ONE THING that struck me on hearing news of Michael Jackson’s death at age 50 was that I never realized he was that “old,” or at least as old as someone who was only four years younger than me, could be.
I had always thought of him as a boy, or a young man. Bursting into the pop scene as the 11-year-old soloist of The Jackson Five, Michael was for the longest time the lovable tyke, an incredibly talented and energetic performer, to be sure, but still a tyke. Perhaps because I started down the road of wifehood and motherhood just as he was trailblazing in the pop music field with his catchy, danceable tunes, music videos and “Moonwalking,” I never quite “got” MJ. I belonged to a slightly older demographic, although my own children considered him a venerable music idol.
Even when he got embroiled in several scandals and allegations of child molestation, I never got around to considering him an adult. He looked and acted eternally youthful. In fact, as he got older, adopting the fey mannerisms and wispy voice of an ingénue, he appeared to be getting younger, more vulnerable and more brittle.
Undoubtedly, his music legacy lives on. One fan, quoted on TV, declared that “none of the scandals, none of the bizarre behavior could take away his place in music history.” But I can’t help wondering what would have happened if Michael Jackson had simply given up his dream of becoming a real-life Peter Pan and allowed himself to grow old, to mature and assume adult ways and responsibilities. Would he still have retained his mystique?
During an “American Idol” episode featuring disco music, the producers managed to find the oldest, most decrepit artists of the disco era who were clearly no longer up to the challenges of their old hits. “There’s a lesson there for the contestants,” I quipped then. “And that’s to never grow old.”
That’s a lesson Michael Jackson learned early in life, one he sought to follow down the decades. But I wonder – if he did allow himself to grow old, would he have lived – and died – happier?
* * *
Last Wednesday, Ambassador Leonida Laki Vera of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, hosted a reception in celebration of the feast day of the order’s patron, St. John the Baptist.
Elsewhere in the metropolis, particularly in San Juan, folks celebrated their patron’s feast day by “baptizing” one another, hurling buckets of water at passers-by, throwing water balloons, or simply training hoses at one another.
But at the Manila Polo Club, where the reception was held, all was amity and refinement, with guests, predominantly from the diplomatic corps and church circles, feasting on a generous spread. During the exchange of toasts, Ambassador Vera spoke briefly on the order’s origins, saying the order “is one of the most ancient religious orders founded in Jerusalem around 1048.” Though it commands neither territory nor army, the order is a sovereign entity, holding diplomatic ties with over 100 countries, including the Philippines. Based in Rome, the SMOM currently counts on 12,500 knights and dames from all over the world, who are all nominated by local prelates and recognized by the Vatican. Once inducted into the order, they are expected to “serve the poor and the sick in many humanitarian missions all over the world.”
“We have been engaged in many and varied programs to alleviate the sufferings of the sick, the poor, the handicapped and the elderly,” recounted Ambassador Vera, mentioning their apostolate as well for people living with HIV and for victims of calamities. In fact, the Malteser International, the disaster relief arm of the order, was named the best disaster relief organization by the United Nations for 2008.
* * *
Previous to the reception, I had thought of the SMOM only as an honorific organization for wealthy contributors to the Catholic Church. But, my curiosity piqued, I looked up the Knights Hospitaller, which was how the Knights of Malta were first known, and found a connection to another, more controversial organization, the Knights Templar.
Both were founded around the time of the First Crusade, and styled themselves as monastic societies. The Knights Hospitaller provided medical care and succor to pilgrims on their way to and from the Holy Land. The Knights Templar, on the other hand, undertook the task of protecting pilgrims, setting up outposts at important pilgrim sites and earning vast sums in the process.
When Jerusalem fell into Islamic hands, both orders fled to Europe. The Knights Hospitaller were initially granted control over the island of Rhodes, and later, the island of Malta. When Napoleon took control of Malta, he expelled the knights and they found shelter in Rome where they are still based. But they retain the title “Sovereign Military Order of Malta.”
A far grimmer fate awaited the Knights Templar, who brought much of their wealth and influence to Europe when they fled the Holy Land. But rumors soon spread about certain “heretic” practices used in their initiation rites, “most likely false,” notes website about.com, and these were used by their enemies and detractors. King Philip IV launched a “crusade” against the order in France, hunting down the knights and their supporters and appropriating their lands and treasury for himself. Eventually Pope Clement V ordered a worldwide pogrom against them.
The Knights Templar, and the many myths and rumors about them and their successors, the Masons, live on mainly in speculative fiction, particularly in “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown. But the Sovereign Military Order of Malta still exists, still engaged in the “good works” for which it was founded.
