What’s in a Name? Pt. 1

Just a reminder, this article has many clickable embedded links that are in blue. Don't forget to click on them as they help explain certain terms and statements.

There have been many things said in the offensive and defensive salvos of the unending name game between the CFC and the FFL. The fight for the use of the CFC name has taken its toll on both sides, pitting brother against brother and even dragging Bishops into the fray. It leads me to ask, both rhetorically and literally; what exactly is the big deal?

Let us start with the obvious:

The Recognition.

Recognition can mean several things in this matter. First, we have the “brand recognition”, and yes, that’s a marketing term. Why is it important? For starters, the name Couples for Christ and its accompanying acronym CFC is in itself a brand that has had many years of development and exposure to the “market”. It is now a term that is recognizable throughout the Philippines and in many other countries around the world. It carries with it the esteem, respect, and spirituality that Couples for Christ members take a certain amount of pride in. Simply put, as a rallying point of something that is now more than just an evangelical movement, it is a brand name worth the fight. For the FFL to start fresh without taking with it the CFC brand name, it would mean having to recruit anew, form new bylaws, create new organizational rules and tithing structures, and then asking for the recognition in all the dioceses and parishes that CFC already currently enjoys. Truth be told, it can be done…but it is much, much easier to hit the ground running, and that’s what the FFL is attempting to do.

Why start from scratch when there is a pot for the taking?

Taking into account that in all respects, the FFL is now a separate entity, it was imperative for them to create its own brand and identity from a business decision standpoint. Imagine, you’ve already started a new corporation; it would be anti-productive to not support it with a brand/logo, since that is what people will be relating you to, both visually and subconsciously. However, they tried to do that while still relating themselves to the CFC brand (remember the “banana split” argument?). While it might have been a practical business decision, it may also have been a tactical error. Because in incorporating (or attempting to at least, as far as I know, the application has not been dropped), the real motivation beyond the supposed restoration movement was revealed. A drive or movement to restore an organization's charism did not need an SEC approved corporate filing. Only businesses need that. Once an SEC approved identity was filed for, the so called restoration movement became a business, non-profit or otherwise. You can’t get any more legalistic than that.

Then there is the Vatican Decree. Frank Padilla would like us to believe that this recognition was granted to him as the keeper of CFC’s charism. While it may have been his name that appears on the document, that recognition was not given to one man, it was given as an official recognizance to a body of people involved in a Catholic, spiritual, and evangelical movement who have shown themselves worthy of a Vatican acknowledgement. In other words, the recognition was given to us, and us as a group, are known as Couples for Christ. I quote the decree, "...a private international association of the faithful". Frank Padilla by himself, even with all the books, documents, CLP manuals - everything, could not have been given that recognition without the whole body made up of Couples for Christ members. If that had been possible, then it would have been an easy task for Frank and his seeming familiarity with the Vatican to just approach them again and ask for the FFL to be recognized. I am not the foremost expert on how one asks for such a thing as a Vatican Decree, but I am assuming that if it had been something easily done, Frank would have already asked for it. It would have saved both groups a lot of grief, and kept this internal battle from simmering out in the open. To put this Decree in a different perspective, for instance if it was the American Declaration of Independence, one signed by several historical notables, including say, Benjamin Franklin. If Mr. Franklin and a few other signatories had decided that they’ve had enough of the United States because it was veering away from their ideals, and packed up to move to Mexico, would that mean that Mexico will be a part of the United States and now shares its independence and rights? ¡Andale!

On Intents and Purposes

I would like to believe that Frank Padilla meant well when he formed the FFL. Actually, I am quite sure that we’d all like to believe that. IF a restoration was the true motivational factor in the formation of the FFL, then why the need for the new corporation? Why the new office? Isn’t the cult of personality that is Frank Padilla strong enough to create the catalyst within the community that supports his movement to restore the CFC’s supposedly lost charism? A true movement would have started at the grassroots level, where the charism is most felt. It doesn’t happen in a leadership flight. If there truly was a problem in the community, its leaders are the ones we look to for guidance, support, and most of all, stability. They are the ones to help show us how to bear the burden of veering away, who will demonstrate strength in confronting the problem head on, and guide us back towards the right path. A community will always have its trials and problems, but as the CBCP Media Office Director, Msgr. Pedro C. Quitorio III said in his talk at the MCG Teaching Night this past Tue, Nov. 20, 2007, “Binigyan kayo ng problema, simpleng problema, nag alisan na kayo. Wala pa ngang isang taon.”

Motives are suspect when activities and actions revolve around the recruitment of another existing organization's members and their accompanying tithes (sometimes under false pretenses). The use of the CFC name can mislead innocent community members into joining the new group, since hey, it’s still the CFC. But it belies a malicious intent, since there is no possible way that a systematic and methodical disruption of an organization’s affairs can be for the greater good. What exactly did Frank and Co. hope to accomplish by recruiting CFC members to his new group? Did they actually believe that CFC will just keep on humming along and not be hard pressed to operate after taking that loss in membership and income? Did he care about what was to become of CFC if he succeeds in taking enough of its members to spell its downfall? What about its remaining members? It almost seems as if he subscribes to the belief that states, "If you are not with us, then you are against us." This utter lack of concern for the wellbeing of the organization and its members that he abandoned belies another very human motive that was terribly apparent to those who’ve heard or seen Frank’s talks where he angrily outlined the supposed issues in CFC; it starts with a V and ends with ETTA.

End of Part 1

Part 2 is HERE.