The Board of Judges is composed of ancient and modern theologians, philosophers, and scientists, but at this time, the society thinks it prudent to withhold their names.

Although the contest is open to everyone in the planet, the Holy Father in Rome is excluded, first, because he doesn’t need the money, and, second, he has already said that the tsunami is "the most difficult and painful of tests.’’

Conceivably, a Hindu cleric who pronounced that the tsunami is "a natural phenomenon due to the multitude of human mistakes on sky, earth, and water,’’ and not a test for humankind because calamity strikes the good no less than the bad, the pious and the profane, qualifies as a contestant.

However, he’s not likely to get the prize if originality is a criterion, for very much the same thing was said by the Preacher (Ecclesiastes) about rain falling on good and evil alike.

Australia’s Bishop Robert Forsyth probably has more of a chance since he said that "even Jesus died (excruciatingly on the cross) complaining to God.’’ But can anyone improve on "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachtani’’?

Bishop Bacani certainly doesn’t qualify, if Senator Pimentel was right in saying that the good bishop asked the question without giving an answer.

I wonder about the great evangelists of our time, since I have not heard anyone of them (unless I wasn’t paying attention) offer one of their thunderous, facile, answers. It would not convince the judges, I think, if they fall back on the explanation for the Flood, for certainly no Noah picked out the survivors in his ark.

The rest have no answer, they didn’t even ask the question, as they were searching for the suffering and the dead, and scrounging around for whatever they could send to the victims.

Their prayers lay in deeds.