tidbits

Pastor Faces Ecclesial Movements

2009-08-02T08:16:00.003+08:00

Some months ago roving catechists of the Neo-Catechumenal Way were knocking at my door, requesting me that they be given that opportunity to serve the Church of Tagbilaran through its charism. May they be allowed to proclaim the Kerygma to the faithful, form communities, and thereby establish the presence of the Catechumenal communities here in Bohol?

I personally know the Neo-Catechumenal Way. Through the years of its existence it has realized more and more that it is a genuine charism within the Body of Christ. It therefore is not just a movement for itself or for its members. It has a purpose and a mission in the universal Church and the particular Churches. It is there to serve and to help build up the Body of Christ. Its reason for existing is to live for and in unity of the Church.

Founded in 1964 in Madrid, the Holy Father himself has been aware of its existence and its contribution to the building up of the particular Churches where they have inserted themselves. Its catechesis founded heavily on the tripod ‘Word of God-Liturgy-Community’ has through the forty (40) years of its existence formed people into communities and led its members to mature faith. John Paul II on many occasions and in different ways, observed closely and spoke highly of the fruits of the missionary drive and the evangelical radicalism of the Catechumenal Way, and expressly stated that it is “an itinerary of Catholic formation, valid for our society and for our times” (AAS 82, 1990). For his part, Benedit XVI, who have been following intently the evolution of the Way, made this remark to the members of the Catechumenal Way: “Your apostolic action intends to take place in the heart of the Church, in total harmony with her directives and in communion with the particular Churches in which you are going to work, making the most of the richness of the charisms that the Lord has awakened through the Initiators of the Way” (Teaching of Benedict XVI II, 1, 2006). Due to the orthodoxy of doctrine and the precious contributions that the Way has consistently manifested in the ecclesial work of the new evangelization, the Pontifical Council of the Laity officially approved the Statute of the Neo-Catechumenal Way on 11th May 2008.

Vis-a-vis this unselfish offer for the opening of the New Evangelization, the priests of the Diocese of Tagbilaran made a momentary pause. They needed time to reflect. Is the new movement not a threat to the organizational set-up decreed by the Diocesan Synod? Does it not do havoc to the parish organizations, programs and activities that have been assiduously put into place and for so many years have served well the community? Will it not create a parallel Church, a group of people, that is, that would follow more the dictates of the Way than the provision of the Diocesan Statute?. Or, in time of conflict, do leaders of the group insist more on following the catechumenal mode of doing things than abiding with the policies laid down by the universal Church? In the midst of the diocesan thrust for the building up of the Basic Ecclesial Communities and the clusters, for deepening the faith of members, and awakening them more and more to the realities of their given rights and obligations as people of God, does the Catechumenal Way help or obstruct it? What will be its role? Uneasiness, apprehension, fear... feelings all that, in a nutshell, are expressed in this query: shall we accept the offer or not?

As the Bishop of the Diocese, I came in to allay these feelings of unease. After all, when we come into it, there is actually no conflict between the institutional and the charismatic aspects of the Church. What is needed is the right attitude. On the one hand the bishop and the parish priests must have a deep paternal attitude towards such new movements. On the other hand, these charismatic movements must have that readiness for discernment.

To establish this right relationship, basic principles have to be invoked. The section of the Code that specifically treats on private associations (Canons 312-329) recognizes and guarantees the continued existence of these faith movements in the Church. They have a right to exist in accordance with their particular charisms. As such the whole Church, pastors and the rest of the faithful, should respect this right. On the other hand, these movements have “grave obligation to let themselves be known as they are in daily life. To offer a partial vision implies to falsify their identity and impede the ecclesiastical authorities from being able make a declaration according to the truth of the ecclesiaslity of the reality”(cf. Luis Navarro, ROME, NOV. 13, 2008 Zenit.org).

In his address to the German bishops in 2006, Benedict XVI said: “Approach with great love the movements and new communities . . . in order to gain an adequate understanding of their reality, without superficial impressions or reductionist judgments... The ecclesial movements and the new communities are not a problem or an extra risk, added to our already weighty responsibilities. No! They are a gift from the Lord, a precious resource to enrich with their charism as the entire Christian community . . . Difficulties or misunderstandings on particular issues do not bring the right of isolation” (AsiaNews.It, Vatican City, 05/17/2008 15:47).

He further stated: “What might be feared is a journey along parallel lines, each for himself, the bishops on one side, the movements on the other. This would mean an impoverishing of both.” Thus Benedict XVI exhorts the pastors to "a service of discernment" and to "correction" of the values of the movements, and at the same time to resist "the temptation of making uniform what the Holy Spirit wants to be multiform, to contribute to the building and growth of the one Body of Christ, which the Spirit himself makes firm in unity". (cf. Ibid.).

With that, I came out with the decision to welcome the offer of the Neo-Catechumenal Community to the Diocese of Tagbilaran, with the provision, however, that the catechists, before starting any activity towards evangelization, must first approach the parish priests and discuss the charisms with them. In any activity after all there is no substitute to a wholesome meeting of minds.

Canon Law and the Filipino Migrants

2009-07-24T10:26:00.001+08:00

It is tragic to note that we are no longer shocked with the fast growing number of Filipinos exiting our country. It bespeaks of an attitude that has become accustomed, if not calloused, to the alarming reality that the phenomenon does not cause us anymore unease. In the midst of this seeming indifference, we are presented with some eight to nine million migrants. The last count up was just seven million some two or three years ago. Now it is nine million, Filipinos all. They are not mere faceless individuals, but warm bodies with human feelings and Filipino needs that constantly call our attention. They are living persons who need food and the basic necessities of life to keep themselves in one piece; rational beings who can foresee the need to provide for the uncertainties of the future, responsible family men and women who in search for a better future for their children, they set out of this country that they love, and settle in a foreign land which they surmise could give them a better tomorrow; human persons who are endowed with rights and obligations, particularly the right to a decent environment that guarantees the protection of their human dignity. In brief, they have to be cared for bodily, psychologically, and spiritually.

The Church in the Philippines has not been remiss in its obligation to extend its Pastoral Care to Filipino Migrants. It is aware of its task to look into the temporal and spiritual needs of its faithful. It is after all wary to the rights of the migrants as well as to all the faithful which the Code enunciated, to wit: “Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the Sacraments” (Canon 213). This right is based on the constitutional right of each individual faithful by virtue of baptism. Canon 208 expresses well this basic right in these words: “Flowing from their rebirth in Christ, there is a genuine equality of dignity and action among all of Christ’s faithful. Because of this equality they all contribute, each according to his or her own condition and office, to the building up of the Body of Christ.” Hence, the obligation hangs on the Church in the Philippines to look after the spiritual and moral needs of these Filipino migrants. They may be far from its reach, but the obligation remains in its conscience. Foremost in its mind is what is demanded in the Salvation History – God provided laws and guidelines regarding refugees. When God commanded the Chosen People to be hospitable to foreigners and strangers, as stated in Leviticus 19: 34, God reminded them of the reason for the legal provision, that is, “because you yourselves were foreigners in strange land.” CBCP sees this text as a framework for its pastoral care for Filipino migrants, that is, our people are strangers in foreign lands. It has to look after their pastoral needs, their well-being, peace of mind, growth in spiritual life, and their appreciation of their dignity as human beings and as children of God. The Church in the Philippines has the task to constantly remind them and support them that no matter how menial their kind of work is, they remain children of God and bearers of human dignity. It is for this heavy responsibility that CBCP has to found the Commission for the Pastoral Care for Migrants, and to demand from it a regular report and evaluation of its mission. But nine million Filipino migrants is a number so staggering that the Commission is in a quandary on how to effectively and efficiently meet the demands and expectations of the Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

One of the greatest pains of our migrant workers is the loss of the sense of self-pride. They pine to get it back, but no amount of money that they receive can buy it back. The Church understands the depth of man’s pain when he is deprived of such self-worth. Hence, in its work for Christian justice and charity, its priority is to assist the concerned individual migrants get back their dignity. Hence, the words of John XXIII echoed: “Individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social l institution” (Pacem in Terris, 31). Then he added: “Every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services” (ibid, 32). For, every person is precious, people are more important than things, and the value of every institution is whether or not it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person. Pope Benedict XVI in his recent Encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” reminds everyone of the precedence of dignity of man over other concerns of development. He said: “I would like to remind everyone, especially governments engaged in boosting the world’s economic and social assets, that the primary capital to be safeguard and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity: ‘Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life’” (n.25; cf. LG 63).

Our migrant workers, nine million of them, have dignity to uphold, human pride to protect, better quality of lives to pine for, meaning of life to keep intact, spirituality to hang on to, so that they can live as human persons and as children of God in foreign places.

Who would articulate and protect their deep human longing? The Canon Lawyers of the Philippines (CLSP) with courage faced up to this problem sometime on April 2009, in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, during their annual meeting in that place. They are aware that they as canon lawyers are called to give their share in the pastoral care of Filipino migrants. Theirs is to look closely into the provisions of law, the social doctrine of the Church, as expounded by Vatican II, the living Magisterium of the Church, the provisions of PCP II and the subsequent acts of the Bishops Conference of the Philippines. These will give them the necessary framework to provide our Church leaders with legal guides to better meet the needs of our migrant workers. This is the task that lies ahead of them.

The People of God, the Liturgy and the Religious Artists

2008-06-10T11:46:00.001+08:00

It was on May 29, 2008 that the bilateral Agreement between the Vatican and the Republic of Philippines to preserve and protect heritage Catholic Churches spread throughout the island was finalized. Ironically, in spite of its weight and significance, it was done in a simple ceremony, one that did not catch the attention of our people.

Signed by no less than Pope Benedict XVI and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, it was considered to be a landmark treaty, for it set into writing the commitment to a mutual cooperation for the proper care of old Churches. As the Nuncio to the Philippines, Archbishop Edward Joseph Adams, aptly puts it: “It is a fact that what constitutes the cultural patrimony of this nation takes its origin from the Church and was contributed by her agents.” For his part, DFA Secretary Alberto Romulo commented: “Heritage Churches are more than just worldly possessions. They are concrete expressions and enduring representations of profound faith.” Hence, the bilateral pact has deep repercussions in the years to come in the field of religious arts, culture and catecheses.

The Diocese of Tagbilaran looks at this agreement with anticipation. For years the people of God in this local Church has been growing in its awareness at the value of the religious patrimony of their parish Churches. The work of art that they have meticulously conserved in their Churches have given them the sure footing of orthodoxy, one that ever reminds them of the Catholic faith that has been handed down to them. This has shaped their way of reaching out to the God they know and their mode of praying to this Transcendent One. The mode of their prayer, guided by the artistic lines, hues and symbols, painted all over the ceiling and walls of the Church, is within the traditional doctrine of the Catholic faith. Yet, with the passing of time the influx of fresh religious ideas and reflections, new expressions of faith, new ways of identifying oneself with the transcendental reality, has entered into the consciousness of our people. Slowly, new ecclesiastical art and architecture has crept in, influencing at its wake the temptation to break from all past Catholic artistic and architectural traditions.

Not long ago, there came out in the Internet an interesting article regarding the influence of the new theological ideas to our liturgy, visual arts and symbols (cf. H. Reed Armstrong, “Art and Liturgy: Splendor of Faith,” CRISIS, 1814/2N Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, mail@crisismagazine.com). It put forward the idea that man does not need a transcendent God. This he will experience if he just care to take the effort to look intently at his own nature, contemplate on its beauty and goodness, appreciate its innate power and its limitless potentials, reach out for what it is worth for without the intervention and aid of divine grace and the sacraments. In this position, grace is somehow held as intrinsic to nature. A certain professor, a representative of this new theology, once made this statement: "There is now a radical capacity in nature itself, and not superadded to nature, by which we are ordained to the knowledge of God. Thus all dualism between nature and grace is eliminated. Human nature is already graced existence” (ibid.).

Armstrong then concluded: “The effects of this new "lex credendi" have been seen for some time in art and architecture. If man already lives an "engraced" existence naturally, and the sacramental union with Christ is ontologically superfluous, a mere symbol of entrance into a "faith community," then the altar rail (iconostasis, the rood screen) that separates the natural world of the faithful and the supernatural world of the Divine mysteries must go. As Christ is already present in the community, the sacramental presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle is now superfluous and can therefore be removed from the sanctuary precinct. With the traditional concept of the Mystical Body obscured, the images of saints and holy mysteries, a tradition going back to the catacombs, are removed in favor of a single figure of the "Risen Lord" (ibid.).

It is fortunate that our lay faithful and our priests have not succumbed to these strange and alien teachings. They still see themselves as sinners badly needing the redemption promised to them from above, and therefore, weak individuals who are not ashamed in reaching expectantly outward to the Transcendent One who has become one of them, the “Immanuel,” uttering that simple but powerful prayer: MARANATHA – “Come, Lord Jesus, Come.”

As the true faith keeps on feeding the heart and mind of our people with the revealed divine realities, ever moving them to deeper contemplation of God, their prayer life becomes more vigorous and potent. To express these experiences and to help them to get them back to God, they need relevant liturgy and sensitive artists.

With the exchange of instruments that marked the forging of the bilateral Agreement of the Vatican and the Republic of the Philippines to protect the religious and cultural heritage of our people, it is our hope that arts in our Churches will be properly cared for and revered. It is also our hope that with this renewed interest for religious arts and the subsequent effort to promote and protect them, we may see the emergence of new artists with fresh visions coming out to revitalize our symbols of prayer, divine longing, and our liturgy. As Fr. Reed Armstrong concluded in his article in the Internet: “Even today, in this age of iron or, let us say, white metal, the Temple of Solomon and the Cathedral of Chartres have not exhausted all the possibilities of getting back to God. There is still something to be garnered from those people with plaster in their hair and fingers full of paint”(cf. ibid.).

The Pastor and His Assistant

2008-05-23T09:29:00.002+08:00

Who is this priest next door? He is young, idealistic, talented, full of energy. He is erratic, though, in his decisions, not so conscious with his time, immature in his ways. Yet, the kids and the teens hang around him, the old adore him, the members of the Parish Pastoral Council drink and laugh with him, the ecclesial communities and new movements love his homilies and short talks. Who is he? He is the parochial vicar, an appointee from the Diocese to help the parish priest in all his ministerial works. He is not necessarily a threat to the person and influence of the parish priest, but with him in the parish is there enough room for both of them? How would his authority stand beside the popularity and adulation of this young upstart? How should he deal with him?

In the eyes of the administration of the diocese, a certain parish is just too big for one parish priest to meet the pastoral demands. He himself has asked time and again for a help, for an assistant who could help him in all activities in the community. And one day his dream comes true. Here comes the parochial vicar assigned to him by the Curia, a priest to his heart desire. But the question in his heart hounds him: can I handle him?

In response to the vague apprehensions of the parish priest on how to deal with his assistant, the present Code of Canon Law has identified and specified the roles and functions of the parish priest and the parochial vicars in the parish. Yet, much has also been left to the discretion of the particular laws and eventually to the working agreement between the pastor and his parochial vicar. Oftentimes, the intertwining of these roles result in misunderstanding and conflicts. Thus, it will be of help to identify the possible flashpoints in their working relationship in order to find a workable solution to it, namely, a) the extent and limits of the authority of the pastor vis-à-vis the parochial vicar; closely related to this, b) their individual rights and obligations; and the most common source of conflict, c) financial arrangement in the parish.

First of all, it has to be established that the parish priest is the proper pastor of the parish. It is to him that the care of the souls of the community is entrusted to be exercised under the authority of the diocesan bishop. He has the ordinary proper power to teach, sanctify and govern those entrusted to his care. The cooperation of other priests and deacons in the care of the souls are desired and most welcome. In fact even the lay faithful, by virtue of their baptism are also invited to partake in this task (cf. Cans. 757, 758, 759, 776 & 778). In a nutshell, the parish priest is the sole head of the parish.

He likewise acts in the person of the parish in all juridical matters and he is to ensure that the parish goods are administered like a good steward who takes good care of the property of his master while the master is away (cf. Cans. 1281-1288).

The parish priest should enjoy a certain measure of stability in the parish thus ideally his to be appointed for an indefinite time. However, the conference of bishops may decide otherwise and set a specific tenure of office of the parish priest in any given parish.

He is entitled to a vacation time of one month annually either continuous or cumulative. Not included from this is the time for retreat which is usually done outside the parish.

On the other hand, the obligations of the pastor could be classified under the following headings:
· Proclamation of the Word of God and Catechesis;
· Administration of the Sacraments and the Liturgy;
· Maintain personal contact with his parishioners;
· Promote the lay apostolate;
· Residence in the parish;
· Offering of the mass ‘Pro Populo’;
· Maintenance and proper care of the parochial books;
· Care of the parish seal and parish archives;
· Informing the diocesan bishop in case of absence from the for more than one week.

On the other hand, he assistant parish priest is also endowed with obligations and rights. Aside from the rights and obligations assigned to all clerics by universal law(cf. Cans. 273-289), the obligations and rights of the assistant parish priest are clearly expressed in canon 548. Paragraph 1 states the sources from which spring the obligations and rights of the assistant parish priest, namely: a) the Code of Canon Law, b) the particular law of the diocese, c) the letter of appointment, and d) the directives or mandate of the parish priest. We can add here that, by analogy, whatever the code establishes in terms of right and duties with regard to the parish priest may also be applied to the assistant parish priest except to those that belong in the strict sense to the office of the parish priest as the juridical person representing the parish. Nonetheless, it is considered more prudent, for the proper exercise of rights and duties and to avoid possible conflicts, to express in the letter of appointment and in the diocesan statutes the correlation between the functions of the parish priest and the assistant parish priest.

The ministry of the assistant parish priest encompasses all aspects of the parish life unless specific work as been given to him either stated in the letter of appointment or upon direction by the parish priest (Can. 545, ¶2). He is not, however, duty bound to celebrate the mass pro populo which is a personal obligation that belongs to the parish priest nor is he obliged to inform the diocesan bishop in case of absence from the parish for a period of more than one week. However, unlike the parish priest, the parochial vicar does not enjoy a more stable stay in the parish since he may be removed by the competent authority from his assignment for a just cause.

However, despite effort to clarify and delineate the respective functions of the stakeholders in the parish ministry, instances of disagreements and conflicts between the parish priest and the assistant do still occur. This could be minimized if not totally avoided if clerics call to mind the exhortations of Vatican II (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 8) which is echoed in Canon 275 par. 1 which states: ‘Since all clerics are working for the same purpose, namely, the building up of the body of Christ, they are to be united with one another in the bond of brotherhood and prayer. They are to seek to cooperate with one another, in accordance with the provisions of particular law.’

The cooperation and joint pastoral action of the parish priest and the assistant is regulated by the obligation incumbent upon the assistant to report to the parish priest regularly on all pastoral initiatives both planned and already undertaken in the parish. In this way they can truly work together, by common counsel and effort for the good of the flock entrusted to their care. In many parishes the laudable practice has been established whereby the parish priest and the assistant meet together on a regular basis to discuss the pastoral concerns of the parish.

Although the assistant may not act independently, he should be encouraged to keep up to his zest for pastoral initiatives. As it is, the pastor should be solicitous of the inputs and contribution of his assistant in the parish ministry and make him a participant in the pastoral activities in the parish.

The most common cause of conflict between pastors and the parochial vicar is the question of finances be it a question of handling of parish funds, or, the equitable remuneration of the cleric Much of these problems, I believe can be traced back to the antiquated mentality of considering the parish as a benefice.

As regards the first issue, much of the possible conflicts can be avoided if the parish has a finance council as mandated by can. 537. Although the parish priest is the administrator of the goods of the parish, the finance council could give invaluable insight and advise on financial matters. It does not detract from his authority. Rather, it will be a great relief for the pastor if he would be helped in the economic administration of the parish. This will remove the cloud of doubt regarding the use of the parish funds and is in fact a big step towards transparency in the financial affairs in the parish.

As to the question on remuneration, canon 281 ¶1 is quite emphatic in expressing that since clerics dedicate themselves to the ecclesiastical ministry, they deserve the remuneration that befits their condition. I think the basic question that confronts us is how much is the remuneration that befits the condition of the cleric. One of the basic and primary considerations to take here is that such remuneration should be viewed in the light of the special vocation of the priesthood- a sacred ministry which cannot be reduced to something of a purely economic nature. Besides, the canon establishes the general parameter on this regard namely: the nature of his office and the circumstances of time and place.

This problem can be lessened if the diocese will establish a standardized remuneration scheme for clerics as already practiced in some dioceses. It would even be better if the diocese makes provisions for the social welfare of the clergy such as illness, medical needs and old age. These are the main reason why most clerics, especially the diocesan clergy can at times be overly concerned with money matters.

The Locus of Punishments in the Life of the Church

2008-04-29T11:08:00.001+08:00

An institution that spouses communion as its nature, forgiveness and love as necessary expressions of its essence, would seem short changed to find within itself a system that pursues crime and punishment. This is precisely the quandary of some members of the Church who feel that penal system runs counter to the essence of the Church as a Communio. As one Prelate told me: “Laws are strait-jacketed norms of behavior, restrictive in posture, coercive for the children of God who are supposed to be free. What I do is to tell my priests to always pursue the good and avoid by all means into falling into grave lapses that could get them in trouble with law and penalty.”

I am a Canon Lawyer of the 1917 Code - an oldie in any standard. The Church was then conceptualized as a perfect society of law and order; an independent and proud institution where rights and obligations of each member are meticulously defined and respected, defended when impugned, vindicated when violated. Clearly, the aim of the law is to establish and sustain a Church that is just, a visible society that seriously looks after the harmonious and orderly development of the life both of the ecclesial society and of the individual members; a society that is proud to preserve right order. In sum, it looks into the promotion and protection of the common good of the Church. For this kind of society to survive it calls for a legal system that must be objective, that is, the competence and the exercise of its ecclesiastical power must give due emphasis to the external forum. Hence, in the Church a system was established to delineate the internal and external forum, out of which the principle like this come out: “De internis Ecclesia non judicat.” For the law to be objective, the rule of law must be observed, out of which maxims come out like this: “The reason of the law, is not the law”; or, “dura lex sed lex.” Within the nature of this concept, the system moves toward the protection, and in any case, toward the restoration of the social order that may be harmed by the offense. From this point of view, it can be understood why the system has to be strict and objective. Also, it can be observed that the preoccupation of the law and its application by the administration was on judging the pastoral activities from the point of view of right or wrong, validity or invalidity of an act; the offense and restoration of just order. It is along this concept also that penal system is required and needed to be instituted. In fact, this is inherent to any legal system that has for its purpose the proper protection of a perfect society.

However, this kind of legal system suffers a flaw: it gave emphasis on peace and order to the Church, on the rights and obligation of the constituents, on the defense and vindication of justice, that it had somehow veered its focus away from the concept of the Church as communion whose main attention is the salus animarum, the sanctification of souls, the development of the members of the Church as a community based on faith, grace, charisms and charity.

The revision of the Code was inspired by the theology of Vatican II. Here, the Church is immediately presented as a great Mystery, a reality that has temporal, measurable qualities, yet transcends the dimension of the temporal order, straddling that it is on the temporal and the spiritual. As such it is a Sacrament of unity for the world, a sign that effects the communion of all men. In this concept the Church is still a society, an association of men and women with rights and obligations. But the focus is no longer on the external discipline that would guide the proper ordering and the harmonious interplay of individuals or group of individuals as they exercise their subjective rights, but shifts more to the internal life of the People of God who are called to holiness and are living as a community.. Of course, Vatican II still talks about this Church as hierarchical, that is, it is set up as an institution with a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. With a sacred power invested on them, the holders of these offices are dedicated to promote the interest of their brethren, and with free and well-ordered efforts bringing them to a common goal which is salvation. They have to look intently into the internal life of the Church, building up the body of Christ through the law of love.

No wonder that in the revision of the 1917 Code, there were quarters, many of them, would like to remove the penal system of the Code, for it seems to run counter to the image of a spiritual Church, that is built on the strength of faith and love. Granted the weaknesses of human nature, they are ready to concede the introduction of a disciplinary system, but one that adheres less to the rigid concepts of crime and punishment, and more along the lines of a sanctioning administrative system. They appeal to the spirit of Vatican Council II, that gives emphasis to the concept of communion which seems not to jibe with a penal system that is by nature coercive, that defines with strict interpretation the alleged offense vis-à-vis the “allata et probata”, and that inflicts just and proportionate punishments. Perhaps disciplinary regulation of some sort with a touch of some undefined sanctions would do.

But, communion is not an ambiguous feeling nor an imprecise sentiment. Communion is an organic reality that requires juridical form. The community of free individuals, to exist as a real communion, is essentially organic and requires a juridical form. The law does not create a community; the community itself, requiring a juridical form consistent to its nature, enacts the law. Through the years the Church has shaped a juridical form that incorporates the penal system for it serves to protect the dignity of its constituents and defend the dignity of the community and the subjective rights of each individual member.

The Church as a communion has to be protected. Penal sanctions do that service. With this concept, penal law can be considered as a necessary instrument in the service of the salus animarum. Salvation may not be its direct and proper objective, but it offers a ready environment for it to flourish and take effect. The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Constitution “Sacrae Disciplinae Leges” underlined the importance of the Code in the life of the Church as a social and visible unit in these words: “… It is sufficiently clear that the purpose of the Code is not in any way to replace faith, grace, charisms and above all charity in the life of the Church or of Christ’s faithful. On the contrary, the Code rather looks towards the achievement of order in the ecclesial society, such that while attributing a primacy to love, grace and the charisms, it facilitates at the same time orderly development in the life both of the ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it.”

EASTER MESSAGE 2008

2008-03-20T10:43:00.002+08:00

As the light of the Paschal Candle pierces through the murky night of Holy Saturday, ushering on its break the lilting mood of the Easter Vigil that exudes in the song of the “Exsultet”, the people of faith plunges once again into the deep darkness of the Liturgy of the Word to carefully listen to the words of promise and of hope. It is in this holy darkness that the word of God starts again dispelling the chilling fear of death that has for so long terrorized the heart of man, slowly filling it up in an ever increasing intensity with the message of ‘God cares’ and ‘God saves His people’, that soon would blare into the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus, bursting into songs of jubilation and “alleluia”. For Christ is Risen! Christ is truly risen!

HAPPY EASTER.

But back to reality. Is it really possible to celebrate a happy Easter in the midst of all these social turmoil and political mess? At times we begin to wonder if it remains reasonable to be optimistic about this country. The fact is that many of us have become cynical, refusing to believe that change can still take place, refusing to hold that a better life is still possible. In fact, some people have long given up – they chose to look for greener pasture elsewhere. Can the citizens of a morally shaken country such as ours capable of genuinely greeting each other with greetings of “Alleluias” and “Rejoice, for Christ is risen”?

The answer is why not? After all the Church sincerely believes that the answer to our sad plight goes beyond socio-economic analysis and political maneuverings. For the start our Church believes that this deep Easter experience of the risen Christ would give us the stubborn hope that blossoms best in moments of darkness and ambiguity; that it would give us the needed courage to pick up again the communal problem of searching for the truth that we have temporarily left off; that we can readily face up to the moral problems, political ambiguities, and social illusions, that have through these years tightly gripped the soul of our country. The experience of Easter could give us the hope to extricate ourselves from the sad situation that we are in, the time when work is scarce, when families are so poor they can no longer live with dignity and little pride, when the greed of those in the corridors of power has drowned away all their shame and decency, when corruption has become “our greatest shame as a people” (CBCP, “Reform Yourselves and Believe in the Gospel”).

This hope is dynamic, alive, vigorous. It pushes us to action. It is alien for people of hope to say that the event of our times is inevitable. A Filipino Christian, whose spirit is soaked with the Easter experience, plunges himself into action, for he knows that at the heart of this topsy-turvy nation of ours rests the love of God. Easter has taught him that God has overcome the world. As Jesus said: “In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world” (Jn 16:33).

By action here is meant concrete involvement in the unfolding of our history. Christians who possess the seed of hope in their hearts cannot be passive or indifferent bystanders in the drama which we call “everyday life”. “We can open ourselves and the world and allow God to enter: we can open ourselves to truth, to love, to what is good” (Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 35). “Even when we are fully aware that Heaven far exceeds what we can merit”, the Pope says, “it will always be true that our behavior is not indifferent before God and therefore is not indifferent for the unfolding of history” (35). Even when we seem powerless before the enemy, “our actions engender hope for us and for others…” (35).

In other words, the more we engage actively and constructively in the efforts to improve society, the more we make alive the hope that is in us. Conversely, the more indifferent we are, the more cynicism destroys our capacity to dream for a better, renewed life.

And when we act, when we actively involve ourselves in the unfolding of history, the element of suffering becomes all the more unavoidable. Being a consequence of our finitude, suffering is already inevitable, but it can swell into horrifying levels when we labor for truth and justice. We can perhaps minimize it by leading a life of utter indifference. We can close our eyes from falsehood and tyranny, and spare ourselves from hostility.

But is this the Christian option? The Holy Father says, “It is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love” (37). And with a rather stunning emphasis, he repeats at least three (3) times in the encyclical that the capacity to suffer for truth and justice is an essential criterion, the very measure, of humanity (cf. 38 and 39). To abandon this capacity would destroy man himself. “Truth and justice must stand above my comfort and physical well-being, or else my life itself becomes a lie” (38).

HAPPY EASTER!

Marriage Tribunal, the Judge, and the Cross

2007-11-19T07:56:00.000+08:00

Lodged in the center of the Church matrimonial court is the judge. Off hand one may portray him as a cold individual, withdrawn, stern, detached, unyielding. For after all he is sworn to ferret the truth out of conflicting issues and to hand down objective judgment among the contending parties. So, he must be a serious individual, forbidding in stature. But that is an unfair picture of the most important person in the ecclesiastical court of justice. For if it is true to aver that the judge must be impartial and fair, it is as well true to say that any good judge worth his salt must be humane, possessing that sensitivity of a person who understands well what it is to be human and therefore has a good grasp of how fallen human nature expresses itself in its behavior.

Deciding what justice, mercy and compassion demand is the primary work of the judge. It is no easy task, rarely pleasant, to have to pass judgment on issues wherein the interests of one must give way to the rights of another. And yet that is the burden placed on the shoulder of those who exercise judicial power in the Church. It is a burden that should be felt no less in marriage cases than in other judicial or extra-judicial matters a tribunal is asked to address. Indeed, in marriage cases the burden should be felt even more intensely, as here people’s lives and their faith are affected in powerful ways. The judge cannot set aside his responsibility to judge, to choose, to balance, solely because he is afraid that his decisions might adversely affect the lives of those who come to the Church tribunal for answers.

In law, the judge has to be faithful to the canonical procedures. This is a modus operandi demanded from one who exercises the judicial power, a series of activities that is to be carried out by the judge in accordance with the procedures laid down by the legislator. They are not arbitrary rulings or mere formalisms, but the fruit of proven experience that will shield him from subjective acts or decisions prejudicial to the parties involved.

On the other hand, in his struggle to reach a fair judgment in concrete cases as he faithfully observes the rigor and demands of procedural law, he is at the same time asked to dig deep into his core, touching base with his wisdom born from continuous study of the law and his vast experience. After all he is dealing with the complexity of human persons who are breathing realities with feelings and all. For that he should ever be aware that each concrete case demands a treatment that goes beyond the mere interpretation of the law or its rigid application. Process presupposes a judge who meticulously weighs all circumstances of the case and reaches a decision that is just in the concrete case. It is a mental act, subjective in essence, but in the assessment of the concrete case it takes equity foremost in the mind. This truly is an act of a wise man.

The judge is therefore placed in a delicate task of mediating between the canonical system and the persons submitted to its action; between the majesty of the law and the messy reality of flesh-and-blood individuals who are fighting tooth and nail for their God-given rights; between the matrimonial bond that is defined by law as indissoluble and the spouses who contest that from the start there was no such bond. A grave task it is for any judge. But Mother Church steps in for help. She proposes that he should consider well the personalist objective as presented by John Paul II in his Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, 27 January 1997 . Here, the Holy Father observed that the Second Vatican Council’s vision of marriage and family contains personalist aspects. As this view of marriage has entered in the codification of 1983 Code of Canon Law, the Holy Father has been asking what would be the juridical consequences that would necessarily flow from these personalist aspects of marriage and family. His answer is to place the persons at the center of the civility of love. For him this approach will not exclude the law. In fact “it demands it, leading to a rediscovery of law as an interpersonal reality and to a vision of juridical institutions that highlights their constitutive link with persons themselves, which is so essential in the case of marriage and the family” (Address of John Paul II, 27 January 1997, 3). It means that correct interpretation of the law and its application can only happen when the person involved is considered in all his/her reality and duly appreciated. Law is an interpersonal reality; juridical institutions demand the constitutive link with persons themselves. Hence, there is no conflict between law and the interpersonal aspects of marriage. Take for instance the “relations between the spouses, in fact, like those between parents and children, are constitutively relations of justice, and for that reason have in themselves juridical significance. Married and parent-child love is not merely an instinctive inclination, nor an arbitrary and reversible choice, but is rather a love that is due” (op. cit.).

In the same breath the judge, assuming a personalist approach in handling matrimonial cases, should also be aware that making decisions about other people’s lives is to take up a heavy cross. We cannot avoid this burden by removing from the judicial processes those parts which are particularly difficult and those instances where our decisions are likely to be unpopular or unpleasant to the parties in question. To lay down this cross, that is, to attempt to avoid the pain that attends the decision making process is to remove from our deliberations, from the workings of our tribunals, the very thing that makes all that we do human and holy. It is to remove the very thing that connects us with the people we are serving.

On the other hand, to bear this cross must lead to some suffering on the part of the judge who helps in making decisions about people’s lives. But this cross also leads to a recapturing of the life and excitement that comes from the working with the law and the facts, and with the human experience grounding those facts. This cross illuminates the dignity in the judge’s work.

The Locus of the Marriage Tribunal in the Local Church

2007-11-10T09:41:00.000+08:00

It is a reality, though a sad one, that Marriage Tribunal is practically non-existent in many local churches in the Philippines, or, where there is, it is not as visible as to make a difference in the lives of couples and families whose relationships have been tautly strained due to some unresolved marital conflicts. And yet, it is one of the most important responsibilities of the particular Church to extend pastoral care to the family and protection to the marital tie which binds family together. Central to this responsibility is proclaiming the sanctity and permanence of marriage. And while scrupulously protecting the teaching of Jesus on marriage and its indissolubility, the Church also faces stark realities of tensions and stresses among married couples that ultimately end up in the tragedy of separation and even of annulment. The effect is oftentimes disastrous to many of these people, for their faith and their Church remain an important part of their lives.

The universal Church for her part does not abandon these people. In her pastoral concern, she provides that an ecclesiastical tribunal shall be established in every local Church. Its function is to evaluate the validity of the failed marriage in the light of scripture, tradition and the law of the church, to ferret the truth of marriage out of the messy realities of failed relationship, thus helping these people extricate from the marital strain that has been for years tearing out their lives. In dioceses where Marriage Tribunal is set up and functional, many cases have been heard and eventually resolved with a decree of invalidity. As such this nullity process helps many individuals to calm the pent-up anger and disappointment with one’s self and with one’s former spouse. It often brings closure to the hurtful memories, relieving them from the tensions that for a time have taken hold of them. It frees a catholic to marry again or to have a second marriage blessed by the church, thus restoring the catholic to the full sacramental life of the church.

Remembering that the ministry of Jesus was one of healing and reconciliation, the Tribunal is ever mindful of its call to continue that ministry to all who seek its help. Even if it is primarily part of the Church’s judicial system, it is not an impersonal office. It comes in direct contact with people whose lives have often been deeply scarred by the harrowing experience of a broken marriage. Hence, the personnel who are assigned to the Tribunal are expected to have practiced the highest sense of confidentiality, compassion and understanding. They need to be aware of the fact that they are often dealing with people who are still hurting deeply, people who at times feel very alienated from the Church, people who are laden with a great deal of guilt.

By and large, applicants to the Tribunal are mostly separated. But many of them acknowledge that having escaped from the shackles of an unhappy marriage they are now facing a new set of problems. Very often people who approach are more than one-time angry, depressed, disappointed, hurt, battered, unjustly treated. Not only have they had dreams shattered by a broken marriage, but often as they reveal their life-history, they speak of their parents’ unhappy and possibly, violent marriage, of childhood trauma, sexual abuse, of earlier broken romances, of exploitation. The story of the relationship and marriage in question can be filled with every kind of human suffering.

For a Catholic, there is an even deeper pain, given that the permanence and the sanctity of marriage is such a central part of Catholic teaching and living. There can be a heightened sense of failure, a feeling of having let the side down.

Separated couples very often feel a great deal of alienation from the church. This may be caused by unhelpful treatment from priests, family or fellow Catholics, but most often it simply arises from their own sense of shame or failure. The approach to the Tribunal can be the means of their being accepted by the official Church in a way which can help them once again feel “at home” in the life of the church. The increasing number of separated catholic can also help enormously in this regard. Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation on Family life “Familiaris Consortio” has written movingly on the pastoral care of the divorced and separated people. “The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.” (Cf. Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II)

It would be worthwhile for Tribunal personnel to refer the clients to the local parish or community groups, organizations, ecclesial movements, or individuals who may be of help in the long yet necessary process of coming to terms with their life issues. It should be noted with utmost consideration that the Tribunal is not able to solve all the problems or heal all the hurts which flow from a broken marriage. Not every approach for an annulment will result in an affirmative decision. For those petitions which are successful there will be the opportunity for the parties to contemplate a new marriage or have an existing one validated and blessed by the Church.

For the unsuccessful, there will be the satisfaction of knowing that they have tried. Hopefully there will have been some healing through the whole process. Further pastoral care can be recommended to them by the Tribunal staff. Tribunal work can be tremendously pastoral and rewarding. As with any form of ministry, it can be very much a two-way process and most people who have worked in the Tribunal would acknowledge that they have learned a great deal from the people they have served. They witness at times untold heroism, a great effort to be faithful to God and to the Church even in the most trying circumstances. They see in many beautiful personalities and tremendous growth which has come about through accepting their suffering in union with Jesus. As my Judicial Vicar describes it: “It can all be a very humbling experience to have people share with us the deepest secrets of their lives.”

Marriage and Its Religious Dimension

2007-10-30T10:15:00.000+08:00

The perception of marriage in its flesh and blood realities can be gleaned from cases submitted to a Church court for resolution. It is from these messy, if not unknown, elements of the contested matrimonial bond that the truth of marriage is ferreted out.
Leafing through the acts and decisions of the Roman Rota the Holy Father, the late Pope John Paul II, discovered a tragic pattern in marriages submitted for resolution. He found out in rhythmic regularity that marriages which broke down are unions wherein the spouses have ruled out the religious dimension of marriage. I am wondering whether this discovery may also be true in other matrimonial courts.

Along this vein Pope John Paul II in his address to the judges of the
Roman Rota, highlighted the importance and the significance of the religious dimension of marriage and the family. He cited the phenomenon of many recent matrimonial cases and observed that there is a pattern. The pattern is the diminishing awareness of the spouses of the significance of the sacramentality of the Christian marriage. Spouses do not consider anymore the transcendence of Christian marriage, its intimate meaning, its intrinsic supernatural value, its positive effects on the conjugal life and family. He also observed that secularism has much to blame to this modern phenomena in Christian marriage. He said: “Today’s strongly secularized mentality tends to affirm the human values of the institution of the family while detaching them from religious values and proclaiming them as fully independent of God. Influenced as it is by models of life that are too often presented by the mass media, today’s mentality asks, ‘Why must one spouse always be faithful to the other?’ A person of faith can easily answer that question; but a person who is cut off from that religious dimension of marriage is in a quandary. Caught in a crisis, this person of no faith “will even reformulate the preceding question in this way: why it is always necessary to love the other spouse even when so many apparently justifying reasons would lead one to leave?”

Confronted with such a phenomenon, the Holy Father enjoined the audience to help the families to value the significance of the sacramentality of marriage in their own lives. He also urged them to always consider the religious dimension when dealing with sacramental marriage. He said: “The consideration of the sacramentality highlights the transcendence of your function, the bond that links it to the economy of salvation. The religious dimension should for this reason permeate all your work. From handling scientific studies on marriage to the daily activity of the administration of justice, there is no room in the Church for a vision of marriage that is merely immanent and profane, simply because such a vision is not true theologically and juridically” (op. cit., 6).

Down the centuries the Church has maintained with insistence the ever-enduring doctrine of marriage and its sacramentality. When it talks on the union of man and woman in a perpetual and exclusive contract of giving and accepting each other in the rite of marriage, it has to be taken within the context of a sacrament and therefore within the area of faith. Christian marriage is more than a piece of legislation; more than the union of a male and a female hit by a chemical reaction called love. It is a sacred union. It starts with the free choice of the man and the woman in love, mutually surrendering themselves to each other which they do by entering into marriage whose meaning and values do not depend on them alone but on God himself. For God is the Author of marriage, delicately endowing it with proper laws and regulations. And more. Due to the reality of sin, making him/her prone to the temptations of the flesh and the pride of life that oftentimes sours the relationship between man and woman, God saw to it that union of man and wife become a source of grace, elevating it into a sacrament. Here the spouses are caught up by the Christ who gives that great promise: “My grace is sufficient for you.”

Marriage therefore bestows that sacramental grace to “perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children” (cf. CCC, n. 1641). To ease out this religious dimension, therefore, is detrimental, if not suicidal, to the union.

Pastoral Statement on Oil Exploration in Bohol Strait

2007-07-23T13:55:00.000+08:00

To our dear People of God and all men and women of good will.

Sometime in June to July 2007 a seismic survey was conducted in the seawaters of Panglao, Dauis, Maribojoc and Loon, Bohol. It is a procedure that determines the volume of oil deposit under the sea by the use of sounds and echoes. It was conducted by a foreign company named NorAsian Energy Ltd. (NAEL) with the approval of both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). According to the contract awarded by our government to NAEL, the survey shall be followed by an extensive oil drilling program possibly next year.

For our part, we, the Clergy of the Diocese of Tagbilaran, have listened to the sentiments of our people, carefully studied the issues at hand and prayerfully reflected on them. Prodded by this we come out with this Pastoral Statement making a moral judgment on the seismic survey as well as provides moral guidance on the planned oil drilling project.

Our Moral Judgment on the Seismic Survey

1. We are appalled to learn that, given the nature of the seismic survey and its short and long term impact to human and marine life, the local communities and their officials as well as other groups who have a stake in the area were not duly consulted before the survey had been undertaken.

The DOE and NAEL simply disseminated information in their websites. As regards informing local people, they coursed it through the newly elected local officials on a very short notice. In view of this behavior, it is difficult not to conclude that right from the very start the DOE and NAEL did not intend a consultation but simply an information.

2. We are disappointed to learn that the seismic survey, conducted on an exploration site that had been officially declared by the national and local governments as a marine protected area (MPA), was suddenly granted by the DENR a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC), thereby exempting it from stringent measures required by the laws of the land that seek to preserve the nation’s ecosystem.

Needless to say, the exploration site boasts of numerous marine sanctuaries and coastal based resource management programs. It is also home to a thriving and world-famous eco-tourism industry that provides livelihood to hundreds of families and a source of pride of every Boholano. Millions of pesos have been spent by local government units (LGUs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) for the establishment and maintenance of these projects, not to mention the amount of creativity and energy that the local people have invested into them.

What has happened to our laws such as the Philippine Environment Impact System Act (PD 1586) and the Local Government Code of 1991 (Sections 26-27) to name a few? If we use the recently concluded seismic survey as a litmus test of committed and responsible governance, we dread to see the day when the integrity of our ecosystem will again be put in harm’s way and the pertinent laws be arbitrarily shelved off in favor of an energy-hungry nation.

3. We are saddened to know that, given the adverse effects that the survey had on the livelihood of those dependent on either commercial or small-scale fishing, the DOE and the NAEL did not seek the participation of the local people and draw a clear and dependable mechanism of just compensation.

Why is it that in almost every government sponsored or approved project that has the prospect of good return of investment (ROI) for foreign corporations, it is our poor and marginalized brother and sister Filipinos who are asked to sacrifice? Granting, without admitting, that it is their turn yet again to forego for the greater good, isn’t it right that they be guaranteed with a just compensation?

Our Moral Stance on the Oil Drilling Program

Beyond the seismic survey, the risks of an oil drilling program are far greater. Lest there be a repeat of the mistakes, we wish that the decisions and conduct of all stakeholders shall abide by the following moral principles:

1. Activities meant to improve the economy should “not (to) be left to the judgment of individuals or groups who possess too much economic power, nor of the political community alone…It is only right that, in matters of general interest, as many people as possible…should participate actively in decision-making” (Gaudium et spes, 65).

In this light, let us exhaust all peaceful means to prevent the oil drilling program from proceeding unless the DOE and NAEL shall disclose to the public the details of the service contract and other agreements, conduct consultations that are wide in scope, accessible to all stakeholders, honest and transparent to affected communities, and broadly participative in working out decisions.

2. The defense and preservation of the common good such as the natural and human environments should not be left to the dictates of market forces but to a strong juridical or legal framework based on “the need to respect the integrity and cycles of nature”(Sollicitudo rei socialis, 26; Centesimus annus, 40).

In this light, we call on public officials concerned to courageously apply the full force of our environmental laws to the oil drilling program even as we urge all NGOs and other groups to take the lead in exercising vigilance on this regard.

3. “The fulfillment of the needs of the poor” and their “active participation in economic life” is a moral criteria that “must pervade all plans and legislation for development” (Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, 314).

In this light, and in view of the greater risks to both human and marine life, it is a serious moral obligation for those who will derive profit from the natural resource to set up a mechanism of just compensation before the oil drilling begins and with the participation and approval of those who may bear the possible harm or loss because of human error or accidents.

4. But over and above these moral imperatives, the principle of equitable sharing of revenues should be observed. The history of oil exploration is replete with examples of individual and corporate greed and insensitivity to the people in the locality. A repeat of this sad experience is possible if Section 29 of the Local Government Code shall not be honored: “Local government units shall have an equitable share in the proceeds derived from the utilization and development of national wealth within their respective areas, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.”

This law is in perfect accord with the church’s moral teaching: “The economic prosperity of any people is to be assessed not so much from the sum total of goods and wealth produced as from the distribution of goods according to the norms of justice.” Justice demands that, “with the growth of the economy, there should occur a corresponding social development so that all citizens will benefit equitably from an increase in national wealth” (Mater et Magistra, 73-74).

In this light, let us do everything we can to prevent the oil drilling program unless a mechanism of equitable sharing of revenues shall be in place so that, instead of dole-outs or piecemeal projects dependent on the whims and so-called charity of the corporation or the allied politician, the revenues accrued to the inhabitants of the localities shall be guaranteed by law and shall empower them to take the path of integral development. While the bounty of God’s creation in the Bohol Strait is a national wealth, it is however first and foremost a local wealth. Inasmuch as the local people are its primary stewards, they ought to be the first beneficiaries.

Conclusion

Will the blue sea of Bohol Strait remain the pure essence of life-giving water to the present and future generations, or will it degenerate into a murky water of non-life, an ugly reminder of our indifference and irresponsibility? Let us listen to God saying: “Today I offer you a choice of life or death, blessing or curse. Choose life and then you and your descendants will live” (Deut 30:19-20).

The choice is ours. With Mary, the patroness of our diocese, at our side, it is time to act on behalf of life so that “all may have life and have it in its fullness” (Jn 10:10).

Most Rev.Leonardo Medroso, DD, JCD
Bishop of Tagbilaran 17 July 2007

The Local Community, the Tourists and the Works of Art

2007-06-22T10:14:00.001+08:00

In the six months of my stay in the Diocese of Tagbilaran, I have seen and savored the beauty of creation that is Bohol and the grandeur of human ingenuity as expressed by the many antique Churches spread out in several parishes of the province. It is no wonder that thousands of foreigners as well as local tourists come in droves to this place through cars, planes, and fast crafts. This experience caught me off balance, a bit puzzled of what to do with this overwhelming phenomenon. I know that the great influx of visitors bespeaks of the greatness of the place, but as a religious leader I have to contend with religious questions that come with the issue at bar. For one how will tourism affect the religious sensitivity and culture of our people? These old yet stately Churches have been there for centuries to receive and serve the native congregation that has been for years “of one heart and one soul,” worshipping the God whom they have known as their Provider and Savior and serving one another as an expression of their awareness as one Christian community. It has been out of these Churches, complete with intricate works of art in images, signs and symbols for evangelization, liturgy and devotion, that a culture which is typically Boholano was born and has developed and matured. Now these same Churches are frequented by tourists and other individuals whose interest are far from being inserted into the religious life of the native folks. Can a World Heritage Church be adapted to a mixed congregation of worshipers? How can it meet the needs of both the local community and the amorphous group of tourists and visitors?

Faced with such realities, I have to dig deep into the accepted teaching of the Church on religious iconography and the discipline that it has established to regulate the proper actions related to the Churches and works of art. Here I come across the traditional teaching that the patrimony of the Church is profoundly connected with the truths of faith. Through the years these works of art have served the mission of the particular Church to come up with a response to the deep religious longing of man for the transcendent, to provide contemporary individual the tool to experience more vividly the religious wonder at beauty and wisdom captured in images, lines, and hues. Faith after all has that innate power “to express itself in artistic forms and historical witness that have an intrinsic evangelizing force and cultural valence before which the Church is called to pay her maximum attention” (cf. John Paul II, Motu Proprio “Inde a Pontificatus Nostri initio, March 25, 1993).

Liturgy is the formal expression of this faith. It is the official worship of the Community that is formed by this faith, the stance of the People of God in its attempt to reach out to the Infinite whose nature is Truth and Beauty. As such it has to be articulated with beautiful signs and symbols. With the purpose of drawing the worshipers’ mind and heart to God, liturgy has to make use of what is refined and artistic. They should be fitting expressions of the congregation’s faith. They are not mere additives or decors, but essential language of the soul in contact with the Creator. Originally they ooze out from a lowly man in contemplation with the divine, from an artist’s encounter with God in prayer, from a contemplative’s intense gazing with the God made visible.

Of course, God is so transcendent and therefore unutterable. He who expresses this transcendent God has to be reminded: “Take off yours shoes, for you are stepping on sacred ground” (Ex 3:5). But the Church well knows that this Holy One “did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men. He was known to be of human estate, and it was thus that he humbled himself, obediently accepting even death, death on a cross” (Ph 2:6-8). It is this utter emptying of Jesus that the gap between the transcendent and the lowly mortal is bridged. This is also the reason why the Church through her artists could depict the transcendent in works of art. As Theodore of old once remarked: “If, then, Christ has become lowly for our sake, how could the signs of lowliness not be visible, suck as color, tangible forms, a body? By means of all this and in all of this he now can be “circumscribed”. Those who do not accept this, really destroy salvific plan of the Eternal Word” (Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, 35f).

The sacredness of the signs and symbols in the liturgy and in the structure of the Church comes from an interior vision of an artist in his act of stretching out his God-given talent to touch the exalted One with the end in view of expressing it in lines, colors and images. In turn these images, signs and symbols, coming as they are from a deep contemplation of the artist, have appropriated that innate power to lead man to awe and wonderment, to profound prayer and meditation. As such these artistic images, signs and symbols have become proper instruments for the service of Liturgy and catechism. It is along this line that Cardinal Ratzinger made this incisive remark: ” The complete absence of images is incompatible with faith in the Incarnation of God. God has acted in history and entered into our sensible world, so that it may become transparent to Him. Images of beauty, in which the mystery of the invisible God becomes visible, are an essential part of Christian worship. There will always be ups and downs in the history of iconography, upsurge and decline, and therefore periods when images are somewhat sparse. But they can never be totally lacking. Iconoclasm is not a Christian option”(Copyright © 1999 - 2007 by Adoremus: Ratzinger, “Art, Image and Artists. Sacred art, inspired by faith, both reflects and informs the culture Part II).

It is because of this intimate connection of faith and artistic works that it has devolved to the bishop the primary task to materially conserve these treasures, to protect them juridically, and to spread and deepen the faith. The Code blandly expressed this obligation in Canon 386, “§1. The diocesan bishop is bound to teach and to illustrate to the faithful the truths of faith which are to be believed and applied to behavior. He is himself to preach frequently… §2. By whatever means seem most appropriate, he is firmly to defend the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed…” The Second Vatican Council is more explicit on this matter when in bold lines it enjoined them: “Ordinaries are to take care that in encouraging and favoring truly sacred art, they should seek for noble beauty rather than sumptuous display…. Bishops should be careful to ensure that works of art which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or through lack of artistic merit or because of mediocrity or pretense, be removed from the house of God and from other sacred places ” (SC, 124).

The norm then that the bishop has to observe in the fulfillment of his task to promote and take care of the Churches and the works of art has to be based on the restless hunger of man for God and the corresponding response of the Gospel as contained in these signs and symbols. After all there is in every man, whether he is a tourist or a native Christian, that space that can only be filled up by a God experience. The very structure of the Church and works of art convey the transcendental content that the local community and the tourists could gaze on and contemplate. That these works of art may have become stale tools to effectively reach the modern soul may be a valid observation. But as they reflect the great Mystery they have that innate power of prodding tourists to reflect. Meantime the authority of the particular Church has to take up the necessary adaptations in order that these works of art could reach the soul of the tourist without sacrificing the religious sensitivity of the local community.

The Woman and Her Dignity

2007-06-13T20:54:00.000+08:00

With so many distorted images of a woman as portrayed by modern society, a muddle, if not confusion, has been created regarding the true dignity of the woman. It is on this state of bewilderment that it is good to revisit the Sacred Scriptures to know the woman from her origin, to see what God says of her.

It is interesting to note that in the first pages of the Sacred Scriptures the woman, immediately after she was given the light of day, was placed as the object of the frontal attack of the devil. It was not man but the woman that the serpent assaulted. The temptation in paradise that brought man down to the knees of the devil started with Eve.

It is also worth noting that in the Book of Revelation Chapter 12, the devil appeared as a huge red dragon which had seven heads and ten horns, and each of the seven heads crowned with a coronet. Its tail dragged a third of the stars from the sky and dropped them to the earth. It stopped in front of the woman who was “adorned with the sun, standing on the moon, and with the twelve stars on her head for a crown. She was pregnant, and in labor, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.” The dragon was waiting for the child to be born so that he could snatched it from the mother and immediately destroy it by eating it up.

The attack against the dignity of women comes in thousand and one guises. But one of the most devilish attacks that the world today is experiencing is pornography. It is a most pernicious symptom of the decline in the awareness of human dignity, a pathetic result of man’s effort of splitting sexuality and love, which he has wittingly or unwittingly acquired along with his contraceptive mentality. It has become widespread, even reaching pandemic proportion, touching even the young people barely beyond the age of reason. Because of its addictive nature, our society seems helpless to ever muster that needed will or that means to significantly stop the availability of pornography. Worse still pornography is becoming more and more socially acceptable. What was considered pornographic years ago is now shown on billboards, rental movie cases, internets, etc. This trend has made it virtually impossible to avoid at least some exposure to some pornography. In fact, one Bishop of the United States has noted that the general public is so used to its presence that modern society has become numbed to many of the destructive images, nay, clamoring for more and more images and more revealing images. The hunger for this gratification seems insatiable. One such kind of porno comes out as innocent commercials, using the beautiful bodies of women as come on for the products to be sold in the market. A hard liquor is advertised in T.V. with ravishingly beautiful young woman with a hair flawlessly cascading to her half naked body, clinking the glass of brandy for a toast to a glass of brandy held by an adult male with a well chiseled body and uttered words that are simply suggestive. Attacks like that are becoming more and more common to our media and communications.

Even children are not spared from these pornographic presentations. The author Tankard Reist has made a sad commentary on what our adult world is doing to our children, sexualizing them at their tender age. He said that the problem of the premature sexualizing of girls is one of the most serious issues confronting us as a society at the present time. Girls are being turned into sexual objects earlier and earlier.

The messages they receive through popular culture is that to be attractive, to be accepted by society, you have to dress and behave in a sexual manner. There are now lingerie clothing lines for preteen girls, and bras for girls under 10, T-shirts with sexual slogans, and even a pole dancing kit complete with a DVD that features "sexy dance tracks" for 6-year-olds. Is this not the true picture of some of our own mothers who are dressing up and make-upping their 6 years old girl to look like a young woman, sexy and beautiful to behold, just so she could win the beauty contest in the school?

Popular lines of dolls for girls feature sexy clothing. Gossip magazines aimed at a preteen readership also encourage girls to behave in a sexual manner, with pages devoted to grooming and relationships -- even with older men.

In advertising catalogues, children are dressed up, made-up and posed in the same way that adults are. This suggests that children are interested in, and perhaps open to, approaches for sex.

Yes, the attack against the dignity of women is persistent and relentless. But, back to the question. Why is the woman selected as the object of the attacks of the devil, using her to destroy human dignity as a whole?

There are so many answers to this question, but I believe that one of the most interesting and plausible response is the very dignity of the woman itself. She has with her the womb, the part of her body that gives life to another. It is the sacred sanctum wherein God Himself educes a new human life – a life that He calls His own Child. It is the sacred place where you and I come from. As Psalm 138 beautifully describes God’s action in creating the human you and me: “It was you who created my inmost self, and put me together in my mother’s womb; for all these mysteries I thank you: for the wonder of myself. You know me through and through; from having watched my bones take shape when I was being formed in secret, knitted together in the limbo of the womb” (13-15). This is the womb that Satan hated so much, for from that womb comes the Son of Man. Mark the story of the Fall of Man. Man was given hope by the image of a woman who was bearing a Child and trampling the head of the serpent. Mark the Woman in the Book of Revelation: She was not alone; She was with Child. And that Child is set “to rule all nations with an iron scepter” (12:5). It is from this womb of the woman that we have come from, eventually making us children of God.

Yes, the dignity of the woman has to be upheld. Its protection is the protection of the human race.

The Cultural Heritage of the Catholic Church

2007-05-25T20:47:00.000+08:00

The Agreement (Accordo) made between the Holy See and the Republic of the Philippines last April 21, 2007 on the cultural treasures of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines hardly stirred any ripple of excitement in Philippine society as a whole. This is a tragic occurrence for this reflects a state of a soul that is anemic to a Filipino culture that is elevated to works of art and to a faith that is expressed in images, arts and lines. As it is the affair seems to be of no serious import. It seems that many of us are still in the mental mold that considers the cultural patrimony of the Church as belonging to the historical past whose proper place is the moldy archive or remodeled museums. It has nothing to do with the current buzz and modern ways of our life with its up-tempo technology, its fast dizzying pace, articulated in music, arts and letters that are attune to the uneasy soul of the modern man. If at all, its usefulness may be confined to its power of attracting some artists who have the eye for the fine things in life; or, of drawing some tourists of sound cultural background who still marvel and appreciate the works of art that have incredibly withstood the rough nature of time of relegating everything along its path into the limbo of forgotten things.

And yet the cultural patrimony of the Church is such a priceless legacy that the Holy See and the Republic of the Philippines took the effort to put together their authority to preserve, restore, catalogue, protect and care for them. Each within its own competence and within its own way of appraising the values of these cultural goods entered into this agreement with the common purpose of protecting these works of art. They know that cultural goods reveal the creative capacity of artists and craftsmen who have been able to draw artistic lines on what is visible the religious experience and the prayer life of the Christian community of Filipinos.

The Republic of the Philippines has seen in the cultural heritage of the Church a priceless stock of the aesthetic ingenuity and human wisdom of the Filipino artists and craftsmen. For the State this heritage makes up a composite of the creative works of its sons and daughters, geniuses who have been able to express in artistic lines, images and letters the deep Filipino sentiments towards the Transcendent. As such they have human values and, therefore, secular worth. As such they fall within the State’s domain to care and to protect.

For the Church the value of the cultural patrimony is its faith content. After all works of art in the Church are not purely secular. Church art is a human product, but it participates with what is sacred. For in the tradition of the Church, real work of art breathes its life from the theology of the Word made flesh. The sacred can be expressed in art because the Sacred, who is God Himself, has taken a human flesh and blood. As Christoph Schonborn concludes his investigation on “God’s Human Face”: “There exists an intimate connection between the whole concept of the arts and the concept of the mystery of Christ as God and man. The Incarnation not only transformed our knowledge of God, it also changed man’s view of the world, of himself, and of his activity in the world” (p. 238).

It is because of this theology of the incarnation that Church art has down through the ages been used extensively for catechesis and liturgy. Using the variegated work forms of art, such as painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, mosaic, the artists in the Church have been able to convey the message that transcends earthly reality. They greatly help the soul in its search for the divine. Hence, art in its various forms is in the Church not just for decorative purposes, but is there to help its members to keep in touch with God, to adore Him, to worship Him. As Jesus Christ, the “image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), brought man back to God, so works of art that are enlivened by spiritual inspiration have that uncanny power to assist the soul find His God. As expressions of the human spirit, these works of art bring man closer to his Creator.

It is therefore not surprising that the Church has always held in high esteem the ministry of arts, safeguarding the artistic treasures belonging to it. As the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy puts it: “The Church has always held the ministry of the arts in the highest esteem and has striven to see that all things set apart for use in divine worship are truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world” (“Opera Artis,” Circular Letter on the care of the Church’s Historical and Artistic Heritage, 11 April 1971).

Such is the worth of the cultural heritage of the Church in the Philippines that the Holy See and the Republic of the Philippines, each within its competence, converged “for the conservation, appreciation and proper use of the cultural heritage” (Agreement, Art. III). For this Agreement to take effect in the concrete, it spells out two important provisions, namely, 1) the Holy See will work through the Apostolic Nunciature and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines while the Republic of the Philippines will work through the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA); 2) in the conservation, appreciation, and proper use of the cultural heritage of artistic and historical significance owned by the ecclesiastical institutions and organizations, the designated parties of the Holy See and the Republic of the Philippines shall see to it that the implementation of the Philippine legislation regarding the cultural heritage of the nation shall be harmonized with the norms of Canon Law and the exigencies of the pastoral activity of the Church (cf. Agreement, Art. IV).

The Holy See and the Republic of the Philippines have taken the initiative to safeguard the cultural treasures of the Church in the Philippines. It is hoped that the ecclesiastical authorities should be stirred up by this act and take up the chore of treasuring the cultural patrimony within their domain. As the Congregation for the Clergy underlined it: “In our own times as well, bishops, no matter how hard pressed by their responsibilities, must take seriously the care of places of worship and sacred objects. They bear singular witness to the reverence of the people toward God and deserve such care also because of their historic and artistic value” (ibid.).

THE TRUTH OF MARRIAGE

2007-04-20T11:28:00.000+08:00

Marriage in its flesh and blood realities can be gleaned from cases submitted to a Church court for resolution. From this perspective, the truth of marriage is to be ferreted out from the messy, if not unknown, elements of the contested matrimonial bond. The judge has much to say on the matter. As a minister of ecclesiastical justice, he is supposed to know the real meaning of marriage, to be faithful to the application of the law to the case at bar, as well as true to the standard practices of the Tribunals of the Holy See.
In the recent Papal Allocation to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota delivered last 27 January 2007, Pope Benedict XVI strongly reminded the judges of their serious mission to always uphold the truth of marriage as handed down by the revered Tradition and Magisterium of the Church in the resolution of matrimonial cases. He said: “In this perspective, the love of truth emerges as a point of convergence between procedural research and the pastoral service of the person. We must not forget, however, that in causes of the nullity of marriage, the legal truth presupposes the “truth of the marriage” itself” (“Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2007).
Needless to say any Church judge is to approach every case with a pastoral bias. But this pastoral concern of the judge for the parties under litigation should not in any way compromise the objective truth of marriage. In judging the minister of justice should be reminded of the Church doctrine that states: “The indissolubility of marriage does not derive from the definitive commitment of those who contract it but is intrinsic in the nature of the “powerful bond established by the Creator” (John Paul II, Catechesis, General Audience 21 November 1979, n. 2; ORE, 26 November 1979, p, 1). People who contract marriage must be definitively committed to it because marriage is such in the plan of creation and of redemption. And the essential juridical character of marriage is inherent precisely in this bond which represents for the man and for the woman a requirement of justice and love from which, for their good and for the good of all, they may not withdraw without contradicting what God Himself has wrought within them.”
In contested marriage, the judge is confronted with a matrimonial bond that is lived out in flesh and blood by the man and woman who freely bound themselves as husband and wife. Christian marriage is indissoluble. This is a property that is essential to marriage; without it there will be no genuine Christian marriage. It is lived out by the husband and the wife who effected the matrimonial bond by the acts of their will. Faced with the traditional doctrine of the Church on marriage and the realities at hand, the judge who is a minister of justice of the Church, should take into account that the totality of the truth of marriage, indissolubility of marriage included, is something given. It has to be defended at all cost.
Meantime, the Pope observed that within the modern cultural context which is marked by relativism and juridical positivism, marriage can conveniently be manipulated by the couple. In fact, there are groups who arbitrarily declare that the union of husband and wife is a mere social formalization of emotional ties. As such marriage is believed to be based on the subjective will of the couple. After all marriage, so they say, as established by the Church as an intima communitas vitae et amoris”, the intimate partnership of life and love (cf. GS 48), is an “ideal” to which “normal Christians” are not bound to follow. Eventually the theory leads to a denial of the existence of an indissoluble conjugal bond.
The Pope raised his fears that such a dangerous trend may influence the attitude of Church judges. In the name of , if not in the guise of, pastoral concern, the judge may be led to the false assumption that for the good of the persons concerned the process of the declaration of matrimonial nullity is merely a legal means to achieve subjective claims, a sort of “regularization” of an irregular relationship of a given husband and wife. With that assumption the judge can easily be misled to that posture of not considering anymore the objective validity or nullity of his/her/marriage which seriously look into the truth of his/her personal status . As the Pope himself put it: “We must not forget, however, that in causes of the nullity of marriage, the legal truth presupposes the “truth of the marriage” itself.
In truth, it is God who created man as male and female. As such He gave them the power to unite forever those natural and complementary dimensions of their persons. As Jesus put it: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder”. St. Augustine in his commentary on St. Paul’s instruction regarding the juridical relationship between husband and wife, made this bold declaration: “The Apostle attributes so much of a right to this fidelity (of the covenant of marriage) that he calls it a power, saying ‘a wife does not have power over her own body but rather her husband does, likewise a husband does not have power over his body, but rather his wife does’] (De Bono Coniugali, 4, 4).
Hence, the indissolubility of marriage is not based on the subjective commitment of those who contract it. It is intrinsic in the nature of marriage bond itself as established by the Creator” (John Paul II, Catechesis, General Audience 21 November 1979, n. 2; ORE, 26 November 1979, p, 1).
People who contract marriage must be definitively committed to it because marriage is such in the plan of creation and of redemption. And the essential juridical character of marriage is inherent precisely in this bond which represents for the man and for the woman a requirement of justice and love from which, for their good and for the good of all, they may not withdraw without contradicting what God Himself has wrought within them.

EASTER MESSAGE 2007

2007-04-10T12:49:00.000+08:00

Like the pealing of the parish Church bells that pierces the silence of the early dawn of Easter Sunday, the voice of the Christian soul renewed by the refreshing grace of Holy Week breaks out with the great proclamation of hope: “Christ is risen; Christ is truly risen.”

This message of Easter, however, is not just a doctrine that emulates the spirit of man, neither is it a mere story of a past happening. It is a celebration of today, a breaking of the news that Christ is truly risen today. In the liturgy of the blessing of the new fire during the Easter Vigil, I was suddenly struck by the rite of inscribing some symbols into the Paschal Candle. In it was to be etched the year 2007, but over and below it are the giant Greek letters of ALPHA and OMEGA, the symbol of the resurrected Christ. He is the Beginning and the End of everything, Jesus Christ who is yesterday, today, and forever. Christ the resurrected is contemporary. His resurrection was not just an event of the past: it is a current occurrence of which message of hope is directed to the modern Filipino.

This then is the joy of Easter, the joy that is the fruit of an experience of the triumph of Christ over death and over all the negative incidents that endlessly impinge on the spirit of man. The resurrection of our Lord strongly affirms that life is stronger than death, that love is more potent than hatred, that good is mightier than evil. Resurrection brings home the bliss of Easter: “We are free: we are free to be good; we are free to love; we are free to live.” The Holy Father, Pope Benedict the XVI, spoke of this freedom in his Easter Vigil message when he said: “In the resurrection of Jesus, love has been shown to be stronger than death, stronger than evil. Love made Christ descend, and love is also the power by which he ascends. The power by which he brings us with him. In union with his love, borne aloft on the wings of love, as persons of love, let us descend with him into the world's darkness, knowing that in this way we will also rise up with him.”

It is along this faith of the resurrection that the Church wants us to take up our life again with all its precariousness and complexities. In the growing poverty of our people, the corruptions and differing crimes in society, the politics of compromises and shady transactions, the violence committed to the weak and the defenseless, the trafficking of women, the sexual abuses of minors, the spiritual emptiness and the weak moral fiber of our leaders, in all these the children of the resurrection should not grow faint and withdraw. On the contrary they should be there in the thick of all this mess, deeply engrossed in the great work of reshaping the face of the Philippines. With much love, compassion and determination they sure will make a difference.

HAPPY EASTER.

The Lay Faithful and the Priests

2007-04-02T20:25:00.000+08:00

As a pastor of a particular Church, I have been wondering how to effect the harmonious and dynamic relationship between the lay faithful and the priests that would lead not only to the appreciation of their dignity but would also maximize the exercise of their functions as priests, kings and prophets in the parishes. It is true that Canon 208 provides for close collaboration among the faithful when it states: “From their rebirth in Christ, there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality regarding dignity and action by which they all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ according to each one’s own condition and function.” But it does not spell out in the concrete how it looks like and how this could be realized. The early Christian community in Jerusalem as described in the Acts of the Apostles with the members’ concern for one another motivated as they were by the celebration of the Eucharist is usually conjured as the model of how cooperation in the Church would appear. But the complexity of the world of today simply demands for other Church models that would strike that dynamic relationship among its members.

Meantime, a glimmer of it was recently shown me in the Chrism Mass in the Diocese of Tagbilaran. As a new pastor of the place, it was my first time to preside on the liturgy. And there I saw a model how the clergy and the laity could more effectively work together in the building up of the Body of Christ on earth. It was Monday of Holy Week. Priests gathered together in the morning and had a short recollection in preparation for the Chrism Mass and their renewal of their commitment as priests in the Church of Tagbilaran. For a wider perspective of their priesthood they took as their speaker a lay man in the person of Mr. Frank Padilla, the founder of the CFC. In the early afternoon, the lay faithful came in and congregated in the Cathedral, made a recollection with the bishop of Tagbilaran himself as the speaker. After that they made the Holy Hour and Stations of the Cross as their prayer for the priests. It was only after these separate preparations that the Chrism Mass proper was celebrated. It was a Liturgy to behold: the lay people praying for their priests; the priests renewing their commitment to serve the lay faithful with renewed vigor and enthusiasm, the bishop absorbing them all in his own person and office, bringing them all up to God, pleading for His choice blessings for the particular Church, the Diocese of Tagbilaran.

In the ministry of governance, the bishop has the pastoral obligation to assist the lay faithful to understand and to accept the kingly gift that they received in baptism. According to Benedict XVI in his address to the bishops of Provinces of Louisville, Mobile and New Orleans, this kingly office is first expressed in that “royal freedom which enables the faithful to overcome the reign of sin in their own lives and, by serving Christ in others…, to guide them to that King whom to serve is to reign” (ZEO4120520). And since for the lay faithful the exercise of this kingly office is directed to the spread of the Kingdom of Gospel through secular activities, imbuing, that is, the world with the Spirit of Christ so that justice, love and peace may reign, the bishop has to encourage them through catechesis and continuing formation, to recognize their distinctive dignity and mission. As the Pope continued his exhortation: “This means that the laity must be trained to distinguish clearly between their rights and duties as members of the Church and those which they have as members of human society, and encouraged to combine the two harmoniously, recognizing that in every temporal affair they are to be guided by their Christian conscience, since there is no human activity – even in the temporal order –that can be withdrawn from God’s dominion” (ibid.; also, Vatican II, LG, no. 36; also, Canon 227)).

The implication of the words of Benedict XVI is that the lay faithful should not remain as the “long hand of the hierarchy”, a group that moves only when mandated by the bishop and their pastors. They should be empowered. Empowerment here means due recognition of the legitimate freedom of the lay faithful to undertake on their own the apostolate due to the baptism that they received. They are commissioned by the Lord Himself, expected to undertake the spread of the Gospel in their own right and to perform their functions as priests, kings, and prophets by the sheer fact that they are baptized and confirmed. It too means that they have their distinctive role in the mission of the Church. “They live in the world…They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven. In this way they may make Christ known to others” (LG 31). And more importantly, it demands from the hierarchy the proper discernment to appreciate the workings of the Holy Spirit in their lives. They are in the world and they are there precisely to reinvigorate the Church in places where the clergy cannot reach. Many of them receive charisms for the building up of the Church. They are not aliens nor are they enemies of the Church; neither do they intend to put up a parallel Church, competitors for the allegiance of the people. They are there because “their specific vocation and their mission is that of expressing the Gospel in their lives and, in that way, of inserting the Gospel as leavening into the reality of the world in which they live and work” (John Paul II, “The Task of the Laity to Permeate”, L’Osservatore Romano, October 15, 1980).

The lay faithful, that is, the young men and women who are acting as leaven of the secular world and the hope of the future of the Church, the married couples who lived the love of Christ in their homes and families. and all the men and women who bring the Gospel to their homes, workplaces, politics and the to the world as a whole, are invaluable members of the local Church. An appreciation of their secularity, their distinctive gifts and apostolate will lead to a greater commitment and shared responsibility.

The bishop has to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit who is forever, living, working and speaking in the baptized individuals and groups of individuals. He should know how to discern the workings of the Spirit, the rich variety of charisms and ministries which are poured upon some lay members for the building up and renewal of the Church. This of course demands from the pastor the conscious effort to listen, to discern, to appreciate, and even to put up structures of communion and participation.

The lay faithful praying for their priests, the priests renewing their commitment to
spend their lives to bring to the lay faithful the Word and the Sacraments, the bishop working for the fruitful collaboration and harmonious cooperation between these two members for the building up of the Body of Christ, was mirrored in the Mass of the Chrism last Holy Monday in the Cathedral of Tagbilaran. It is our fondest hope that this picture of communion and participation in the liturgy be soon transported to the day to day living of the Christian Faithful in the local Church in Bohol.

SOCIAL SECURITY OF THE DIOCESAN CLERGY

2007-02-22T13:39:00.000+08:00

The busy chore in the parish which includes among others the looking after the spiritual needs of the people entrusted to his care, the setting up of the organizational systems and needed structures, the building up of BECs and taking care of faith communities and other movements, teaching the children and forming the youth, giving guidance counseling to married young couples and troubled families, the keeping up of the physical plant of the community, all these programs and activities could engaged the parish priest so much that he forgets that time is not always his. Before he realizes it, illness is getting a hold of him and the advancing age is slowing him down. And there he is alone and untended.

The Church true mother that she is would not like that scenario to happen to her priests. She knows very well the all out dedication of her priests in the ministry, their heroism in giving up their own personal dreams and ambition for the sake of Kingdom. She too remembers full well she started as a small community in Jerusalem and yet with polled resources could support one another as well as the poor and the needy ( cf. Acts 4: 32): for “they held everything in common” and “distribution was made to each according to need” (Acts 4:35). It is on this account that she comes out strongly with this stipulation in law: “Provision must also be made so that they (clerics) possess that social assistance which provides for their needs suitably if they suffer from illness, incapacity, or old age” (Canon 281, §2). This law is actually a juridical formulation of the desideratum expressed by Vatican II which states: “In countries where social security has not yet been adequately organized for the benefit of clergy, Episcopal Conferences are to make provision…for the setting up of diocesan organizations…for the proper support of priests who suffer from ill health, disability or old age” (PO 21). The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines specified more this provision of the Code and in terse language stated: “When…priests retire from years of service in the Ministry, the Church should see to it that their respective Dioceses continue to support them…. “ (PCP-II, Acts, 561).

Here the dioceses in the Philippines are enjoined to dig deep into their own creative selves to devise workable system that would meet squarely the plight of her ailing clergymen. The task at hand is not at all easy, especially for poor dioceses that have to depend mostly on the love offerings and contributions of the faithful. Other dioceses have to contend with old financial systems that may have incorporated the social security of their members, but are in fact failing to meet the needs of the aging priests.

A case at bar comes to the fore. In one of the clergy meetings this issue surfaced when a member of the aging priests of the diocese presented to the body an innovative system that would somehow help the sick priests in purchasing their prescribed medicines. The idea is this: make collection boxes with a big-letter message painted on them as, “Support Our Aging Priests (SOAP)” and place them in strategic places in the parish churches. Simple or crude the idea brings home the message that the aging priests are overwhelmed with the mounting expenses that they have to defray. Seven thousand (P7,000.00) to nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00) as monthly expense for maintenance medicines is simply staggering for any priest whose monthly earning is only P9,000.00. They need support; they beg for help. Who could help them if not the generous lay faithful? After all, it is the lay faithful who through the years have been the beneficiaries of the services of these ordained ministers. In fact, this doctrine is already enshrined in the Code which states: “The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers” (C. 222, §1). And so, the idea was hatched.

But that idea did not take away the obligation of the diocese to take care of its priests in need. The presbyterium understood well the plight of their brother aging priests. And so they came out with two resolves: first, ask the aging priests to desist from the planned collection boxes; second, the diocese will resume the serious talk on the social security system of priests. These resolves are based on the conviction of the presbyterium who sincerely believed in the principle enunciated by the Second Vatican Council (PO 20): “Completely devoted as they are to the service of God in the fulfillment of the office entrusted to them, priests are entitled to receive a just remuneration. For ‘the laborer deserves his wages’ (Lk 10:7), and (1 Cor 9:10) ‘the Lord commanded that they who proclaim the Gospel should get their living by the Gospel’ (1 Cor 9:10).

The SPIRITUALITY OF THE DIOCESAN PRIESTS

2007-01-31T15:55:00.000+08:00

It was one of those busy week days in the office that the chime of twelve became a welcome respite from work when a weak knock at the door called my attention. At my instance the door opened and there appeared one of my young priests who looked haggard and lifeless. In words that could hardly be heard he said: “I am burnt out, Bishop. Priesthood has no more sense to my life; prayer is a drab; I feel empty.”

A sad story that can rend any bishop’s heart. For it usually happens to his priests who are full of energy, full of idealism, active in the apostolate, dedicated to prayer life. And there they are, just five or six years from the ministry, already burnt out. What has gone wrong?

One of the reasons surely is the spiritual life of the diocesan clergy. To have a tight grip of one’s spirituality in the parish is not that easy. Every day he has to make do of it. The demands of the ministry simply leaves him no regular time to his prayers and meditation. Soon he will be dried up, will start longing with a drag sigh to the lost ideals that he had once acquired in the seminary. Is there a way to sustain him in his spirituality or recapture it when it is ebbing?

I believe there is. After all the source of his spirituality is on hand. For, the spirituality of the diocesan clergy and his effectiveness in the ministry is to be found from the very exercise of his priestly ministry. The priest becomes what he administers; he grows in spirituality according to the way he fulfills his priestly ministry; he becomes holy because he deals with holy things. This concept was already given an initial yet authoritative account by the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, when it boldly stated: “A ministerial spirituality requires the priest to exercise authentic, i.e. truthful ministry. He attunes his heart and demeanor to the meaning of his ministerial actions. He will not be content simply to speak the Word of God. He will live according to the Word he preaches. He will not be satisfied with merely a valid administration of the sacraments. He will administer the sacraments with care, with faith and pastoral love. He will not simply command. He will seek to be an example of one who heeds the Word of God and thus be a light to others” (IV, n. 537).

This is so because the sacramental character that has been etched deeply in the person of the priest is for real. It touches the ordained individual at the very core of his being. Ordination is no mere designation to an office, nor mere bestowal of rights and obligations, nor simple definition of the roles and functions of the priest, of his job descriptions. It is an ontological and spiritual configuration of a quality that sets the ordained forever as priest of God in aeternum, transforming him into a spiritual and moral leader, a dispenser of holy things. . As the late John Paul II, addressing to the priests in his Letter “Novo Incipiente Nostro, delicately puts it: “Your priesthood imparts to you a pastoral charism, a special likeness to Christ, the Good Shepherd. This quality belongs to you in a very special way. All the laity, the great community of the People of God, our brothers and sisters, are expected to work for the salvation of others, as the Second Vatican Council stated so clearly. You priests, however, are expected to have a concern and a commitment greater than and different from that of any lay person. And this is because you share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ in a way that differs essentially and not only in degree from the manner in which they share” (Par. 5).

And so, the spirituality of the diocesan clergy can be found in act of doing the pastoral ministry as priest. And this cannot be realized more than in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist whose liturgy urges the community and more so, the priest presider, to enter into that space and moment when God himself is acting and that all are drawn into that action of God. There is that highest moment in the liturgy of the Eucharist when the difference between the action of Christ and priest’s own actions are mysteriously merged into one reality, the fulfillment of what St. Paul meant by “being united to the Lord” and thus becoming “one spirit with him” (cf. 1Cor 6:17). God’s action is what is essential; man’s action is cooperation.

In the Holy Mass the priest should be caught up in that great act of God transforming him into His embrace. For any priest it should be a high moment when he takes the bread and the cup in his own hands, relating at the same time the narrative part of the Institution wherein he commences in the third person – “He took bread… He blessed it… he broke it… he gave it…” - and then, suddenly, carried on by the flow of the liturgy he shifts the pronouns from the third person to the first when he pronounces the words of consecration. The priest no longer says: “This is His (Christ’s) body; this is His Blood”; he rather utters: “This is my body” … This is my blood…” The third person has become the first person, identifying the priest with the very person of Christ Himself. And the priest states those words as a matter of fact. For he knows that he takes, blesses, and breaks bread in persona Christi. In that one sacred act, following the great “Oratio” of the liturgy of the Eucharist, he brings into it the core of his being: he is an ordained priest, whose character of ordination made him one with the person of Christ the Head. The transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is made possible because he is a priest with the sacramental power to transform it. That should set any priest to pause and think. As one Filipino archbishop described it, “when he breaks bread and passes on the cup, he should be humbled in the realization that what is so easy to accomplish through his transforming words, he finds it difficult to transform his own life and bad habits in his day-to-day chore.”
It is on this regard, that the Holy Father Benedict XVI once commented: “True liturgical education cannot consist in learning and experimenting with external activities. Instead one must be led toward the essential “action” that makes the liturgy what it is, toward the transforming power of God, who wants, through what happens in the liturgy, to transform us and the world” (Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000 Ignatius Press, p. 175).

It is also along this vein that the late Holy Father John Paul II waxed eloquent in exhorting the priests to give due reverence to the Holy Eucharist. In his letter to the priests entitled “Dominicae Cenae, he said: “In reality, the ministerial and hierarchal priesthood, the priesthood of the Bishops and the priests, and, at their side, the ministry of the deacons – ministries which normally begin with the proclamation of the Gospel – are in closest relationship with the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the principal and central raison d’entre of the Sacrament of the priesthood, which effectively came into being at the moment of the institution of the Eucharist, and together with it” (n.2). In his enclyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia, the same Pope carried on the same line of thought. He said: “If the Eucharist is the center and summit of the Church’s life, it is likewise the center and summit of priestly ministry. For this reason, with a heart filled with gratitude to our Lord Jesus Christ, I repeat that the Eucharist “is the principal and central raison d’etre of the sacrament of priesthood, which effectively came into being at the moment of institution of the Eucharist” (n. 31)

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: ITS IMPACT ON THE ARENA OF POLITICS

2007-01-08T09:58:00.000+08:00

January 12, 2007

The convergence of various cultures, legal systems and religions has through the years produced peculiar effects in the relationship between the State and the Church in the Philippines. The various powers that colonized the country have left an indelible imprint in the country’s laws and life and consequently worked together in shaping up the relationship between the Church and the State. That there is a separation of Church and State is a fact. This is amply evidenced in the various constitutions of the country . The problem is the nature and style of separation. What does separation of Church and State mean? This paper will try to handle and answer this nagging question from the canonical point of view and the Conciliar teachings.

The Philippine Constitution describes this relationship in this manner: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination and preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

Simply put, the separation of Church and State doctrine as expressed in the present Constitution implies two things, namely, 1) that no religion may be established as the official religion of the State nor prohibits the free exercise thereof; 2) that the State shall not favor one religion over the others. It logically follows from the aforementioned that the State shall allow the free exercise and enjoyment of any religious creed or conviction one may choose to adhere to.

The present code of canon law, on its part, maintains and rightfully claims the moral personality of the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See by divine ordination which serves the basis for the autonomy of its jurisdictional authority and character and independence in the human community . It further lays claim, among others, the freedom to preach the gospel and to render moral judgment on any matter of human affairs ; to establish and direct schools; to promote formation and education in the Catholic religion at all levels of education; to train its own ministers; to appoint and send papal legates; to establish the matrimonial regimen for its faithful; to acquire, retain or sell temporal goods for the attainments for its own goals; to punish with penal sanctions those of the faithful who commit delicts; and to judge its own cases. It goes without saying that that each of these stipulations presupposes the fundamental purpose of affirming the Church’s autonomy vis-à-vis temporal powers, and, its “inherent,” “exclusive,” “native,” “original” freedoms and rights “independent of civil power.” They are not actual presentation of the relations between Church and State, nor are they practical guidelines on how separation of Church and State should be carried out in day-to-day transactions and political interactions. But they do provide the ready foundation for the establishment of such relation together with the Church’s conviction that it has supreme authority over its juridical code. By virtue of her mission to spread the gospel message and to unify the spirit of all, the Church stands forth as sign of that unity which allows honest dialogue. It requires mutual esteem, reverence and harmony through the recognition of lawful diversity.

The Church and the State, has for numerous times, shown a great level of collaboration in a number of issues as evidenced by the various concordats the Church has established with different states. While the authority of the State is limited to the temporal affairs of man and the Church on the spiritual matters, recent events have shown that the Church has been more and more concerned with the development of man for as members of society, the members of the Church has the same duty to promote the common good as does the State. It is in the arena of politics that the separation of Church and State is being most often invoked.

CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS ACCORDING TO VATICAN II

The most fundamental principle governing Church-State relationships is that the Church has a very specific purpose in the world and it is not constituted as an entity opposed to the State. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind the Conciliar statement of Gaudium et spes, no. 76, which puts this issue in its proper perspective. Several important points must be highlighted in this statement. First, the Church affirms the natural and supernatural dimensions of each and every human being. Even though the direct and primary concern of the Church is the transcendental dimension, it has inherent right to use temporal or earthly realities to accomplish its mission. Second, in accomplishing its mission, the Church does not look for any privileges or special concessions from civil authority, which would compromise its intrinsic and essential goal, that is, the salvation of each human being. In other words, the Church is not going to enter into any deals, which would taint the sincerity of its witness. Third, in view of its mission, the Church should have true freedom to preach its message. The message concerns the faith, society, moral judgments in matters relating to politics, but especially the fundamental rights of human beings and salvation of souls. The Church merely claims its inherent right to witness to and stand up for human rights and salvation of souls and do so with courage and authority. Fourth, the Church does not exercise political or temporal power. Therefore, the means it has the right to use are those, which correspond to the Gospel message. The Church can in fact become a leaven in the political arena by preparing and encouraging suitable persons who would work for the welfare of all people according to the Gospel message.

THE CHURCH AND ITS INVOLVEMENT IN POLITICAL LIFE

If politics is to be understood in a broad sense, that is, the community’s pursuit of the common good, then the Church cannot but be involved in it. The common good embraces the sum total of conditions of social life by which individual, families, and groups can achieve their own fulfillment in a relatively thorough and ready way.

Christian involvement in political life is actually based on the commitment of Christians in the world. For more than 2000 years people of the faith has actively engaged themselves in the life of the world, submitting themselves to duly constituted authority, willingly cooperating with it, in accordance to the dictates of their conscience and the light of the Gospel, in the work for the pursuit of the common good. For these people “man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality.” As one early Christian writer put it: (Christians) reside in their own nations, but as residential aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners… They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses laws… So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.”

With history sweeping men to live in democratic forms of government, the call of the Catholics to actively participate in the affairs of the State becomes more urgent. For in these societies the citizens are suddenly pushed to the forefront of governance, making them active participant in directing the body politic. Christians are no exception to this demand. After all, the life of a democracy cannot be productive and fruitful without the active and responsible involvement of everyone. Here the Christians are expected to contribute their share to the development of political solutions and legislative choices which could benefit the common good. In concrete the right of suffrage and other civil rights have made this active participation possible. The result to such active participation of all citizens, including the Christians, is observed by the Holy See as indeed encouraging, making life more in tune with the dignity of human person. As Cardinal Ratzinger noted: “The great strides made in our time give evidence of humanity’s progress in attaining conditions of life which are more in keeping with human dignity.”

There is another urgent reason why the Christian citizens of today are asked to be more involved in political matters. With an eye adept for right moral judgment the same Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith observed that the evolution of civil society into a more democratic and more participative society has spawn a mentality and a position that is alarming. It is called a pluralistic mentality, a conceptualization that eventually leads to cultural relativism. In the name of freedom the promoters of this tendency envision a system that govern the acts and behavior of man. This system oftentimes runs counter to the standard of natural ethics and sound morality. Called ethical pluralism, it sanctions the decadence of the principles of natural moral law. It teaches citizens to claim complete autonomy with regards to moral choices that they make. It also facilitates the lawmakers to enact laws that are oftentimes unethical and even immoral in the pretext that they are just respecting the freedom of choices of the citizens. It is precisely because of the emergence of these ambiguities or questionable positions that the Church comes out with a document to clarify some important elements of Church teaching in this area. At the same breath it is calling all Christian citizens, in the face of these dangerous modern tendencies, to be more actively involved in the political affairs of the State. The “Doctrinal Note” of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith put the imperative this way: “If Christians must recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs, they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society”

With that in view, we can safely conclude that active participation in the politic life of the nation is all the more imperative to all Christian citizens.

Here in the Philippines participation of the Church in politics is active, vocal, visible. To put it bluntly, the Church is actively involved in the political as well as in the socio-economic affairs of the nation. In fact, it is because of this that oftentimes it has been accused, mistakenly perhaps, of too much interfering in purely temporal affairs, of transgressing the constitutive principle of separation of Church and State. But, when we come to reflect on it, has our participation in the political life of the State been sufficient? Or, has the Church been effective in its participation in view of her mission to evangelize society in general and politics in particular? Has the common good been sufficiently met through this participation? With the presence of the massive graft and corruption in the country can we rightly conclude that the Church has failed in her mission?

To properly answer these queries, let us go first into the history of the Church in the Philippines in the area of its participation in politics and in other socio-economic activities of the nation. Let us take a brief review of our history. Here, we will find out that involvement of the Church in temporal affairs and therefore in politics, has undergone an interesting evolution. Msgr. Lope Robredillo, a priest of the Diocese of Borongan, was once commissioned by the CBCP Permanent Council to undertake a brief historical survey of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines from 1945-1995. In that study, he made this interesting conclusion:

“In describing the 50 years of its existence, it is important to take into account the ecclesiological framework within which the conference operated and moved, as well as the changing and diverse historical experiences of the Filipino people which shaped it. As is true of particular churches in other nations, the major shift in ecclesiological paradigm in the Philippine Church, which entailed changes in values and orientations, transpired in the Second Vatican Council. Accordingly, the history of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines may be conveniently divided into two major parts: a) Before the Second Vatican Council and b) After the Second Vatican Council. During these two periods, it can be observed that when the CBCP responded to the various challenges which the particular situation of the Country presented, it did so within the possibilities of its perception and ecclesiological framework”

Before Vatican II, the Church in the Philippines has been shaped by the theology of the Council of Trent with an ecclesiology that concerns with a Church as a social institution. In this concept the Church is a society and the Hierarchy possesses the power of jurisdiction and governance. The rest (the faithful) is considered as mere passive subjects of this power. Its mission is the salvation of souls while the means to achieve it is grace that can be had through the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of the sacraments. Of course, within this parameter involvement in politics and in socio-economic affairs of the Nation is narrow and limited. Its concern was mostly religious. In the area of temporal affairs, the Church engages itself in works of mercy and charity, a kind of social welfare. When Vatican II, however, came out with its ecclesiology that declares that the Church is People of God, it opened a novel way of understanding participation in the temporal spheres. A shift was created and a dramatic shift at that. It may not be that immediate, but certain and gradual. Church in the Philippines slowly assimilated in its system the social action which is directly derived from this concept of the Church as People of God. Justice and peace has become the focus of its activity. At the time also dramatic events in the country hastened its growth and development. The declaration of Martial Law certainly created a situation whereby the leaders of the Church could dig deep into the ecclesiology offered by Second Vatican Council and could thereby respond with determination and confidence to the challenges at hand. People of God concept has been the ready source of inspiration and empowerment by the Church in the Philippines in its bitter struggle against the dictatorial rule. EDSA 1 may perhaps be the culminating point of the Church involvement in the political affairs of the country.

In all we can say that the Church in the Philippines, after the Second Vatican Council, has never wavered in her commitment to participate in the political affairs of the civil society. For it is sure in its stand. Its main reason is: integral evangelization. “The task of the Church,” PCP II declared, “in announcing a message of liberation, of saturating every strata of humanity with the values of the Good News will necessarily have political repercussions, for the values of the Kingdom of God often serve as countersigns to prevailing political systems and practices.” After all politics is not over and above the natural law and the moral law. Politics has moral and religious dimensions that the Church has to look into and be involved with.

However, the more urgent reason why the Church in the Philippines actively participates in the political affairs of the state in recent times is the existing graft and corruption of our society. It is not just the fact that the Philippines is listed as among the first ten of the most corrupt nations in the world that the Church is pushed to go on in its involvement in politics. But it is rather the tragic effects that graft and corruption has done to our citizenry, our system of governance, our values, our morality, the plight of the poor and the needy. As the Bishops Conference eloquently expressed it: “Why has the Church been usually pro-active in addressing the subject of politics since the end of World War II and especially since the Martial Law years and the restoration of our democracy in 1986? There is one main reason: Philippine politics – the way it is practiced – has been most hurtful of us as a people. It is possibly the biggest bane in our life as a nation and the most pernicious obstacle to our achieving of full human development”

In this regard, the Church in the Philippines had summoned support from all levels of society. In particular, it addressed the laity to be more active in politics as this is precisely the sphere wherein they are called to transform the world in the spirit of the Gospel and according to Christian values and conscience. PCP II put it loudly: “In the Philippines today given the general perception that politics has become an obstacle to integral development, the urgent necessity is for the lay faithful to participate more actively, with singular competence and integrity, in political affairs. It is through the laity that the Church is directly involved. .. Our Plenary Council stands on record to urge the lay faithful to participate actively and lead in the renewing of politics in accordance with values of the Good News of Jesus”

Hence, the Church has to involve itself in political life, understood in the broad sense, of the State. The Church has the right to preach the gospel without hindrance, to teach its social doctrines and to discharge its duty among the people of God. It has, likewise, the right to express moral judgments, even on matters touching the political order, whenever basic personal rights or the salvation of soul makes such judgment necessary . It is precisely because of this that the Church and the State, while respecting there respective autonomy, have to collaborate with each other for the protection and realization of the common good. Recently the relationship of the Church with the State has been described by the Philippine Bishops as one of ‘critical solidarity’ .

While collaborating with the State, the Church retains its native and inherent right to speak out in prophetic wisdom against any form of injustice or violation of the moral, social, political and economic order.

THE ROLE OF THE BISHOPS AND THE CLERGY IN POLITICS

As pointed out earlier, the Church may teach moral doctrines covering politics but cannot actively take part in partisan politics. It is in the latter that the clergy are prohibited from getting involved. Yet, there is no provision in the present Constitution, which bars the clergy and the religious from partisan politics. It is by virtue of the Church’s own laws and tradition that prohibits the clergy and religious from any involvement in partisan politics . Canon 287, § 2 contains a negatively formulated juridical norm for the clerics and therefore precise and strong in its prohibition. It states: “They are not to have active part to political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.” Like canon 285, § 3, which prohibits the clergy from holding public office, this restriction on political activity is based on the distinctive role of the clergy and the laity. Needless to say, political activity ordinarily belongs to lay persons.

It is the responsibility of the clergy to promote unity in the community. They are ordained and configured to take care of all the faithful, not just segments of the community as members of political party. The Church therefore prohibits the clergy from involvement in partisan politics since they are considered symbols of unity in the Church and in the community and certainly partisan politics is, by its very nature, divisive. For them to take an active part in partisan politics, with its wheeling and dealing, compromises, confrontational and adversarial positions, would be to weaken their teaching authority and destroy the unity the represent and protect .Consequently, the clergy, “witness of future things, should keep a certain distance from any political position or effort.”

The bishops and the clergy, like all citizens, have the right to make their own choices . Together with the faithful they are in fact, obliged to take a clear action when the human person requires help, when human rights are to be defended, and to work for peace and justice . In expressing the choices they are to avoid giving the impression that their opinions are the sole legitimate ones. They are, however, to refrain from intervening in partisan politics unless there is an issue of just social order. In this regard, the late John Paul II made a strong position: “Presbyters who, in generosity of their service to the evangelical ideal feel the tendency towards immersing themselves in political activity, in order to contribute more effectively to healing political life, by eliminating injustices, exploitation and oppressions of all kinds, are reminded by the Church that, along that road, it is easy to see oneself involved in party struggles, running risk of collaborating, not in the birth of a just world, to which we all aspire, but rather, to new and worse forms of exploitation of poor people. They should know, in any case, that they do not have the mission or charism from on high for that endeavor in political action and participation”
This prohibition is, however, not absolute. Whenever the defense of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires, the prohibition could be removed on exceptional cases. With the condition that the evaluation of the circumstances which justifies cleric’s participation in politics falls upon the legitimate ecclesiastical authority and is never left to the personal judgment of the clergy. Specifically, it would require the consent of the bishop, after having consulted the presbyteral council and also, if the case requires it, the bishops’ conference.

New Year Message

2007-01-08T09:55:00.000+08:00

The approach of the new year 2007 again augurs fresh hope for new beginning. It evokes anticipation, better tomorrow, bright days ahead, no matter the dark ominous shadow at the heel of the old year that is fast fading to the irretrievable past. For lodged deeply in man’s being is that stubborn hope that springs eternal.

Hope, however, does not work on a vacuum. It feeds on perceived reality. And as different people have different ways of perceiving realities, it is no wonder that man’s hope to survive or succeed differs. One places his hope on the market and therefore gauges his better tomorrow with the economic growth or, at least, stability. With the growing strength of the peso vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar, some Filipinos hope that we are at last in a break through towards quality life, development, and progress. At least this is what the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey told us as bannered by the Philippine Star December 29, 2006 issue: “Despite a spate of natural calamities and political upheavals in the year just past, most Filipinos still look to the New Year with hope.” Others hope that globalization will somehow catch up with us and sweep the Philippines to finally reach the economic tiger status in the region offering to the Filipinos life that approximates first world citizens. Others place hope in the discovery of science, the growing wonders of the chips in the cyberspace world and the virtual images they create, the advance of technology, human endeavors and unheard of inventions. All help to fuel man’s hope for the new year, notwithstanding the challenges on its train.

No matter the boast of modern man, however, he is still disturbed with fears and apprehensions lurking deep in his being. Can he survive the ever growing challenges of life, the precarious peace based on a bilateral agreement of contending parties, the deep-seated hatred of one class against the other, the insatiable hunger for more power and wealth among the rich and powerful in the face of poor people stretching out their gaunt hands to reach out for a piece of dry bread or a bowl of rice to stave off the gnawing pain of hunger, the graft and corruption in public office, the bombings, summary killings, robbery and petty thefts? It is no wonder that one great scientist in the midst of all these staggering discoveries made by man, the power they have unleashed, the riches they have helped to amass, pensively made this wry statement: “I just hope that after all these discoveries man will wake up to find the universe friendly.”

The Church perceives reality from the perspective of faith. Its hope for man and for the society in which he lives is based on the belief that God is not a distant God, but a God who hears the cry of the poor, a God who cares, a God who takes on human flesh and blood and dwells among His own, a God who dies that the whole creation might live. It is this God who is the hope of man. As St. Paul spiritedly put it: “Indeed, the whole created world eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God… because the world itself will be freed from its slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8: 20 & 21). It is this kind of hope that the Church offers to a humanity that is caught up in shivers due to the spate of so much violence and wanton killings. It is based on the perception that Christ conquered sin, death and all that are connected with it. In Him and with Him we too can conquer sin, death and all the ugly things and occurrences that ever rear up to destroy human life and values. “If God is for us, who can be against us” (Rom 8: 31)?

And so, when the believer greets you “Happy New Year”, he is expressing his deep conviction that human life is not only friendly - it is worth living.

Happy New Year to one and all.

LITURGICAL RECEPTION

2006-12-17T14:29:00.000+08:00

Tagbilaran Cathedral ( December 14, 2006)

First of all, may I express my sincerest thanks to the Holy Father through the Apostolic Nuncio, in having confidence in me, entrusting to me the People of God in Tagbilaran. I am aware of the high status of the Diocese, its lively faith, the number of its vocations to the priestly and religious life, the faith qualities of its priests and religious, recognized not only here , but also in the whole world; the number of bishops that it has contributed to the Church in the Philippines; the responsible and the ever apostolic lay faithful who have kept on leavening with the Gospel values the different levels of society, the family, the schools, campuses, politics, offices, and recreation areas. Aware of these realities my knees shake with trepidation and apprehension.

Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude to my immediate predecessor, Bp Leopoldo Tumulak, A man of deep faith, a bishop respected highly by peers, the bishops and archbishops in the Philippines, the adopted and accepted father of the men in uniform in our land, he is a man of no air, no pretensions, no guile. What you see is what he is: Bp. Tumulak. With so much happiness. He came to me and gives me all the ecclesial and ecclesiastical tips that I have to know. Bishop Leo, I will always be indebted to you.

Thirdly, to Ricardo Cardinal Vidal goes my sincerest thanks for his gracious acceptance of my invitation to give the homily on the occasion of my installation. Needless to say h e is the most sought after homilist, especially on occasion like this. It is not just his personality that attracts the audience, it is his home grown wisdom and direct way of expressing these nuggets of advises and tips to the bishops who are embarking in the difficult mission of shepherding God’s People that makes him popular.

Fourthly, I am extending my thanks to all the bishops and archbishops here present, especially the sufragan Bishops of Cebu. Your presence gives me the necessary strength to face the odds that come my way in the process of shepherding.

People of God in the diocese of Tagbilaran, the priests, the religious and the lay faithful. I come here to answer a call. It is a call to faith, call to a deeper faith as expressed well in the story in the Gospel where a man exclaimed: “I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.” A bishop lacks faith, a bishop has no faith? Well, that is my story, capzulized in my motto “ Ambula Coram me” “walks before me.” This motto I directly took from the story of Abraham, the father of faith. He was a man who heard a call one day, a call to a great promise-a promise that he, who was there 75 years all will have a child in his old age. He believed in the call. But it demanded from him the abandoning of his own land, his relatives, his acquaintances, his friends and undergo a journey that would take him to far distant country – a country that will be given to him. He believed and therefore he walked, making a long journey until the promise was fulfilled. He was given the promised child. But more than the child, he had found God- he had discovered the faith. That is my life. I am looking, searching for the faith. For nineteen long years, I made that journey in the Diocese of Borongan. There I have not only close encounter with God: I experienced him in different guises, in the raging typhoons that oftentimes razed down the houses as well as the means of living of my people; I experienced him in cries of the children and poor people, the wails of hungry children asking for food, the problems of the husband left behind by their wives to seek jobs in far away countries. I saw God in the meetings of the priests, in the Masses that I had celebrated with religious sisters. I saw God in the first Diocesan Pentecost Vigil Celebration way back in 1988, who made his presence felt through the strong winds, chilling thunder and lightings, and heavy torrents that soaked the people to the bones. Yes, in my journey in the Diocese of Borongan, I still have doubts in God’s providence, I still lacked that childlike trust of Abraham, the simple faith of Mary who said: “I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to your word.”

Ilalandumong mga pulong sa atong Inahan Santa Maria Kinsa miingon: “Sulugoon lamang ako sa Ginoo, matuman unta dinhi kanako ang imong mga gipamulong!” Yes, upon yesterday morning of my pompous arrival in your beautiful island province, I said to myself, “Now I would be a Boholano! And a story recoiled in me. . . a story I know I haven’t read. . . though surely. . . I . . . many times had heard it, about this acclaim that Jesus is a Boholano! Now I can claim and recite with you the “Hail Mary” prayed in your Bisayan dialect: Maghimaya ka Maria, napuno ka sa grasya, ang Ginoong Dios anaa kanimo, Boholanon man ikaw sa mga babaye nga tanan, ug BOL-ANON MAN USAB ang bunga sa tiyan mo nga si Jesus!

It is my perception that the occurrence of the last October 17, 2006 when the Holy Father sent me his message: to . . . leave behind Borongan and make a journey in Tagbilaran. . . is God’s Providence! He wants me to deepen my faith here in the Diocese of Tagbilaran. I still need to make a journey, to undertake more steps in this beautiful Diocese of Tagbilaran.

….Before I forget let me heartily express my sincere Gratefulness and prayerful Farewell to the people I am leaving behind. . . . . . DAMO NGAN DAKO NGA SALAMAT.

So, dear People of God in the Diocese of Tagbilaran: I am here as a pilgrim! Ania ako isip usa ka Magpapanaw sa Diosnong Pagtoo! I am one who is to make a religious journey in your midst, searching for God! Selfish does it sounds – but, not it is! You too are in this journey with me, for that is the meaning of being constituted as the People of God, a people together in a journey, a people in a pilgrimage! Magkuyog kita niining Balaang Panaw uban sa Pagtoo, hiniusa sa Paglaum ug giniyahan sa Paghigugma! Together . . . You, the priest, women and men religious, the lay faithful, and I, - - - we hope to find this God who declared: (1 Pt 2:9) You, however, are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people he claims for his own, so that you may announce the praises” of Him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light!

CIVIC RECEPTION

2006-12-17T13:57:00.000+08:00

Tagbilaran City – December 13, 2006

To be extended an honor with such a grand magnitude as to involve the whole city of Tagbilaran, stopping on the one hand all other activities in order to concentrate on the affair of receiving me; and inviting the Apostolic Nuncio to the Philippines to come over here and play the active role of introducing my person and office to the citizens of Tagbilaran, is for me a dizzying experience, incredible in its unfolding. Bothered and bewildered, I have been asking the question: “Who am I to deserve all these?”

And yet, there you are, the generous individuals, officials of the city, who are geniuses in anticipating the need of one who is new in the place; persons who could feel and perceive the critical role of the bishop’s office in the temporal affairs of the citizens; sensitive persons who believe in the importance of introducing a new comer to the community. With one brilliant stroke you save me from otherwise going around the city, introducing myself as the new bishop of Tagbilaran. This for me is not just pure hospitality – it is a warm welcome. Thank you.

The office of the Bishop is constituted not for honor but for service. A bishop is clothed with all the regalia, not that he may be looked up to, but for all to perceive that ecclesiastical dignities are not to be clung on to, but to be stripped off for the sake of the people who are to be served, much like what our Lord did in the last supper. He took off his clothe as Lord and Master, and took on the rag of a slave, picked up a basin and pitcher of water, knelt before each of the Apostles, washing off the dirt from their feet, and kissed them. Distinctive work of a slave, but he was not ashamed to assume it. After all that was his mission when he said: “I came not to be served, but to serve.” Or, as Jesus declared after the washing of the feet: “Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master’, rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do” (Jn 13:12-14). Later, this act of Jesus who humbling himself to serve his brothers was picked up by St. Paul, exhorting the early communities to follow the kenosis of Christ. He said: “Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus. Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God, something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2: 6-8).

It is within this framework of service that I acceded to come to Tagbilaran. This happened last October 17, 2006, when the Holy Father instructed me to come here. Drilled in the virtue of obedience, I consented to his instruction. After all, a wish of the father is a command to the child. And so, I am here. I am here within the framework of service. Briefly expressed, I come here to see how the faith is lived and expressed in a Boholano way so that I too could live and express the Christian faith in a Boholano way. Your faith and my faith, welded together in the dynamics of study, reflection and prayer; our listening together to each other, studying together, caring for the poor, the sick and the marginalized in society , these acts will blend together, so I hope, as a beautiful hymn to praise our God, the be-all and end-all of everything.

It is also within this framework that I came to establish a relationship you, the representatives of the State. The State is a perfect society that looks into the common good of the citizens in the here and now, the temporal order of things. The Church is not against the State; nor the office of Bishops set up to oppose civil policies.. I am here to look after the faith of the People as well as the conduct that naturally flows from the faith. In the act of complying this work, it may happen that conflicts may occur. But I believe that these conflicts could only be in the level of perception. Human that we are, our perception of realities may not always square off; interpretations may differ. But they can easily be resolved, not by the invocation of the principle of separation of Church and State, but by serious dialogues. Here, the need for always the keeping the communication open for both sides is called for. The Church ever listening to the State, the State ever listening to the Church: that is the ideal of any good working relationship. After all, we are serving a common subject: the people.

Again, thank you for your warm welcome and great hospitality.

LEARN FROM THE FOREST

2006-12-17T13:43:00.000+08:00

Once there was an aging king who, after long years of leadership, wished to hand over his kingship to his son, the only heir to his kingdom. The problem was that his son was far from being prepared for the huge responsibility. He was imprudent, rash, and decadent. He had so much to learn to be a true leader and a good servant. Yearning his son to be a good king, the old king thought of a way to teach his son the lesson he needed. And so one day he asked his son to spend some days in the forest. The son, although mystified by his father’s order, immediately consented to the demand because he dreamed to be a king right away.

After two days in the forest, the impatient son went back home. The king excitedly asked his son what he had learned.

The lad answered, “I saw how beautiful the trees are, how dark and dangerous the forest is, how cool the stream waters, how fresh the morning dew, how freezing the night in the forest.”

“In that case you have learned nothing,” the king desperately said. “Go back to the forest and let the forest teach you what you need to learn,” the king commanded.
Puzzled and dismayed, the lad went back to the woods. He could in no wise understand what he had to learn from the forest and how to learn it. As he wondered and pondered, the mystery and marvel of the forest enchanted him. And for six months he stayed deep in the forest. After six long lonely months he went back to his father.
The king was delighted to hear what his son had to say. “What have you learned?” he asked.

The son humbly explained, “I am not sure of what I have really learned. I just realized that everything in the forest bears a subtle shade of meaning to each other. I saw the mystical nuances of things as I enjoyed the music of the gushing stream and the singing crickets. As I discovered how vulnerable the beasts could get when afraid, and how they wail when wounded. As I saw how splendid the sun is as its rays pierce through the leaves and break through the darkness and depth of the forest. As I noticed how lovely the insects behave and how painful they sting. As I observed how the birds find their resting place in the twilight and how cold and dark the night can be. As I discovered when the leaves shall fall, and how and why they fall. Until suddenly I felt that I belong to the forest. I am one with the forest. I found out that something greater than me connects everything in the forest and makes sense of everything. I may not know how the forest really works but I think the forest is one big paradise where everything is one – a rhapsody that does make sense.”

Finally the king said, “My son, you are now ready to be a true good king.”
I may not know how Borongan really works but I was able to learn that it is one big wonderful rhapsody where everything makes sense. And I thank God that He has given me many wonderful years so I could be with the people and be one with the people – and so to be able to listen to them, to live with them, and to love them and be loved by them. Borongan taught me a lot for over nineteen years. The connections and nuances of so many things. The subtle shadows of meaning in the smiles and sorrows of real people and in their silent joys and simple hopes. In their pains and struggles. In their faith and in their love. Having learned so much from Borongan, I asked myself: Have I become a better servant-leader? That I cannot tell. What I can only tell is that, like the king, God always wants us to learn more and beyond -- because there is always something more to learn. God can lead us even to where we don’t expect to be if only to teach us what it means to love and how to love better. For over nineteen years, Borongan has been teaching me a lot … until now. “Until now” … because starting today I will learn from Tagbilaran. I took the purifying pain of letting go and leaving the place and people who taught me a lot about life and love that is Borongan. Now I am here with you, hoping to learn how to love better and how to walk better with God and closer to God … with all of you, my dear people of Tagbilaran.

The Dress Code of the Priests

2006-12-05T20:11:00.000+08:00

The Time magazine in its anniversary issue of the 13th November 2006 carried among others an article that highlights the danger of global warming and the need to come out with pro-active laws and worldwide consultation to put a stop to climate change. The proponent of this refreshing move is J. McAllister. He cites as one of the main causes of global warming the distorted value that human beings have gradually imbibed in the course of their long relationship with nature. They have formed the attitude of discrimination, taking good care of one and abusing the other. For one, “we”, the author of the article continues, “tend not to look after what isn’t, strictly speaking, ‘ours’, so resources used in common get abused”. Legal scholars, so he says, call this tendency “the tragedy of the commons.” The author is not just speculating for this can readily be observed in the way man mistreats with abandon the environment, particularly, the atmosphere, the air, the water.

A similar negative tendency has also been observed in the Church in the ordained minister’s attitude regarding the clerical dress. Clerical attire is the official garb that is to be used by the clergy in his social life, the ecclesiastical uniform supposed to be worn by them in their public appearances. This is an attire that should distinguish the clergy from the rest of the faithful. The universal law came out with specific regulation obliging those who receive the sacred orders to wear this uniform in public as an integral part of his external decorum. Canon 284 expresses it this way: “Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Bishops’ Conference and legitimate local custom.” In compliance with the mandate of the universal law the Philippine hierarchy issued specific norms regarding the ecclesiastical uniform that could serve at the same time as an executory decree enjoining all the ordained ministers in the Philippines to follow. It states: “The proper clerical attire approved by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines are as follows: 1. cassock or religious habit; 2. clergyman’s suit; 3. trousers of dark one-tone color, with the clerical collar. The shirt may also be either polo-barong or barong tagalong, with a distinctive cross” (Testera, Florencio, Canon Law Digest of the Philippine Catholic Church, Manila, 1987, pp. 13-14).

The reason for the obligation of wearing the clerical dress code, however, is not at all based on the intention of setting up an elitist class in the Church, a sort of a status symbol for the clergy, installing them not only apart from the rest of the faithful in the ecclesiastical community but also as possessing a higher stateliness and dignity. The real purpose of the ecclesiastical garb is to serve as a public testimony, a manifestation to one and all that the one wearing an ecclesiastical dress is a cleric, that he belongs especially to God. It is an outward manifestation of the uniqueness of the priestly ministry.

Unfortunately, history has somehow warped the perception of the ecclesiastical garb. There was a time when the Church has experienced the tragedy of ecclesiastical elitism, the tendency, that is, of the clerics to be granted special treatment in the community, to be exempted from some obligations, and to be favored with more and more privileges than the rest of the members of the ecclesial community. To be a cleric at that time is to possess a privileged position in society; to be a cleric is to be considered as one special. The Second Vatican Council tried to eliminate these clerical privileges. It did so by introducing the concept of the People of God, leveling thereof the dignity, rights and duties of all the faithful in the Church. In this concept all the baptized are considered equal. That should have settled the problem of elitism in the Church until another reactionary movement came to the fore. This time it emphasized on what was common to all. Steeped with Vatican II theology and doctrine, some members of the Church made that generalization which states: everything ecclesiastical is elitist. Applying this conclusion to the ecclesiastical dress code, some clerics shirk from wearing the clerical uniform, stating that to wear the official dress is to pose as one who is an ecclesiastic and, therefore, exclusive, snobby, elitist. Hence, they prefer to go in public in t-shirts or in ordinary clothes. It is not that they are necessarily ashamed of their identity as priests or that they have a weak sense of their clerical identity. Rather, they do not like to get the attention of people, who because of the uniform give them privileged treatment, or else be looked at with suspicious and leery glances. They prefer to be left alone, free and unperturbed.

In spite of all these, the Church is insistent that her ordained ministers wear the ecclesiastical garb. The reason is simple. The ecclesiastical dress is an external sign, a symbol that is replete with meaning. The clergy who wears it is sending a message to the community of believers as well as to the people in general. The message of the Gospels that the clergy is commissioned to transmit is expressed with words and communicated effectively with external signs, easily understandable to the world of today that is so sensitive to the language of images. To quote the words of the late Pope John Paul II, to wit: “Ecclesiastical dress, therefore, is a sign which makes it easier for others to approach the ministry that the priests represent. In the present society, in which the sense of the sacred has become so diminished, people have even more need of those calls to God, which cannot be disregarded without a certain impoverishment of our priestly service” (John Paul II, Letter to the Vicar of Rome, 8 September 1982, in L’Osservatore Romano, October 18-19, 1982).

The clergy is an ordained minister and he must be known as such. It is true that the transformation effected by the Sacrament of Ordination is something spiritual. It configures the one called to participate in the priesthood of Christ the Head of the Church, conferring on him the spiritual power to act in the name and, oftentimes, in the person of Christ. As such the priestly feature and power of the ordained, although ontologically real, is spiritual. It therefore goes beyond physical appearances and cannot be fully expressed by mere external signs and symbols, much less can it be truly and faithfully articulated by a mere dress or garb. The priestly character of the ordained minister can only be expressed by the authentic life of the minister, his sincerity to live up to the demands of the priesthood and his faithfulness to the mission to which he is called to. The ecclesiastical dress is not external sign of his priesthood; it is his spiritual and priestly life.

But the reasoning suffers some flaws. The Church who legislates on the proper dress for her clergy is not purely spiritual. She is a realist, sacramental in its language as it is incarnational in its view of reality. The spirit can be expressed in something physical; God can be experienced in the burning bush; the Word can be seen and can be touched in the flesh; the child can be transformed into a son of God through the pouring of water with the Trinitarian invocation; the ordained can be known by the ecclesiastical dress he wears. Through the centuries the Church has believed in the value of physical signs and external symbols that point to something that is otherwise imperceptible to the human senses. It has continued on to its practice of pouring water to a child to show the power of the Holy Trinity cleansing the creature from its inherited sin and transforming it into a true child of God; of taking on the species of bread and wine into the altar of sacrifice to make of them the sacramental presence of the Body and Blood of Christ for the redemption of man.

The spiritual reality of the priesthood imprinted in the person of the ordained minister has to be expressed and communicated to the community to which he is called to serve. His life, his behavior, his prayer life, his decorum, his language, all of them have to communicate and articulate the reality of the priesthood he had once been configured. To be known as such, so the Church enjoins, the ordained minister has to wear the proper ecclesiastical attire.

The People of God and the Bishop

2006-11-22T20:35:00.000+08:00

It is amazing how simple events as the announcement of a transfer of assignments could trigger a series of realizations. This happened to me some time last October 17, 2006, when the Apostolic Nuncio to the Philippines called me up by phone relaying to me the decision of the Holy Father to transfer me to the Diocese of Tagbilaran. Drilled for so long in the value of obedience, I acceded to the Holy Father’s order without comprehending at that moment the full impact of my ready consent. But not for long. It soon dawned on me. Left alone after the call, I started seeing the implications of the transfer unfolding before my gaze its stark reality. I began to realize the full import of what a diocese is. In law it is objectively and therefore coldly described as a portion of the people of God constituted as a particular Church or a community of the Christ’s faithful entrusted to a Pastor in a definite locality. As such parting would not be that heavy. But the Church of Christ in the Eastern part of Samar is not just a cold organizational system or a group of baptized Christians welded together through the Gospel and the Holy Eucharist; organized to respond effectively to the divine call to holiness. The Diocese of Borongan is first and foremost the “waray-waray” people in Eastern Samar who through the sacrament of baptism and the celebration of the Holy Eucharist were called together to a pilgrimage, to a spiritual journey that has to be undertaken in the province where the rising sun is first seen. This is a portion of the people of God, men of flesh and blood, of deep emotions and sensitive feelings, persons who are capable of forming their own spiritual vision and spinning out social dreams backed up with their own assumed mission and self-induced commitments, group of individuals who are proud of their own language, customs, culture, way of life. For nineteen years I have journeyed with this people; I have been happy with them, comfortable with their behavior and way of living, one with them in their dreams, their frustrations and disappointments, in their prayers and hope for a better tomorrow in Christ. Now, with the impending transfer I realize that I am leaving the people whom I have learned to love and cherish.

The people of God concept is introduced by the Second Vatican Council to describe the Church, for it conveys the foundational structure of the Church as a social structure. It points out the nature of the members that compose it, defining, that is, their radical equality. Baptism is the source of this equality, endowing to all the same dignity , the same rights and duties, the same means of salvation and the same faith, conscious at the same time of their responsibility for the common purpose of the entire Church on the spiritual level. All are Christ’s faithful.

To gestate, nurture and look after the constant growth and maturity of this people of God, Christ instituted the sacrament of ordination, by virtue of which those who are called and properly formed are configured to Christ the head of the Church, endowing in them the power to perform His threefold functions for the sanctification and governance of the Church. Through this configuration of service, the principle of equality among the members is not eroded. Rather, the principle of variety is established. It is true that by virtue of the sacrament of order the ordained ministers are configured as essentially, and not just in degree, different from those who are not ordained. They have acquired the threefold ministerial functions of Christ, participating in His priestly, kingly and prophetic offices. Their configuration to Christ is a configuration to act in the name, and sometimes in the person, of Christ the head of the Church. But they remain of the same dignity with the rest of Christ’s faithful.

At this juncture, it is helpful to emphasize the harmonious conjoining of these two principles. The principle of equality needs the principle of variety for the people of God will not grow to full maturity without the close pastoral care of the Bishop and his priests. On the other hand, the principle of variety needs complete acceptance of the concept of radical equality, for the reason that its existence is precisely to be of service to the priestly, kingly and prophetic people of God. Hence, as the people of God can only grow and develop properly when it is entrusted to its proper Pastor; so the Pastor can only grow and properly develop when it is faithfully extending its priestly ministry to the particular people of God entrusted to his care. It is within this concept that Canon 369 defined the diocese as: “a portion of the people of God, which is entrusted to a Bishop to be nurtured by him, with the cooperation of the presbyterium, in such a way that, remaining close to its pastor and gathered by him through the Gospel and the Eucharist in the Holy Spirit, it constitutes a particular Church. In this Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ truly exists and functions.”

When the Diocese of Borongan, Eastern Samar, was entrusted to me as its Bishop some nineteen years ago, I was conscious of my task in inserting myself to the life, ways of living, behavior, language and custom of the Estehanon. It is only by being opened to them, vulnerable and totally transparent to them can I fully fulfill the commitment of shepherding them. At the start of my mission with them I have tried to nurture them with the Word of life and the Holy Eucharist, the sacraments and the prayers of the Church as demanded of me from my office. But, I soon have found out and discovered that the words of God and the sacraments can only be effectively passed to the people when their realities to save have first to pass through the weak flesh of the Pastor; that people can only be nourished by the Word and the sacraments, if the Bishop himself is effectively nourished by them. Conversion, journey towards holiness of life is not just the journey of the people of God apart from the Bishop; nor is it just the journey of the Bishop apart from the people of God. It has to be the joint journey of the Estehanon and myself their Bishop. With this critical realization I was gradually inserted into the rhythm of the life of the Estehanon. I have been journeying jointly with them.

And then, without my suspecting it, the request of the Holy Father came loud and clear: go to the Diocese of Tagbilaran. That definitely cuts my pastorship with the Diocese of Borongan, my pilgrimage with the Estehanon. Soon, I have to be inserted into the life and faith of the people of God in the Diocese of Tagbilaran. It would be another journey of faith, another promise to keep, further miles to go. Henceforth my faith life depends on my being inserted into the people of God in the Diocese of Tagbilaran.