The De Venecia Code

There seems to be a determined effort by some Catholics who view the book, The Da Vinci Code as sacrilegious and insulting to Our Lord Jesus – imagine alleging Him to have married Mary Magdalene – to get the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) to ban the motion picture based on the book, starring Oscar-winner Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.

The MTRCB Chair Ma. Consoliza Laguardia, when interviewed on TV recently, correctly stated that the Board would have to review the movie itself first before passing judgement on it.

Let’s see then whether the movie will be prohibited or permitted to be screened in this country, as scheduled, in early June.

Indeed, there are those who’re even claiming that the book’s American author, Dan Brown, is the "anti-Christ" and his book was crafted to destroy belief in Christ.

Be that as it may, even the influential Opus Dei, which the novel – one must be reminded it is a work of fiction – thrashes, seems a bit of a loss as how to combat the book.

In its April 24th issue, TIME Magazine front-covered an article on the Opus Dei (which is very powerful in the Philippines) captioned: "THE OPUS DEI CODE." The subhead of the newsweekly magazine said: "The secret Catholic society is the villain in The Da Vinci Code, but its members say it is a force for good. The real story about the mysterious group that has a direct line to the Vatican."

TIME, in a sidebar inside, said the novel had portrayed "Opus Dei as an ecclesiastical Cosa Nostra." In the same issue, it reported that Dan Brown’s novel, which is still on the bestseller lists, has already sold 40 million copies in amazingly 44 languages.

Is this the work of the diabolical anti-Christ? Nothing surprises us anymore in this world, when shocking news is piled on top of other shockers.

* * *

What really worries us here is, in truth, is The De Venecia Code.

The efforts of Speaker Joe de V. and the GMA government to promote fast-track Constitutional change (Cha-cha) are disquieting. As this writer said in the beginning, how can we save our nation by merely exchanging the present 1987 Constitution for a brand-new one, or by a switch from presidential government to parliamentary, and the adoption, to boot, of a Federal system?

We would have, as repeatedly stressed, the same persons, and dynasties, running the show, this time under different titles. The less kindly description is: "The same old dog with a different collar."

The "people’s initiative" which was clumsily resorted to as a ploy to produce a new Constitution by getting the Barangays to vote for it is losing steam – after millions of pesos were wasted – because it is beginning to be realized that a so-called "people’s initiative" even if successfully prosecuted has the power only to amend the existing 1987 Constitution, or revise some of its provisions, not replace it with a different Constitution.

What about "Con-Ass", or the move to get Congress to convert itself into a Constituent Assembly – meaning both House and Senate combined – for the purpose of Constitutional change? It doesn’t seem feasible.

JDV and his pro-Cha-cha pangkat claim they already have more than 170 signatures in the House of Representatives to push this plan. But what of the Senate? Nobody, except those who believe in miracles, expects the Senators to vote to abolish their own chamber. It goes beyond human nature, not to mention political reality.

If the Senate won’t play, how can a Constituent Assembly be established? The pro-Cha-cha "movers" are attempting to insist that the Constitution calls for a total vote, meaning the sum total of the votes cast in the House and Senate put together. Constitutional and legal experts have been warning that this cannot be done, the Senate and House will have to vote separately.

The Cha-cha promoters, if their intent was to rush a new organic law into existence, have literally run out of time. Congress is now in recess and will resume sessions only on May 15, then adjourn on June 9.

Why is a completely new Constitution needed? The Constitution of the United States, written then presented to the American public on September 17, 1787, during the presidency of George Washington, was never scrapped, and remains basically the same Constitution except for the fact that it has, over two centuries, been amended 27 times. In fact, the original version did not contain a Bill of Rights which was duly inserted by amendment.

Did you know that women did not get to vote until the year 1920 – through the 19th Amendment? The American woman suffrage movement began in 1848, started by Reformers Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton who called a Woman’s Rights Convention at Senaca Falls, New York. The group’s charter, based on the Declaration of Independence, declared that "all men are created equal."

It was a long, hard fight. Susan B. Anthony put 70 years of effort into it. Women’s rights were not even addressed in the 14th and 15th Amendments, which granted civil rights and suffrage only to Negro males. (They are today called, to be politically correct, African-Americans).

US Congress rejected the appeals of women’s movement suffragettes time and again. In 1914, when World War I erupted, only 13 states offered full voting privileges to women. Truth to tell, the attitude towards women swiftly changed when the men went off to war and women were needed – and they volunteered to staff both hospitals and government agencies.

American President Woodrow Wilson, gratefully expressed his support for a woman suffrage amendment. Both Senate and House approved it in June 1919.

Subsequently the 19th Amendment was ratified by the necessary 36 states on August 18, 1920. Women voted for the first time in the election of 1920. These ballots contributed heavily to sending Ohio Senator Warren Harding to the White House, and giving Republicans continued control of both House and Senate.

This just goes to show that Constitutions are not forged overnight. They evolve, based on determination, sweat and sacrifice, struggle, and long experience.

* * *

I saw the woman graduate who heckled and shouted at GMA in the midst of the President’s commencement address in the Cavite State University being interviewed by ANC/ABS-CBN’s Ces Drilon on television the other night. What surprised me is that Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, on mike via telephone patch, sounded like he was threatening to file charges against the woman. What’s he trying to do? Make a "martyr" out of her? Ease off, Raul.

I thought that the female "student leader" was bastos, bereft of good manners. If she wanted to heckle and verbally harass the President, she should have done it outside the graduation hall, or off-campus. When you invite somebody, anybody, to be your Guest Speaker, Filipino custom and tradition dictates you must respect your guest while he or she is under your "roof."

Even in other societies, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu, hospitality demands the same thing. While we’re on the subject, our columnist Alejandro "Anding" Roces strongly rebuked that young lady for her lack of manners and good conduct. Anding ought to know – he was once Secretary of Education. You may disagree with him, but what he says carries the weight of his experience and breeding. He was once Dean of Liberal Arts in the Far Eastern University – I know because I was a professor in the FEU during those days.

What disgusts me, if I may speak frankly, is that I subsequently received a couple of nasty text messages personally assailing Dr. Roces. One sneered: "How much is the government paying him for defending that fake, PGMA?"

We’re always using ad hominem arguments, seldom logic and reason. Those who defend this girl’s right of free speech must also give due respect to Roces’ right of free speech in his opinion column. When we run out of arguments, we throw stones.

To sum up: the DOJ must ease off. The graduate was boorish, not subversive.

Enough said already about that silly controversy.