Saturday, May 10, 2008

Peaceful Discourse

Friends, I just wanted to thank you all for the lucid and well reasoned interaction in the comments section. I wish I could compile everything and make a book out of it, it's that good!

I invite you all to join in HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Also, I've added a section on the right sidebar to archive important documents, please check it out.

Lastly, some of you may have read the FFL's latest release, of course twisting things around and compiling excerpts from the writings of Boy Montelibano, Conrado De Quiros, and William Esposo, calling them anti-church. We all know this couldn't be further from the truth. I've got something coming up about that, but please check out Boy Montelibano's response HERE. It is also archived over on the right.

Conrado De Quiros' response HERE. I laughed out loud when I was reading this, lets just say that the FFL writers went way out of their depth when they decided to attack these guys.


WillyJ said...

I am aghast that the FFL response (or whoever is responsible for it) to the three columnists resorts to name-calling and argumentum ad hominem. Anyone read it carefully and tell me if there is even ONE reasoned argument in there. Nada. Its not helping the Church any. If that's what they mean by "to rise in defense of the Catholic Church"...maybe they should try to understand first the basic meaning of Catholic Apologetics.


Granting Boy M was a new ager before, is it impossible for him to undergo change and be a better person practicing his faith by involving himself as an advocate for the great work of GK!

FFL's response implies that simply because you have sinned before,and as such, you are an unworthy member of CFC or even of the church and that everything you write or do now is an attack on the church!

The article they did was a cut and paste affair -- all precisely taken out of context -- just so they could claim before their confused followers that they are counter-charging! Even if done with foul tactics not easily perceived by the undiscerning!

Pity the innocent members who have not had the chance to go through all of the events of this sordid affair -- the Padilla split, the failed Padilla attempt to come back, the un-fruitful partnership with Padilla-Bishop Reyes, (w/c by the way is the real scandal in CBCP, Phil Council of the laity & the Philippine Catholic church!)and the LOST STRUGGLE to wrestle the CFC NAME from the REAL CFC.

Reason why Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko had to step into the fray and declare that ".... your name cannot be used by any other association!" ... to put finality into this unfounded claim by Padilla/Bishop Reyes Playboy's Team. And subliminally to put Bishop Reyes and Frank Padilla in their rightful places... in FFL. Biggest loser here is Bishop Reyes! For Frank Padilla can later on change into something else.


Heard an FFL agent was sent to Africa recently by Padilla and came out from the Dark Continent 'admonished' by the Cardinal.

Even had the temerity to time his going on the days when CFC was conducting a Eucharistic Congress there!

Sino yon?

Clarke kuwento naman dyan!

for christ alone cebuano said...

I had been very silent in the past but decided to speak what I know God wants me to speak now. I have been following all the transcripts in this blog since the beginning of the conflict and up to now, i take time to visit here. I read all comments and always reflect on what God is trying to say based on all those who give their comments whether for or against our community.

We decided to stay with CFC not because of our leaders and elders, but because of our belief that this is a community blessed by God to do great things fo Him and Him alone. amidst the conflict, the community stood firmly on its ground and our current IC has been very honorable in keeping calm amidst the storm and continue to keep everything going especially with all the things we need to do. they have been very steadfast with our mission and vision and focused on the message of the Lord, something that all of us members should emulate.

It is very clear that God wants us to be still while the storm is brewing. It is because the storm we are experiencing now will steer us to do even greater things for Him. He wants to show us that truly, He is in control of everything, and for Him to be totally in control, we need to keep still and allow Him to do His mighty work. If our IC have not been still, then we will be in far more trouble than we could imagine.

what we, as members should do is to also be still, pray hard and continue to focus on our Lord as we set forth everyday to do our mission. We must not lose focus on the Lord of service and continue to ask Him for guidance, enlightenment and courage so that we can remain humble, obedient to His call and be always in communion with Him. We need to unite now, more than ever so that we can still do the works that God told us to do.....

Peace to us all!

cris said...

Hi Brothers and Sisters to tell you frankly I havent really met Boy Montelibano. For all that's worth I think he's a really good person. And he is entitled to his own opinion. But this doesnt mean that he has been fully pastorized into CFC's teaching. And if he really submits himself to the Mission and Vision of CFC then he would fully submit himself in one of CFC's teachings - CFC and its relationship with the Catholic Church.

A. General principles
1. CFC is to be a servant and lay partner of the Catholic Church in the work of evangelization, family life renew¬al and Church renewal.

2. CFC recognizes, defers to and actively submits to the authority of the bishop as shepherd of his diocese.

3. CFC is committed to rise in defense of the Church against the forces that seek to destroy or weaken it. CFC will conform to and support official Church teach¬ings and stands on issues.

Dont get me wrong about all of this. One can be a CFC member without embracing this teaching. But one could think that if he has questions regarding the direction of our Church then he/she can go directly to the Spiritual Director and ask for guidance and not publicly criticize our Church. This is just my honest opinion. THanks and GOd Bless to all.

jonitanitayturin said...


(OH, yet not so empty, I’m sorry. There’s a three-letter loaded word/acronym connected to "FFL". We’ll raise more eyebrows if you use or partner with it once more, Brothers/Frank, which is contrary to the directive of our Catholic Church, the same one that you purport to avidly defend.)



May I make reference to an older post? Parang onion bulb… wala naman palang laman after pealing the whole piece…

Hey there, Brother Frank, we’ll love you to take on Brod Fortes there, phrase by phrase, word for every beaten word (sorry, Brod Fortes, I am just happily proud to recall your inspiring tangle with that harbinger whose tongue needs taming for the Lord, right now.) Moose, of course may trail your worldwide flight for support, now that Vatican comes rather in haste (of course) with bad (?) news that you can’t sit anymore on its hallowed chair to represent CFC, not any second more, dear signore…

Not the least, Brod Boy Montelibano’s bold, sharp, and compelling opus may not yet be there (I think) to render your as yet trivial spasms any mark of profundity.

jonitanitayturin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Praise said...


please check link...

no need to publish my comment!

jonitanitayturin said...


(He confirms the obedience of CFC Leaders to Holy Mother the Church, which obedience “is the presence of God working in Gawad Kalinga. God is there in their obedience. God is there in Gawad Kalinga!”)

CD, I have this on good source:

He has been a resource speaker during the regular MCTN of CFC in Bukidnon. He went around the four GK sites in Bukidnon during the GK Bayani Build week and waded his way through the muddy road to the GK Darussalam Village in Wao, Lanao del Sur, of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), where CFC-GK volunteers were also building a village for Muslim families.

He “walked his talk”, a homily on the “GK experience” he gave last Ascension Sunday, which could certainly have transformed the usually cloistered Father Superior, as he firmly declared before the CFC MCG of Bukinon: “From now on, I will be your Chaplain. I am your CFC Chaplain.” (CFC Bukidnon already has a Spiritual Director.) Phew!!! GOD IS SO GOOD!!!

(CFC, there’s a SPIRITUAL DIRECTOR!!! It may not be far-fetched to assume that perhaps the Reverend Father’s counsel may be sought by the CFC top leaders every once in a while also…)

He is Father Savio Siccuan, Superior of the Benedictine Monastery of Transfiguration in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Here’s his homily on Ascension Sunday…


(Solemnity of Our Lord's Ascension, 2008)

It is always a treat to read the speeches of Tony Meloto. Tony is the 2006 Ramon Magasaysay awardee for Community Leadership. The Ramon Magsaysay Award is Asia's equivalent to the Nobel Prize. He was given the award mainly for being the father and icon of Gawad Kalinga. Just when so many of us are cynical of our government and therefore are bent on leaving the country, Tony has always championed the cause of staying on and doing what we can to eradicate the poverty and ills of our land.

In his commencement address to the graduates of Far Eastern University last April 4, 2008, Tony spoke of a recent World Bank report which estimated that 14.8% of college educated Filipinos leave the country every year. About 9.3% of locally trained physicians depart annually. He has no ill feelings though for such "migratory behavior" of Filipinos. "Being Filipino is not about staying or leaving." It is about having a deep affection for our country and its people. Tony knew all too well that many leave the country if only to make their loved ones left behind survive. But he also noted that there are those who stay behind and yet "perpetuate injustice", "exploit the poor", "bash and blame and cause division". Such kinds of behavior cannot but discourage many of our people and strengthen their resolve to leave. What Tony is driving at is this - What kind of presence are we in the country? He calls it the "Power of Presence". I want to call it a Spirituality of Presence!

What kind of presence do we bring to our communities? What kind of force are we in our families? Are we a force of unity? Or are we a force of division? Do we inspire others to greatness or are we the cause of their discouragement? What kind of presence do we bring if we are present at all to one another?

It is the prolific spiritual writer Henri Nouwen who said that when we honestly look into our lives and ask ourselves who are the people who mean the most to us, we cannot but realize that they are those, who instead of giving us advice, "touch our wounds with a warm and gentle hand." They are those who can be silent with us in a moment of grief and confusion and those who can accept us for who we are no matter how weak and fragile we have become. In other words, they mean so much to us just by their quiet presence alone. That kind of silent presence already speaks volumes to us of their solidarity and affection for us.

We know very well that the one thing children want from their parents more than all the material things that can be lavished on them is to see their parents taking the time to be with them, a presence that speaks so much of their love and concern for their children.

St Teresa of Avila, a master in prayer, teaches us that "Prayer is being present to the One you love." When we love, we will always find ways and the time to be close to the beloved. What St Teresa is also saying is that when we come before Him whom we love, we need not say much because our presence alone is an act of love that speaks so much to His heart!

If there is one Biblical basis for the Spirituality of Presence it is in the Gospel of the Feast of the Ascension where Christ told his disciples "I am with you till the end of the ages." I will be Present to you till the end of time, indeed for all eternity!

It is this Presence of God that I saw very much at work in the Gawad Kalinga sites here in Bukidnon during its Bayani Challenge from April 21 - 25, 2008. Let it be said that the moving force behind the success of Gawad Kalinga is the organization Couples for Christ(CFC). Gawad Kalinga is the social arm of CFC. It is through the unobtrusive hard work, selfless dedication and generosity of the members of CFC that Gawad Kalinga has become the contaminating global force and movement it now is.

It was a great blessing for me to have been given the good fortune of visiting the five sites in Bukdnon chosen for the Bayani Challenge, the five sites being Natid-asan(Malaybalay), Maramag, Dangcagan, Kitaotao and Wao. The Bayani Challenge only meant that from April 21 - 25, volunteers from all over the globe are to build houses simultaneously in those five sites. This Bayani Challenge left in me three powerful images brought about through the inspiring endeavor that is Gawad Kalinga.

The first very powerful image I saw was that in Darussalam, Wao. Wao is identified as a Moslem area but Gawad Kalinga was able to reach out to them as it started to build houses for the poor among them. Both Christians and Moslems were able to work together in building this Gawad Kalinga village dedicated to the Moslems. Thus when the Bayani Challenge had its culminating program in that area last April 26, the bishop of Malaybalay, Msgr. Honesto Pacana, was able to speak to them openly about how we Christians think of them as traitors and how they, the Moslems, think of us as land grabbers and oppressors. He was able to say that because the religious and cultural barriers have been torn down. In fact, it was in the program where we saw a Moslem openly praying to Allah for God's blessings on Christians. This merited a Christian response as a leader also prayed openly for God's blessings on our Moslem brothers and sisters. Gawad Kalinga is not just about building houses for the poor therefore. In what we witnessed in Wao, Gawad Kalinga has become a vehicle for ecumenism, building bridges of peace to our brothers and sisters of other faiths. When I saw the bishop of Bukidnon, the religious of the diocese, Christians and Moslems all worshipping together and so united in that program what dawned on me is that such a gathering is the 'dream' , goal and vision of the Church - that we will all be united one day in that place where we shall see face to face the One and the Same God we have been worshipping in this life!

The second powerful image I have of the Bayani Challenge is that of the volunteers. They come from all walks of life and not a few have brilliant credentials. These are accomplished people who leave their work or business for a day, a week or even relinquish all that to dedicate their lives full time to Gawad Kalinga. Volunteers also come from all over the globe - Japan, Australia, USA, France, Singapore, to mention a few. I remember this French volunteer who not only helped in building a house but was also tasked to distribute those popsicles we call "icedrop" to the thirsty builders in Kitaotao. This image calls to mind a Gospel passage I have always loved. Jesus said, "The Kingdom of heaven has suffered violence and the violent take it by storm." Those volunteers who have come so far away to help our less fortunate Filipinos have done a great violence to their lives and themselves. The violence of laying aside their careers even if it be for a while. The violence of humbling themselves by dirtying their hands. The violence of reaching out to those of other faiths. The paradox of peace is that we have to do violence to ourselves to possess it. When we love, we have to learn to die to ourselves if we are to possess the beloved! These volunteers who have dome so much violence to themselves with the resolve to eliminate the violence of poverty are for me the really brilliant people in this life. Brilliance for me is not cerebral. The really brilliant people are those who practice in the concrete their love for God!

The third powerful image I have is that of the mettle and spirituality of the officials of the CFC. Many of us must have read that article in one of our dailies about a letter from the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Laity to CFC President Jose Tale admonishing CFC to "counterbalance the overemphasis on social work." Apparently this is due to the tremendous social workload brought about by Gawad Kalinga. I have met with leaders of Gawad Kalinga in Bukidnon and those of the national level. When I asked them their response to that letter of the Vatican, they are one in saying that we will obey the Church! They will submit to what the Church prescribes for them. For me, that obedience to holy Mother the Church is the presence of God working in Gawad Kalinga. God is there in their obedience. God is there in Gawad Kalinga!

Anonymous said...

to willyj,

of all people here, i find you the most, if not the only one, fair.

my question to you is why were you shocked for ffl to condemn the columnists and don't find it shocking for people to say such comments to the bishop and the church? i hope you did get used to those words here.

i have not heard from ic too condemning (or even discouraging) such behaviour of some cfc members and media. it looks like members are following such lead.

solidyfc said...

btw t2s,

Bishop Gabby, being a bishop in his own diocese, can choose whether he will or will not obey the order of Cardinal rylko, since he has pastoral authority in his diocese as a successor of the apostles.

Same with the other bishops, in other diocese, they have their pastoral authorities within their diocese, and no, the catholic church cannot simply " fire " bishops, since they're holding a spritual office of an apostle.

Since this is not a matter of Doctrine, but rather only discipline, they can choose not to obey the order of cardinal rylko..

However, if the Pope gets involve, they SHOULD obey, to the primacy of Peter...

In other words

Pray for the Bishops...

God Bless

Tigress said...

To anonymous:

"i have not heard from ic too condemning (or even discouraging) such behaviour of some cfc members and media."

I agree with you that Willy J is very fair. But you're the one not being fair when you judge the IC without knowing the facts. First, the IC has issued an official disclaimer that they are not responsible for the PERSONAL opinions of the columnists and that they do not condone the ideas. Second, they have had a series of dialogues with Boy M, following our pastoral process. Third, you obviously have not read the many IC statements that always go back to the same theme -- please relate in love to one another, etc.

If the President of the Philippines cannot control the media, do you think the IC can?

My question to you is this: Why aren't YOU shocked at the fact that the ABS-CBN reporter was fed with a tampered document such that her slant became so negative against the IC, even including the lie that the Vatican had already sided with Frank? Why aren't YOU shocked that this single story, based on a lie, is the root of all the media frenzy? And finally, why aren't YOU shocked that anyone can resort to tampering and forgery just so they can influence the media and in the process, destroy an entire community?

EB-3C said...

Dear Brethren,

Based on fresh events, can we say na meron nag dis-obey sa Cardinal? Di ba mas mabigat yan kaysa mag dis-obey sa bishop?


WillyJ said...

To Anonymous who commented on May 11, 12:08 AM:
To begin with, thank you for the complement. I strive to be fair enough with my comments, although I couldn't myself claim absolute fairness, as you seem to have observed in my my last entry. Point well-taken. No one can claim to be absolutely fair and indefectible, except perhaps Frank. There I go again - I just made a lousy comment :-). Sorry, but lighten up brod/sis ok? That said, we do however must strive to be perfect, just as the Father Himself is perfect.
Seriously, the opinion pieces of the three columnists in question does not sit so well with me either, just in terms of shall we say, the 'uncharitable' remarks directed to the clergy as singled out in the CFC-FFL statement. My short position is that although it is the duty of every Christian to defend the faith, one must to do it with 'gentleness and reverence'. I must say the general undertone of the three columns is a far cry from 'gentleness
and reverence', and that is my only main concern. I have no worry for the sensitivities of the Clergy as we all know the apostles and their successors have been very well primed for this since day one: 'be prepared to be persecuted in my Name'. The centuries-old history of the Church attests to this. Now, as far as the the IC's posture is concerned with respect to these columns, Tigress in her recent comment lucidly articulates (thank you there)..
However, if you dutifully read all the columns and cut all their contentions to the bone, all of them are basically saying
just one thing: that the Church's position on 'tainted donations' bears serious inconsistencies; and that these inconsistencies are
unduly brought to weigh down and single out GK. It has come to a point where GK is pictured out to be totally discredited in the eyes of the faithful. All arguments, for and against, should be made to bear down on the above, and not on the personalities involved. For example, has anyone bothered to ask the thousands upon thousands of GK beneficiaries, if GK brought them closer to God or to the devil? Does isolated 'tainted donations' (that are being rectified) negate all the goodwill that GK brings upon the Church? Never mind the blood, sweat and tears that the volunteers and caretaker teams consistently bring to the equation, these may not come into the equation. It is said that the moment you focus your argument on the person instead of the issue, you instantly lose the argument. And that is what the statement of CFC-FFL does. Rather than drawing upon the finer points of Catholic Doctrine and Church Magisterium, it chooses to resort to name-calling and ad-hominem arguments. This is definitely alien to the true 'Defense of the Faith'.
As a postcript, the three opinion columns never claimed to represent official CFC stance, even Boy M explicitly stated so.
These are personal, opinion pieces. Contrast that with the official CFC-FFL statement in response. Official statements are supposed to carry the statements of the body it represents and not of a single person or small group of persons. One must be more circumspect, when speaking
in behalf of a group, because when it turns out to be on the far side of the argument, that is a gross disservice to the constituents it claims to represent.

And that to me, is unfair.

May the spirit of Pentecost, the Spirit of Truth, be with us all,
- WillyJ

Marthe '57 said...

let me step out of my kitchen and say my piece...
anonymous said:
"i have not heard from ic too condemning (or even discouraging) such behaviour of some cfc members and media. it looks like members are following such lead."

my dear, it is understandable why you have not heard anything about what the ic has been doing, obviously you are not a cfc member. i believe this is one of the main reasons why this so called 'crisis' can not just die down, because TOO MANY 'cooks spoil the broth'.

just let us be cfc. and for ffl be ffl.

let frank and his members cook their 'pasta' the way he wants it done; red sauce, white sauce, plain or fancy.

let us all concentrate in serving food to the people that they may not go hungry. food that will feed their souls not burn them in hell.

okay having said that, let em get back to my kitchen, am busy, its mother's day and work does not end for me.

happy mother's day to all you great mommas out there...

Deo Volente said...

Posted to CBCP, just re-posting it here...

I strongly agree with one of the brethren below who said that there has to be a clear and definitive statement from the Church regarding the matter of the CFC name, for the good of both groups. It seems obvious now (judging from the passion of both groups) that not resolving this name issue will only unnecessarily lengthen the pain that both groups feel (opening old wounds and causing further divisions and tensions).

In my humble personal observation, I thought that there had been one. This seemed to have occurred when the Vatican told Joe Tale that "your name 'Couples For Christ' cannot be used by any other association". I can think of 4 possible interpretations of this (I apologize for the scandalous connotation of some of these possibilities):

1. Cardinal Rylko lied - I will rule this out on the assumption that the Cardinal is a man of God and will never lie

2. When Cardinal Rylko wrote the letter, he was not in the right state of mind (such as under the influence of medication or chemicals in food or liquids, or a temporary instability in his faculties)

3. Cardinal Rylko was just joking or was only pulling Joe Tale's leg - I will also rule this out on the assumption that on serious matters, the Cardinal will not have a need to show a good sense of humor via an arguably mean practical joke.

4. Cardinal Rylko was indeed sincere and he really meant it when he said that only Joe Tale's group can carry the CFC name.

Among the four above, my vote would go to "The Vatican Cardinal was indeed sincere and he really meant it". (But I will not force my will or opinion on people, as I do not claim to know what is on the mind of the Cardinal, I'm only basing my opinion on the way he delivered his words.)

Then comes another question: since it was only addressed to Joe Tale, would the Vatican cardinal also have the same sentiment if it had been addressed to all bishops in the world?

My humble opinion here would be that the Cardinal would be consistent. In other words, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he will not say one thing to Joe Tale and say another to someone else (much less to holy people with thousands of souls under their care).

Assuming that my opinion above is true, the next question would then be: Will he also be consistent, if he were to address Bishop Reyes?

On the assumption that he treats Bishop Reyes equally well with other bishops and that there's nothing special about Bishop Reyes compared to other bishops, my guess would be that he would say the same thing to Bishop Reyes. Actually, in that decision he would have to factor in the previous announcement of Bishop Reyes regarding his recognition to CFC-FFL in his diocese. He is probably aware that Bishop Reyes' previous pronouncement might make things just a little bit complicated. On one hand, if he is to be consistent, he will have to override Bishop Reyes in the Antipolo diocese (assuming that's even possible with Church jurisdiction rules which I know nothing about). If he were to do that, he is probably aware that this may not look good on the good bishop. On the other hand, if he tolerates the recognition of the good bishop for CFC-FFL since it is his diocese anyway, it will be in conflict with what the Cardinal said. If this is the case, the Cardinal would have to accept and be at peace with the fact that the statutes of CFC which the Vatican approved (and which is clear on the details of governance of the one unified body of all CFC areas worldwide under the International Council) will not have to be observed, followed and enforced in Antipolo. The heavy burden of decision here seems to be on Cardinal Rylko. Let us all pray for him that he will arrive or had already arrived at a decision that is fair and just to all parties. (There might be an easy way out of this mess. If the good bishop takes the initiative and in his wisdom makes an amendment to his recognition to CFC-FFL, by changing it from recognizing "CFC-FFL" to recognizing just "FFL". This way, the Vatican approved CFC Statute is preserved and upheld, the Vatican Cardinal can make a consistent stand, and it might also pave the way for healing and lasting peace and harmony, thereby allowing the 2 groups to focus its energy on the respective vineyards assigned to them by the Lord).

Another question is: When Cardinal Rylko said "your name 'Couples For Christ' cannot be used by any other association", did he meant that CFC cannot be used by other associations both in part and in whole?

This is very much debatable. And it is really unfortunate that we don't know what was on the mind of the Cardinal when he said that. Here is my humble interpretation of it: The Cardinal's thought is very simple. To me that statement means that the phrase "Couples For Christ" cannot be used. In other words, if another group's name is "Couples For Christ Evangelical Ministry", then the presence of the phrase "Couples For Christ" IS USING it (and therefore in conflict with "cannot be used").

Another point might be that, given an association name such as "Bukas Loob Sa Diyos", if there is another group that wants to have a name "Bukas Loob Sa Diyos Evangelical Ministry", will the church allow it? If the church allows it, would it be OK with the existing BLD? (In fact, I thought I've heard that there was already a precedent on this when there was a part of BLD which separated. Fortunately, the Church in its wisdom decisively intervened and named the other group "Serviam". This allowed the two groups to live out their respective charism in harmony).

I definitely believe that identity, and therefore, a group's name is very important. I sincerely believe that it is a just and fair objective to not allow room for confusion and division. If one group's identity is not so differentiable from another group's, then it's very difficult to attribute to that group its success or failure, its capabilities and its limitations, its strong and weak traits, its charism. And it would become very difficult to establish and protect its desired image in the public. If there is a scandal in the 1st group that had nothing to do with the 2nd, it would also severely and unfairly affect the 2nd group. This is aside from the minor yet oftentimes annoying issues of confusion in the scheduling of parishes or venues, who's to blame for not cleaning up after a CLP, who's to blame for the noisy kids disrupting other parish activities, etc. It would also be very difficult to explain to the people we evangelize the existence of 2 somehow similar groups with pretty much the same name yet not in harmony with one another. It's very tough to sell the idea to troubled couples that their irreconcilable differences are solvable through Christ when we ourselves have not solved our own irreconcilable differences by virtue of the existence of our 2 CFC groups.

These are just my thoughts. I apologize to anyone if some of it might be perceived as unfair or offensive (if that were so, be assured that it was not my intent).

God bless!!!


CFC HAS NO S.D. yet said...

jojo peña, pls be corected.

no one announced that bishop deogracias yniguez is the spiritual director of CFC!

Athrun Atreides said...

Here's de Quiros' take on the FFL's paper.

Anonymous said...

there you go... that's the charism of FFL... if you made a mistake, you cannot undergo transformation much so be changed to a better person so you have to split and register another community while trumpeting that they are not leaving when their registered name cannot be approved and still registering with another name just so they can issue OR's...etc etc...hayy charism...


Anonymous said...

We received this text message from an FFL member:

"Is this the values that you now espouse, that you attack your Spiritual Director in public and with treachery. Taking for granted the good bishop's moral ascendancy came from God and not from men."

Has anybody else received this too?
We did not reply. We just prayed.

From: Porcelainrose

Anonymous said...

“People who have no brains may not be treated as though they do.” ( “Defending God” by By Conrado de Quiros, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 05/12/2008).

In that context, we may say: Right also, Bro WillyJ up there. We just have to ignore the so-called defense of the Catholic Church by FFL until they will have fully understood the essence and meaning of "Catholic Apologetics" - sana may laman para matuwa naman si Mr. de Quiros.

Otherwise, their out-of-context extraction of the quotes are all empty air... pa-fart lang nila ‘yon (the Tagalog word for "fart" will probably make this piece and unChristian "speech").

p.e. said...

pwede bang magtanong? sino ba talaga si boy montelibano? is he a gk leader who has input in the operations of gk and in the decision making as far as direction that which gk will take? or is he what he presents himself in his writing - a cfc member and a gk advocate?

while i find ffl's latest paper attacking montelibano, de quiros and esposito aburd, i am troubled by some of the things that boy montelibano has written, not only in his attack of bishop gabby in particular and of the Church in general but in some of his pronouncements about gk and cfc.

case in point - boy m's article published in Nobility vs hypocrisy

some statements that troubled me:
1. Gawad Kalinga is a secular organization.
2. Gawad Kalinga is not a subsidiary of CFC
3. It is an emerging reality, though, that Gawad Kalinga will expand well beyond CFC.

Anonymous said...

hi cd and cfc bloggers!

i was taken aback after i read the articles written by boy montelibano, conrado de quiros and william esposo. i admit that it feels good having these 3 obviously intellectual individuals come and be one with us in defending our way of life, cfc!

but as i digest it more carefully, i can only surmise in the end that these 3 have something in common aside from being good communicators and opinion writers.

they have disdain for the church, in particular, the Catholic church.

boy montelibano is known for his radical modern-day thinking and ways. then we have conrado de quiros' who doesn't even know whether God is a man or a woman. and william esposo will say anything thrown at him without even double-checking his sources.

now i accept that they are indeed entitled to their own opinions (and i like the fact that they help our cause - in some ways) but i believe that we are threading on dangerous grounds here, especially if we advocate radical thinkers who think and say in public, malicious things about the clergy. the same clergy whose authority, cfc accepts and promotes to be under at.

paalala lang po mga kapatid. even before we are cfc's, we are sons and daughters of God. let us be vigilant and defend that faith lest we suffer the consequences by being the opposite.

God bless!
-concerned cfc-

Sleepless in NJ said...

Does it really matter what they write(Boy M. and company)? Or what issues they stand on?

If we are easily persuaded by such opinions, we might have to check the foundation of our faith.

If we are easily influenced by contraversial movies or opinions of a great orator, we might have to examine the rock we stand on.

No matter how many times i read Davinci Code, or how many times i read comments of different speakers, it wouldnt change my faith, or wouldnt shake the truth that i stand on... that is Jesus Christ.

I welcome a good debate or a friendly discourse... i could even learn from such dialogue but I am confident where i stand in my beliefs.

As this world tries to find reasons to discredit my faith, i find my confidence in Him.

I know the Man who died on the cross...

I know Him ...

and nothing can seperate me from His Love...

WillyJ said...

Deo V,

Very thorough analysis. I agree.
I would just like to add:

As CFC still retains Vatican recognition, no other organization that seeks recognition by the Vatican will be allowed the use of the name CFC, at least we can be sure of this. FFL has not yet sought Vatican recognition, and we are sure enough with Cardinal Rylko’s statement that they cannot use the CFC name in whatever name appendages when they do seek Vatican recognition. However, technically, FFL does not as yet fall within the administrative ambit of the Vatican Pontifical Council of the Laity since it does not have any formal representation with the Vatican. As of now, nothing can stop FFL to seek recognition as CFC-FFL on a per diocese level, and that is precisely what they insist on doing. By now, we all know the position that our former SD Bp Reyes assumed, and this is an encouragement for them to persist in using the name CFC-FFL and get recognized as such on a per diocese level.

You made many convincing points on why the CFC name must be restricted, and based on those alone it builds a very strong case that indeed, the CFC name must be restricted. I beg the indulgence of Bp Reyes and others like minded, but I am puzzled as to what compelling reasons there are that makes a convincing case that overcomes your arguments. We acknowledge though that local bishops are in the best position to determine what is right for their respective dioceses based on local conditions, yet we should all realize by now that this issue of name recognition transcends the boundaries of local dioceses. Any decision made on the use of the name CFC carries national and even global repercussions, due simply in fact to the trans-diocesan and trans-national spread of CFC. A decision on CFC name restriction must thus be made to bind first on the Philippine national level, where the seat of CFC is. Having this, the global situation will soon be guided accordingly. All of this points us to a situation which calls for the local episcopate to come up with a consensus on a uniform stand. In our case it can only be the CBCP. I repeat a previous opinion that the CBCP,as a collegial body coming up with a consensus, in consultation with the Vatican Pontifical Council, is requested to issue a pastoral directive that is binding to all dioceses on the CFC name issue. That is my humble opinion likewise. I know it will cause pain to our FFL brethren to part with the CFC name, and we all feel that pain in one way or another. But let us finally unburden ourselves of this undue difficulties we inflict upon ourselves. This is not about winning or losing, nor about fighting an illusory evil. This is all about moving forward in our respective charisms, to love and serve the Lord, whose Name we all share in our hearts.

God bless us all.

Anonymous said...

"Meloto doesn't need the Church, the Church needs Meloto."

Ha ha ha ha ha. What a sense of humor, alright. Even an imbecile can see how stupid that statement is.

Athrun Atreides said...

I admired de Quiros' columns. However, I bristle whenever he writes something about the Catholic Church. I feel offended whenever he attacks the clergy, because there is the tendency to lump together the "corrupt" priests and bishops with the other members of the clergy. (He also attacks the Church because the CBCP has yet to throw its lot with the anti-Arroyo movement.)

As a result, despite the fact that he makes his point well in "Defending God", his words should be taken with a grain of salt. Someone who wishes Tito Frank dead should be ashamed! (This is not because I sympathize with Tito Frank, but because it is unchristian to wish someone dead.)

Anonymous said...

De Quiros' reply to FFL:

OUCH !!!

p.e. said...

Sleepless in NJ said...
Does it really matter what they write(Boy M. and company)? Or what issues they stand on?

i don't care much about what de quiros or esposito writes. but i do care about what montelibano says IF he is indeed a gk leader who has input on the decision making of gk and its direction.

the ic has set the example for us, they have humbly followed the vatican's directive and asked for forgiveness, terminated the questionable partnerships and promised to not to commit the same mistake again.

the ic has gone through great pains in depending the work of gk and to maintain that gk is a part of cfc and cannot be separated from cfc. the whole global cfc is on notice that we need to be always on guard since ffl will always be lurking ready to jump on us on this issue.

if we have gk top leaders who do not share in the cfc's vision that gk and cfc cannot be separated, and that cfc (and gk) should be subject to the Church, then we have a problem.

WEST C dec2006 said...

visit this,

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with the P.E. who said "if we have gk top leaders who do not share in the cfc's vision that gk and cfc cannot be separated, and that cfc (and gk) should be subject to the Church, then we have a problem."

I hope the IC is aware how Boy M. (being a CFC member) can negatively affect CFC's image in the eyes of simple CFC members, by his very sharp words against the Church in general.

Anonymous said...

thanks p.e. for seeing things the way you did! we're one on this one!

point in fact, gk as a concept is perfect for it came from God. we all agree on this. the problem stems out when gk leaders tend to lean towards seeing gk as yet another social program. any other social program that i know, whether done by ngo's or the gov't. itself has failed to really really address the root cause of poverty. gk is not the hand-me-out-another-bread-in-the-face-of-calamity type of organization. gk is much much more than that.

vigilance mga kaputol! defending our faith and our way of life which is cfc is also fought on other fronts.

God bless!
concerned cfc

Anonymous said...

I also cringe whenever I read some of these columns from these writers. I feel offended when the Catholic Church is attacked (I am part of it after all). I know that they have a right to air their opinion. I agree that they should criticize the Church if they see something wrong with it. In fact, I agree with the essence of some of the their thoughts and most of it are arguably reasonable. But those criticisms should be done in a charitable and constructive way without bordering on being disrespectful or having a tendency to generalize everyone in the clergy. It's unfair to the majority of the clergy who have dedicated their whole lives to be of full-time service to the Lord.

I don't worry about writers who are not members of CFC or GK as they don't necessarily represent our sentiments so they can say whatever they want.

I am worried about writers who claim to be part of CFC or GK. The readers might get the impression that we share the same exact sentiments or that we condone the tone of their language. If they are indeed part of CFC or holds a decision-making or influential position in GK (kung volunteers ok lang), then they have to be agreeable to the mission and vision of CFC (what was already commented by P.E.) and to the stand of the International Council regarding the relationship between CFC and GK. They should also try their best to exude the fruits of the Spirit, otherwise, it may not help our cause so much.

I hope their pastoral head can make the necessary advice to them. While we're at it, we should also NOT condemn these reporters but instead bring out the best and spiritual side in them (everyone deserves as many chance as they need to get them closer to Christ). Let us all pray for them. I know that inside these talents are peaceful, loving, gentle and charitable creatures of God just wanting to get out.

God bless!

Anonymous said...

Good Day everyone...

seems na lumalalim na yata ang balitaktakan ah?

While we are on the height of defending CFC, FFL on the otherhand is using the same premise to defend their side.

FFL attacked GK and CFC (IC in particular) and now they are saying they were attacked by GK? (Isn't it that it is just a response to their peddled lies?)

Everytime we defend our side, clarify issues and respond to their accusations, they (FFL) says we attack them. What a heck?!

Now, the opinion writers (non-CFC members) made very harsh comments about what is happening to us, and it just so happen that it is favorable to us, FFL says, "they attack the Church and us."

To my dear brethren in FFL, maybe some of you are following these blogs, tanong ko lang...

1."kailan ba nagiging "attack" ang isang clarification?"

2."Kailan ba nagiging persecution ang isang correction?"

When the 4man IC performed their job to bring a good order into the finance and admin system ng home office..ano ang sabi ng mga tinamaan?... "witch hunt", maligning and etc.

Nung ang GK nag-attract ng maraming attention and partners, anong sabi?.. nag-veer away! Ano ba yan?

Ngayun naman Frank is inventing a lot of terminologies, to justify and defend his moves. Some are:

1. "Spiritual body of CFC" hindi daw sila umalis sa CFC, yung inalisan nila yung legal body ng CFC. Nakita niyo na? Kailan pa ba tinuro sa mga formation teachings natin na may dalawang body pala ang CFC? eto pa ang isa,

2. "Spiritual resignation" or something to that effect (hindi ko kasi alam yung exact words niya on this eh). Yung pag-resign niya daw ay hindi naman talaga as in "resign". Spiritual resignation daw yun in an act reparation for the sins, infidelities, and unfaithfulness ng leaders. Kailan pa ba tayu nagkaroon ng teaching na may spiritual resignation? At ang dagdag pa, bakit hindi siya ninominate sa incoming election?

3. Ito pa ang matindi, "keeper of charism" at yung "founder". Never ko narining na may founder ang CFC.

4. At ito pa ang pang-apat. Grabe na talaga ito. kapag daw yung CFC na may kadugtong na FFL, it is completely a new and different CFC. Distinct from the one we belong to. What?! Ibig sabihin yung CFC Youth for Christ, ibang CFC din yun? Yung CFC Coops for Christ, ibang CFC na rin yun? Haaaay naku.!

At marami pang mga invention na "coming soon" mga kapatid. Just to cater what they want.

Come to think of this, binago nila ang pangalan, ginawang CFC-FFL, binago ang logo, binago ng CLP at tinawag na CLS, yung Famin tinawag na young ministries yung YFC tnawag na YFFL and etc, yung GK tinawag na WWP at tayu na nagstick sa original, tinawag na nag"veer away"!

May nag"veer-away" ba na walang binago at nanatiling consistent to the vision and mission and to the teaching formations and programs of CFC? At yung nagbago ng lahat lahat ang aangkin na sila ang hindi nag"veer-away"? What a heck?!

I remember the story of the "Great Wisdom of King Solomon"

There were two mothers who claims ownership over a child.

Parang tayu din, we dispute who should be the right owner of the name CFC, yun bang nagpaiwan or yung umalis?

Ang sabi ng King, "sige hatiin na lang yang bata sa dalawa, para tag-isa sila..."

Parang yung sinabi ni Bishop Gabby Reyes, "sige ire-recognize ko na lang yung dalawang CFC, yung may GK at yung FFL".

Ang sabi ng unang nanay, "sige hatiin mo na yung bata, para fair sa aming dalawa".

Parang yung sabi ni Frank, "sige magkaroon na lng ng branch yung CFC, yung CFC na may GK at yung CFC na FFL".

Ang sabi nung pangalawang nanay, "Hwag, ibigay mo na lng yung bata sa kanya, di bale nang wala akong kahati, basta't buhay lang yung bata".

Parang yung ginawang pag-amin ng IC kay Cardinal Rylko, "Sige, inaako na namin yung kasalanan, masakit pero tinatanggap namin".

Ang sabi ni King Solomon, "ibigay sa panagalawang nanay ang bata, siya ang totoong ina nito".

Parang yung sinabi ni Cardinal Rylko, "...your name Couples for Christ cannot be used by any other association".

Na-GETS niyo ba mga kapatid yung lesson ng kwento?

The sad thing is when anonymous bloggers blatantly defend CFC, sasabihin ng FFL inaatake sila. In reality, they are the one who always lit the fire, we only trying to put it off. Kaso lumalaki lalo yung apoy.

I honor our IC, because they no longer entertain these recycled issues. Ang hirap sa FFL parang pirated DVD, atras abante yung ikot ng plaka.

God bless ;-)

Anonymous said...


I am just worried that FFL might use to their advantage of what had just happened in GK Brookside. Hwag naman sana!

This is the end result if we will not stop our war.

Sana tumigil na muna tayu sa bangayan dahil kaming mga mahihirap ang talo!

jonitanitayturin said...



I want to be open-minded about the mediamen defending Gawad Kalinga (GK) – Bro. Boy Montelibano, Conrado de Quiros, and William Esposo..

On the drift of some of their arguments which can also hurt Mother Church, I say, well, unfortunately, the Church is part of the territory now because GK was in fact, prejudged by its pastor! Likewise, I have heard someone quote a comment by another Bishop on the "GK scandal" which is relevant for our perspective here: "The scandal of the lambs due to the silence of their shepherds..."

Now, just in case we become too restrictive in our otherwise liberal thoughts - certainly we can admit that we can go up and reach the same mountaintop via different routes - I think this is where the pastoral voice of our Spiritual Director is much needed.

I have difficulty articulating this because I may be misunderstood, as much as I want to understand: At this point in time, we just have to give way to hurt feelings; one may feel slighted by a mediaman's unkind slant against deep-set values about the Church, while that same media man may only be expressing his best medium for healing and release of likewise deep-set values he wants to protect, having gone a long way as a journalist to understand, own and defend the CFC and GK values of loving a neighbor...Never mind if he is not yet sure if God were a Man or a Woman, which is perhaps a non-issue, really...

In another context, look at Bishop Reyes, who had the gall to be Spiritual Director of two opposing and contending parties, both of them he wants called "CFC" against the opinion of the Vatican. He does not a Church make. He may be headed for a different mountain!!!

Pasensiya na lang, Brothers, kasi bothered lang ako. Para kasing may konting bigotry na gustong pumasok sa usapan. And so... sometimes we have to say that a spade is a spade. If Frank Padilla appears to be like an "Angel of Death" similar to that one drawn in a bottle label, seguro tanggapin na iyon as a matter of course at hindi na talaga kailangang bigyan pa ng pansin yan (na m-hurt pa tayo kaya), if it was made to drive home a major blow against every evil that he has wrought upon CFC; nor can that kind of comment be juxtaposed against other negative things said of the Church. Clearly they are not comparable, and Padilla does not a Church make, too.


WillyJ said...

CD said:

"lets just say that the FFL writers went way out of their depth when they decided to attack these guys."


Anyone familiar with De Quiros' literary style concludes he uses large doses of sardonic wit and acerbic parody to attack people. That's his style and I wouldn't dare tangle with him on those terms. It is also written: do not give what is Holy to the dogs. Let us respect the Church, but let's leave this guy De Quiros and the likes of him out of the equation please, when he argues this way. He's a secular columnist with very strong opinions, and it's a free country. Attacks on the clergy, much less lay leaders, is not new, and it will happen again, and again. Make no mistake about it. The Christian posture I think is to turn the other cheek, and concentrate on the Lord's work which speaks much more louder and any words combined. The silent work is heard much louder than the shout. Let us ignore the personal attacks. Now when heresy against the Church is propagated among the faithful, then we should all "rise in defense of the Roman Catholic Church against the forces that seek to destroy or weaken it.", (very nicely put there, FFL) very boldly, and I wouldn't care even if a hundred De Quiroses are there.

I have observed in a previous comment that the root contention of the columnists anyway is about the issue "tainted donations" with respect to GK. Now why on earth doesn't anyone tackle this issue head-on instead of the personal attacks? I have long been waiting for the clergy to come out with a succinct philosophical and theological discourse to put this matter in its proper perspective. This apostolic duty also involves the laity, as the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity affirms. It is all about the principle of cooperating with evil. It is a complex principle, and I never found explicit discourses in the Cathechism much as I investigated it. That is why I am looking at the clergy to enlighten us. I did a bit of a small research though, and I found some related material from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the USCCB bishops. About a month ago, I made a neutral post containing this material on the subject. Check it out in my personal space here for those interested. It's a little bit lengthy. Pardon the shameless plug, CD.

Deo Volente said...


I appreciate your kind response. I, too, hope that one day, we'd get a definitive statement from the collective wisdom of the CBCP. (Of course, if you really think about it, such statement should be unnecessary in light of the recent discovery of the sentiment of CFC's direct supervisor which is the president of the Vatican's PCL. Even though it was not an official and formal declaration addressed to the bishops, you can get some sort of conclusion from it using a sprinkle of common sense. Unfortunately, we also got a conflicting declaration from somewhere else so it complicates matters, which brings us to the necessity of such explicit consensus by the CBCP, however redundant we might think of it.)

I would also be troubled that some of our dear brethren in FFL would be hurt and disappointed if indeed they would need to part with the CFC name. And we will certainly sympathize with such pain specially that most if not all of them are sincere in their desire to serve the Lord better. Most of us would also agree that some of them joined the group on the premise that it is still CFC. So to take away the CFC name would have to be devastating to some of them (there will also be some who will not be bothered and will still be steadfast in their mission to serve). I may agree with Bishop Reyes that some of them might get disenfranchised or disillusioned. I regret that their leader did not prepare them for this eventual possibility, specially that charism and the quality of service to the Lord is what matters most and the name is only secondary. It may be painful but such is the reality of our decisions. I just hope that all of us will realize that this name issue is dragging this conflict unnecessarily and that, as you said, we should unburden ourselves of this. We should all take comfort in the knowledge that this pain is still much less compared to what Jesus Christ suffered for our sins.

In Christ.

concerned GK volunteer said...

concerned cfc member said:

"the problem stems out when gk leaders tend to lean towards seeing gk as yet another social program."

As someone who hears from the GK leaders a lot, I think we also have a problem when people are sincerely believing the above is a viewpoint of GK leaders.

Unless someone can provide direct evidence of the above viewpoint being that of any GK leader, it's simply not fair, and in point of fact, not at all accurate.

To hear Luis O, Issa, TM, or any of the others in their unguarded talk of GK is to hear hearts that believe GK is evangelization, that GK is a task in building the Kingdom of God.

We need to stop allowing impressions like the above to become common parlance without strong foundation - more of an impression lang...

Shallow Hal said...

Thank you for the link, Willy J. I read this same ethical text back when FFL's allegations first came to the spotlight (in email after email after email).

Unfortunately sometimes I feel that, as Catholics, we tend to look for a solid Church ruling, grab it into our hands, and run around bashing each other over the head with it until everyone agrees with us.

In reality, there's a lot more thinking and to-and-fro that goes into Catholic theology and ethics. Heck, one of the reasons why Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed Pope was due to his particular theological tendencies - an acknowledgment of the breadth and sway within the discussion of Cardinals, if ever there is one.

That's why I can't help but think that FFL's example of grabbing something to bash GK over the head with has been hasty and ill-considered.

The fact is, the Church may well need to have a lot more input into this matter. As pointed out in earlier proceedings, the Catholic Medical Missions Board stands to be affected (their partner distributes, of all things, Depo Provera), as does Caritas, as likely do other Catholic medical organizations who receive donated supplies or financial assistance for the care of the poor, and as likely do the CBCP for their receiving of donations from PAGCOR - gambling funds.

Sure, FFL seem to have been happy to run around bashing GK over the head, from emails to Nonong on television, to running to the Vatican...

...but the effects may be larger, and the thinking may need to be considerably deeper and more broad.

jonitanitayturin said...


Brother Willyj,

Did you really mean to compliment FFL for the “nice words” they have stitched to express a defense of the Catholic Church against heretics? You sounded conciliatory to them when you implied that if it was a battle against heretics, personal attacks would have to be ignored. I perfectly follow your drift, Brod, and that "literary critique" above on de Quiros is for the books, really! I am so happy that you provide the steady flow of ammos in our armory. Many thanks, Brother, and plese keep it up.

As for me, Brod, I am unwilling to give any compliment to Padilla or FFL, not yet anyway, because, they have not properly defined the doctrinal premises regarding the morality or immorality of accepting donations for poverty-alleviation, and how in connection therewith, might GK under CFC have sinned.

In short, there has to be a convincing set of doctrinal propositions or arguments of general philosphical/theological import, supported with particular statements of facts proving that GK is undoubtedly guilty of collaborating with evil.

On the other hand, I share your concern about the tainted donations, thus:
“ I have long been waiting for the clergy to come out with a succinct philosophical and theological discourse to put this matter in its proper perspective.”

About two days ago, I was engaged in a discussion with some elders... It was observed that not a single Catholic bishop has come forward to make a definitive statement on donations for social work, as pleaded by Bro. Tony Meloto.

After all, why discuss something that is like a booby trap, considering the web of answers and justifications that will be articulated to prove a given statement?

On the other hand, if one was to discuss a specific incident in GK where the supposed scandalous transaction occurred, the detailed facts and circumstances are not yet there. I mean, neither FFL nor Bishop Reyes conducted a credible process of fact-finding and investigation before a verdict of requiring CFC to make a public apology could be handed down.

Moreover, the arguments in favor of helping the poor through GK with resources from anywhere, perhaps including the Devil himself, is so strong that, instead of being adversarial, one may as well support any GK project and sleep with a clean conscience.

Because it appears that the Philippine Catholic Church will be in a big bind and deep trouble if it supported the convoluted stand of Bishop Reyes and Padilla about some sanctions on CFC, even if these had an imprimatur of the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council of the Lity, His Eminence Stanislaw Card. Rylko ... the need for a “solomonic” solution may not be undermined.

I vaguely recall my boyhood years in our rural agricultural town in Mindanao, when my father gave our draft animal some salt on a piece of “scratch” paper which the latter "wolfed down" with gusto, both salt and paper, that is!

I earnestly wonder NOW...may it not be done similarly? I mean, let their serious accusations be firmly stated on a piece of soft paper for a good chewing and digestion, also with salt but with some sugar, too, for a delicious sweet-sour treat? Yea, those words may have to be eaten as well in order to usher a peaceful reconciliation... Oh, I still have to go somewhere. Thanks. Good Day. God Bless.

Sleepless in NJ said...

Thank you again Kuya Joni.

Your humble sharing and spirited wisdom teaches us to be open-minded with a discerning heart.

I look forward to the day that we all could see each other (every blogger) and have a household meeting.

Jiggs will be music, Bro Mero will teach us the actions of the songs, i'll cook the food, akosiken will translate in tagalog, Kuya Joni will do exhortation, Willy and Deo will start the discussion groups, Moose will bring his humor, ABS will report on it, Esther will share the sister's perspectives, Mama will make us all cry with her sharing, Bishop Gaby will give out the eucharist, We will pray over the sick (especially my Dad), Enjoy a spirited fellowship(Cuz Marthe brought her magic Mic), all anonymous will participate in ice-breaker(samson, deliahla, and tiger), and CD will attend wearing a mask(jabbawockezz mask).

Can we picture that scene? We Hope that even in our difference we can share God's love with each other.

I believe it is possible? It can start with small steps? It can start by inviting your FFL and CFC friends for a Lord's Day or a prayer meeting.

We just need to take the first step in our reconciliation.

jonitanitayturin said...


Nice, beautiful, peaceful feeling you've embedded there for all the IDOTRCFC warriors, Sleepless! They can bend or stretch there, too, for a quick nap if you will...

The mention of your sickly father, the indefatigable Bro. Ernie, brings me to that time many weeks ago... when i was reminded of that faint signal emitted from his entry buried somewhere, that wanted a truth out; that entry which referred to CFC's dark side implanted years earlier by the same darkened hands that played a major role in the recent break up of our beloved community.

Yes, as much as I thank God for the delightful "menu" of roles you've lined up for the upcoming "Household Meeting", I have a special personal prayer-intention for your sick Dad. And I fervently pray that, along with the medical interventions available, the Truth on "CFC Origins" as revealed in the UGNAYAN will have brought him the most needed physical and emotional comfort and healing.

Sleepless, I want to believe you have assumed that CD will always be there, "nodding by the fire" with the Good Book and dreaming "of the soft looks" some eyes had once...

CD, indeed, we know you are always there, brother, full of the wisdom this blog has brought one and all, with the help of the Almighty God...

And, with the blessing of all good men, especially of our clerical and lay pastors who may read this "peaceful discourse", with the kind indulgence of all the others, and upon Sleepless’ suggestions,

May I now voluntarily lead the exhortation. In the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I INVOKE FOR EVERYONE::

of peace in our hearts,
of fortitude,
of humility, and most of all,

I pray that with our different thoughts brought here into this "HH meeting", may all restlessness now cease and be gone, IN and WITH HIM, OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

May we always be guided by His infinite Wisdom.

May we be FULLY AWARE, that in our discourse here and everywhere else,



Sleepless in NJ said...


Jiggs... plays Glory (hillsong)

Great is the Lord God Almighty
Great is the Lord on high

The train of His robe fills the temple
And we cry out highest praise

Glory to the risen King
Glory to the Son, glorius Son

Lift up your heads
Open the doors
Let the King of Glory come in
And forever be our God

Holy is the Lord God Almighty
Holy is the Lord on high

Let all the earth bow before You
And crown You Lord of all

Thank you CD and all Bloggers, you have been my household from the start of this journey.

You helped me carry my cross and i thank my God every time i think of you and I bless to learn from you.

see you in my prayers,

Sir Pie said...

talking of GK Brookside

i heard one FFL member gave donations for the brethren in GK Brookside...

hindi kaya pagalitan sya ng mga leaders nya dahil sa pagtulong sa mga tumatanggap ng donations from pharma?

naku naman...

Anonymous said...

CFC - FFL = CFC, pangit nga kong eplus mo ang FFL, kasi iba ang meaning..Couples For Christ + Families For Lucifer...diba pangit?.kakatakot? kaya siguro nasabi ni Cardinal Rylko na walang ibang gagamit sa pangalang CFC..bright talaga si Cardinal..alam kaagad ang meaning...Tawa naman kayo...para hindi kayo tatanda...OK? CD post mo naman ito...Ha?

WillyJ said...

Shallow Hal,
Yes, I guess there’s more here than meets the eye. Frank probably did not realize that he would be opening a can of worms when he bashed GK on the issue of partnership with pharma companies. This whole issue of "veering away" would collapse like a stack of cards once it is asserted that GK’s association with the pharma companies are on the side of Faith and Reason. Like the issue of the CFC name, oftentimes a "sprinkle of common sense", as Deo Volente puts it, is all that it should take. Unfortunately, BP Reyes position on these two issues brings more of an uneasy quandary to the church rather than having a settling effect.

Deo Volente said...

Sa ating kapatid na nag-sabing "Families For Lucifer"...

Medyo marami ang ma-o-offend nyan sa phrase na yan bro/sis. Isa na ako, pero nai-intindihan ko kung medyo nadadala tayo minsan sa ating emosyon. Iwasan na lang muna natin siguro yung mga ganyan habang hindi pa tayo gaanong nakaka-recover.

Magiging mahirap ang daan sa reconcillation kung mababasa yan ng mga taga-FFL.

Pasensya na. God bless!!!

Eto na lang, kung joke ang gusto natin:

Subject: Three doctors

Three doctors are waiting in line to get into the pearly gates. St. Peter walks out and asks the first one, "What have you done to enter Heaven?" "I am a pediatrician and have brought thousands of the Lord's babies into the world." "Good enough to enter the gates," replied St. Peter and in he goes. The same question is asked of the second doctor. "I am a general practioner and go to Third World countries three times a year to cure the poor." St. Peter is impressed and allows him through the gates. The third doctor steps up in line and knowing the question, blurts out, "I am a director of a HMO."

St. Peter meditates on this for a while and then says, "Fine, you can enter Heaven...but only for 2 days."

O, sige tawa na!!! :-) Maiintindihan eto ng mga taga-America.

Anonymous said...

Brother Deo,

Sori po sa nasulat ko..nasa isip ko lang yon..wala sa dibdib..mahal ko pa rin silang lahat sa FFL..lalo na si Tito Frank..ilang bises din kami nag kasama niyan...tukma lang kasi..he he he..sori..God bless us all!

Bro. Mero :-) said...

good day everyone!

Sometimes in our desire to defend CFC, we forgot that we become instrumental to the evil one thru our words because we let our emotion rule over us.

To all bloggers here who use words that are "below the belt" please control urself.(i include myself here too)

We've been reminded here for several times and i want to remind everyone again including myself.

Remember brothers and sisters, the evil's startegy is to peddle lies that will hit our emotion and make us react emotionally. And then such emotion (if not controlled) will lead us to sin.

Take note that the FFL, de Quiros, Esposo and many other writers' (including us maybe)words and write ups can shaken our emotion and make us flare up. And if we give in to this strategies, we will let the devil win over us.

So just face the issues with fairness, with love and with humility. Kung mali man tayo sa CFC, let us tell them na mali tayo pero hindi tayo aalis ng CFC.

For both CFC and FFL:
Both of us committed mistakes in handling the issues. The IC had lapses and Frank and his company did the same. The bottomline is, if IC have hurted the FFL, FFL had also hurted the IC and us in CFC.

Let us not boast our hurts coz both sides got hurt.

I beg the FFL to please withdraw the name CFC, you have changed everything (logo, CLP to CLS, YFC to YFFL, and etc. it is completely a new association. We respect your choice not to align with the IC.

Respect also out choice to stay with the IC. Allow the IC to settle the issues on "disobedience", "veering away" and "anti-life" issues with the bishops and i beg you FFL, please ask your leaders not to intervene.

Once and for all, LET US END THIS!

Enough is enough, let us go back to work na!

God bless everyone!

johnpaul said...

eh ayaw ngang tumigil... lalong nanggigigil... habang pinipigil..

mawawala kasi sa pagkakaupo..


Anonymous said...

"CFC - FFL = CFC, pangit nga kong eplus mo ang FFL, kasi iba ang meaning..Couples For Christ + Families For Lucifer...diba pangit?.kakatakot? kaya siguro nasabi ni Cardinal Rylko na walang ibang gagamit sa pangalang CFC..bright talaga si Cardinal..alam kaagad ang meaning...Tawa naman kayo...para hindi kayo tatanda...OK? CD post mo naman ito...Ha?"

my God cd...look at this post.

you did not allow my post exposing the misdeeds of rouquel, tony and frank resulting to the disunity of cfc and yet you let this kind post to appear.

i'm for 1UCFC and won't buy your biases and inclination. ana please, am not a ffl fan.

i wan't cfc without these leaders repeating history.

tito rouquel, i'll pray hard for you. you messed us up but no words of humility came out from your mouth.

frank and tony. pasimuno kayo ng hiwalayan at dyan kayo magaling.

i apologize. galit ako dahil di ka parehas.


Anonymous said...

Yes please FFL brothers,

Withdraw the name CFC and the CFC LOGO so we can end all of these confusion in arranging venues and schedules. We find it difficult explaining to those who have not heard of the split why there are two schedules in the church, one for CLP and one for CLS with both LOGO of CFC that can be seen prominently. We can stop blaming each other of who last used the venue and did not clean it up and many other issues which confuses those we are evangelizing and other ministries in the church and people outside of the church!


Athrun Atreides said...

Just asking for help here, on the list of CFC Executive Directors. I hope I got this right:

1981-1985: N/A (position non-existent)
1983-1985: Raul Sarceda
1985-1993: Francisco Padilla
1993-1999: Rouquel Ponte
1999-2007: Francisco Padilla
2007- : Jose Tale

Please notify me if I got the order and years wrong, or if I missed someone out. (Note: If I understand it correctly, before 1993, there was another position higher than Executive Director, held first by Victorino Gutierrez then by Fr Herbert Schneider, so technically they weren't Executive Directors.)

Also, how consistent were our elections before? Has it always been "every two years"? Has the appointment of our top leaders always at the end of June? If not, I hope someone could provide the actual dates of appointment for the previous Executive Directors.

Check the full list here:

Live long and prosper CFC!

Anonymous said...

Brothers Willyj, Hal:

Indeed, if one puts himself in the position of "other" bishops looking into the morality of donating to GK for its "work-with-the-poor" program, he will most probably be sorry:

that Padilla did the GK-bashing, and rashly at that;

that while such act may have provided "First-Aid" treatment to his self-inflicted wounds arising from his voluntary resignation, PADILLA DID HACK A FAR LARGER AND GAPING WOUND IN CFC that he turned to the care of CFC Spiritual Director Bishop Reyes, who in turn left the said wound to "rot with the foulest of smell" until he also resigned, all of this to the ridicule of, and scandal in, the Philippine Catholic Church.

It is ALL about healing, woundedness and humility, perhaps something also of self-righteousness, and EVERYTHING about the sins of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

jonitanitayturin said...


I haven't met you at all, but let me greet you, Brother Nonong Contreras and the others in FFL:

In your “Where’s the Rub” article published in your FFL blog (http://restorecfc. yesterday, May 14, you say that the “rub” was created when Padilla and FFL raised the warning that the New Agers, represented by Montelibano, de Quiros, and Esposo are engaged in a subliminal warfare against the Church.

I propose to make a slight correction here.

The “real rub” was: while Padilla and FFL warned about the New Agers’ subliminal warfare against the Church, the CFC-IC displayed total obedience to the Church while remaining impartial towards the media men who took offense against those in FFL for putting words in Cardinal Rylko’s mouth about so-called criticisms against Gawad Kalinga.

And the real issue in that “rubbing” is “whether or not one commits a sin – in short the morality or immorality – by accepting a donation for poverty alleviation in Gawad Kalinga from a “tainted” source like a pharmaceutical company producing contraceptives”. Unfortunately, you have not yet properly defined the doctrinal premises and particular propositions relative to this issue.

Finally, you may have neatly slipped that one on the “New Agers” to sow confusion among the CFC defenders, but that was only short-lived. Now, for your relative foolhardiness, if I may say so, in the matter of inviting Vatican to the local free-for-all, you must squarely confront them, those “New Agers”.

As you have painted yourself into a corner, you may not get a “quid pro quo” for purportedly “rising to the defense of the Church” because it was you who stoked the fire for the “offenders” to attack the Church. And, as far as the CFC is concerned, you have stopped “pulling” the cart because your “horse” has resigned; thus, a revival of the immediate past arrangement becomes near-impossible as the cart is now being “pulled” by the Vatican herself.

What thee think, Brother?

WillyJ said...

Conrado de Quiros' column in this recent Inquirer's Monday edition today entitled "Natural", takes exception on the Church's stand on gays, concluding in the latter part that "there is nothing more natural than love in whatever form it takes". He likewise
takes exception on the procreative nature of marriage, saying that "the idea of a couple, married or not, having sex in order to procreate is hilarious". The general thread of his entire opinion piece is to question the sanctity of marriage and the natural law in its procreative aspect. This time around, de Quiros avoids extraneous personal innuendos and proceeds on his article with measured arguments, which for a change, is a good thing in terms of intellectual discourse. But just from the point of view of a narrow secular perspective, his arguments appears to make a convincing case. However, he admits in his last paragraph: "I don't know the finer points of theology, but...".

One thus wonders then how he can make such passionate statements while at the same time he admits ignorance on countervailing positions. Perhaps there is a dearth of defenders of the faith who are willing to take him on and demonstrate with convincing rebuttals just what these countervailing positions are, in the realm of Faith and Reason. This is a call of duty to every Christian among us to do so, starting with those who profess to "rise in Defense of the Church against the forces that seek to weaken and destroy it".

RestoredCFC_Restored said...


While I am anxiously waiting for a response for your call to brother Nonong Contreras to a peaceful discourse, I am not holding my breath over it.

I am resigned to my impression that for conveying their messages thru communications, they'd rather have a format where they can have "the last say", specially towards their members. Therefore, I would expect them to ignore your call. Remember that when they had a chance to hear our side, they decided to silence us by purging their web site of all comments that are simply rebuttals to their accusations, even if such action is contrary to the pursuit of TRUTH and objectivity.

See this for a snapshot of that moment in time before they silenced us:

I think they'd rather have the scenario where their constituents are fed information but only those that are favorable to their arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pro Jesuit na ako, goodbye Frank! said...


CFC has a new defender in Bishop Claver, SJ!

Please read his article about stealing from the devil to help the runs contrary (sounds contre-ras!!) to the scandal we are accused of, that of partnering with the phrma companies..

Galing ng mga pareng jesuita, hindi na ito puedeng ibaliwala ni Founder Frank and his sidekick, Oscar Contrary.

Palagay na-buko na namandito ang Church.

sigue read nyo na muna.

Let's pray we'll have more Bishop Claver in the Clergy.

The Padilla Questionnaire said...

Columnist Conrado de Quiros was asking "Who is this non-entity Frank Padilla"?

May I request those who know "this non-entity Frank Padilla" please reply?

I will contribute answer # 1.

He is the son of ex-basketball player and well-respected Philippine Senator Ambrosio Padilla[may he rest in peace!].

Kayo naman mag fill in the blanks in answer # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.

The answers that will be accepted by the Questionnaire will only be those with reference to NON-CFC MATTERS BECAUSE HE IS NOT CFC.

So if you write: "HE IS THE FOUNDER OF CFC" your answer will be wrong and therefore will be erased!


But if you write: "HE IS THE SERVANT GENERAL (tee hee hee, lol, lmao) Of FFL" then that answer is correct and will be accepted.

Okay let's have fun guys!

DVD said...

#2.Is he the well respected referee who endorsed the rubbing alcohol na pampamilya na, pang ISPORTS pa?

#3. or the the action star who is currently the star of GMA 7's Joaquin Bordado?

Anonymous said...

Reply to the Padilla Questionnaire:

#2. FRANK PADILLA is Servant General to Servant Lieutenants: LACHIE A, ROLAND A, PANCHO LT, OCA O,and BILLY P (the recent priceless catch and ffl convert!)

#3. FRANK PADILLA is chief Playboy. I wanted to answer who is the Centerfold, but it is not being asked.

#4. FRANK PADILLA is the beloved son of Antipolo Diocese!

#5. FRANK PADILLA is the person exhorted by Bishop Cruz to be a person who is almost god-like in his homily to FFL recently!

#6. FRANK PADILLA is the foe of CFC and the friend of the Bishops Reyes, Lagdameo and Villegas! Sali daw si Cantillas, another FFL Bishop!

Anonymous said...

ah yun pala ibi sabihin ng SG!


Eh ano Ibig Sabihin ng S.G.S.G. o kaya S.G.2.S.G.?

Guess, anyone?

Anonymous said...

how low will you go? isa ay naghahamon ng debate at isa naman ay nagpapatawa at the expense of frank?

Joke Seeker said...

to anonymous asking "how low will you go?" - careful where u sit or stand on your high horse brother!

can't help it if i find "Padilla Quetionnaire's" comment but it is really so funny -- specially in the light of recent revelations in "Origins 1 to 3" -- that your leader SG FAP claims being "Founder of CFC". that joke is silly one could almost cry while laughing!

and about going low, well it's just been a year. please review your events and see for yourself who started the low blows!

meantime, let me go back to checking my list of the probable meaning of the initials, SGSG or SG2SG. baka may suggestion ka Bro?

hahaha said...

Anonymous said...

how low will you go? isa ay naghahamon ng debate at isa naman ay nagpapatawa at the expense of frank?

comment ko lang:
pasensya na po, ganyan na talaga ang nangyayari today, i hope frank reads the comments here. if ever may mga taong nawalan ng respeto sa kanya because he has stooped so low. frank and nonong have become the butt of a lot of jokes.

there is a pattern here, even in the existence of this blog. has anyone noticed that for a while in the beginning of the year, things were quiet dito sa blog, parang hohummmm...
well it was up until the easter group started by frank with his founder founder issue, these days they come up with literary pieces specially the ones written by nonong. mga pinoy, we all do these- tinatawanan ang mga problema, this is a malay trait kuha pa sa ating mga ninuno...

sige tawanan muna tayo to break the tension but the question i ask:
ain't we all misbehavin here?

F-F...HOORAY!, F-F...HOORAY! said...

It is natural for Filipinos to have a good time. Unfortunately, we also tend to make fun of other people.

We should take care of our choice of words in this blog.

TruthShallSetYouFree said...

how true that in Laguna, FFL took the intended venue of the CFC Disciples weekend for their own???

CFC Laguna got another venue in time but had to place brethren in front of the previous venue to direct CFCs to the new one

if it's true, how low can you go? really!!!

help said...

hello all, this is no laughing matter, this is exactly what we here in the ground are telling our leaders, confusion and conflict.

just came from laguna this afternoon Laguna Disciples Weekend

yes, it is true ffl paid for the venue which was reserved for the disciples weekend by cfc, naka log book yun reservations.

case in point: the venue
cause- conflict on the use of the name
effect- confused school administrator akala same group who made reservations april pa, so tinanggap full payment

case in point: new venue
cause- new venue for the cfc disciples weekend was arranged in another venue, last minute nakahanap
effect- last minute rush to tell leaders and members of the change of venue
confusion and conflict

case in point: signage
cause- new streamers had to be put up on the former venue to guide members
effect- ayaw ng mga ffl na ilagay ang streamer dun sa former venue kung saan nandun sila
confusion and conflict

case in point: the participants
cause- the need for directions, dapat mabasa ng mga participants
effect- dahil sa threat na tanggalin ng ffl ang streamer, naglagay ang cfc ng brothers para bantayan ang streamer para hindi tanggalin ng ffl
conflict and confusion

case in point: the streamer
cause- umalis ang mga cfc brothers at iniwanan ang streamer kasi umpisa ng conference
effect- tinakpan ng mga ffl ang signage
confusion and conflict

one would think parang larong bata di ba? pwede naman pag usapan. sabi yan ni bishop gabby. no confusion daw- fransiscans, mother butler daw ayan many years of history same names many groups...

it is different when you are enclaved in your office and the bishop's palace. the surroundings are clean, cool and quiet. iba ang tingin sa mundo sa labas

dito sa totong mundo-it is quite different here in the ground, mainit, maingay, at pagod na kami. ganyan din pag nag clp, sinasabayan, streamers halos magkamukha, participants litong lito din. mahirap na nga mag clp ganito pa

help help help

does anyone care to listen?

jonitanitayturin said...


I was most surprised to learn that Bro. Tony Meloto does not use the email.

In his and Sis. Lynn’s first pastoral visit (yesterday, May 16) as Provincial Area Leaders of Cagayan de Oro City and Misamis Oriental (May16), which he referred to as “Honoring History, Building Our Legacy”, Bro TM said (in effect) that the email is too impersonal to address issues, too removed from our culture of seeking out the brother in a one-on-one dialogue, and too perilous for protecting integrity and confidentiality. (The observed worldwide blast of "inappropriate" emails through the CFC international missions office last year are believed to have enhanced the break-up of CFC groups, similar to what happened in the country.)

In the forum with the senior CFC leaders(cluster heads up), Bro TM did not want to, and never did utter a single negative word about Bro Frank Padilla, to whom he expressed deep loyalty as mentor-friend, despite everything.

However, Bro TM made it also clear to every CFC leader in attendance that that loyalty was secondary to his avowed obedience and loyalty to CFC and the authority of the IC.


CD, wala lang. Kasi admittedly there are limits to our discourse and “sharing here” as loyal, respectful, and loving members of CFC.

But it IS really, really something to crow about, that Bro. TM did not want to degrade the name of FP even as he explained the implications of the historical rifts, and the direction the "Recharged CFC-WITH-GK" NOW TAKES: AN END-GAME IN 2024 WHEN THE PHILIPPINES WILL HAVE ATTAINED A “FIRST WORLD COUNTRY” STATUS PROPELLED BY THE EVANGELIZATION WORK OF CFC THROUGH GAWAD KALINGA.

Anonymous said...

Bro/Sis HELP:

Our "rival" brethren in FFL doing all the confusion, distraction, and intimidation are PART OF OUR CROSS IN OUR EVANGELIZATION WORK. May your respective chapter heads be empowered to bind all of the members concerned to extraordinary faithfulness to our culture of love and loyalty. Our brothers in FFL will readily see the intentions of our hearts, and the Holy Spirit will be our protector. God Bless.

Where's my venue? said...

Regarding the actions of FFL in Laguna, I'm in a bit of confusion. Isn't stealing against the Ten Commandments?

I'm pretty sure neither Jesus, the New Testament writers, nor the Church has ever said that stealing is ok...?

I thought FFL leaders were all about restoring things because CFC is so far off track. How does stealing a venue booking fit in the scheme of things?

jonitanitayturin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
johnpaul said...

Mr. Frank Padilla!

This recent FFL behavior in Laguna is unlikely of a Christian community. You have instilled in the minds of your followers of such actions.

You said you take command responsibility,
be aware of what FFL is becoming...

jonitanitayturin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Venue Manager said...


By: Venue Manager

1. Always make your reservation in ‘WELL’ in advance of the of the event date, say four to six months if the venue where you desire to have your event is a popular one. Ex. The Teachers Camp of Baguio City.
2. Don’t make reservations by phone, but if is unavoidable you have to then talk to a person in the office of the administration of such place who has the authority to commit. Satisfy yourself that you did not talk to the janitor of the place when you hang up the phone.
3. If you must talk to venue owners by phone, be sure you have the name of the person, his position, the inclusive dates of your event, the venue charges, etc., etc neatly written on paper.
4. Right after your phone confirmation make a letter addressed to the person you talked to on the phone and in your letter list down all the necessary details of what you have agreed about. Be sure to send your letter via fastest means, LBC or Aboitiz. Using the government’s post office services may not be a smart idea.
5. Of course you can always do it faster if you mail your message unless the venue you are renting is in a province where internet is still unknown.
6. Since you are smart and you already know items 1 to 5, then here are some tips so you will have to do, additionally, so your CFC group not be taken advantage of by misbehaving brothers coming from misdirected/misled team of FFL who have no qualms about such acts:
7. Always think that they will steal your CFC venue as proven in Laguna. If they can poach on your members, why should they not steal your venue? To them these are not offenses because their leaders instilled in them the lie that they are CFC (with the charism, kuno.) And along living with that lie, they are also now quickly evolving to be a people without common courtesy and decency. They did this to us in Baguio, yet we have not learned! So wake guys! By the way, don’t they also steal Anniversary Dates? (Pity these former brothers and sisters, are they embarrassed with the little they own, that they covetous in wanting to have what is exclusively ours .. from names to venues to anniversaries and members?)
8. Because they will steal your venue, then leave instructions with the owners/administrators of the venue you are renting that there are people who will pretend to be CFC who will attempt to pay in full the venue you have contracted for, ergo – give the names of the brother or sister from your CFC group, and from whom the venue administrator/owner will only receive the payment of the use of the venue.
9. Then give the names of the FFL members/leaders of the area where you are going to conduct your event, who are very likely to pay for your venue, in an attempt to confuse the owner/venue administrator. Tell the venue administrators that they are NOT CFC. If Laguna did that, I mean identify the enemy and passed the information to the venue owner, then this would not have happened.
10. To avoid items 8 & 9, go further if do-able and, sign a contract with the venue owner so you have a basis for suing them (the venue owner) if they don’t make the venue available to you on contracted dates. Sounds legalistic, yes, but if the FFL boys know you have a contract then they will not be able to commit a sin. Naka-save ka pa ng soul!
11. By the way, these tips are applicable even to the church premises where you are going o conduct CLPs, et al.

BY the way, did the CFC International Council already pay for venue of the next major event they were thinking of? The Araneta Coliseum should already be paid for! Baka makalimutan dahil sa maraming ginagawa.

CFC LAGUNA should rise to the challenge! said...

Here's a suggestion on the Laguna incident:

CFC Laguna should make a letter addressed to the Bishop of Laguna, informing the later of the incident on the stolen venue.

CFC Laguna should use the incident to justify why the use of the "COUPLES FOR CHRIST" name by the splinter group, foundation for family & life is causing much confusion and inciting anger among legitimate members of CFC in your province. In this part of the letter the CFC Laguna leadership should cite details of the incident. It is even necessary to write the names of the brothers or the sisters from FFL who paid for the event; and if you could get the info, the names of their elders so told them to pay the venue even if they ALL know that it was not their group that reserved it. They are directly guilty of deceipt, duplicity and scandal-causing behavior!

Then the letter should also state the confusion on the part of the corporation who owns the venue, its management and employes. Unable to discern which is the REAL CFC they had their place contracted to, their innocence was taken advantage of by a supposed Christian community acting in an un-christian manner. Hence, they are victims too.

The objective of the letter is just to prove the very visible confusion of having two organizations in the country with CFC in its name. People outside of community have long lived in their areas with just one CFC so it will take time for them to realize that there is a small guerrilla organization operating deceitfully.

The letter should require the Laguna household of FFL to apologize for its behavior and it should be signed by the Laguna Household Head.

Formal copies of the letters we sent out to the Bishop of Laguna should be given to the Papal Nuncio of the Philippines, the Cardinal in charge of Philippine Affairs, the local CBCP Council of the Laity Members, and of course TO Stanislaw Cardinal Rylko of the Pontifical Council of the Laity in Vatican.

This is a suggestion to the CFC Laguna Area Council.

Brothers in Laguna, instead of crying over spilled milk, fight the good fight!

If you fail to do it, then watch other areas in the country experience the same!