Signed, Sealed, and Delivered

Thank you Arnel. This, along with the previous entry, has been very, very enlightening.

To all: This is well worth the read. It is a perfect complement to What's in a Name Pt 2 and makes me extremely confident that we are in good hands. God is good.

Click to enlarge. You can also download the whole document HERE.

What's In A Name Pt 2

Updated, a conclusion was added by anonymous.

This was not written by me, or by anyone I know, but I felt it is a very insightful view on the "name" issue, and one that can finally cap off the 2 part essay on the CFC name. It was taken in full from an anonymous comment in the Reflections and Musings #1 entry.

To anonymous, whoever you are, thank you (sooooo much). I believe you've hit the nail on the head, and succinctly at that:

I’ve been reading this blog’s entries for several months now and have been, up till now, uninvolved. But CD’s call to make a stand finally broke my resolve to keep silent. So, for whatever it’s worth, here’s my take on things.

Allow me first to explain my understanding of what is going on. As far as I can determine:

- I believe CFC is stronger now than before this conflict started. This conflict is the crucible in which we are being tested.

- When I read FFL’s “we are peace” declaration in August last year after the joint statement, I thought, okay we can all move forward now. But all the actions I’ve seen from them since then did not reflect this peace.

- CFC remains dynamic – its mission is pursued with vigor by the members who give their part according to the charisms given to them by the Spirit. Truly a community whose hearts are on the rise, having separate eyes but with a vision of one.

- CFC is the vehicle God has given to the members so they can exercise their charisms for the good of the church. As a gift from the Spirit, CFC itself is a charism given to all the members. From the exercise of these charisms, each member derives his own identity as a member of CFC.

- The brothers and sisters rising to defend CFC are not just defending the good name of the community; they are defending the very identities they have received from the Spirit through their charisms. I admire and salute you, heroes all.

- In the process of defending, some are more vehement than others. Others defend through prayer, for such is their charism. Others became better evangelizers, using the attacks to spur them on to better performance in service. Still others exhibited fortitude, inner strength, one of the seven gifts of the Spirit. I personally know of several who are deliberately keeping still but responding with wisdom and understanding when directly asked about the conflict. My friends, to me that is an extraordinary show of obedience to the IC while practicing a charism. I am truly convinced that CFC has not lost its charisms as the opposition contends. I believe that the conflict is forcing members all over the world to confront their own selves and discover more and more of their charisms.

Why am I talking about charisms? Because I am convinced it is a central issue.

“A charism is a grace, a freely bestowed gift of the Spirit, given to some persons but not to all, for some useful purpose, and as a special way of being in relationship with God…Some charisms the letters (St. Paul’s letters) name are: prophecy, teaching, leading, governing, evangelizing, miracles, healings, tongues, almsgiving, helping, serving, doing works of mercy, and administering material goods…In the charisms the Holy Spirit is almost, we might say, visible, audible, tangible; all the charisms manifest the one Spirit whose gifts they are” – Francis A. Sullivan, Charisms and Charismatic Renewal, 1982.

“The decree Perfectae Caritatis (Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life), 28 October 1965, without using the word charism, centers the religious life in the action of the Holy Spirit. The text lists four essential elements of this action: (1) inspired by the Spirit, (2) freely accepted by the individual, (3) dedicated to the good of the Church, and (4) recognized by Church authorities. The spirit (Paul VI will later call it the charism) of an institute has an indefinite duration, but the institute as an organization either changes or remains static with respect to the force and the effectiveness of its founding spirit.” – Lasallian Studies No. 13, The Lasallian Charism, pp 36.

The text refers to the “spirit of an institute”, what Paul VI later called as the charism of an institute. This also gives an additional meaning to the Vatican recognition of CFC, namely that the Church recognized and approved the charism of CFC, as an institution. This is also why the CFC Statutes are specifically mentioned in the Vatican Recognition – an institution is defined by its statutes. In the same way the By-laws (read statutes) of companies become the basis for corporate registrations. CFC, as an institution, retains its recognition only if it follows the Vatican approved statutes. (This is the major reason why FFL cannot share this recognition – they do not subject themselves to these Statutes).

Back to charisms. The second paragraph of Nº 12 in Lumen Gentium, vigorously endorsed by Cardinal Léon-Joseph Suenens, places charisms alongside the other basic elements of the Church and provides Vatican II’s basic definition of charism:
“It is not only through the sacraments and the ministries of the Church that the Holy Spirit sanctifies and leads the people of God and enriches it with virtues, but, “allotting his gifts to everyone according as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11), he distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank. By these gifts he makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices which contribute toward the renewal and building up of the Church (1 Cor 12:7).

These charisms, whether they be the more outstanding or the more simple and widely diffused, are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation, for they are perfectly suited to and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after, nor are the fruits of apostolic labor to be presumptuously expected from their use; but judgment as to their genuineness and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good (1 Thess 5:12 and 19- 21). (Nº 12).”

The Church leaders have the responsibility to judge the “genuineness and proper use” of an institution’s charisms. Because the Vatican recognized CFC, I believe we can safely conclude that the Vatican has also given its judgment as to the “genuineness and proper use” of CFC’s charisms. Especially in light of this conflict, the fact that the Vatican hasn’t withdrawn recognition, is de facto proof that CFC’s charisms are genuine and being used properly, including it’s charisms of uplifting the poorest of the poor and building the church of the poor. GK is a charism of CFC.

One final point on charisms. “Founder’s charism” is a special term used in ecclesiology to refer to the special gift given by the Spirit to an individual who, in response, started and created an institution or community dedicated to following that charism. For example, John Baptist De La Salle was such a founder. Today their charism even has a name – the Lasallian Charism. St.Ignatius was another – he started the 400-year old company that changed the world – the Compania de Jesus. This charism is supposed to be given for life. This is the root of the term “keeper of the charism”. Others may share in this charism while others may find their own charism because they followed the founder’s – like the Jesuits’ charism to educate giving birth to a music ministry.

Having said all these, here’s how I see the “other side”. Like many of you I have some very close relationships with some of their members, relationships that have been strained by the conflict.

I see evidence of conscious strategy in what they are doing:

a. FFL’s slogan is “restoring the original CFC charism”
b. FAP is claiming that he is the Founder of CFC
c. FAP is laying claim to the Title “Keeper of the Charism”
d. FFL is fighting tooth and nail to keep the CFC name.

In order for FFL to “restore” the original charism, it has to “remain” in CFC, otherwise there is no restoration to speak of, much less aspire to. To restore is to bring something back to an earlier state. But only if you are still part of that something. That’s why they’re fighting tooth and nail for the name. Without it they cannot fulfil their objective of restoration.

But what is it they say needs restoring? The original charism. To do this, they have to lay claim to it first. After all one cannot give what one doesn’t have. How to prove that they have it?

They can’t do the proving on their own. Because of Vatican II, they need the Church to pronounce judgment on the genuineness and proper use. But they also have to show that whatever charism FAP has is, as he says, the CFC charism. To prove this, all FAP has to do is prove that he is the founder of CFC. If he can do this, he can lay claim to the Founder’s charism and the title of Keeper of the Charism.

So, in order to achieve their goal of restoration, FFL has to be seen to be “in CFC” – hence the tenacious hold on the name – and FAP has to be recognized as the founder of CFC by the Church and by the community. Sounds logical, doesn’t.

How to achieve this? First, FFL changed the meaning of the word FOUNDER. In an email to their brethren in Canada, dated 2 March 2008, entitled THE FOUNDER AND KEEPER OF THE CHARISM: THE MEANING IN ECCLESIOLOGY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS TO CFC, they said “If we refer back to the above-referenced article we released explaining the implications of Archbishop Lagdameo's letter, the meaning of Founder is one who has shaped the life and mission of the community.”

Their meaning of founder is “one who shaped the life and mission of the community.” It does not have anything in common with the one from Webster Unabridged Dictionary which defines founder as “One who founds, establishes, and erects; one who lays a foundation; an author; one from whom anything originates; one who endows.”

The difference is like this: GE was founded by Thomas Edison in 1890. But it was Jack Welch who made GE (shaped its present life and mission) what it is today. Democracy was not founded in America but it is the US that is giving shape and life to it.

FFL says FAP is the founder because he was the one who shaped the life and mission of CFC and because a few Bishops said so. But this doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t the author. Charisms, remember, are gifts of the Spirit and Spirit bestows it on whomever He will. Obviously the founder of CFC is the one to whom the Spirit gave the idea, the original inspiration. This was not FAP, because when he joined CFC in the first CLP, CFC was already founded. What FAP may have is a participative charism but certainly not the Founder’s Charism. The Bishop’s pronouncements don’t have anything to do with it. Remember the Church’s responsibility is to judge the genuineness and proper use of the charisms. I have no doubt that FAP’s charisms are genuine but whatever they are, they are not the Founder’s charisms because he is not the founder.

Truly, only the real founder and the Spirit know who has the Founder’s charism. But FFL would have us all think that by changing the definition of the word founder and adding the pronouncements of the Bishops, FAP can be declared as founder and, (retroactively?) gain the original Spirit-given charism. If this is how it truly works, we should all convert to FAPism because these guys have the power to change the truth and correct the Spirit.

However they do it, it is essential for FFL to prove that FAP is the founder AND keep the CFC name. Otherwise they cannot become who they profess to be – restorers of the charism.

Mark this well, my friends, this is not just a battle for a name and it is more than envy or pride. It is a battle for their very existence. In the same way that the heroic bloggers defend their very identity, FFL is fighting to keep their raison d’etre. Without it they cannot continue to exist. So they will not stop until the price has been paid for their continued existence - the destruction of CFC.

So where do all the accusations of veering away, disobedience and attacking the church come in? Well FAP needs a reason why the charism has to be restored, doesn’t he? After all the books he has written, doesn’t he realize that by nature, attacks intend to destroy? There is an old Chinese saying: “A man is known by his tools. An axe for the woodsman and a plow for the farmer. “ Written and verbal attack is hardly a tool for peace.

My friends, let us not indulge in illusions. This will not go away until there is a victor. And to him go the spoils. CD, you have to keep this forum running. If you’re getting over 180,000 unique visitors, then we in CFC are not doing enough, considering there are over 800,000 of us throughout the world.

Here’s what I think we can do.

1. Get MMC to commission a book on the Charisms of CFC. Develop new teachings on the identity of a CFC member. If we are forced to defend it, then we better know a lot about it. Who are we as CFC members? What sets us apart? What charisms define us? You all know a lot about this topic. Let’s institutionalize that knowledge and get it out to all members worldwide, especially to those who just graduated from the CLPs. The objective is to strengthen the identity of each member. The premise is if you know who you are then no one can make a fool of you without your consent. This should contribute to building up our immunity to FFL’s attacks.

2. Create a new teaching on Christ’s meekness and get this out to the rest of the world. Jesus, even at the point of death never defended Himself. Neither did He condemn His accusers. The lesson here is that this meekness, this apparent weakness, is in fact divine strength. Inner strength that allows us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. This should answer the questions of members who are asking why we have to be still when we are being attacked. You see, it is not about what you are against but what you are for. Everything you are against weakens you but everything you are for strengthens you. This is why FFL’s attacks backfire because they fight against something and that weakens them.

3. FFL denounces GK. Our response should be to get the word out on GK, massively. Use this forum, text your friends, use all means at our disposal to extol the GK heroes. Let everyone know the selfless sacrifices our GK caretaker teams and full time workers are giving. Circulate GK stories. Better yet, let the pharma companies provide testimonies of their own evangelization. We know that FFL’s accusations are becoming boringly repetitive. Let’s provide contrast. Let’s inform the world and the Vatican how exciting GK’s charism to evangelize the poor is.

4. FFL repeatedly accuses CFC of veering away and talks about CFC in angry tones. As the teaching goes – by their fruits you shall know them. There is also the orange juice lesson. Why do you get orange juice when you squeeze an orange? Because it’s what’s inside. Now when you squeeze a person and hatred and anger and self-righteousness come out, it’s not because of the one doing the squeezing. It’s because that’s what’s inside. Galatians teaches us that the fruit of the Spirit is joy, love, peace, generosity, etc. WHAT SPIRIT IS PRODUCING THE FRUIT OF ANGER IN FFL? Because that is what is coming out, it must be what’s inside. THEREFORE, we should behave in the exact opposite. Not just in the blogs but all over the world. Let’s give “Be Still” an additional meaning, not just the passive keep quiet but the active dealing with them in peace, turning the other cheek. One question I would really love to ask FFL is this: “What is hurting you so much that you have to attack me and put me down just so you can feel better?” I know this is hard to do. But someone else’s neurosis does not have to be ours. Be still can also mean be at peace. And peace is not just the absence of strife. It is an active exercise of a charism.

5. Let all name calling stop. Let’s not stoop to that level. Practice the seven gifts of the spirit.

6. On the right side of the blog is a prayer request corner. Put up a prayer request for the intention that FAP and FFL will be enlightened. Ask participating people to click on it and then put up a very visible counter showing how many people are praying. Let’s drive this counter to massive numbers. Print T-Shirts saying “I prayed for FAP”.

For the kalog in all of us, consider these:

7. Name a GK Village for FAP in honor of his 26 years of tenure.

8. For those who have a mean streak: rename the GK Livelihood program FFL (for Feed For Life.)

9. Stretch goal: get Pfizer to sponsor a natural birth control program and call it Families Faithful to Life (FFL).

What say you, my friends? Can we do it?

Who wants to come up with the prayer for FAP and the FFL?


Update: Our anonymous contributor has given us a second part:

I want to share some thoughts with all you heroes who defend CFC. I want to lift up your spirits if I can. This was supposed to be part of the first piece but it just got too long...

We should defend CFC not because it is the family in which we grow but because it is a gift from the Spirit to us. Such a gift, such a treasure, is worthy of protection. Yet a gift from God is not a passive thing. This treasure is not like a pearl or a bar of gold that, by itself, is helpless. This gift of ours is, by nature, active. Believe it or not the best way to defend CFC is to live out its teachings to the full.

I have often wondered why St Paul lumped love, joy, peace and six other traits into one and called it the fruit (singular) of the Spirit. Perhaps it is because when God gives, He doesn’t give in pieces but wants us to have it all. CFC is like that. We are a community of joy and peace, generosity and kindness, love and goodwill and more, all rolled into one.. CFC is not only the synergistic result of over 800,000 charisms but the vehicle in which we experience all the parts of the fruit of the Spirit. It is truly a work of God.

My friends, who is he who can destroy God’s work? Who among the mass of humanity throughout all history has ever succeeded in trumping God? God is never mocked. The Lord has already triumphed. So let us defend but let us not attack. Contrary to popular belief, in this case, offense is not the best defense. Why? Because the Lord already proclaimed victory. Let us not fight a war that was already won. This is the first argument I have why there is no reason to attack FFL.

The second has to do with their tactics. After reading many examples of FAPs argumentations I came to the conclusion that he mixes tools in logic to justify his own conclusions. Case in point: Bishop Claver’s excellent piece on GK. What the good Bishop used was casuistry or case based reasoning used in ethical argumentations. In other words, Bishop Claver considered the merits of the case before forming his conclusions. Since the Bishop posited a case based argument, the responses should be have been case based as well. But FFL’s response was “the good Bishop would like to make us believe that such good deeds absolve the evils wrought by the killing of millions of unborn children.” FFL is not talking here at the case level but shifted the issue to a general principle, almost equating partnerships with pharma companies with supporting murder. The result is absurd and unfortunately makes the statement sound like they have the high moral ground. The principle applied is that there is no justification for the killing of unborn children. In truth there are cases where the Church permits the removal of an unborn child if the mother’s life is at stake. The article at http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/011703/011703d.htm may help. The point is that the Church does apply case based reasoning in this.

FFL’s hardline application of general principles to a posited case based argument is confusing people while making them feel that they have to take sides. Let me tell you that the worst time to make a decision is when one is confused. So Pareto’s rule will apply and 80% of confused people will choose the principle side.

This is the second argument I have why there is no reason to attack FFL. If they are increasing their number through confusion, then they will ultimately lose. Using confusion as a tactic is well documented here – using the same venues, insisting on the name, etc.

But we do have assurance from Isaiah 9:13-16:

Yet the people do not turn back to Him who struck them,
Nor do they seek the Lord of hosts.
So the Lord cuts off head and tail from Israel,
Both palm branch and bulrush in a single day.
The head is the elder and honorable man,
And the prophet who teaches falsehood is the tail.
For those who guide this people are leading them astray;
And those who are guided by them are brought to confusion.

Why use confusion as a tool to win people over? Is not love enough? Is not witnessing to the Spirit enough?

In CFC we learn (Mt 5:37) that we should say yes when we mean yes and no when we mean no and all else comes from the devil. We have to call a spade a spade. We have to say what we mean and mean what we say. We also have to be clear in what we are saying. We are not supposed to sow confusion. Again, we should do the exact opposite of what FFL does.

Brothers and Sisters, huwag na ho tayong magalit sa kanila. The peace that we have been given as part of the fruit of the Spirit is simply too valuable to lose. Like I said before, someone else’s neurosis does not have to be ours. Besides, I’m sure you’ve noticed that the best way to peeve someone trying to attack you is to show him that his attack is not affecting you. We simply put on the armor of faith and let peace be our shield. Parang si Bro Jerome - by remaining cool, sinong lalong nagalit? In short all we have to do is be ourselves – CFC people practicing their charisms.

Further, these times should be for us a time of learning. Why? FFL is providing the necessary learning environment. How many times do we pray in our households for peace in the community? Well, here’s our chance. FFL is giving us grounds to practice. The Buddhists say that peace does not lie in the world, it lies in the man who walks upon it. At every mass the priest reminds us that the Lord has given us His peace. So let’s practice it. Let’s not look on it as a burden. Let’s look on this “practicing the peace” as an opportunity to become even closer to God. Because practice makes perfect and the more FFL does what it does, the more practice we will have. Kaya po, let’s not get angry. Let’s thank them instead.

Whenever they speak in anger, they allow us to practice love.
Whenever they accuse us and malign us, they allow us to practice forgiveness.
Whenever they question our motives, they allow us to clearly define who we are.
Whenever they attack our leaders, they allow us to test our faithfulness and loyalty.
Whenever they say we are attacking the church, they allow us to see our faithfulness to the church even more clearly.
Whenever they act the way they do, they give us examples of what not to do.

You see? We are not getting weak, we’re getting stronger.

Let them do what they do. That defines them. Let us be who we are. That defines us. Remember that what the Spirit teaches is not something to do. They are all something to be. You don’t do peace. We be peaceful. You don’t do love. We be loving. One does not do joy. We have to be joyful. This is what Abraham Maslow called the philosophy of being. While FFL is busy showing themselves to the world by what they do, let us just be who we are – a loving, peaceful and joyful community. Being is more important than doing. After all, we are human beings, not human doings.

"What's in a Name Pt 1" is HERE.

* * *

Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ has a column in the Inquirer in support of Bishop Claver's article in the CBCP Monitor about GK. Please click HERE to read.

Also, Read more of William Esposo's take on the modern Pharisees HERE.

Another One?

It seems the FFL is seeking to keep up its righteous streak of statements...

OF RUDE AWAKENINGS AND LATE REALIZATIONS: A STUDY IN CONTRASTS AND CONTRADICTIONS

At this point in the conflict, some of those who have sided with the Council are making statements that the Restoration Movement (CFC-FFL) and the present CFC are the same. They are purporting that the intent and direction that the Council’s leadership has taken is everything that the CFC-FFL claims itself to be. The subtle message is these people (CFC-FFL) just want to be in power and they are peddling you something that is already in existence.

It goes without saying that very recently, the Council has made almost a complete 180 degree turn in practices which it never paid attention to from the time its attention was called after the Feb. 20 resignations. Now, it has come out openly for being diocesan and parish-based, of following the Bishops, of abandoning questionable practices of GK which were overtly not Christian, of following a balance between family life and service, of suddenly being behind the pro-life program of the Church although it has not rescinded its agreements with GK donors which manufacture artificial contraceptives. Why the sudden rude awakenings and late realizations?

It is an interesting exercise to unmask the hidden agenda of individuals. All you have to do is to answer questions straightforwardly and base your reply from actual data or experience. One must remember therefore the status of the community prior to the resignations of the three Council members on February 13, 2007 until the here-and-now.

What are some of the important qualities of the CFC-FFL they claim are the same with how they want to direct the community?

In this Truth Series, these qualities are presented in five parts.

I. “FAMILIES IN THE HOLY SPIRIT RENEWING THE FACE OF THE EARTH”

The feedback from the ground has been that the community has reached a saturation point in its activities that already prevent people from having quality time with their families and doing other things that are likewise important to establishing relationships in community.

Evidence: Dwindling attendance in gatherings and poor tithing; complaints from members on the lack of spiritual nourishment; lackluster worship; unprecedented leadership conflicts.

Practice: Functional relationships in households, service agenda are taken up instead of growth topics; weekdays and weekends are fully blocked off for community activities; leaders are maximized through multi-tasking.

Attitude of top leaders: drop-all-you-are-doing-we-have-something-important-to-do

At the beginning of this year, Frank Padilla announced a one-service policy to put a balance to an already worsening appropriation of time and resources in community. When Frank and the two other Council members resigned, the remaining 4-man Council never followed through with the initiative. Instead the 4-man Council in the persons of Joe Tale, Ernie Maipid, Rouquel Ponte and Joe Yamamoto decided to change the line functions of the top leadership perpetuating the multi-task orientation that precisely the community was diverting from, with themselves at the helm.

This same leadership now claims that they are the same as CFC-FFL in that vision when from the very start they never advocated or promoted such a direction.

II. PRO-GOD

Both groups have actually been quoting scripture and praying to the high heavens for peace and love in community. The Council has been proclaiming a new spirituality known as the GK spirituality, evidence of which could be seen from the revised Chapter Leaders Training where Ernie Maipid amended the outlines to include this particular orientation. If GK owns such a spirituality, then the GK Conference last June 21, 2007 at Araneta is a good example of what it advocates. People noticed an absence of worship and overt prayer. There was a song of St. Francis which very few recognized and an ecumenical prayer which the community members could not relate with. Yet, it was in community where we learned to at least make the sign of the cross (a prayer should follow) in a restaurant no matter how others may see us. Some of the brethren have also put crosses over their necks, pins on their collars, and even tattoos on their bodies to show that they are Catholic and CFC wherever they go, office, social, or community functions.

Evidence: The pronouncements of the Council regarding the GK spirituality; the changes made in the pastoral formation manuals; documented evidences of taking out CFC stickers from the doorposts of GK beneficiaries who are CFC members; the prohibiting the wearing of CFC T-Shirts, pins, etc. in GK assemblies, etc.

Practice: Do not show that you are overtly Christian or Catholic in the spirit of “ecumenism.”

Attitude of leaders: Evangelization need not have Christ shown in public.

Our basic teaching specifies that our posture should always be to respect the beliefs of others. However, the practice and principle have always been never to deny who we are. Restoration (CFC-FFL) means emphasizing this orientation and not compromising our identity like the way the Council has allowed things to happen. In this instance, it was even Habitat for Humanity which came out in the papers openly proclaiming that it is a Christian organization while CFC/GK has been quite coy about unfurling proudly its Christian banner.

III. PRO-CHURCH.

Although it has been an ongoing process of misinformation that the Easter Group, now part of CFC-FFL, solicited the help of the bishops, the Council insists in this idea that the bishops did not act on their own accord but were persuaded to issue letters against the CFC leadership. However, granting that their allegation is true (which it is not), it has always been taught in community that when you have an issue with your household head and you are unable to settle it amicably, then you appeal to the next higher rank – the unit head. In that same token, if it is the Council you have a disagreement with and they tend to use their power and position to further their agenda, then whom do you go to, the Elders Assembly? Yes, but it is difficult to assemble 200 people much less discuss issues with them. The recourse is the bishops, of course, who in our statutes safeguard our spirituality.

Evidence: The Council and the Elders Assembly did not follow the strong recommendation of Bishop Gabby Reyes, Bishop Soc Villegas, and Archbishop Angel Lagdameo stated in their letter dated June 7, 2007. Again, both bodies did not heed the strong admonition of Bishop Reyes on June 21, 2007 (“not to take the Bishops’ strong recommendations lightly.”) The intent and letters of Bishop Gabby have been twisted out of context several times which drew the rebuke of the Spiritual Adviser of CFC (his letters dated July 12 and August 6, 2007).

Practice: Whenever it is convenient, the Council visits the bishops but never follows their instructions. They concur during their meetings with the prelates but never keep their part of the agreement. The Bishops had to issue 3 clarifications to 3 International Council statements correcting the Council’s misimpressions of some statements coming from the Bishops.The Council was virtually handed a canonical warning when the Bishops hinted they were almost prompted to write the Vatican about the reported and documented cases of GK veering away fro the life and mission of CFC.

Attitude of leaders: The bishops have no authority over the internal affairs of the community and so should not interfere.

The Restoration Movement (CFC-FFL) has always consulted and followed the directions of the bishops. It has submitted to supporting the Church particularly its programs in the Basic Ecclesial Communities (BEC). Frank Padilla continues to be the recognized leader of Couples for Christ and the keeper of the charism. In fact, he went to the Vatican to explain the crisis in the community.

By its actions alone, the Council sets a very poor claim on being Pro-Church.

IV. PRO-POOR

If building houses was the only criterion for being Pro-Poor, the Council in its desire to support the GK spirituality may have the edge. However, what was the real context of Pro-Poor in the statutes of CFC? Was it really to provide shelter and livelihood for the materially poor? Or, was it to build Christian communities that will support the life and mission of people who will help themselves out of their poverty because they see themselves as a people of value and worth through their relationship with Jesus Christ?

Evidence: Can any of the GK workers confidently identify GK areas that are truly small Christian communities? Beneficiaries join the CLPs only to leave the organization as soon as they receive their houses. Even if GK identifies itself to be holistic in approach, what does it really have to show by way of a visible comprehensive health program, a working livelihood and job generation activity in GK communities except the Bayanihan program recently lifted from the Tekton livelihood program. Why did GK build up parallel structures when it was supposed to synergize and integrate with the social ministries which were deliberately set up to support GK?

Practice: The pursuit of building houses is given priority over the establishment of authentic Christian communities.

Attitude of leaders: Owning a house changes the attitude and outlook of a GK beneficiary.

The CFC-FFL intends to focus on the framework of establishing Christian communities rather than providing shelter. It will back up the spiritual side with programs that will address the temporal concerns of the people in due course. The focus on the social mission will not be imposed with quotas the way GK did.

V. OTHER ASPECTS

Pro-Life: In its desire to achieve its goals in GK777, the Council through GK has accepted benefactors who are clearly pro-choice advocates in the arena of contraception, abortion, population control, and environmentally hazardous industries. Which group has actually bent its mission and core values by acceding to pro-choice forces in order to achieve the goals they have set? Who among its leaders are clear of their pro-life principles and values and why are they sending the GK Executive Director to the conference of the Clinton Foundation, a known advocate of pro-choice and has Masonic inclinations?

Tradition: Which group adheres to tradition as a form of legalism much like the Pharisees and the Scribes? Which advocates radical changes in spirituality without consulting its constituents? Which is saying that it is adhering to its charismatic spirituality and not some mountain-generated forces that border on a different kind of idolatry? Which among its leaders are adhering to Catholic doctrine by submitting to the doctors of the Church all its teachings and programs?

Leadership: Who among the groups’ leaders rose to their present position with so many doubts cast on the process and their reputations tainted? Which group still has the “bearer of the charism” as part of the organization though he may not be in governance anymore? Which leaders are demanding obedience? Which are advocating consultation and unity of spirit? Which group trusted in a win-win agreement to be able to obey the Bishops? And which one defied the strong admonitions of the Bishops? Which group in the then Board of Elders insisted on having running dialogues with the Council and GK leaders to arrest the worsening rift between CFC and GK and which group preferred to table the issue? Which group brokered the failed August 14 dialogue?

If your are unable to distinguish the two groups by these questions, then the lessons of Lamentations and the experiences of the on-going conflict in the community may not have not yet impacted upon you.

However, it is your responsibility as Christian to know, and to make an informed choice. It is also important to know yourself, on what you believe, and what you tend to be biased on. At the end of the day, it is not which group you choose but the process by which you arrived at that choice. For all you know, you are making a mistake. No discernment is a perfect discernment. But God will always bless a choice made for Him, a choice that in honesty sees what is best for oneself, and for those whom one will serve.

Now, IF the FFL is intent on keeping up the slew of accusations, comparisons, and tit-for-tat attacks, then it is really up to their conscience on whether they want to build a membership based on that. Remember that a structure is only as solid as its foundation.

Let me quote their own Statement of Philosophy:

CFC-FFL adheres to a set of beliefs and ideals from which flow its Christian attitudes, values and behavior, as well as its programs, teachings and approaches to Christian renewal within the context of family relationships.

Highlights mine.

So, tell me this: What do they hope to accomplish by these constant accusations at the CfC? It seems they are paying more attention to what the Council is doing than on what should be most important to them: Hmm...like evangelizing? Unless of course, the downfall of CfC IS what is important to them. That is a scary thought....isn't it?

Then again, if this is their idea of evangelizing, I'd be afraid to see their version of GK. =)

I quote this sentence...

At this point in the conflict, some of those who have sided with the Council are making statements that the Restoration Movement (CFC-FFL) and the present CFC are the same.

...and I wonder who they are referring to as "some of those" and "making statements". Could it be that the FFL is now frantically responding to rumors and innuendos, while we here in the blog are citing actual emails and documents?

All I've seen so far from the FFL is a looooong string of accusatory statements, emails, plots, twisted stories, and efforts to bring down a community that Frank once led with pride. Not once did I see the IC issue as much as an accusation towards the FFL. Wasn't that what the Bishops' wanted? Peace between brothers? Who is disobeying them now?

To brother Frank, I ask, is this really how you want trace the FFL's roots? After all, all this will be for the greater glory of YOUR name, I assume?

As it is, I'm done responding to these constant statements rehashing the same old issues that have been addressed over and over again. The answers to them are all in this blog, anyone with a mouse, keyboard, and an internet connection can find the truth in the archives IF they want to find it. AND, I am still waiting for the FFL's official statements on the issues we've brought up here.

I won't hold my breath though....


UPDATE:

Oh and one last thing, about this:

"The Council has been proclaiming a new spirituality known as the GK spirituality"

What exactly is a "GK spirituality"? Is that another term coined by the FFL that is meant to be misleading?

A Statement By CFC Toronto's Spiritual Director

Good morning all, a couple of people have emailed me this statement by Fr. Mark already. I felt that it was an incredibly excellent read and one that you all shouldn't miss, in fact I should have posted it a couple of days ago but the latest Council Statement took priority.

Here it is if you wish to download the complete document in .pdf format to send to other people:

http://www.zshare.net/download/3599618d5d5bba/

or click HERE.

Here is the complete text, it's a bit long but one I promise is worth the read. Thank you to those who sent it in to me, and thank you to Fr. Mark.

A LETTER TO CFC TORONTO

My dear brothers and sisters of the Couples for Christ and Family Ministries:

Part One

Some members of the CFC family in Toronto have requested a copy of my presentation at Blessed John XXIII Church on Thursday, September 6, 2007, on issues affecting our community. I gave the presentation in my capacity as the liaison of the Archdiocese of Toronto to the Couples for Christ and by extension to the rest of Canada. What I write in these pages are personal reflections and suggestions, which may help you in your discernment process.

When the problem was first brought to my attention, my immediate response was: “Listen to your founders because they often exercise a prophetic role even if they are no longer in leadership positions.” The statement has been repeated so many times and to my chagrin, the statement has even become a way to persuade people to join the “restoration” group.

A few days ago, I informed Francis Berroya and Ron Falcon to stop using my statement in their future correspondences because the context in which I spoke these words has changed dramatically in the last few days. The statement, therefore, needs to be qualified.

We cannot negate the fact that Frank Padilla is one, if not, the Founder of Couples for Christ. If my previous statement is true, then this is what Frank Padilla wrote in his letter dated September 1, 2007: For CFC in other countries, you can try to insulate yourself from the conflict in Manila and wait until the dust settles, and in the meantime just go on with your own life and mission. You may however work internally for the restoration of CFC in your country, for as long as that is possible.

Frank Padilla exhorts us to do the following:
1. To insulate ourselves from the conflict in Manila.
2. To wait until the dust settles
3. To go on with our own life and mission
4. To work internally [not separately, sic] for the restoration of CFC [as some of us want to do, sic].

I trust that Frank Padilla was sincere when he wrote these words, and I pray that all in Toronto would heed what he says particularly those sections which directly affect us. But, as it is, there are so-called “leaders” who seem to be intent in dividing CFC Toronto. If you must separate, then separate, and stop calling yourselves CFC. You are not helping CFC. You are not also helping yourselves. Do not be naïve. For every time, someone ask you the reason for the existence of two separate CFC’s in Toronto, you will always be opening old wounds.

Allow me, my brothers and sisters, to raise the question: Has CFC Toronto (and I mean Toronto, not United States, not even Manila, but Toronto) veered away from the ideals of the Movement? If your answer is “yes,” then I ask you to name those areas (You need to be specific) which you think have changed the direction of the Movement in Toronto. If your answer is “no,” then what is to restore? Aren’t you barking on the wrong tree?

Granting that you have issues, which you think have changed the direction of the Movement in Toronto, let me also ask you, and are these issues dividing-issues? Can these issues not be worked out within the group and without the need to divide?

Let us take our inspiration from the tradition of our Church. You know, when our bishops reflected on the Church during the Second Vatican Council, they said that the Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, and incessantly pursues the path of penance and renewal (Lumen Gentium 8). CFC is our way of being church. CFC received a special anointing from God and for that reason we may consider it to be holy, but since it is run by men and women, CFC needs to undergo purification on an ongoing basis just as each one is called to ongoing conversation each day until Christ will come in glory.

Part Two

One of the accusations of the “restoration group” towards the International Council is disobedience to the bishops. You may not realize it, my brothers and sisters, for the last twenty five years, the culture which you have fostered within CFC is a top-down approach to authority. It is not surprising then, that when the three bishops recommended for the postponement of the election, you have understood it to be an order. And yet, in the recent article published on September 6, 2007 in CBCP News Online, Bishop Gabriel Reyes said that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has no authority over the Couples for Christ in the national level. It can only make recommendations to the Couples for Christ. And again, Bishop Reyes says, only the Vatican, through the Pontifical Council of the Laity (PCL), has the authority over it in the national and international level, although every diocesan bishop has power to deny permission to CFC to function in his diocese, even if the association is international. It is clear that the three bishops: Bishop Reyes, Bishop Villegas, Archbishop Lagdameo were merely making recommendations. I would probably not be far from the truth. The bishops made recommendations because of their love and concern for CFC. This is an exercise of authority: to unify the community and to direct its attention to God who is the center of life for each and all the members of the community.

Obedience for the sake of obedience can be sheer domination. Our problem begins, my dear brothers and sisters, when we become totally dependent on the ideas and directions of another in a blind and unexamined way. These are the bare facts:

1. The resignation of Frank Padilla and company
2. The recommendation of the Bishops
3. The 13-man committee assigned to study the situation and make recommendations
4. The elders’ assembly
5. The election of the members of the International Council

What we have before us is perhaps unprecedented in the twenty-five years of CFC. Rather than just following the Bishops’ recommendations, the elders’ assembly, through a process of prayerful discernment in which they listened to all the parties including the recommendations of the 13-man committee, decided a course of action, though unpopular, nevertheless, corresponds to the traditional custom of voting for seven men for a fixed term of two years. We may not like the outcome of that decision, but we must at least respect the process that took place, because that process, though imperfect, is an exercise of the freedom we are given in Jesus Christ. During that discernment, the elders’ assembly did three things, which I believe, is the right thing to do in any discernment process, namely:

1. Seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit
2. Listening to all the voices (consultation)
3. The practice of reflexivity, acknowledging the movement character of the group in contrast to being overly concerned with its tradition-directed character.

To be honest with you, I am not impressed by the decision of some to separate merely on the basis of the result of the election process. I have seen this too often within the Filipino community abroad. There are so many groups, both civic and religious, maintaining their own turfs, not because of a noble purpose (although they may be claiming to do so), but because their leaders at some point have been disenfranchised. I pray that no one among you should fall prey to this type of behavior. CFC members should try their best to be more sensible, slow to anger, and abounding in grace and humility.

Part Three

During the past few weeks, I have been praying for you. As I was celebrating the Mass, I was struck by the gospel reading from St. Luke:

When Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.

Jesus returns to Nazareth, where he grew up. As was his custom, he went to the synagogue on Saturday morning to worship. As the gospel tells us, Jesus was invited to read from the lessons of the day. The text chosen was from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, an amalgam of two different passages: Isaiah 61.1-2 and Isaiah 58.6. After the lesson was read, Jesus applied this passage to himself, and basically gave an inaugural speech outlining the key themes of his intended public ministry.

Jesus applied this passage to himself. Is this not what all of us should do? How does the passage apply to us today? Is not CFC the extension of the ministry of Christ? If one stays with the text long enough, one hears in it not only an announcement of what God has accomplished in Jesus, but also a call to service, a call to join that ministry Jesus began and defined.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me…

Jesus claims to be the anointed servant of the Lord. I have read so many emails from CFC members concerning the issues before us. Some of the emails refer to an “anointing from above.” We are all anointed by virtue of our baptism into Christ. We claim a special anointing for CFC as it tries to fulfill its mission. CFC started as an outreach to married couples, then as the years went by kids, youth, singles, handmaids, and servants were included. As CFC continued to reflect on the life and ministry of Christ, it began also to address the cry of the poor and as a concrete answer to that cry, Gawad Kalinga (GK) came into being.

To bring good news to the poor

Part of the mission of Jesus and our mission too is to preach the gospel to the poor. What poor and in what sense, one may ask? There is no reason why the term should not mean among other things the financially poor; but it will certainly include poverty of other kinds. There is poverty when marriages fail. There is poverty when children are not educated according to gospel values. There is poverty when people live alone and have no one to turn to in their hour of need. When the Church truly preaches good news to the poor, it designates a significant resources, financial and human, to support the anointed message. Otherwise, our preaching will be inadequate. It will not raise the level of awareness, which is necessary to effect changed behavior in the world around us.

He has sent me to proclaim release to captives

Part of the mission of Jesus and our mission too is to proclaim release to captives. In the time of Jesus, this would mean imprisoned debtors. For us in North America, this is well too common when our spending habits ran wild and max our credit cards. The word “release” (aphesin or aphesis in Greek) means forgiveness. It carried a broad range of meanings including release, let go, discharge, release from captivity. A broad application would also include those who may be imprisoned because of their own biases and prejudices. It may also include those whom we hold captive because of our inability to receive forgiveness or to offer forgiveness.

Several years ago, I was studying the Lord’s Prayer in the original language of Jesus, which was Aramaic. Anyone who speaks several languages knows that in translation something eventually gets lost. I was struck to discover that the prayer “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,” carries with it this idea of knotting. When you take a string and create a knot in the middle of that string, as you pull both ends of that string, the knot you created will become tighter. As you continue to pull the string further, the tighter the knot becomes and the harder it will be to untangle it. Every time we sin against God or one another, we create a knot. Every time we do not ask for forgiveness or extend forgiveness, we tighten the knot. Eventually, the knot becomes too tight and it would be near impossible to free anyone from a tangled or a twisted state.

And recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free

Recovery of sight to the blind could refer to those who are physically blind. It could also mean spiritually blind. Many in the synagogue that morning were undoubtedly extremely religious but spiritually blind. The world is full of religious people and religious movements, but any person or any movement without the Spirit of the Living God is a blind person or a blind movement.

In the Old Testament, these words of Isaiah spoke of concrete acts of deliverance, the setting free of captives, the announcement of release to people in slavery. In effect, they have to do with all the experiences of human bondage, which the men and women of Israel experienced as a nation and as individuals. The prophetic words both declared God’s delivering work through his anointed and called the nation as a whole and each individual to commit themselves to that task of freeing the prisoner and the oppressed.

Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.

CFC has been doing its best to follow the Savior’s lead. We are not only reaching to out to married couples, to children, to young adults, to single men and women; we are also successfully and surprisingly heeding the cry of the poor.

Is this not Joseph’s son?

Jesus described the incredible arrival of the Lord’s favor to the people that Sabbath morning. His message, however, was not well-received. I suspect that it impinge on their comfort zones and with their small-town attitude they were unable to comprehend the amazingly good that Jesus intended to inaugurate.

The work of Gk is so far-reaching; going well beyond the imagination of your founders and fellow members. Like some of the people that Sabbath morning in Nazareth, some are asking: “Is this CFC?” Truly I tell you, Jesus says, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown.

“We want to restore!” sounds like what our Lord said, doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor cure yourself!’ And you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we heard you did at Capernaum.

But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was severe famine over the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarepath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.

My dear brothers and sisters, notice the recipients of God’s goodness. The widow of Zarepath and Naaman the Syrian were non-Jews. Salvation is meant for everyone!

What is salvation? In God’s great love for the human family, God desires that each person be saved, that is, to spend an eternity of happiness with Him in heaven. The Church carries out this mission in bringing salvation to all persons in a variety of ways. Three are more important than anything else:

1. Bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to all cultures (evangelization)
2. Helping its members to grow into an ever closer relationship with God (sanctification)
3. Working to establish God’s plan for the human family (the reign of God)

We cannot isolate one dimension from the other. We can try to strike a balance, but experience tells us that as we journey through life one will take precedence depending on the situation we are in.

The Church, as it imitates the Savior, put’s a high value on the establishment of the reign of God. In a world that is increasingly forgetful of the Creator, the establishment of the reign of God would mean that we work to establish belief in the existence of a Creator, who is also love. To establish the reign of God on earth also means that we love our brothers and sisters in the human family. We cannot effectively love them when they are denied sufficient food and a roof to live in, when their basic human rights are violated through injustice, and when thousands of people are displaced and die.

A woman came to my office several months ago asking for help. She told me about her sister and children who are lingering in a refugee camp in Pakistan. She asked me if it is possible to assist in bringing her sister and children to Canada. My initial reaction was, why come to me. You are a Moslem. Why don’t you go to your Imam? She left. Several days later, she came back. I again denied her request. A month later, she came back and this time I said yes. With the supervision of Cross-cultural Services (an agency supported by ShareLife), I signed the papers that will hopefully allow her family to come to Canada as refugees. Will she become a Catholic? Only God knows. What is important for her and her family to be reunited and to have a place where they can start anew.

Earlier, I have referred you to the suggestion of Frank Padilla to isolate yourselves from the conflict in Manila. Implicit in that statement is the recognition that the context of CFC Manila is different from the context in which we are in. We need to learn to cut our umbilical cord. As parents, you know, that at some point your children will have to move out of the house, assert their independence, in order for them to grow and become the person God wanted them to be. If you don’t, you have scarred them for life. Dependence is an obstacle to psychological growth. The dependent person become the other instead of him or herself. Dependence is not a virtue. It is a substitute for character. In a similar manner, CFC Toronto needs to recognize that CFC Manila will always be her parent community, but CFC Manila needs to allow CFC Toronto to chart its own course of action in order for it to mature. CFC Toronto has much to offer. As one priest said last Thursday night, it is not by accident that we are here in in this city.

The context of the Philippines is not our context in Toronto. And yet, we constantly refer matters to Manila. We even appoint coordinators who are not resident of Toronto (or Canada for that matter). Let us take the case of Ecumenism as this is an issue raised in some of emails I received. In the Philippine context, ecumenism is generally suspect. Proselytism is a major concern. Partnership and cooperation are virtually non-existent. Canada, on the other hand, is a “mosaic” of cultures. We come from every corner of the globe. Toleration and cooperation is our way of life. We are open to appreciating the other as gift. When I give a gift to someone, I make sure that the gift I am giving is something that the recipient will benefit from. How many gifts have you received, only to wrap it and give it to somebody else because you already have it or you have no use for it?

I love Canada and I am grateful to God each day for bringing me to this land. It is here that I have begun to appreciate the gift of the other. It is here that I have experienced concretely what the Second Vatican Council says in the Document on Ecumenism no. 12, Cooperation among Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Eastern) vividly expresses the bond which already unites them…such cooperation…should contribute to a just appreciation of the dignity of the human person, the promotion of the blessings of peace, the application of gospel principles to social life, and the advancement of the arts and sciences in a Christian spirit. Christians should also work together in the use of every possible means to relieve the afflictions of our times, such as famine and natural disasters, illiteracy and poverty, lack of housing, and the unequal distribution of wealth. Through such cooperation all believers in Christ are able to learn how to esteem each other more and how the road to the unity of Christians may be made more smooth. Ironically, the personal parish of the Filipino Catholics in Toronto for the last 25 years, is located at Blessed John XXIII Church, which also happens to be a shared worship space with our separated brothers and sisters, the Presbyterians. This arrangement would be unthinkable in the Philippine context.

And again, with regards to non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council has this to tell us: The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless, often reflect a ray of the the Truth which enlightens all men…The Church, therefore, has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly, thorugh dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture. (Declaration on the relation of the church with non-Christian religions no. 2) Indeed, we do not need to question people if they want to participate in our work. Let us offer them the chance to reach out to people who are poor and marginalized. Remember, it is not us whom they serve. It is Jesus.

When they heard this, all in the synagogue wer filled with rage. They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff

In another passage of Sacred Scriptures, the seed that was planted has become a huge tree. CFC was the seed that was planted many years ago. Look how it has grown. The trunk (Couples) has now many branches (CFC-kids, CFC-youth, CFC-singles, CFC-handmaids, CFC-servants, CFC-GK). Many birds have perched on its branches; many more have come under it shade. People are coming from everywhere to support the work that you do. As chaplain of the Filipino community in the Archdiocese of Toronto, I am invited to so many functions and I am amazed at the level of enthusiasm from non-CFC members who wish to participate in the work of GK. This is the level of awareness, which is necessary to effect changed behavior that I have mentioned earlier. These are signs of God’s goodness to you. Celebrate it! Do not allow the tree to be cut in two!
At the Second Vatican Council, the bishops recognized the scandal of division among Christians – a scandal that impedes the proclamation of the gospel and so they resolve to pursue the path of unity. But if you, my dear brothers and sisters, cannot be persuaded otherwise, then hear what the scriptures says:

But Jesus passed through the midst of them and went on his way.

Let us pass through the midst of all these problems and go our own way.

The Election Question

Inasmuch as the past CfC council elections have been made a big deal over and over (that is, until the emphasis was switched to money and accounting) by the FFL in its drive to re-recruit CfC members to their fold, I think the whole election thing has to be explained here. There had been allegations of defiance of the Bishops, who asked for the elections to be postponed after Frank Padilla went to them. Here we will go over the events that led up to the June elections, and why the FFL feel that they got the short end of the stick.


To give a little background on how the CfC hold their elections and some general rules:

Elections are held every 2 years with the last one held in June 2007 for 7 Council members / board of trustees and 15 Board of Elders (BOE).

Eligible voters are members of the Elders Assembly (EA).

Elders Assembly is composed of:

• Sector Heads
• Provincial Area Heads
• Regional Area Heads
• Ministry Heads
• Regional Coordinators (Intl)
• Mission Directors & Spouses

This year's EA has a total of 231 Members.


Election Procedure:

The council nominates 12 and the BOE nominates 5 for a total of 17 members to be nominated for the Council.

It has been a tradition to nominate the incumbent council members. (This is why Frank Padilla has been on the Council for the past years.)

After the 7 council members, the floor becomes open for BOE nominations. 15 are chosen for the BOE.

What happened this year (2007)?

Tony Meloto (TM), Frank Padilla (FP), and Lachie Agana (LA) resign in February, leaving only 4 members. Because of their resignation, it was deemed by the remaining council members that the 3 will no longer run for the council in the coming June 2007 elections.
Note: TM does not run again.

The BOE has its own nomination procedures. A long list nominated by its members is deliberated on and the final list of 5 names is determined. Frank Padilla was initially included in the long list, but was not included as part of the final 5.


This year only a total of 15 were nominated by both the council and the BOE:

1. Joe Tale
2. Ernie Maipid
3. Joe Yamamoto
4. Lito Tayag
5. Rouguel Ponte
6. Joey Arguelles
7. Melo Villaroman Jr.
8. Delfy Geraldez
9. Mannix Ocampo
10. Joey Mempin
11. Greg Monteclaro
12. Robert Ardiente
13. Pancho Lopez-Tan
14. Jimmy Santiago
15. Rene Rieta

When the list of nominees was released, Frank questioned the Council on why he was not nominated. The answer was simple, he was not nominated because he resigned (why resign only to run again?), and they were not required to nominate him regardless. FP was nominated by the BOE, but his name was not included in the final 5.

Subsequently, FP elevates several complaints to the bishops. According to him, these had to do with the problems within CfC and GK in particular, and the disagreements among certain elders which the 4-man Council failed to address. Also part of his complaints were the choice/list of nominees, expressing his opinion that all 7 (3/resigned & 4/man council) should inhibit themselves from running in the June elections.

The Bishops then sent a letter to the Council, recommending that the elections be postponed.

The Council respectfully notifies the Bishops that they will proceed with the elections in a majority decision of the Elders Assembly.

The Bishops then sent a 2nd letter, strongly recommending the postponement of the Elections.

Here is a background story going around among the Elders Assembly:

FP, dismayed at his exclusion from the list of nominees, wanted the 4-man Council to exclude themselves as well. His contention was, if he was excluded, the 4 should be as well.

The 4 did not agree. FP then offered to add 5 names to the list of nominees (which was an irregular request because it had never been done in that manner, with one individual having the right to nominate his own choices for the council)

With the nominations already complete, the 4-man council had to refuse.

To pacify FP, the 4-man council asked for FP's list of names and told him they will pray about it and consider. FP refused.

There are other issues involving the Bishops but the connection between FP and them will be tackled later.

There were backroom politics that were going on this whole time; between FP and the Bishops on one hand, and the 4-man Council on the other. The politicking led to the 4-day marathon meeting between FP's Easter Group and the Council which resulted in a MOA to be presented to the Elders Assembly as a "proposal", it was signed on the Sunday June 17, 2007.

Here is a draft copy of the MOA:

Page 1

Page 2


This MOA speaks for itself, but in short:

There was an agreement to fill the vacancies of the 3 resigned members in the Council instead of holding the regular elections (where 7 will be elected).

The newly completed 7 man council shall serve the original term that expires on June 30, 2007.

The 7-man council and the 15 member BOE whose terms expire on June 30, will be allowed to serve on a hold-over capacity up to January 31, 2008. Thereafter, the regular elections will be held.

There was also an agreement to present to the Bishops and to the Elder's Assembly.


Wording to note:

"1. This agreement will be presented to ... the Elder's Assembly for approval."

"3. ... this agreement will be presented to the Elder's Assembly for ratification."




At this point, sources say, Joe Tale, in the spirit of the MOA proceeds and in a period of 5 straight days, started to have marathon sessions with members of the elders assembly, presenting and endorsing the MOA to them.

A scheduled Recollection Night for the Elders Assembly was held on Wed, June 20, 2007 (2 days before the election). The EA traditionally holds this Recollection prior to an election. The speaker for the night originally was Bishop Gabby Reyes, but he had excused himself 2 weeks prior due to the turn of events within the CfC leadership. Greg Monteclaro then invited Fr. Mario Sobrejuanite for a talk. After the talk, Joe Tale presented the proposals outlined in the MOA. The EA's deliberation on the MOA was deferred because this was a Recollection night. Joe Tale exhorted the EA to pray and discern regarding what he had presented. (To listen to Part 1 of the Recollection Night audio, CLICK HERE, Part 2 is HERE)

On Thur morning, Bishop Reyes requests Joe Tale to allow him to speak to the EA. It was an incredibly difficult request to fulfill because gathering 231 people on such short notice (roughly 12 hours) was an almost impossible task, especially since this was a CfC anniverersary week with many EA members participating in various activities. Regardless, Bishop Reyes was able to address a small gathering of EA members that were able to make it that Thursday night. He spoke of the proposal and held an open forum.

Friday, June 22- Election Day

A mass was held. Everyone was blessed with holy water by Fr. Paul. Roland Nillas was seen distributing a 'blue paper', containing his letter appealing to all EA members to vote for the agreement.

Joe Tale presented the agreement to the EA. (audio to be uploaded later).There was a deliberation on the floor. Some members started to put forward their own proposals. Due to time constraints, Joe Tale suggested to put to a vote, whether to proceed to a referendum or open the floor for deliberations of other proposals.

What was the referendum all about?

To choose between:
a) Proceed to the holding of Special elections- as contained in the MOA
b) Proceed to the holding of the regular elections (7/man council)

The members of the EA opted to go ahead with the referendum.

Results:
121 votes for the Regular Elections
75 votes for the Agreement/Proposal


Frank and his group walked out soon after the results were called out.

The election proceeds and the new council was elected by the EA.



It is at this point where all the claims of the Easter Group start.

They feel that the agreement was not pushed hard enough by Joe Tale, and that the Easter Group was railroaded. They also say Joe did not convince the EA well enough to vote for the proposal. It was during this time that the term "defiance of the bishops" was coined.

Defiance is such a strong word, when all the EA did was exercise their voting right and choose to go ahead with the regulars elections despite the Bishops' recommendations.


Questions:

What would it be a "defiance" of, exactly? Many in the EA feel that Joe Tale did his best to present the proposal and exhort the EA to vote for it. The EA as a voting body spoke collectively and with their legal authority.

What is also of interest was this: The proposal was actually the brainchild of Joe Tale. Why would he not push his own creation?

The Easter Group also claims that the EA was pre-conditioned to reject the proposal. It was claimed that Fr Mario Sobrejuanite pre-conditioned the EA in his talk, by saying that the elders were over and above the bishops (due to the vatican decree). I will leave that to your opinion, you have to listen to his talk yourself. (Part 1 of the audio posted, part 2 to follow)

Did Joe Tale do his duty to to inform the EA of the proposal? (Check the audio that I will be uploading later)

Now the question to all: Considering what the underlying reasons were, should the elections have been postponed? For that matter, should the Bishops have been involved at all?

Was there a hidden agenda behind the postponement of the elections? What easter eggs were being hatched by the bunnies?

The minutes are ticking, and I think it's time for the Bunnies to reveal themselves.

Next: Closure on some past posts, and The Council Elections.

It Is Not Over

It looks like the FFL's spin machine is in high gear with Nonong Contreras appearing to defy the peace that the CBCP has tried so hard to broker with his media appearances and attacks on GK. There has been a rash of TV appearances on ABS-CBN, with him still questioning GK's finances and disbursements. His statements make for great soundbites, although with GK a properly audited foundation, they are baseless without further proof. Once again, the soundbites are great for catching people's ears and sowing doubt, but worthless as a credible source of information. Politics at its finest.

If he really feels that there is an anomaly, then he should bring GK to court, along with their auditing partners. Maybe the CFC financials for the past 26 years should be opened up too, while he's at it.

With the CBCP's statement saying that the reason for the split wasn't about the money (which was also confirmed to them by FFL's Roland Nillas) and more about its deviation from spirituality, then as FFL's spokesperson, Mr. Contreras' attacks on GK would seem to go against what the FFL (ergo Frank Padilla) is telling the Bishops.

Let us put this into perspective:

From the very beginning, Frank Padilla's main reason for his split with CFC was because of GK's veering away from its spirituality and taking away the CFC's focus on evangelization (see GK-3). Money was never mentioned. The emphasis on spirituality only gave Frank Padilla the platform to elevate it to the Bishops' attention.

It would seem that with his spokesperson going on the offensive about GK's financials, Frank may have been misleading the Bishops all along. FACT: It is about the money.

Could it be that it would pay to sow doubts about the integrity of CFC and one of its pillars, GK, in a drive to recruit CFC members to his new group now that the Bishops have recommended the split?

Could it be the fact that the CFC will retain its Vatican Decree be such an annoyance to the FFL that they have to launch a campaign to discredit the CFC (by questioning GK's financials)?

Your opinions please.


Now this article in the Inquirer that covered the dialogue features statements from supposedly anonymous CFC Household Heads who gave their take on the situation:

"They said to them, there appeared to be a "power grab" within the CfC after some elders ignored the advise of the bishops-- Reyes, Lagdameo, and Bishop Socrates Villegas, who was said to represent Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, to seek a "win-win" situation and resolve the conflict.

Instead, one group went ahead with the election of the council of new elders, led by Tale, last June 22, three days before the CfC's 25th anniversary, they said."

It was incredibly irresponsible of the Inquirer reporter, Nikko Dizon, to report what amounts to be an opinion without at least trying to get all the facts from the CFC Council. In short, get all sides of the situation. The inflamatory term, "power grab", was designed to appeal to minds and hearts, esp. to those who are still undecided.

I ask you all now, is this over? I guess we will be bringing into the public light the days and moments before that fateful election. Stay tuned.

Up next, The Definition Of FORGIVENESS according to The Easter Group's Gary Faustino.

In the same post...CFC/CFC-GK/CFC-FFL tongue twisters...you know, in case there wasn't enough abbreviations to contend with in the first place. :-)

There is no peace in sight...yet.