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

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.”

.

.

.

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.

.

.

.

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 :-)