Pulp Bits

Just a short one for the weekend. In researching for an upcoming entry, I came across a June 15, 2008 article by our erstwhile detractor, Fr. Tulabing. As expected, it is another hack and slash attempt to paint CFC and the IC in a bad light. What bothers me about it is the obvious slant of his topic, while proclaiming that he's researched "...on the matter through the internet and my consultations with some bishops and persons knowledgeable about the case". He still fails to make any reference to pertinent documents or at least be fair enough to present both sides of the issue. I find this almost hostile bias and unfairness incredibly disturbing and unbecoming of a man of the cloth. He should be leading the way in the search for truth, and not be swayed by the words of just one party, and it is quite obvious whose words he's almost repeating verbatim in his article.

That of course is just my opinion and I would welcome his take on the matter here.

Here are the 2 pages excerpted from the Negros Chronicle:



You may download the 2 pages as a pdf HERE.

UPDATE, July 13 article:

I missed this one, thanks to blogger TE for pointing it out, and his analysis of it.


Download the pdf HERE.

Here is TE's analysis:

(1) Fr. Tulabing is publicly advocating that CFC be dissolved. He is urging everyone to make a choice between GK and FFL. What does this make him? He probably doesn't know that CFC under the IC is the institution enjoying Vatican recognition; and that the recognition is based on the CFC Statutes approved by the Vatican. Further that GK is mentioned clearly in the approved statutes. The Vatican (not the CBCP nor the FFL Bishops) (through the recommendation of the Bishops) is the competent authority to judge the genuineness of an institution's charism. And the Vatican has not withdrawn it's recognition proving that CFC's charism is genuine and has not been lost, as being claimed by a disillusioned former leader. This is not rocket science. It does not take a lot of gray matter to find the proof. It's a no-brainer. Wake up Fr. Tulabing.

(2) He continues to sow confusion by claiming that FFL using the name CFC is not confusing but GK's would be. This is in flagrant disregard of the fact the GK, as one the 7 Pillars of CFC, has more right to use the name than FFL.

(3) Fr. Tulabing exhibits a complete disregard of facts already in the public domain that bear on this issue. He continues to show us that he arrived at his conclusions without weighing the merits of both sides and without giving the due attention to available evidence. Since it is inconceivable that a Vicar General would be this naive, I am forced to conclude that Fr. Tulabing is deliberately ignoring evidence and purposely refuses to engage in the mental deliberation needed to arrive at, what Bishop Claver calls, a prudent choice. In other words, Fr. Tulabing has thrown prudence out the window and is advocating a position which he knows to be either false or at least questionable. That, my friends, is blatant intellectual dishonesty.

(4) By writing the sentence "The leaders and members of CFC can do the same." immediately after his exhortation to read the Bishops' letter, memos and circulars, Fr. Tulabing clearly intends to give the impression to the public that CFC members and leaders have not read the documents he mentions. It further implies that CFC willfully refuses to listen to the Bishops. Now in his previous article he angrily reacted to the comments that came out in this blog. To me that proved that he does read this blog. Putting all that together, I conclude that Fr. Tulabing knows that CFC members and leaders have read the Bishops' documents he mentioned. A whole bunch of them are published in the various blog entries. So are the IC Statements which refer to the respective Bishops' documents. That leaves two choices: (a) Fr. Tulabing knows, chooses to ignore the truth, and writes deliberately to mislead the public into thinking CFC does not listen to the Bishops; and (b) Fr. Tulabing read them all but understood none and so could not consider them. I would not consider (b) as a viable alternative. So (a) it is. Unfortunately it shows Fr. Tulabing to be intellectually dishonest.

(5) Fr. Tulabing hopes we will not accuse him of causing division. He's right. He is not the cause. He is entitled to his own opinions. But since he also presents himself as a journalist (I suppose writing a column classifies him as one) he should subject himself to rigorous standards of reporting. The truth is that the cause of the so-called "split" was not some disobedience on the part of the IC. FFL came about because FAP created it. FAP did not have to resign. The IC practically begged him. FAP did not have to create FFL. You see - it was FAP who caused the "split". He did it in disobedience to the CFC statutes and to the CFC covenant ("I will relate in love and loyalty to the other families in CFC.."), which he was under at that time. FFL was born from a betrayal. If Fr. Tulabing has really done his research as he claims, then either he's playing dumb, fanatically loyal to FAP or gets his highs playing the provocateur.

(6) What recommendations from Cardinal Rylko is he talking about? The one about the ad was not a recommendation. It was an instruction. Do you think, given his penchant for intellectual dishonesty, that Fr. Tulabing will follow Cardinal Rylko's instruction not use our name for his pet organization?

My thoughts:

First of all, I don't understand why Fr. Tulabing is confused about GK's use of the name Couples for Christ. Maybe he is acting like an expert without truly knowing what he's talking about. He might want to consider studying up on CFC and its 7 pillars here.

He is basically calling for the disolution of CFC because it is not evangelizing? Please Father, apparently you are ALL seeing, would you please point out specific instances of that? Also, since you've given us such a rational solution, how do you propose the organization that is CFC move on after its members move to the FFL? Change its name to Gawad Kalinga?

I don't know what else to say. He is making claims that are not backed up with facts, and refusing to see anything but what is being fed to him by the Easter Group. I challenge Fr. Tulabing to come to this blog, look at all the documents here, and then make his judgement again.


The Negros Chronicle is published online by a fellow blogger, Jay Dejaresco, who apparently is a respected advocate of truth and fairness. It is my hope that he gives this issue a little attention, and at least give the CFC defenders a chance to air our side.

Goodness, the priests and members of the clergy are supposed to be our friends, leaders, and shepherds in our daily pursuit of Christian living and behavior. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

* * *

Do any of you notice the increased, insidious assault on GK by the Easter Group? I recently received another cyber bashing of GK by this mythical Salvador Macias using an old article by the Inquirer's Michael Tan. While preparing for an entry on it, I noticed the escalating aggression by the Easter Group against GK, in emails, in "sponsored" articles, and other forms of correspondence. It seems our rambuctious brothers in the FFL are going corporate on us. They have a competing product, and in order to have their product succeed, they must prove that theirs is better by disparaging the other one. Christian conduct? I think not.

There's something up, best be prepared my friends.