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 :-)