Patricia the Evangelist. God, McDonald & Fr Melvin Castro
Frank A. Hilario
April 23, 2011
If you don´t know, this is what happened. From AMN / Virgil Lopez (11 April 2011, sunstar.com.ph), we have a succinct summary of the events: "The portrayal of kids falling in love in a television commercial apparently did not sit well with an official of the influential Catholic Bishops´ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)." The offending ad was pulled out 12 April, and with that, Patricia felt offended and pulled out all the stops in her writing: 1,062 words to be exact. The result of extensive research, certainly; the result of intensive reflection, uncertainly.
Patricia puts in more details in "Castro the crusader," her column piece of 17 April 2011 (inquirer.net), referring specifically to Fr Melvin Castro, Executive Secretary of the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life:
Castro is speaking of a recent McDonald´s (TV) ad showing two small children talking in a playground. In the ad, a pretty young girl, maybe 5 or 6 years old, asks a little boy if he was her boyfriend. The boy shakes his head. Girls, he says, are much too demanding, asking for too much too often. The girl corrects the boy - all she wants are McDonald´s French fries. The boy jingles the coins in his pocket and grins. And so happy boy and happy girl walk down the street, as a voice-over informs the (viewer) that McDonald´s fries are now at P25.
Actually, Patricia begins her opinion/column with these words:
Fr Melvin Castro … is very pleased with his successful crusade against the evil threat Ronald McDonald. In a statement to the media, Castro says he is glad McDonald has seen the error of its ways. And then he rubs it in.
Oh, oh! I can smell a logical fallacy like I can smell tuyo being fried 2 houses away. Tuyo is usually dried herring (Vanjo Merano, panlasang.pinoy). I'll take that as gospel truth. Can you smell the red herring too? I'll tell you my take of it in just a while. Meanwhile, did you know that there are at least 40 logical fallacies in the world? You can find many of them crammed among those thousand words in Patricia's piece for her Inquirer column, Method to Madness: "Castro the crusader." With that, I´m inspired to say that a logical fallacy is a method to madness.
The study of logical fallacies belongs to philosophy and science, not simply argumentation, but let's skip philosophy there and ignore science here, and let's debate. Any takers? The University of the Philippines (UP) is where you find the best debaters; I'm saying this as I come from UP myself. At the very least, UP graduates can argue with the best of them. Frank H is from UP Los Baños and Patricia is from UP Diliman, so she will understand this. When I was in college, the UP Diliman people were the best debaters, but their kinds don´t scare me, I'm afraid.
You already have logical fallacy from Patricia's crusade against Castro in her very first sentence that says in part, "his successful crusade against the evil threat Ronald McDonald" - but it's so subtle I don't know where to put it under! Is it "Appeal to Fear" (which is also known as "Scare Tactics")? Patricia is scaring us with "the evil threat (of) Ronald McDonald," which in fact she herself has created. Or is it "Red Herring" (which is also known as "Smoke Screen")? By implying that Fr Melvin did call McDonald the food chain an "evil threat," which in fact Fr Melvin did not, Patricia is taking us away from the real issue, which I can put this way:
A TV commercial of preschoolers implying that falling in love at that age is good, and a girl asking a boy who is not her boyfriend to buy her some McDonald French fries is not bad either: This is not love inexpensive - this is love so cheap!
To simplify, I'll just call it Patricia's Name-Calling. You resort to name-calling when you run out of arguments - usually when you want to argue even if the other fellow has just presented a clear, simple case of asking McDonald to discontinue the TV ad that cultivates the love of McDonald French fries as a symbol of true love, or of friendship that is the beginning of a love relationship, whatever. Your true love never dies; your French fries die not long after exposure to the humidity in the air.
That it was already referred to as "the BF-GF commercial," the boyfriend-girlfriend ad, shows the inadvertent intent, which doesn't excuse its existence. As an adult, your girlfriend asking you to show your love by buying her some French fries right now is just a whim; in the case of the TV commercial, it's an outrage. The girl is 5 and the boyfriend is 6 years old - this is not love; this is not even puppy love - this is goofy love. You're teaching the little children to come unto you because theirs is the kingdom of love - and they should learn to love each other by buying the other one food. Love is food for the gods, but this is ridiculous!
And no, the concept of McDonald as an "evil threat" did not come from Fr Melvin; it came from Patricia the Evangelist. This is what Fr Melvin actually said (AMN as cited):
They should replace it. It doesn't look good. The emotional, relational bonding of people was made to look shallow, that's why it should be replaced. Their basis for teaching commitment is too shallow because they based a relationship on French fries. This is not a good sign, especially since they are targeting the young ones.
Ergo, Patricia implying that Fr Melvin called McDonald an "evil threat" in any manner, shape or form, is pathetic. I'm not sympathetic.
And yet, Patricia is not finished, so let's listen to her some more. She says:
There may be many and varied reasons why McDonald´s French fries are a danger to the public health, but it is only now that God´s fast-food preferences became an issue of multimillion-peso interest.
Isn't that putting words into the mouth of knaves, when they have nothing to do with babes? After Patricia the Evangelist implies that Fr Melvin either said or implied that McDonald's French fries are a danger to public health, she then invokes God!
She should have left God out of this. I don't know about Patricia the Evangelist, but I'm a Roman Catholic; I'm writing this on Holy Saturday, 23 April 2011, so it seems quite appropriate; it is the day after the death of Jesus as Christ, and the day before his resurrection as Redeemer. So now let us look at what Patricia says for any redeeming value.
Sorry to disappoint you, but to say anything about "God's fast-food preferences" is inappropriate as metaphor because, as God knows, McDonald invented the fast food chain; it produces neither manna from heaven nor divine food, and neither the Bible, nor private revelations, not even Martin Luther says anything about fast food, unless you consider manna fast food because it dropped like the gentle rain from heaven. On the contrary, as I understand the New Testament, this is God's instructions to Man about the making of food: Go forth and multiply - slowly! My supporting verse is Psalm 104: 14 (from The NRSV Catholic Edition):
You cause the grass to grow for the cattle,
and plants for people to use,
to bring forth food from the earth.
"Au naturel!" as the French would have it.
And naturally, being incensed, Patricia is not finished. Next, she says:
That God prefers Jollibee over McDonald´s may be the only rationale behind the Church´s ire. Certainly it isn´t because of McDonald´s disrespect to Catholic teachings, else the CBCP would have howled louder over a 2006 Jollibee commercial where a small boy stands in a church beside his praying mother, and proceeds to violate the Fourth Commandment by thanking God for his Jollibee dinner.
"That God prefers Jollibee over McDonald's" - Patricia is equating the pronouncements of Fr Melvin Castro with the pronouncements of God, which is another poor metaphor, at the very least. And Patricia is now arguing that since Fr Melvin (God) doesn't seem to like McDonald, he must like Jollibee - that is to say, there are only 2 kinds of fast food restaurants in the Philippines, take your pick: the American McDonald or the Filipino Jollibee. (I'll take home food anytime.)
"The only rationale behind the Church's ire" - Patricia is equating Fr Melvin's admonition with Roman Catholic antagonism over the matter, if any. The truth of the matter is that no one is angry except Patricia.
"Certainly it isn't because of McDonald's disrespect (for) Catholic teachings" – Patricia is implying that Fr Melvin did say that encouraging shallow love between preschoolers is disrespect for Catholic teachings. He did not. It certainly is disrespect for Christian love, and that must be part of the teachings of the Catholics and Protestants.
About the 2006 Jollibee commercial and the little boy violating the 4th commandment - there is the Catholic 4th, "Honor your father and mother" and the other Christian churches' 4th, "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" (Wikipedia). Okay, this Catholic will consider the (other) Christian's 4th, and reading from Patricia of that Jollibee ad of 5 years ago yields me this insight: God smiling at a little boy thanking him for his Jollibee dinner! That does not violate the 4th commandment; it merely illustrates one way of keeping the Sabbath holy by thanking God for everything, including a Jollibee dinner. God will thank you for thanking Him - that is, if you believe in the Christian God as I do.
There are more revelations where those came from - Patricia's is the face that launched a thousand shapes of slaps - but I think I have had enough evangelical study for today, and will not worry about tomorrow - unless of course I'm provoked to further argumentation. But, I'm admonished: "Today's trouble is enough for today" - Matthew 6: 34 (NRSV Catholic Edition). That's the truth, the gospel truth.
So, I will stop worrying about a preschooler praying inside a Roman Catholic church and thanking God for his Jollibee dinner, and for more Jollibee dinners to come!
Print
Email
