Here is again another lies coming "this time from a bias priest". After Bp. Gabby's silence, here comes Fr. Tulabing who have just copied the statements from FFL and makes everyone believe and accept that it is the truth.
.
It seems that this piece is not worth reading for, since it is a repetitive performance! However, maybe for the sake of my town people in the Negros Oriental area, i will help them defend.
.
Emphasis mine.
RESTORING COUPLES FOR CHRIST PART 2
"Kana si Father Tulabing sige gyud na siya'g panaot sa Couples for Christ. Kana si Fr. Tulabing sige dyud niya'g tirahan ang Couples for Christ".
.
This kind of comment is surely missing the point. The past seven weeks when I tackled the Couples For Christ issue in Negros Chronicle and in my homilies, I showed how I love Couples For Christ.
.
Father, i do not think we miss the point, it was you who miss your point. If you love Couples for Christ you will not tackle the issues this way.
.
I would not even bother to clarify matters about the CFC split issue if I don't have great love for Couples for Christ. For the record, I can claim that I am partly instrumental of CFC's acceptance by priests and its spread here in Negros Oriental and Siquijor which comprise the Diocese of Dumaguete.
.
Correction, you did not clarify the matters but you made your own judgement on the matters that affected Couples for Christ. Granting without admitting that you want to clarify the matters, you should have asked for an audience to both CFC and FFL concerning the matter. You should have sought the opinion of other Bishop other than Bp. Gabby. The fact of the matter is, even the Bishops are divided in their opinion regarding the issues.
.
When Couples for Christ first started in 1989 here in the Diocese of Dumaguete, many priests did not like it for various reasons. I managed to convince the priests to give CFC a chance to grow and prove its worth. Then some errors were corrected, there were adjustments made, and eventually Couples for Christ spread very fast in the whole Diocese. So how can some leaders and members of couples for Christ Global GK say with all honesty that I am trying to destroy Couples for Christ? Most of their leaders and members know very well how I supported them and how I helped to make them grow since their trying years in the early 90's.
.
We honor you for that.
.
But now that they consider me not serving the interest of Couples for Christ-GK, they try to poison the minds of their members about my purported "panaot" of Couples For Christ. And by the way, the Church is not expected to serve the interest of Couples for Christ. It should be the other way around: Couples for Christ should serve the interests of the Church.
Correction, we do not seek your service to the interest of CFC and GK, and we will never do it. It is clear to us that like you as a priest , CFC also serve in the interest of the church. Secondly, we do not poisoned the mind of our members, but it is the lies that you took from FFL are the one poisoning the minds of CFC.
And to make this clear, our mission-vision statement says, "Moved by the holy spirit...one with the Catholic Church..." meaning, CFC is one with the Catholic Church in fulfilling its mission on earth. We do not seek nor expect the Church to serve on the interest of CFC, but our existence here on earth is to serve the interest of Christ thru His church.
.
My intention really is to save Couples for Christ from utter destruction at the hands of the enemy. As priest and pastor, I should help RESTORE Couples For Christ to its original charism, vision, and mission.
.
The question is, Is it clear to you who is the enemy? While many you of you tried to help, look how did your so-called help divided the community because of your bias statements and unfair judgements. If you really wanted to help CFC, you should have helped in the manner that it will not put down the other in favor of another.
.
I am aware of my power to do it. With the little power I have, God will multiply the little that I have. Dili puede nga dili ra tagdon sa pari kini nga issue.Dili puede nga pasagdan ra ni sa pari. Asa man diay paingon ang CFC? Don't you think priests have the duty to guide CFC members to proper loyalties, faithfulness, and obedience to our bishops? Don't you think priests have the right and the duty to lead and guide Couples For Christ members in the right direction? I for myself am trying to guide and re-direct CFC to its original charism, vision, and mission where they can be very helpful in the mission and vision of the Church.
.
While it is true that you have the responsibility and duty to pastor CFC in your parish, have you consulted your Bishop about this too? What did your bishop said about the comment? Do the bishops have a common statement concerning the issue?
You are asking where is the direction of CFC. The direction of CFC is very clear, "Families in the Holy Spirit renewing the face of the earth". And the mission is "to bring glad tidings to the poor".
As the Vatican approved statutes says, CFC is a lay organization, therefore, you only have the duty to guide but not the duty to lead. CFC has its own leadership structure as an International Association of the Lay Faithful.
We thank you for guiding us, but please be reminded Father, as what Fr. Sobrejuanite said in his recollection conducted to CFC elders, you do not have the duty to lead. And how can you re-direct us if you do not know the core issue of the crisis?
.
Priests need to exercise authority over Couples For Christ in their parishes, after all it is within the realm of the priests' duties to govern. And members of Couples for Christs should allow themselves to be governed.
.
Again, the Vatican apporve statutes explain that CFC has its own government structure. It seems that like Frank Padilla, you also have an obvious desire or hunger to rule and govern CFC, isn't it? CFC being a Vatican recognized association of the lay faithful, only the vatican has the power and control on its national level, while we are aware too that we are in submittion to the authority of the local ordinary. Please read the canon law concerning the leadership and governance of a lay association.
.
Priests have to guide and insist that the members of CFC should remain faithful and loyal not only to proper Church authorities but to CFC's original purpose and charism which is Family Evangelization, Family Spirituality and Family Renewal.
.
This is rediculuous, CFC never veered and will never veer away from its original purpose and charism. What made you say that, is because you believe in the claim of Frank Padilla's group. And now it seems that you are telling us that the work with the poor is not an evangelization.
.
The members of couples for Christ must be faithful to God first and foremost.Again, Gawad-Kalinga is good. We have nothing against it except for the donations that they still receive from Pharmaceuticals manufacturing and distributing contraceptives. The Church still considers contraceptives anti-life, and Couples For Christ is supposed to be Pro-life.
.
We are faithful in CFC , that is why we remain. We are faithful in CFC, that is why we did not change our CLP to CLS. We did not change YFC to YFL or SFC to SFL or HOLD to HFL and etc.
If you are concerned about the accustaions of Frank about the acceptance of Pharmaceuticals that produce contraceptives, it seems you are just riding on with their cover-up issues which behind lies their desire to be back to position. Furthermore, please read Bishop Claver's article in the CBCP monitor. If you are not accepting Bishop Claver's article, then it shows that even among yourselves in the clergy are divided in the issue. How can we then accept your stand if what the other clergies' position is different from that of yours?
.
The point is that there have been directives and guidelines, there have been dialogues and meetings to reconcile and check the errors, but the International Council of Couples For Christ-GK insisted on their mistakes, refused to be corrected, and to amend, and even maligned the bishops working very hard on the win-win solutions to their problems. All the members of CFC must be made aware of the existing problems within CFC. Magpakabana gyud unta ang tanang members, and the local CFC leaders should not hide the truth from their members. All the members of Couples For Christ must help REFORM and RESTORE CFC to its original vision, mission, charism, and purpose.Unsa man mong klase sa pagka-miembro sa CFC if you don�t help in the RESTORATION of CFC? Take that as a challenge.
.
Father, this is the point: Once upon a time three leaders resigned. And one desires to comeback to power. And when he could not get it in an internal approach, he began to involve the clergy by claiming the there is veering away, that there is disobedience. He decided to get sympathy from the bishop.
We never insisted on our mistakes, and even it was unfair, our top leader made a public apology because of his obedience to the Vatican,how then you can say that it was an insistence to mistakes?
Sa tinuod lang, nagpakabana jud entawon me. Pagbakabana sab unta pud mo. Sakit na kaayu ang among kasinatian, palihug unta ayaw na dugangi padre, kay hastang paita na! Nanghin-ut jud raba mi nga ang kapari-an ug ka-obispohan mamahimong instrumento sa matinud-anong paghi-usa sa duha ka grupo. Naunsa mang ang uban sa inyo ni-apil apil man sa away. Kung gusto mong mu-apil. ayaw sa lalis, kung dili ngadto sa tinuod nga pag-pasaylo ang pagdawat sa usag-usa. Kay ang kamatu-oran ani padre, tanan man nangandoy nga mag-alad kang Kristo sumala sa gasa nga gihatag sa Diyos kaniya. Ig dili silang GK, wa man sila pugsa, dili lang unta sila mang-daut. Karion nga nihawa na sila sa poder sa CFC, pasagdi na nila nga ang lideres sa CFC (national level) ug ang Vatican maghisgut bahin niining suliran.
.
Ang pagsupak ug wala pagtahod sa mga direktiba sa Roma ug sa mga local bishops dako kaayong kalapasan nga gihimo sa Couples For Christ � International Council. Dili puede nga konsentihon kini sa mga members sa CFC. Apil ang tanang miembro sa CFC sa kaulawan nga gihimo sa ilang International Council, mao nga dili puede nga ang mga miembro dili manginlabot. The members should even protest about what their International Council is doing (disobeying the bishops) and help in the RESTORATION of Couples for Christ to its original charism.
.
Ang tinuod ana, wala mi magsupak sa direkteba sa Roma. Kanang balita, pamakak ra na sa FFL aron daghan mu-apil sa ilang grupo. Ug kon tinuod man nga adunay mga kalapasan nga nahimo ang CFC, dili kini angayang hukman sa FFL ug purong-purongan sa mga cleriko. Kay ang tinuod nga interes sa FFL , makuha ang CFC. Huna-huna-a baya ninyo mga igsoon nga ang bisan unsang kalapasan nga nahimo sa CFC nahitabo sa si Frank pa ang lider. Ug karon si Joe Tale entawon ang nag-atubang sa Roma ug nagpasabot ug nangayug pasaylo. Kapait pero mao mani'y pamaagi sa krus. ang mag-antus ug magpahi-ubos. Ang amo lng unta, kay nihawa naman sila Frank sa CFC, dili na unta maglabot labot.
Ug padre, kana baya imong gipanulti, nga ang matag miyempro mo-protesta batok sa IC kay wala sila nituman sa rekomendasyun sa mga Bishops. Dili baya na kinaiya sa usa ka kristohanon. Una, ang kanaong isyu, giklaro na na sa dialogue nga bisan unsa pa ka kusog ang recommendation, ang Vatican lng ang dunay katingod nga magpahunong sa election. ug usa pa, ang pagpadayun sa election, sumala sa Statutes nga aprobado sa Vatican. Ang problema kay si Frank nimo mas gusto nga mulabaw pa man sa Statutes. Karon iya nang ginapanulti nga siya'y tag-iya sa CFC..wala jud ra ba na mahisgut sa statutes.
.
I like and I commend CFCFoundation for Family and Life headed by Frank Padilla because they work very hard for the RESTORATION and the REFORMATION of Couples for Christ. May the other members follow your example. Amen
Nigawas na jud ang kamatuoran, nga dapig ka sa FFL. Ang punto dili aron i-restore ang CFC, kundili ang paging dapig sa FFL. Ayaw na ta entawon 'dre.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
BEATING OUR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES : A Reaction
Here is another defense made by CFC-FFL on the case of reviving CFCFI and using the name CFC.
.
(emphasis mine)
.
Birthrights are normally vested by virtue of relationships that are passed on from generation to generation. In a more contemporary sense, and what political correctness could possibly dictate, rights and entitlements are also given by an authorized source. (And who is the source?)In the case of the use of the name of "Couples for Christ," a faith community anchored in being Christ centered as well as evangelistic and missionary, we go beyond the legal and the blood relations and ask the defining query: Who really has a birthright to the name in the context of being "for Christ?" Isn't Christianity an all-inclusive religion which welcomes "Gentile and Jew alike?" (Look who's talking!) Did not Christ Himself talk about its inherent inclusivity when He categorically forbade excessive sectarianism when John complained to Him that the disciples saw someone casting out demons in His name and the man was told to stop his practices because he was not one of them? But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid this man for he who is not against us is for us." (And what did you do with Pfizer, Wyeth, Mormons Church? Isn't it that you accuse GK of veering away from CFC because we partner with them, we work with them and we welcome them? Isn't it that you want GK to be exclusive on how you want it to work?) Unless CFC/GK may think CFCFI/CFC-FFL works against this exhortation of Jesus Himself, how does one explain the almost excessive obsession of the former to prohibit others from using the name? (Oh c'mon!) In fact, GK did what Christ did, welcome everyone to be part of the work regardless of sect, affiliation or whatever their product is. GK do not judge anyone but welcome all who wants to take partnership in the work. But what FFL did, you screen it, you filter it, because you do not want to be tainted with their what you call "Anti-life" kuno!
In fact, GK accepts everyone and make sure that even non-CFC partner will feel comfortable in the crowd of CFC by not overmentioning "CFC" and making GK gathering like a CFCstique event. But how did FFL took this? They accuse GK that they are hiding their CFC identity. You see...they exaggerated it.
.
.
.
Thus, in a spate of releases that sadly advises its membership to go on a war footing with such slogans as "a call to arms," and exhorting the community to end its period of "being still," the CFC/GK may have just succeeded in bringing the might and force of the Praetorian army on CFCFI/CFC-FFL with hammer and tongs and with all guns blazing simply because the latter was granted approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revive the use of the name Couples for Christ Foundation,Inc. (Because what FFL did is inappropriate) In what promises to be a protracted legal battle, we have been brought to court by CFC/GK to insist on its exclusive use of the name, while it does not set its radar screens on questioning 5 to 6 other entities registered with the SEC (other than CFCFI/CFC-FFL) which also uses the name Couples for Christ. Again, how does one fathom the inherent wisdom of going through such great lengths insisting on a common birthright vested on all of Christendom anyway? (Brother's the logic is simple, any entity registered on SEC bearing the name CFC is an entity that is under the over-all authority of the governing body of CFC, or a subsidiary of CFC, or a sister-company of CFC, or aligned within the CFC structure. But FFL does not and will not subject itself to the authority of the CFC-IC, therefore, you broke-away. You are no longer CFC, and you have to acknowledge that. No one is stopping your evangelization and mission work, but please you use a new name and not CFC. Please read the Statutes...please. Come to think of it, isn't it that the Catholic Church forbade any sect that uses the name Catholic or identify themselves as Catholic if they are excommunicated already? take the example of Soceity of St. Pius X.
. .
.
.
CFC/GK may have missed the point when it talks about going legal by force of circumstances. It may have forgotten that it began the legalities attached to the use of the name by questioning our application to the use of the name CFC-FFL. (Everyone can be a couple for Christ, yes we agree on that! But as an association or organization it should not be. And since this has something got to do with legality, then we have to take legal action. Besides, we should have not questioned if you did not apply. Right? Simple rules brethren, no application, no question and if no approval, no appealing.
.
. .
.
Secondly, the revival of CFCFI is no underhanded plot. CFCFI became inactive for sometime precisely because it allowed CFC Global Mission Foundation, Inc. to carry on its mission. But now that CFC Global has veered away from the life and mission it was supposed to pursue, CFCFI now has every right to restore the eroded anchors of the life and mission and revive the original spirit which guided the community to put up, by virtue of " prior right," CFCFI. (Tell it to the marines! My goodness, first, CFCFI is the one and very the same CFCGMFI. It has just some additions in it but it is the same CFC. And why was it inactive, because a new name better defines its existence and nature, "global mission". And who among the FFL has the right to say that CFCGMFI has veered away from CFCFI...What do you mean by this, that the over-all governing of CFC is CFCFI. And that all others including CFCGMFI is under the authority of CFCFI? O c'mon, who invented this? It was not the practice eversince we separated from LNP. Besides, majority of the incorporators of CFCFI are members of the LNP.
. .
.
.
Thirdly, it may be timely to reiterate that the Bishops have approved of CFCFI/CFC-FFL and the Vatican has no objection to the use of the name as long as the local bishops approve. (You should say that, your bishop Gabby approve it. And please, do not include other bishops who are now having a terrible headache by what you have done.
. .
.
.
Fourthly, even the original application for the use of CFC-FFL has not been rejected by the SEC. .(And it was not also approved)
.
. .
Fifth, on June 14, 2008, CFC Founder Frank Padilla has gone on record, to wit: "With regard to our brethren in CFC/GK, we do not intend to do to them what they have been doing to us. (Definitely, coz you do not have the right to do that.) For the sake of peace and eventual reconciliation, we do not intend to prevent them from using the name "CFC" for as long as they strive not to let go of what it means to be truly CFC." (Wow, feeling...)This simply means heeding the call of the Bishops and the Vatican in their past pronouncements. (Nope, this is not what the Vatican thru Cardinal Rylko have said. What he said is very clear.."Your name CFC may not be used by any other association".)
.
.
. .
Sixth, we have always proposed creative unity and synergy, one big CFC with 2 separate branches, using the model of many religious organizations and congregations, but CFC/GK has steadfastly refused to take a serious look at this proposal. (What you are proposing is actually not for unity and synergy, but confusion and deception. CFC has already a lot of branches, but best described as Pillar)
.
.
. . .
Based on the above, CFCFI is in no fighting mood. ( Of course, because you are now on a provocative mood) We are for co-existence, not the annihilation of one at the expense of another. We have always striven to build bridges while the other side seems to be for burning them. (This is a total lie) We therefore reiterate our call to consider each other as brethren, hewn from the same stock, but with different callings. (And what calling ? If you have changed CLP t o CLS, and so many others, then that is your call, and that is different from CFC's call. Therefore, live out with that call, but leave CFC alone. Let us live out the CFC Global theme of loving one another so that at the end, we are rewarded by God with Joy. (They said if you love someone...you shall set her free.) We extend our hand of Peace because together we should "press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3:13,14). "Together, let us beat our swords into plowshares" and never look back. (Please accept our handshake of peace too, may you go in peace)
.
.
.
.
CFC-FFL
.
(emphasis mine)
.
Birthrights are normally vested by virtue of relationships that are passed on from generation to generation. In a more contemporary sense, and what political correctness could possibly dictate, rights and entitlements are also given by an authorized source. (And who is the source?)In the case of the use of the name of "Couples for Christ," a faith community anchored in being Christ centered as well as evangelistic and missionary, we go beyond the legal and the blood relations and ask the defining query: Who really has a birthright to the name in the context of being "for Christ?" Isn't Christianity an all-inclusive religion which welcomes "Gentile and Jew alike?" (Look who's talking!) Did not Christ Himself talk about its inherent inclusivity when He categorically forbade excessive sectarianism when John complained to Him that the disciples saw someone casting out demons in His name and the man was told to stop his practices because he was not one of them? But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid this man for he who is not against us is for us." (And what did you do with Pfizer, Wyeth, Mormons Church? Isn't it that you accuse GK of veering away from CFC because we partner with them, we work with them and we welcome them? Isn't it that you want GK to be exclusive on how you want it to work?) Unless CFC/GK may think CFCFI/CFC-FFL works against this exhortation of Jesus Himself, how does one explain the almost excessive obsession of the former to prohibit others from using the name? (Oh c'mon!) In fact, GK did what Christ did, welcome everyone to be part of the work regardless of sect, affiliation or whatever their product is. GK do not judge anyone but welcome all who wants to take partnership in the work. But what FFL did, you screen it, you filter it, because you do not want to be tainted with their what you call "Anti-life" kuno!
In fact, GK accepts everyone and make sure that even non-CFC partner will feel comfortable in the crowd of CFC by not overmentioning "CFC" and making GK gathering like a CFCstique event. But how did FFL took this? They accuse GK that they are hiding their CFC identity. You see...they exaggerated it.
.
.
.
Thus, in a spate of releases that sadly advises its membership to go on a war footing with such slogans as "a call to arms," and exhorting the community to end its period of "being still," the CFC/GK may have just succeeded in bringing the might and force of the Praetorian army on CFCFI/CFC-FFL with hammer and tongs and with all guns blazing simply because the latter was granted approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revive the use of the name Couples for Christ Foundation,Inc. (Because what FFL did is inappropriate) In what promises to be a protracted legal battle, we have been brought to court by CFC/GK to insist on its exclusive use of the name, while it does not set its radar screens on questioning 5 to 6 other entities registered with the SEC (other than CFCFI/CFC-FFL) which also uses the name Couples for Christ. Again, how does one fathom the inherent wisdom of going through such great lengths insisting on a common birthright vested on all of Christendom anyway? (Brother's the logic is simple, any entity registered on SEC bearing the name CFC is an entity that is under the over-all authority of the governing body of CFC, or a subsidiary of CFC, or a sister-company of CFC, or aligned within the CFC structure. But FFL does not and will not subject itself to the authority of the CFC-IC, therefore, you broke-away. You are no longer CFC, and you have to acknowledge that. No one is stopping your evangelization and mission work, but please you use a new name and not CFC. Please read the Statutes...please. Come to think of it, isn't it that the Catholic Church forbade any sect that uses the name Catholic or identify themselves as Catholic if they are excommunicated already? take the example of Soceity of St. Pius X.
. .
.
.
CFC/GK may have missed the point when it talks about going legal by force of circumstances. It may have forgotten that it began the legalities attached to the use of the name by questioning our application to the use of the name CFC-FFL. (Everyone can be a couple for Christ, yes we agree on that! But as an association or organization it should not be. And since this has something got to do with legality, then we have to take legal action. Besides, we should have not questioned if you did not apply. Right? Simple rules brethren, no application, no question and if no approval, no appealing.
.
. .
.
Secondly, the revival of CFCFI is no underhanded plot. CFCFI became inactive for sometime precisely because it allowed CFC Global Mission Foundation, Inc. to carry on its mission. But now that CFC Global has veered away from the life and mission it was supposed to pursue, CFCFI now has every right to restore the eroded anchors of the life and mission and revive the original spirit which guided the community to put up, by virtue of " prior right," CFCFI. (Tell it to the marines! My goodness, first, CFCFI is the one and very the same CFCGMFI. It has just some additions in it but it is the same CFC. And why was it inactive, because a new name better defines its existence and nature, "global mission". And who among the FFL has the right to say that CFCGMFI has veered away from CFCFI...What do you mean by this, that the over-all governing of CFC is CFCFI. And that all others including CFCGMFI is under the authority of CFCFI? O c'mon, who invented this? It was not the practice eversince we separated from LNP. Besides, majority of the incorporators of CFCFI are members of the LNP.
. .
.
.
Thirdly, it may be timely to reiterate that the Bishops have approved of CFCFI/CFC-FFL and the Vatican has no objection to the use of the name as long as the local bishops approve. (You should say that, your bishop Gabby approve it. And please, do not include other bishops who are now having a terrible headache by what you have done.
. .
.
.
Fourthly, even the original application for the use of CFC-FFL has not been rejected by the SEC. .(And it was not also approved)
.
. .
Fifth, on June 14, 2008, CFC Founder Frank Padilla has gone on record, to wit: "With regard to our brethren in CFC/GK, we do not intend to do to them what they have been doing to us. (Definitely, coz you do not have the right to do that.) For the sake of peace and eventual reconciliation, we do not intend to prevent them from using the name "CFC" for as long as they strive not to let go of what it means to be truly CFC." (Wow, feeling...)This simply means heeding the call of the Bishops and the Vatican in their past pronouncements. (Nope, this is not what the Vatican thru Cardinal Rylko have said. What he said is very clear.."Your name CFC may not be used by any other association".)
.
.
. .
Sixth, we have always proposed creative unity and synergy, one big CFC with 2 separate branches, using the model of many religious organizations and congregations, but CFC/GK has steadfastly refused to take a serious look at this proposal. (What you are proposing is actually not for unity and synergy, but confusion and deception. CFC has already a lot of branches, but best described as Pillar)
.
.
. . .
Based on the above, CFCFI is in no fighting mood. ( Of course, because you are now on a provocative mood) We are for co-existence, not the annihilation of one at the expense of another. We have always striven to build bridges while the other side seems to be for burning them. (This is a total lie) We therefore reiterate our call to consider each other as brethren, hewn from the same stock, but with different callings. (And what calling ? If you have changed CLP t o CLS, and so many others, then that is your call, and that is different from CFC's call. Therefore, live out with that call, but leave CFC alone. Let us live out the CFC Global theme of loving one another so that at the end, we are rewarded by God with Joy. (They said if you love someone...you shall set her free.) We extend our hand of Peace because together we should "press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 3:13,14). "Together, let us beat our swords into plowshares" and never look back. (Please accept our handshake of peace too, may you go in peace)
.
.
.
.
CFC-FFL
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Here We Go Again!
A Reaction/Response to Bishop Gabby Reyes'
"Explanation and Defense of the Directives
of Stanislaw Cardinal Rylko"
Explanation and Defense of the Directives
of Stanislaw Cardinal Rylko,
President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity,
to the Gawad Kalinga of the Couples for Christ
Most Rev. Gabriel V. Reyes, D.D.
ChairmanCommission for the Laity
Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines
'
'
'
(In Blue ink is my reaction/comment)
First of all, it is good to stress that the directives of Cardinal Rylko are not against the work of Gawad Kalinga for the poor. They exhort Gawad Kalinga to go on with its good work but it should correct some mistakes, namely, the over-emphasis of social work at the expense of evangelization and spiritual formation of the family; and the acceptance of funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives.
.
.
.
The directives of Stanislaw Rylko says,
..."your name Couples for Christ" cannot be used by any other association.
This has nothing got to do with affirmation on all
the work of Gawad Kalinga. We accept his direction to correct
Gawad kalinga, that is why Joe Tale on his radio interview says,
"Masakit pero kailangang gawain" referring to public apology.
.
.
.
The directives of Cardinal Rylko are the same as the guidance that the CBCP Commission for the Laity gave to Gawad Kalinga. The Commission for the Laity also points out that these mistakes mentioned above make Gawad Kalinga deviate from the nature and purpose of Couples for Christ and from the statutes of CFC which were approved by the Pontifical Council of the Laity.
.
.
.
I beg to disagree, Cardinal Rylko's directive is that,
"... your name Couples for Christ cannot be used by
any other association" but your directive was, any association
can use it.
.
.
.
The first directive of Cardinal Rylko is that Gawad Kalinga should not over-emphasize social work at the expense of evangelization and on-going spiritual formation of the family. The family that is meant here is first of all the families of the CFC members themselves who are doing social work in Gawad Kalinga. Gawad Kalinga is a ministry of CFC and most of the workers in Gawad Kalinga are CFC members. The Statutes of Couples for Christ, in No. 2 Vision and Mission, says: 2:1 “…CFC is called to bring families back to the plan of God. It is called to bring the Lord’s strength and light to those who are struggling to be truly Christian families in the modern world.” 2:2 “Couples for Christ works for family renewal at various levels – the individual, the family, the larger community.”
.
.
.
It was only Frank who says that there were over emphasis. The
sad thing about Frank's complaint was, it reached your table
without first resolving it in the Council's circle.
Just a thought, these partnership happened even during the
time that Frank was part of the Council. How come that at that
time he was the Chairman of GK, He did not oppose nor
admonish GK's partnership with Wyeth and Pfizer? Why only
complain after he resigned? Why ask Bishop Villegas to draft
a letter to drop Gawad Kalinga without discussing it first with the
council whether or not to drop Gawad Kalinga?
Even the council, adheres to the statutes, and
no one disagree on the statutes of CFC.
.
.
.
Some CFC Couples have told me that because of their work in Gawad Kalinga they have no more time for their own prayer meeting where they undergo their own evangelization, on-going formation, and spiritual nourishment. This neglect of their on-going evangelization and spiritual formation is against the CFC statutes and bad for their own Christian life and growth in it.
.
.
.
Please take note of the word "some". I fully agree that
spiritual must come together with social and vice versa.
But never in any council pronouncement that such
practice of "some leaders" were being tolerated. In fact
Frank addressed that concern in his CFC & GK Paper 1 and 2.
.
.
.
We can compare this guidance to Gawad Kalinga of not over-emphasizing social work to the guidance to our priests during the late sixties, the seventies, and during the years of martial law when social activism was very much emphasized in the Church in the Philippines. The priests were reminded that they should work for the poor and the oppressed but they should not neglect their life of prayer and on-going spiritual formation. They were warned that if they neglect their spiritual life because of too much activism, they will unknowingly imbibe values which run counter to their Christian and priestly life. Many of those who were much involved in social activism did not listen to this advice. Many of these priests left the priesthood. Some of them became Marxists, a few became commanders of the NPA.
.
.
.
The reason why the council did not agree to remove GK from CFC
as what you have proposed together with Bishop Villegas and
Bishop Lagdameo, so that GK will be properly guided and must
fulfill the vision and mission of the mother CFC
"bringing glad tiding to the poor". And as long as GK
remains under CFC, there will always be a check and
balance to assure that GK will not and should not veer away.
.
.
.
What happened to a number of activist priests described above can also happen to the CFC members who are working in Gawad Kalinga, if they over-emphasize social work to the neglect of their own on-going evangelization and spiritual formation. Without their knowing it, they imbibe values which run counter to Christian values and which go against the CFC nature, purpose and vision/mission. And this has happened. For example, there were instances when Gawad Kalinga leaders will hide their identity as Couples for Christ when they are applying for funding from corporations who will not give to religious organizations. Another example, a Gawad Kalinga leader was against sending the children (Sibol, Sagip) in Gawad Kalinga villages to a Children’s Rosary Rally because he did not want “our partners to see Gawad Kalinga as sectarian and identified with the Church.” I would like to stress, however, that the majority of CFC members working in Gawad Kalinga are not of this mind-set. But, these cases, although few, involve the leaders of Gawad Kalinga and their wrong mind-set can easily influence the members.
.
.
.
The problem is that, only Frank and FFL and few Bishops insist that
there was a veering away. As stated in the ICs public apology,
"we apologize for any scandal caused by our leadership
past or present" is indeed an admission that there were
lapses, errors and mistakes committed in which Frank is also a
part of it. And since Frank is a part of it he must also carry
the burden and should not leave.
My dear bishop, the issue were already complicated,
and we do hope that you should not look on the issue
of veering away, since this is used for another political and personal
intentions.
Again, this is few, and there is nothing to worry about it. it will never
influence the minds and hearts of the majority. Frank wrote CFC&GK 1 and
2, to address the issue. And never did the council agre nor pronounce
statements that tolerate the non attendance of CFC from their
household in lieu of GK.
.
.
.
Gawad Kalinga was established by the Couples for Christ because they love Christ and want to love Christ in the poor and because they want to give witness to Christ through social work. Through Gawad Kalinga, the CFC aims to proclaim to people that Christ must be good because He made the CFC do the good work in Gawad Kalinga. In this way the CFC will attract people to Him. How can Gawad Kalinga be a witness to Christ if the leaders hide its identity as a ministry of the Couples for Christ because they want to get donations from companies or organizations that will not give to religious organizations?
.
.
.
Just a question:
Is Caritas established not because of they love for Christ because
they accept funds from Wyeth and Pfizer? Is UST and other
Catholic educational institutions who accept help from these
pharma companies do not love God also?
I think the Church must give a consistent guidelines on this. And
if ever they want to correct GK, they must also correct those
Catholic institution such as caritas.
CFC never hide its identity in GK as what Frank always
says. We as CFC were encouraged not to extol so much of
CFC during GK gathering. I think it is not only with GK. Let
your partners and other people extol you.
"hwag kang magbuhat ng sarili mong bangko`" ika nga.
Another example is, when we attend parish activities, we also do
not over emphasize our selves as CFC to our parish priest and bishop
especially those who do not accept CFC. We come and attend
the parish activities such as GKK (BCC) Day, clean-up,
novenas, and etc not as CFC but as parishioners.
This is not hiding our identity, but rather communing ourselves
with the non-CFC. The reason is, when CFC gathers, sometimes they
forgot that they are with non-CFC too and they have the tnedency to
be "exclusivist".
This is not about hiding our CFC identity, but being
reachable and approachable to non-CFC, for how can a non-CFC
joing the discussions of a CFC if they only talk about their
being a CFC?
.
.
.
In the news item of the Philippine Daily Inquirer of August 28, 2007, entitled “Bishops to Discuss Couples for Christ Split,” Tony Meloto was asked why Gawad Kalinga “was accepting donations even from corporations manufacturing contraceptives, contradicting the CFC’s pro-life stance.” He answered: “GK is non-partisan. We do not take any side in building a nation in the same manner that we do not pass judgment on any corporation we engage. We do not even ask them what their (corporations) products are as long as they want to help.” In the news item of the ABS-CBN News Online, April 16, 2008, entitled “Vatican admonishes Couples for Christ over Gawad Kalinga,” Tony Meloto was told that “the Vatican disapproved of CFC’s ‘over-emphasis on social work’ and Gawad Kalinga’s openness to donations from groups that promote artificial family planning.” His answer was “Gawad Kalinga’s mission is to build a nation… We will just continue to work.” Tony Meloto’s answers and statements in newspapers implied that he does not agree that GK is over-emphasizing social work at the expense of evangelization and spirituality and that for him it is okay to accept donations from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives. One of the main reasons he gives is that the mission of Gawad Kalinga is to build a nation.
.
.
.
Because, it is true! There was no overemphasis. A mere acceptance of such
donation is not a "prima facie" evidence that he is against the pro-life
stance of CFC. It is also unfair to conclude that because of such
acceptance of funds, one can conclude that it was overemphasis.
The partnership with Pfizer and Wyeth, was not about money,
it was not about their desire to complete GK 777 and that is why
they want to get money from any source. It was not about that.
Because GK can continue and will continue even without Pfizer and Wyeth.
But, when Wyeth and Pfizer sees their moral and corporate
responsibilities to help and desires to help and also
decides to partner with us, who are we to judge their intention?
And who are we to isolate ourselves from them?
.
.
.
Gawad Kalinga is a ministry of the Couples for Christ. Like Couples for Christ, its mission is not just to build a nation but to build the Kingdom of God. Its mission is to evangelize, to bring people to Christ, the Savior. Gawad Kalinga, as a ministry of CFC, is not a civic or secular agency. It is a ministry of a religious organization that believes in and promotes the values of Christ. Gawad Kalinga should not be “non-partisan” with regards to Christ and His values. It is good to build a nation but Gawad Kalinga, as a Christian organization, should build a nation according to the values of Christ. According to the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church), contraception and abortion (some contraceptive pills are abortifacient) are sinful, are against the values of Christ. Therefore it is wrong to accept donations from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives.
.
.
.
That is how exactly Frank put the words in your mouth. However,
who will disagree with that? Even we ourselves in CFC agrees that
we build a kingdom of God and not just building a nation. Even to us
in GK, that is very, very, very clear! We agree that Gk should
not be non-partisan with regards to Christ and His values.
If Catholic teaching and principle says that it is wrong to
accept funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce
contraceptives, WE DO AGREE WITH THAT.
But please, how will you answer the fact that even CARITAS,
a Catholic Institution accept the same donation from them?
Where is non-partisan in this? Why single out GK and not
include every Catholic institution who do the same?
If we will not accept the donations or the fund coming from this pharma
companies, how about their desire to help by doing it themselves?
.
.
.
Mr. Tony Meloto is the real leader in Gawad Kalinga. It is but proper to tell him that his mind-set regarding the mission of Gawad Kalinga is veering away from the vision and mission that Couples for Christ has given to Gawad Kalinga. CFC’s Gawad Kalinga is helping the poor because of love for Christ. It should never happen that GK will abandon the values of Christ because of its wanting to help the poor.
.
.
.
It seems that we do not understand the structure of Gawad Kalinga.
Tony Meloto is the Executive Director (then) and above him
is Frank Padilla who is the Chariman of the Board (then).
What made them diferent from each other is,
Tony is a good speaker and relational to people,
while Frank is theological and seldom talk to
people, especially those who are not within his circle.
So therefore, who is the real leader as what the structure says?
.
.
.
Above, I said that, in the directive that Couples for Christ should not over-emphasize social work at the expense of the evangelization and on-going spiritual formation of the family, the family that is meant is first of all the families of the CFC members who are working in Gawad Kalinga. In this directive, the families of the beneficiaries are also meant.
Some are against the directive not to over-emphasize social work at the expense of evangelization and spiritual formation of the family because they say that, as you cannot preach to an empty stomach, you should not speak about spiritual matters to people who lack decent housing.
.
.
.
Bishop, they reason behind the passion of every CFC member and
its family to help the poor is because of their deep love for God.
We always call this faith in action.
No one is against the directive of not to over-emphasize social
over spiritual as what Frank always banners. The issue that we
are fighting for is we did not over-emphasize.
.
.
.
I beg to disagree. I think we should help the beneficiaries of Gawad Kalinga in their spiritual and material needs at the same time. Work for the material needs of the poor and work for their spiritual needs should proceed hand in hand. Of course, depending on the situation, there are times when one should stress social work more but evangelization should never be neglected. The poor are already deprived of food and decent shelter, why should we deprive them of the word of God, which is food for their hearts and minds and which will give them hope and strength in their difficult situation. Sister Marlene, a German Little Sister of Jesus, who has been living with the poor in the Philippines, once said: “There is nothing wrong in talking about God to a man who has an empty stomach, provided your stomach is also empty and you try to help him find food.”
.
.
.
Exactly, that is why GK was given by God to CFC. So that the spiritual
and social needs of the poor will be addressed. Both of us agree on
this principle. If you only know that every CFC member were strengthened
by their commitment to CFC that is why till now they sacrifice to
go and do GK work.
If CFC members' foundation on evangeliztion is weak because of over-emphasis,
i doubt if there would still be more CFC willing to work in GK. If their faith
as a solid foundation were weak because of the over-emphasis (that you
are claiming) then many CFC who are in GK have already
left CFC and GK as well.
but look, who left CFC and GK...isn't it Frank and his "alipores"?
.
.
.
I have been assigned in some parishes in Metro Manila as a parochial vicar and, later, as parish priest. Through our parish social action center and through my pastoral ministry (sick calls, neighborhood masses, block rosary, etc), I was also in contact with the poor who do not have decent housing or are living over “stinking esteros.” I found the great majority of them open to God and spiritual matters, except those who never heard about God or were never catechized or have been indoctrinated by Marxists. Many people who flock to the “Poon Nazareno” in Quiapo Church or to the Sto. Niño in Tondo do not have decent housing.
.
.
.
And that is why until now they are still poor right? To become poor was
not their fault, but it was our failure to bring the "haves" into a real
Christian virtue of sharing with the "have nots".
So Bishop, what do you want to propose now? Are we
going to close our eyes to the poor in Quiapo and let them live
that way all through out their generation? Anyway they
have the "Poon Nazareno" with them already.
.
.
.
The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II) in nos. 154-185 speaks about integral evangelization and the elements composing it, namely, catechesis, worship, and social apostolate. In No. 182, it says, “…it must be stressed that no true renewal can happen in one area (e.g. catechesis) in isolation from the other areas (worship and social apostolate). Any genuine renewal must affect all three areas in their inter-relationship.” “Without education towards maturity in the faith, the social apostolate will become activism and will fall prey to the temptations of unchristian ideologies.”(No. 183) In No. 185, it continues, “Finally the social apostolate without worship will lose its source of strength…” Pope Benedict XVI says in “Deus Caritas Est” (God is Love) No. 25, “a] The Church’s deepest nature is expressed in her three-fold responsibility: of proclaiming the word of God (kerygma-martyria), celebrating the sacrament (leitourgia), and exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These duties presuppose each other and are inseparable.”
.
.
.
CFC agree in all of this. Worship, Cathechesis, and Social Apostolate
must come together with the same emphasis to addressed the need
of the poor. One cannot go without the other.
CFC have nothing against this, we all agree and fully submit
ourselves in this teaching. As what you have said the three presuppose
each other and are inseparable.
But my question, who proposed that GK will be separated from CFC?
.
.
.
Regarding the issue of receiving funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives, let me first quote from the letter to me of the late Cardinal Trujillo, the former President of the Pontifical Council for Family and Life, dated November 26, 2007:
“Accepting donations from those who promote abortion and contraception will compromise the Gospel of the Family and of Life, and will greatly harm our efforts to strengthen and defend the family and life; hence, it should not be done.”
“First, in this concrete case, the funds offered also come from actions that are morally evil, abortion and contraception. Accepting such funding creates confusion among the faithful, as they give the impression that abortion and the production, distribution, and use of contraceptives and abortifacients are acceptable practices. Besides, in their advancements and promotional materials, these companies could say that they help the Catholic Church, and thus give the false idea that their contraceptive and abortion causing products and services are acceptable.”
“Second, the risk exists for the pro-family groups receiving similar funding to be at least silent about the unacceptability of such products.”
“Third, it would provide those working against the family grounds for extremely persuasive criticism to attack and discredit Church organizations and the Church herself – especially through charges of incoherence and insincerity.”
“Accepting donations from those who promote abortion and contraception will compromise the Gospel of the Family and of Life, and will greatly harm our efforts to strengthen and defend the family and life; hence, it should not be done.”
“First, in this concrete case, the funds offered also come from actions that are morally evil, abortion and contraception. Accepting such funding creates confusion among the faithful, as they give the impression that abortion and the production, distribution, and use of contraceptives and abortifacients are acceptable practices. Besides, in their advancements and promotional materials, these companies could say that they help the Catholic Church, and thus give the false idea that their contraceptive and abortion causing products and services are acceptable.”
“Second, the risk exists for the pro-family groups receiving similar funding to be at least silent about the unacceptability of such products.”
“Third, it would provide those working against the family grounds for extremely persuasive criticism to attack and discredit Church organizations and the Church herself – especially through charges of incoherence and insincerity.”
.
.
.
Please tell this too to Caritas and other Catholic Educational Institution who
accepts donations from anti-life companies. And so that all of us
will together put a sackcloth and ashes unto ourselves as way of repentance.
.
.
.
People who find nothing wrong in receiving funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives reason in this way: If a starving man may steal when stealing is the only way for him to get food and escape imminent death, then Gawad Kalinga may also receive funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives in order to provide housing to people in need of decent housing. The reasoning is wrong because the two situations they cite are not the same. First, the funds of the pharmaceutical company that produces contraceptives are not the only means to provide housing to the beneficiaries of Gawad Kalinga. There are many partner corporations and groups giving funds to Gawad Kalinga for its housing project. I am sure more groups will be willing to help, if asked. Gawad Kalinga’s work will not be significantly affected if they stop receiving funds from companies that produce contraceptives. Second, the beneficiaries of GK, who lack decent housing, are not in imminent danger of death. They have been living in these houses for years. Their situation is not as desperate as the man who is allowed to steal because he is in imminent danger of death and the only solution to avoid death is to steal. So, there is no justifying reason for Gawad Kalinga to do something wrong, that is, receive funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives, especially when there are so many good means available in order to get funds for the housing project. This directive to the Gawad Kalinga to stop receiving “objectionable” funds is similar to the “collective policy of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines regarding gambling”. In its “CBCP Statement on Gambling,” dated January 23, 2005, it says:
“3. Therefore, the CBCP has made it a collective policy: a] ….. b] ….. c] To refrain from soliciting or receiving funds from illegal or legal gambling so as not to promote a culture of gambling; and d] To encourage Church personnel and Church institutions to refrain from doing the same, even when the objective may be that of helping the poor.” Those who say that it is all right for Gawad Kalinga to receive funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives in order to provide housing for the poor cite another reason, namely, the Latin proverb: “Prinum est vivere, deinde philosophare” – “to stay alive comes first before philosophizing.” But, contraceptives are not just a matter of philosophizing. It is also a matter of “staying alive.” Some contraceptives are abortifacient; they kill people.
“3. Therefore, the CBCP has made it a collective policy: a] ….. b] ….. c] To refrain from soliciting or receiving funds from illegal or legal gambling so as not to promote a culture of gambling; and d] To encourage Church personnel and Church institutions to refrain from doing the same, even when the objective may be that of helping the poor.” Those who say that it is all right for Gawad Kalinga to receive funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives in order to provide housing for the poor cite another reason, namely, the Latin proverb: “Prinum est vivere, deinde philosophare” – “to stay alive comes first before philosophizing.” But, contraceptives are not just a matter of philosophizing. It is also a matter of “staying alive.” Some contraceptives are abortifacient; they kill people.
.
.
.
Again, we seek consistencies on this. You find it wrong with Gawad Kalinga
but not with Caritas and other Catholic Educational Institution?
Do you think UST Hospital do not use life saving drugs coming from Pfizer and Wyeth?
Why not release a decree that will boycott Pfizer and Wyeth
and many other companies who produces contraceptives?
.
.
.
Before I end, I would like to point out that Mr. Tony Meloto and some columnists, knowingly or unknowingly, distort the directives of Cardinal Rylko. By the way they comment on the directives, they make people think that the directives are against the work of Gawad Kalinga for the poor. The directives are not against Gawad Kalinga. Gawad Kalinga should continue its very good work. The directives are just making some corrections in Gawad Kalinga, namely, that Gawad Kalinga should not over-emphasize social work at the expense of the evangelization and spiritual formation of the family and that GK should stop receiving funds from pharmaceutical companies that produce contraceptives.
.
.
.
I am just wondering why GK entered in this partnership
during the time of Frank as the chairman? And nobody question?
.
Why question it now? Have you wondered Bishop what lies
behind all these complaints? What trigger them to fuel this issue?
.
Why question their own decision and pass the burden to the new
leadership? Don't you know that Frank and Tony were good
friends, and how come that they never sorted out the matter
within themselves? Why it has to reach to the Bishop and Vatican level?
.
The solution is sooooo simple, if it is against our pro-life stance to accept
donations then DO NOT ACCEPT. But why form a FFL?
.
I thought, we have settled down on the issue, that each must go according
to their own charism? But why is it that they still criticize CFC.
.
What is it in them that they want to interfer on how will CFC
go about the issue on GK? They have separated already
they can make their own program to help the poor
according to how thay want it to be. But why still interfer?
.
Have you wonder bishop that all these veering away
might just be a cover up to a more deeply rooted
issue about their personal interest?
.
.
May God bless us,
Bro. Mero :-)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
It's getting nowhere!
A few days ago, i have read the blog of cd about "state of confusion pt.1" and "master of misinformation". I can't imagine how desparate are the group of Frank Padilla to destroy CFC. To me, their moves are not of God anymore.
In Jerome Paler's article "I do not recognize T2 Frank anymore, i feel pity for Frank and i feel sorry for Jerome. Para bang ang dating, kailangan nang mang-away ng FFL to attract attention. They need to banner every issue so they can get attention of the church. Well nakuha na nga nila when Bp. Reyes sided with them.
Now, what is sad is, kailangan nang mang-agaw ng venue ng FFL. Talagang nanghahamon ng giyera. Seems that Frank and his coy are so desperate that kahit ano papatulan at kahit papano basta lng magulo ang CFC, gagawin nila.
For my brethren in CFC, this is a warning even to us. No matter how holy we are, if we let anger and pride rule over us, nothing good will comeout of our mouth and nothing good will bear from our action. In short nawawala yung ating holiness.
For my brethren in CFC, this is a reminder, that we should never look on people but to God.
What happened to CFC, how FFL move is a reminder of EDSA3 for me. People become destructive, violent and offensive becuase of severe desperation. This time FFL is desperately seeking position, power and control over CFC. They cannot let go of something they have invested for 25 years of their life. What they thought, is that when they hold back, when they resign or turn their back, mojority of the members will crave for their coming back. People will demand for their return.
I am sure Frank will deny this, but it is a fact. They cannot let go.
Now, why did I say that IT IS GETTING NOWHERE.
Because, the real issue is not about veering away, it is not about disobedience, and it is not about partnership with anti-life companies nor overemphasis of social over spiritual. It is about jealousy, spiritual pride, and anger.
Why Frank will accuse Jerome of fuelling the issue? Why Frank accuse Jerome na "tinitira siya patalikod? And why Frank and his 2 other companions in So. Leyte says na nakasimangot si jerome? It is maybe because gawain din ni Frank ito? hindi kaya?
May kasabihan ang mga matatanda: You can see people by the glass you wear. What you see in others is what you are!
What they see in CFC, and what they accuse CFC of, is basically what they are doing and who they are!
NOW, IT IS GETTING NOWHERE, because the issue they are fighting are not really the issues they are living out.
They accuse us of veering away, but they veer away from serving God and focus on dirty tactics.
They accuse us of disobedience, now they themselves are disobeying the Cardinal.
It is getting nowhere, because they use 2 weighing scales, they use 2 different standard. When we air our voices to the bishop, it is disobedience, but if they air their side, it is not! you see!
When we partner with Pfizer, Wyeth and Unilab, FFL will say we are anti-life. But Ateneo, UST, Caritas who are also receipients of such corporations directly or indirectly, FFL are silent! You see!
IT IS REALLY GETTING NOWHERE! Because it was all ENVY, JEALOUSY and PRIDE!
In Jerome Paler's article "I do not recognize T2 Frank anymore, i feel pity for Frank and i feel sorry for Jerome. Para bang ang dating, kailangan nang mang-away ng FFL to attract attention. They need to banner every issue so they can get attention of the church. Well nakuha na nga nila when Bp. Reyes sided with them.
Now, what is sad is, kailangan nang mang-agaw ng venue ng FFL. Talagang nanghahamon ng giyera. Seems that Frank and his coy are so desperate that kahit ano papatulan at kahit papano basta lng magulo ang CFC, gagawin nila.
For my brethren in CFC, this is a warning even to us. No matter how holy we are, if we let anger and pride rule over us, nothing good will comeout of our mouth and nothing good will bear from our action. In short nawawala yung ating holiness.
For my brethren in CFC, this is a reminder, that we should never look on people but to God.
What happened to CFC, how FFL move is a reminder of EDSA3 for me. People become destructive, violent and offensive becuase of severe desperation. This time FFL is desperately seeking position, power and control over CFC. They cannot let go of something they have invested for 25 years of their life. What they thought, is that when they hold back, when they resign or turn their back, mojority of the members will crave for their coming back. People will demand for their return.
I am sure Frank will deny this, but it is a fact. They cannot let go.
Now, why did I say that IT IS GETTING NOWHERE.
Because, the real issue is not about veering away, it is not about disobedience, and it is not about partnership with anti-life companies nor overemphasis of social over spiritual. It is about jealousy, spiritual pride, and anger.
Why Frank will accuse Jerome of fuelling the issue? Why Frank accuse Jerome na "tinitira siya patalikod? And why Frank and his 2 other companions in So. Leyte says na nakasimangot si jerome? It is maybe because gawain din ni Frank ito? hindi kaya?
May kasabihan ang mga matatanda: You can see people by the glass you wear. What you see in others is what you are!
What they see in CFC, and what they accuse CFC of, is basically what they are doing and who they are!
NOW, IT IS GETTING NOWHERE, because the issue they are fighting are not really the issues they are living out.
They accuse us of veering away, but they veer away from serving God and focus on dirty tactics.
They accuse us of disobedience, now they themselves are disobeying the Cardinal.
It is getting nowhere, because they use 2 weighing scales, they use 2 different standard. When we air our voices to the bishop, it is disobedience, but if they air their side, it is not! you see!
When we partner with Pfizer, Wyeth and Unilab, FFL will say we are anti-life. But Ateneo, UST, Caritas who are also receipients of such corporations directly or indirectly, FFL are silent! You see!
IT IS REALLY GETTING NOWHERE! Because it was all ENVY, JEALOUSY and PRIDE!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Final Cut!
As i was reading the last part of the CFC origins, hindi ko mapigilang maluha. I am not a pioneering CFC members but just a product after the split. I belong to the "new era" shall we say.
.
Since i joined in 1994, all i know is that LNP is obstructing the growth of CFC that is why it needs to separate from LNP. Reading the article and connecting it to the present crisis, i feel the same pattern.
.
Allow me to share my views on the similarities, the pattern and the trend that i notice: The 1993 Split in red and The 2007 Split in blue
.
1.) In 1991 Frank meet with Vic to discuss the CFC concern and propose to establish CFC as an independent community.
Frank raises the CFC & GK concerns that proposes to separate GK from CFC. (They asked Bp. Villegas to draft a letter regarding the proposal)
Strategy: Make a big deal of a certain issue
.
2.) 1992, the community was rife with rumors that CFC plans to separate.
2.) 1992, the community was rife with rumors that CFC plans to separate.
The exposition of CFC & GK 3 paper
Strategy: Massive campaign/ awareness to attract attention and sentiments
.
3.) While consultation and meeting are on-going some few leaders of CFC prepared the "articles of incorporation".
.
The meeting of some CFC leaders and called themselves the easter group/ playboy bunnies.
Strategy: Undermined planning
.
4.) Great number of community know nothing, all they knew LNP hampers the growth of CFC. (Discrediting / putting LNP in a bad light)
What was peddeled in the mind of the members was the issue that CFC veers away because of GK (Discrediting GK and putting GK in a bad light)
Strategy: Get as much as plus points, and discredit the enemy.
.
5.) Frank dissolved the council and held the election before the final dialogue with Fr. Herb. (An attempt to control the top leadership)
Frank asked the council to resign, attempted to postpone the election, attemtpted to be reinstated together with the other 2 who resigned. being unsuccessful to do so, he formed FFL and separated before the Aug.28 meeting with Bishops
Strategy: Destabilize leadership
.
6.) Frank wrote a letter to Fr. Herb, telling that they proceed with the election and that they are no longer willing to be under the authority and direction of LNP.
Frank wrote letter asking the IC to resign. Frank asked the international community to withdraw their support to the IC.
Strategy: Detach from he controlling authority or leadership.
.
7.) Frank claims "God owns CFC and not LNP"
Frank, the keeper of the charism of CFC, he is the founder. So they have the sole right to CFC.
Strategy: Justify your claims by inventing terminoloies and defenitions to suit your favor.
.
8.) Used the bishops to show Frank is guided and in the right track. Bp. Bacani- Metro Manila Bp. Profugo- Luzon Bp. Varela - Bicol Bp. Lagdameo - Visayas Bp. Morelos - Mindanao
Used 3 bishops to back up his claim. Bp. Villegas, Bp. Reyes, and Bp. Lagdameo
Strategy: Get as many bishops to back you up.
.
Same strategies, with different words used. Same tactics with different scenario. Same approach, in different time. Going thru this crisis, it is only right and just to go back to our history.
They say "ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan hindi makakarating sa paroroonan."
It is only thru studying the past to understand the present and to determine the future. As i was reading the last two pages of the article containing the letter of Mr. Vic Gutierezz, naluluha na naman ulit ako. I cannot imagine how such manipulation of truth have come to Frank's favor to make his will happen at the expense of the leaders of LNP.
To Mr. Vic Gutierezz, i am sorry. Sorry because i believe in the lie for 14 years. Sorry that we pay no attention of digging and knowing the real truth of the cause of the split in 1993 until this crisis occur again in 2007.
.
Who would expect anyway that what happened last 1993 would happen again in this 2007 after 26 years of joy, unity, peace and passion.
.
Very true! HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF! All we do hope is that we must learn the lessons of the past!
.
Thank you Mr. Vic Gutierezz for shedding the light of information to us. Thank you...thank you!
You may think that your version of the story might be tagged as untruth, your credibility will be questioned and whatever reaction.
.
But I have heard the version of our leaders for 14 years, and now i have heard you. What is happening today, will only affirm who is telling the truth of what happened 15 years ago.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
IN DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH: A Reaction
I got an article written by FFL "In defense of the Church". The one written in blue is my reaction/response. I am one with FFL in saying that we need to defend the Church. But the real attack is not coming from the outside force, it is from the inside. Evil have come through the hypocrisy that is in us, when truth are manipulated, fabricated and made it for all people to believe.
IN DEFENSE OF THE CHURCH
May 6, 2008
Our commitment, as expressed in our statutes, is “to rise in defense of the Roman Catholic Church against the forces that seek to destroy or weaken it.”
This is exactly what CFC is all about. "Moved by the Holy Spirit, one with the Catholic Church..."
In the past few weeks, the Church hierarchy has been subjected to unprecedented attacks.
...The church heirarchy has been subjected to so many attacks already- history will tell. But what makes it different is, the peddled lies of the FFL to manipulate the heirarchy and putting them (Church heirarchy in the bad light..attracting negative attention)
Against bishops and the Church in general“…. it is very easy for me to discern falsity, or hypocrisy, especially of the self-righteous who preach much more than they practice.” “And we must forgive those who were anointed to guide and protect us from the evil that has enslaved us for they probably know not what they do.” (Boy Montelibano, “A Mortal Blow to a Mortal Crime,” March 7, 2008)
Wow...this is not against the Bishops and the Church in general but to those whom this article is concerned.
“In the center of controversy ….. hypocrisy which is a constant presence in the halls of hierarchy ….” (Boy Montelibano, “Hate Campaign against Gawad Kalinga will not Succeed,” April 20, 2008)
Very true, in the midst of this controversy, Frank has used the heirarchy on his favor. His hypocrisy has tainted the heirarchy.
“….. the Catholic Church seems determined to preach only the new theology that God wants to reward the wicked and punish the good.” “The bishops accept money from a hypocritical to do everything in their power to keep her in power just so they could fatten and gladden themselves.” “I do not claim to know the ways of heaven, but when St. Peter goes out one day to meet Meloto ….., and the bishops who have praised their God loudly by refusing to condemn the most corrupt of their ‘sisthren,’ I have a good idea whom he will send upstairs and downstairs.” (Conrado de Quiros, “There’s the Rub,” April 22, 2008)
How the Catholic Church attended the controversies based on the peddled lies of FFL has brought a negative impression from the public writers.
“What is generally known but not so talked about is the participation, by commission or omission, of the Catholic Church in causing and perpetuating the situation of poverty and corruption.” “….. fundamentalism and spiritual bigotry. ….. there is hope that erring cardinals and bishops who have veered away will ultimately see the way, the truth and the light.” (Boy Montelibano, “Nobility versus Hypocrisy,” April 23, 2008)
It is a prayer, that somehow the Catholic Church through its cardinals and bishops may see the way, the truth and the light far from how the FFL manipulates the situation.
“There are true Christians among Catholics, but there are also Catholics who are not even Christians at all. Sometimes, even the shepherds of Christ’s Church are themselves lost sheep.” “Sad to say, we have the same breed of confused clergy today mouthing condemnation and raising alarums of eternal damnation against members of the Catholic congregation who happen to outdo them in their avowed mission to win hearts and souls for Christ.” “The bishops preach that gambling is evil and yet bishops and cardinals are known to derive a big chunk of funds from gambling operations of PCSO and Pagcor. How can they provide spiritual inspiration to the faithful when they themselves are confused about their own perspectives?” (William Esposo, “How the New Pharisees Undermine the Roman Catholic Church,” April 29, 2008)
What the writer needs to see is the consistency of how the teaching is implemented.
“The conflicting messages and actuation of the Church hierarchy among themselves and oftentimes in full view of the public contribute to the lessening of the credibility of this same hierarchy. Worse, the participation or intrusion of the Vatican in a controversy which it should keep away from can lessen its own credibility …..” “….. religious bigotry and fundamentalism.” (Boy Montelibano, “GK Enough or More …. Are we a Church of the Poor?”, April 17, 2008)
We pray that the heirarchy may be truly guided and may not be misled by those who try to manipulate the truth.
Against Bishop Gabriel Reyes“Bishop Gabriel Reyes ….. wants like Pontius Pilate to appear uninvolved.” (Boy Montelibano, “Hate Campaign against Gawad Kalinga will not Succeed,” April 20, 2008)
We do hope that Boy is proven to be wrong. Bishop, are you really involved with FFL?
“The statement is not only shocking, but utterly absurd. It is, in fact, quite perverted because of the fact that it comes from the Catholic Church as orchestrated by a bishop from the Philippines.” (Boy Montelibano, “Nobility versus Hypocrisy,” April 23, 2008)
“The actuation of Bishop Gabriel Reyes is suspect because his name had already been reported in another controversy affecting Couples for Christ last year. Seen clearly by the hundreds of thousands of CFC members as a partisan supporter of a breakaway splinter group, Bishop Reyes has done much to damage the image of the Church …..”
“A wide range of issues were raised by the new Pharisees.” “But this makes us wonder if all this hypocrisy that emulates nothing but the Pharisees is at bottom all about money.” (William Esposo, “How the New Pharisees Undermine the Roman Catholic Church,” April 29, 2008)
Against Bishop Reyes and Cardinal Rylko“What we speak of here in the current brouhaha with the actions of the concerned Church personalities is a matter of Church protocol or even hypocrisy, not Church dogma. As Cardinal Rylko and bishop Gabriel Reyes smear, deliberately or consequently, the most noble work …..” “Cardinal Rylko and Bishop Reyes call it an ‘overemphasis’ on the social instead of the spiritual. That is not only a spiritual distortion, it is contrary to Church teachings. But in the case of Cardinal Rylko, I will call it only ignorance of the truth, or the human weakness of believing a source without sound basis.” “….. from fundamentalism and hypocrisy, from the clutches of the evil that lurks of those who claim to be spiritual and moral leaders.” (Boy Montelibano, “Hate Campaign against Gawad Kalinga will not Succeed,” April 20, 2008)
“Christ did warn us: ‘Beware the devil quoting scripture.’ The new Pharisees and their Vatican ally, Cardinal Rylko, cannot even be consistent with what Pope Benedict XVI has been pushingsocial action.” (William Esposo, “How the New Pharisees Undermine the Roman Catholic Church,” April 29, 2008)
“Anyone who reads the letter of Cardinal Rylko can easily deduce that he had fallen for the position of the Pharisees, a position that was apparently espoused and presented by Bishop Reyes who heads the National Council of the Laity here.” (William Esposo, “Updates on the Pharisees, GK and CFC,” May 6, 2008)
Against Cardinal Rylko“The Church’s latest disincentive to faith is the letter of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Laity to Couples for Christ seeking to ‘correct’ what is wrong with it.” (Conrado de Quiros, “There’s the Rub,” April 22, 2008)
Who are the attackers?
FFL!
Boy Montelibano is the right-hand man of Tony Meloto, the head of Gawad Kalinga. William Esposo and Conrado de Quiros are associates of Montelibano in a political group that is looking to having Tony Meloto as a candidate for President in 2010.
What are you afraid of if Tony really runs for 2010 election? Is this another propaganda to discredit the man whose passion is only to love the poor? (What a sad mentality among Filipinos eh., everytime we see someone who helps the poor, we suspect him of having a political interest.)
We deplore the lies, disinformation, and rabble rousing in the writings of these three persons. We deplore the use of media to malign the Church and the hierarchy. We deplore the disrespect to our spiritual shepherds.
We have deplored all the lies since last year! However, FFL tries to present their own version of truth. "LIES, DISINFORMATION, MALIGN, DISRESPECT," these were the issues we had since last year.
We also regret that the CFC International Council under Joe Tale, the members of which have authority over GK, have chosen not to correct or chastise Montelibano, a CFC member and a GK leader. By their silence they betray their concurrence, at the very least, with what has been written.
And we also regret that FFL have manipulated the TRUTH to their favor which put the Church heirarchy in a bad light. How can the IC chastise Boy Montelibano- an ordinary CFC member, if they could not even chastise Frank Padilla - a top leader of CFC and prevented the split.
We declare that there is absolutely no truth to the allegations.
Very true, there is no truth about witch-hunt, overemphasis of social, disobedience and etc.
We ask our brethren to continue to engage in spiritual warfare, as the enemy continues to rage. New Age has infiltrated GK, and it is a characteristic of New Agers that they hate the Church. New Age coupled with a political agenda becomes even more diabolical.
It is better that way,at least we know and we see. But be wises as fox and be clever as doves! Because the one who is more diabolical is hidden under the white robes of the heirarchy and have even infiltrated into the minds of the heirarchy. This is more dangerous because it attacks you in the times that you are not ready. To believe in a certain truth that in reality it was a total lie!
We call on all CFC members, both CFC-GK-IC and CFC-FFL, to defend the integrity of the Church, and to reject those who for selfish reasons seek to destroy or weaken it.
We call on both CFC and FFL especially Frank. Let us stop this! Let us be reconciled! Let us work together in defending the Church. Do not put CFC in a badlight to the heirarchy! Surrender you weapons!
When we start to complement each other, when we start to love each other, when we will start to make peace and reconcile with each other, then the independent writers will stop writing about us. Then they will stop writing against the Catholic heirarchy.
The real truth is, it is our own fault why these writers write unfavorably. We fight, we argue, you separate, we had a split and so they have all the stroies to write. They love to write controversies to attract interest in the public. But when we unite, they have nothing to write. So let us be united again!
With what you are doing, it is the Mother Church that is suffering in the person of its Bishops and Cardinal! You have to realize that! The IC is now making a reparation to the relationship with the heirarchy (that you have destroyed by your manipulated truth). Allow them to do so.
CFC-FFL
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)