viral video of Filipino drag queen Pura Luka Vega.

The video showed Pura Luka Vega in a Jesus costume while the crowd danced to a rock
version of the “Ama Namin” (“Our Father”), the foundational prayer of Christianity since it is
believed to have been taught by Christ himself.

In an advanced Gospel reflection for July 23, Villegas said the video “was a plunge into
a deeper cliff of vulgar blasphemy,” but “it was bound to happen in time.”

Villegas, one of the staunchest critics of former president Rodrigo Duterte, cited the
“seeds of blasphemy” that were planted during Duterte’s six years in office.

Duterte was known to attack the Catholic Church before and after he became president
of this predominantly Catholic country. During his presidential campaign, Duterte called Pope
Francis a son of a bitch. When he was already chief executive, Duterte said God is stupid and
also urged Filipinos to “kill bishops.”

Despite his tirades against the Catholic faith, Duterte won the presidency by a landslide
with 16 million votes in 2016. He also enjoyed high survey ratings while his allies kept
“supermajorities” in Congress, with opposition bets failing to win any Senate seat in 2019. In
2022, Duterte’s ally Ferdinand Marcos Jr. became the Philippines’ first majority and first
continuity president in decades.

Villegas said: “The seeds for this scandalous video were already planted in the field
when we allowed vulgarity by high leaders in government to become a joking matter. Our
cooperative indifference and supportive laughter, as we heard those vulgarities, make us
accomplices in blasphemy. This was a small beginning like the seed of weeds.”
 “The small seeds were already planted when we chose cowardly silence as God was
cursed by the highest government official. We giggled and later on voted for more officials who
support such vulgarity. We were in cahoots,” he added.

Villegas said Filipinos also “conspired by our silence” after “enemies of God” threatened
bishops with murder. Villegas, a protégé of the late Manila archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin, who
helped oust dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, was one of the prominent Catholic leaders
who received death threats during Duterte’s term.

“A drag song and dance against the ‘Ama Namin’ offends indeed, but some matters are
more offensive than this,” the archbishop pointed out.

“We call God our Father but do not treat one another as brothers and sisters? We call
God our Father but nodded with approval when drug addicts were killed? Killing others made
our lives safer? Is that the way to worship God as Father? They are seeds of the weeds,”
Villegas said, referring to extrajudicial killings under Duterte, which are now being probed by
the International Criminal Court.

‘Hallowed be your name’ but…

Villegas continued by dissecting elements of the “Our Father” and asking Filipino Catholics to
reflect on how they themselves have desecrated the prayer in daily life.

“Our lips pray, ‘Hallowed be your name’ and yet our hands on our gadgets confect
calumny and gossip and slander? Is God’s name adored by our fake news? We have even
baptized gossipers and rumor mongers as Marites. These are seeds of the weeds.

“We beg Him ‘to give us our daily bread’ but accept money to sell our votes? Is God
honored when we tolerate and benefit from the stolen money of public servants? Is not our
acceptance of the culture of graft and plunder of public money a greater blasphemy of the ‘Ama
Namin’? These are seeds of the weeds.

“We ask God ‘to forgive us’ and yet we have chosen to solve our social problems by the
‘extrajudicial’ way (outside the court of law) by killing and later covering up for the murderers of
those who were never proven guilty? How can the defenders of mass murderers and crimes
against humanity pray to ask God for forgiveness when their lifestyle is its exact opposite?” the
archbishop said.

He then urged Catholics to ask themselves, “In what ways have I contributed to the
vulgarity and blasphemy, desecration and profanity of language and lewdness of action against
the Ama Namin?”

“If we are honest and humble enough, we should be ready to admit that we planted the
seeds of weeds in the past by our indifference, cowardice, and connivance. The weeds came
from me. The enemy is me. I must now change myself first,” he said.

Voices from the Senate

Pura Luka Vega’s video has drawn criticism from a wide range of sectors in the
Philippines, including the Senate.

In a move unseen when Duterte attacked the Catholic Church, Senate President Juan
Miguel Zubiri said on Thursday, July 13, “I condemn in the strongest possible terms the
extremely blasphemous and offensive video that has gone viral showing people in a club making
a mockery of the Christian faith and disrespecting the Lord’s Prayer.”

Zubiri, a Duterte and Marcos ally, then urged authorities to look into the matter, as “a
criminal charge can be filed” against Pura Luka Vega.
 Senator Robin Padilla, who is also allied with Duterte and Marcos, told Pura Luka Vega
in a public Facebook post that the Our Father “is a holy prayer that you expressed in a very,
very unholy manner.”

“I pray and hope that you stick that to your thick skull,” said Padilla, a former Jehovah’s
Witness who later converted to Islam.

“If it’s very hard and difficult for you to apologize, you better just shut up and lay low or
face the consequences,” the action star-turned-senator said. “You’re dragging spiritual people
to extremism.” – Rappler.com