To stay on the "children" theme of the previous entry, certain nursery rhymes come to mind when we see how the FFL is crowing about its supposedly humble founder, Frank Padilla.
In their obviously frantic effort to fit the mold described by Bishop Lagdameo in defining Frank Padilla as the founder of CFC, they have released email after email detailing in minute inscrutability the reasons why Frank is the founder of CFC, holds the "charism", and why the FFL deserves the Couples for Christ identity. It now looks like they are going "all in" on the gamble, staking the fate of their organization on whether Frank Padilla IS the founder, or not. Obviously, they've pinned the relevance, purpose, and meaning of the FFL on its leader. Without a leader who carries the "founder" title, what then will you have? You know, it might be a sign that you should be working on editing your mission/vision, eh?
On to the show, if you haven't seen it yet (seems they've blasted it out 6 times already...wait, 6? Uhm....Naaaah.), the FFL's frantic theory on Intelligent Design, este, founders and charisms HERE.
You can all read it and get confused by it, I know I did (then again, confusion is better than anger), but I'd just like to point out a little phrase in there:
Pray tell, if they say that the vision and mission was being destroyed, or that its destruction is one of the FFL's reason for being (the other obvious reason being, well, they've got the "founder"), what then if it can be proven that the vision and mission has NOT been destroyed?
"Seeing the very charism and vision and mission of CFC being destroyed, Frank started CFC-FFL, which is true to CFC’s vision, mission and charism. CFC-FFL is the CFC that is led by the CFC founder."
Lets take a look...
Does it look destroyed here? No?
Ok, how about here?
Or surely, if Couples for Christ had lost its mission/vision and charism, the OTBT would be a total failure as well, for why would its members trust its leaders with such an amount?
So the FFL's last good leg now rests on whether Frank is truly the founder of CFC. Surely the founder of CFC deserves to lead, right?
I'd like you all the read an incredibly lucid and well researched paper on why Frank himself does not believe he is the founder, written by Arnel M. Santos of CFC WestB3. Download it HERE. I don't say this very often, but this one is well worth the time.
Now, where does that put us? Frank himself in his own writing and words makes the case and proves that he is not the founder, or at least in humility, steps away from the role. He did after all, wield the sword in his GK3 paper, when he himself attributed the GK phenomenon to the Lord as His work and His only. How can Frank now claim the title of "founder?"
There is only one last straw to show, to break the back of the FFL's attempts to own up to the founding role. Just one.
Not only has Frank, in his own words, proven that he isn't the founder, he has also...
...honored someone else for it.
Lets look a bit closer, I'm sorry about the blurry image:
I believe that says, "...in appreciation for his work and vision as founder and spiritual head of Couples For Christ."
As some of you may know, I'm a movie buff, and for some reason, I am reminded of a scene out of The Last Samurai. It was when the Emperor of Japan finally realized that his advisers were leading him wrong and destroying his country, all for their own selfish motives.
To our beloved, hotheaded brothers over in the Easter Group, a small word of advice I try to give myself everyday; be careful what you say, being a fallible human myself, I know that words don't taste as good going back in as they do coming out.