That's the newest controversy, it seems. The President was in Rome last week, rising from her hospital bed after a bout with food poisoning, and appearing suddenly beside the papa at the Vatican. It is reported that she gave him a nicely bound copy of the law abolishing the death penalty, which she, very conveniently, happened to have just signed.
Malacañan Palace, of course, immediately capitalized on the visit, and released the statement that the Pope had murmured encouraging words about her job performance, including a "well done" compliment. Time Magazine echoes this version of events.
But that's not what other people are saying.
Senator Kit Tatad has now come out brandishing Italian coverage of the events, saying no such statement ever escaped His Blessedness' lips, and that no such pat on her back ever occurred. A noted national columnist also blasts the Press Secretary, and even quotes from the Vatican website. The website's version of events seems to be all about Arroyo crowing about her job performance, and not the Pope reacting to same.
Good grief, is it that difficult to come up with a truthful version of events that happens right in the presence of the leader of the faith? With so many people present, including all those junketing officials spending money the government borrowed this year and meant to be repaid over the next 50 years, it would have been so easy to determine whether the Pope did or did not pat her on her back and utter those now famous words: "Well done."
Perhaps, President Arroyo misheard it. Maybe it was lunchtime, and in honor of the Filipinos and their penchant for substituting oily Filipino stews for American junk food, the Vatican decided to serve greasy burgers and fries. Could the Pope have been specifying how he wanted his burger?
Or perhaps, the Pope was examining the President's overpriced outfit (again, paid from my taxes into the grubby hands of designers who don't pay taxes), and complimenting the nice craftsmanship thereof. So, he gives her a pat on the back (actually, he was just examining the fabric) and saying, "Well done, girlfriend, that outfit does wonders with your height."
Or maybe, the Pope was just talking to her about her make-up. "Well done, Madame president, I'm so amazed at how that pancake foundation is blended so skillfully into your yellow skin tone. You must tell me the name of your make-up artist. Or is that Botox?"
And what about that pat on the back? Are we sure it wasn't something else? I mean, the Pope might have wanted to give her a smack on the head for failing to stop the human rights abuses in the Philippines, but because his arm was so overladen with all those robes and jewels, he didn't have enough strength to do so. Thus, he ended up patting her shoulder.
Who are we to judge what the Pope really intended? Perhaps, the only way we'll ever find out is if he ever publishes his autobiography.
It's so easy, you know, to make up stories about what was said during that occasion. It's even easier to interpret what was said. But you know what? I really don't care.
What I care about is what I see daily on the streets. That's what I'll use to judge how the President is performing.
It's not what His Holiness thinks (or is led to believe) while in a city thousands of miles removed from the grime and oppression of the poverty here that's important. What tells me if Arroyo has been effective at her post is how long the filthy crone is out there at my street corner, begging for alms - (while tempting, that's not intended as a clever symbolism for the President). It's the solid infrastructure we get to see built (and not those road-paving temporary affairs that are destined to deteriorate right after the ASEAN summit). It's the solving of those crimes, and the end of vigilante killings.
So, while the politicians endlessly debate about what the Pope did or did not mean, maybe we should just tune them out, and use our own senses to determine what this President has really been able to do. Then, we might just find real enlightenment.