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 And the Vatican has not withdrawn it's recognition proving that CFC's charism is genuine and has not been lost, as being claimed by a disillusioned former leader.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.

Of Paid Ads and Texts...

I'd like to take you back to a previous entry where I highlighted Bishop Reyes' full page, paid ads in the Manila Bulletin.

Someone has forwarded me an email from Mr. Contreras that appears to refer to them.

"Oscar L. Contreras, Jr." < > wrote:

The paid ads to appear on the Star and Bulletin (we pulled out from Inquirer because they obviously stalled due to TM being their man of the year awardee) are being reprinted verbatim without any modification at the behest of Bishop Gabby. The stinging rebuke clearly shows that the CBCP relented on reporting CFC to the Vatican on the strength of a promise by Joe Tale and the Council that they will investigate the reported veering away of Gk from the life and mission of CFC. By its own admission, the Council has accepted the veracity of the CFCFFL report and was granted "conditional" recognition, the contraceptives bit included and this can be withdrawn anytime.

By the way, we should tweak Jack's query and appear more sure and definitive in our stand that we share the recognition, equally as the CFC Global, and the other CFCs abroad.

Many thanks and God bless.
Nong

Highlight mine.

The question, I'd like to ask is, WHO PAID FOR THE ADS? Judging from the Manila Bulletin rates, it's quite a hefty sum for the CBCP to pay for....a clarification?



On a related note, one might notice that Mr. Contreras appears quite often in this blog. For those of you wondering or don't know, he was formerly in the CfC BOE and was the head of Tekton, now obviously with the FFL. Frank brings him up on his talks too, like how how he was supposedly let go by way of a text message.

Here is Lito Tayag, a Council Member, untwisting that episode.



Download HERE.


I finally finished uploading the full video that was shown in part in the Heart Of The Matter entry, it is actually part 2 of a series. I had to super compress it but it's still watchable.

Download it HERE.

Update:
Part 3 HERE.

The Heart Of The Matter

The video is having tech difficulties, please stand by.
I'm re-posting this entry now since there were comments already posted to it.


Some background on this video:

It was taken on July 22, 2007 at Layforce San Carlos Seminary, when the newly elected council met with the provincial area heads in a consultation meeting. I will be posting the complete video soon.

Of Plans and Mysterious Ways Pt 2

A little background:

Sometime after the resignations, Frank Padilla broached an idea to Roquel Ponte about seeking spiritual guidance from Frank's close friend Bishop Soc Villegas on how to go about settling the personal disagreements between Frank, Tony, and Lachie.

Bishop Soc invited the whole 7 man council to Balanga, Bataan.

Frank and Lachie went there a day early and slept over. The next day, Joe Tale and Ernie Maipid arrived, two couldn't make it; Joe Yamamoto had surgery and Roquel was on a mission.

It was during this meeting that Bishop Soc introduced the idea of a CFC and GK split.

A few days later, Bishop Soc emailed a draft proposal letter to Frank and the other council members through Maribel Descallar.

Maribel forwards it to non-council member Gary Faustino (of the Easter Group). Gary replies with his comments copied to Nonong Contreras and mistakenly forwards it to Gerry Bacarro a CfC Leader (when it was probably meant for Gerry Padilla).

This is the second faux pas of the Easter Group that is also being widely reported and making the rounds as a forwarded email. Here is the email thread:






One would wonder why Maribel Descallar would share this information with non-Council members BEFORE forwarding it to the Council.

Still coming:

The draft letter that was composed by Bishop Soc for the council to submit to Cardinal Rosales.

Of Plans And Mysterious Ways

A comment in a past entry gives a little background on how this controversial document became semi-public. I say semi because even though it has been talked about and speculated upon by members of CfC and FFL, I don't believe it has become fully public until now.

This document details (kudos on great formatting by the way) in outline format how the Easter Group will act/react to moves by the CfC Council during their quest to get the elections postponed (among other things).

There are several things to note, the first of which is the date of this meeting, June 7, 2007. That is almost 2 weeks prior to the Council elections and shows that the wheels have been turning in the FFL management for quite some time already. The premeditated manoeuvers planned by the Easter Group's core members are almost quasi-political in tone and flow like elements in a high stakes chess game.

Also, for those who don't know yet, this is the source of the "Easter Bunnies" and/or "Playboy Bunnies" inside jokes that have been going around in the CfC circles and has even been pointed out in newspaper articles.

What is still a mystery is why they would choose a nickname that has forever been associated with a ... well you all know the source and it espouses everything that CfC does not. If you don't know then please call your parents before you continue reading this entry, if they're not around, click here.

It was the discovery of these minutes that prompted a response from the CfC Council back in July 19, 2007, where they addressed the issue.

What some feel as almost the hand of God at work was how these minutes were discovered, accidentally left behind/dropped at a CfC Council member's house by an FFL member. Another example of the Lord's mysterious ways was how a very revealing email meant for FFL eyes somehow gets sent to a CfC leader.

Anyway, here they are, the minutes you've all been waiting for:


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge
So, lets try and define power grab, once again, in the context used by this reporter.


Coming...

Back to Showing YOU the Money, closing off the financial issues pre-Feb, and the Coops for Christ involvement.

For Every Action ...

To be, or not to be: that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind

To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them?

To die: to sleep; No more;

- Shakespeare’s Hamlet

I will be posting the FFL's reaction letters/emails in order of appearance but I might get the sequence wrong. Please correct me if I do. Once again, I ask for you patience because this post will be quite long. I wanted to cut it up into different entries but I didn't want to dilute its context.

This one was in response to the the CfC Council's first statement dated August 28, 2007. In it, the FFL questions the retention of the Vatican Decree as that was mentioned in the CfC Council's first statement.

"Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:50:28 +0800
To:
From: eastergroup@gmail.com
Subject: CFC-FFL Statement

It comes as a surprise that the Council of CFC has chosen to come out with an official announcement regarding the results of the August 28 dialogue with the bishops without waiting for the official communique coming from the investigative body tasked with looking into the 'veering away of GK from the life and mission of CFC.' It would have been good if the Council statement is an accurate and factual reportage of the events. However, it has chosen to infer value judgement during the conduct of the deliberations. Thus, we are representing below, in the full text, what was officially reported in the CBCP News Website on August 28 if only to qualify some conclusions made by the Council regarding the event.

CFC opts to split

As can be clearly gleaned from the news article featured on the CBCP News Website, nothing is said about the continuing recognition by the CBCP and the Vatican regarding CFC Global Foundation (as represented by the International Council). As such, neither the CFC Foundation for Family and Life nor the IC can lay claim to both recognitions as presently residing in any communities represented in the August 28 meeting.

However, it remains a fact that spouses Frank and Gerry Padilla continue to sit in the Pontifical Council for the Family at the Vatican. Despite this fact, the CFC-FFL has chosen to be prudent in claiming any recognition and would rather wait for the official communique forthcoming from the investigative body of the Bishops.

We urge all brethren to exercise utmost restraint and prudence in providing credence to announcements which may unduly give rise to false expectations.

The peace and love of Christ and the loving care of Mother Mary, our Mediatrix, be with you all.

CFC Foundations for Family and Life"

The retention of the Vatican Decree by the CfC was told by the Bishops to the representatives of both the FFL and the CfC Council, as reported by Mon De Leon (a CfC BOE member) in an email circulating the CfC (and obviously the FFL's) ranks. I'll post it here in its entirety because it also leads into the 2nd FFL reaction letter:

"Almost the whole day yesterday( 28 August), the Bishops met with the two groups. Present were Bishops Lagdameo, Gabby Reyes, Pacana, Villena, and Afable. The Bishops met with FFL group first (10:30 to past noon), after lunch it was the turn of the International Council group. Thereafter at about 4PM, the two groups were called.

The Bishops asked the FFL Easter Group what their complaints were and it centered on the following: a) GK Veering away from the doctrines of the Catholic Church (e.g, latter day saints wanting to put up a GK site and seeking free evangelization), (b) witchunting of resigned home office officials pertaining to alleged financial indiscretion. (c) disobedience of the Council of the bishops' wishes to postpose election and follow their suggested formula.

When the turn of the CFC group came, they were asked by the bishops if CFC group had a complaint against the FFL, and the CFC council said there was none. The bishops then proceeded to ask about the issues pertaining to Gawad Kalinga, especially the coming in of the Mormons in GK villages, accepting donations from Corporations who has products that sell condoms and pills. The response was, "there was never a MOA nor funds received from Latter Day Saints and to date, there is no such village - unfortunately, no one can stop their evangelizers(who come in pairs) to visit GK families in their homes for that would be illegal". At best, we invite catholics and nominal christian GK beneficires to our CLPs and there are many. On the Acceptance of donations from Corporations that sell anti-catholic products, that can be corrected by a simple policy issue (which Brother Frank should have done years ago as the GK Chairman ordering Tony Meloto, his Executive Director).

As to the accusation of witchunting (by Gerry Padilla): Lito Tayag (council member) responded "who are being accused, kindly name them", he further said that "up to now, no one among those who resigned from the CFC office and joined the FFL has been charged with any case of malversation and similar cases. How can CFC Council (lito in particular) be accused of witchunting?" If ever, that should be the result of the audit by reputable Audit Firms like that of SGV or Lipana. For now, policies are being reviewed to minimize expenses in view of the greatly reduced tithing brought about by the division. Lito asked the FFL group about what to do with the Loans left and the unfunded retirement liabilities over the years that Frank was the leader, there was no response from their group. The bishops said "kayo-kayo na ang mag resolve niyan".

As to the accusation of Disobedience to the wishes of the Bishops, it was explained to the Bishops that the Council did not disobey but rather it was made clear to the Bishops that the 230-man Electoral Assembly, which is an electorate higher than the 7-man council, simply followed its own mandate - electing the 7-man council after considering everything, including the proposed joint formula which was noted by the Bishops. It was then that the Bishops understood that it cannot "dictate" on the electoral body much like the college of cardinals that elect the Pope. Somehow the Bishops now realize that their lamentation about CFC not following their electoral recommendation is now beng used by the FFL to entice innocent members from joining the FFL, causing further division.

In the end, the bishops assured that they will continue to recognize Couples for Christ in their respective areas. They have also assured that they will not work to remove the Vatican recognition that CFC has as well as that of the CBCP itself. It is up to the respective Bishops (in their respective areas of assignment anywhere in the world) whether they would like to recognize the new group FFL or not, that is for FFL to work on in their respective Dioceses. (the SEC has disapproved the use of the word Couples for Christ by FFL group). In the case of the Archdiocese of Lipa, the Bishop (Arguelles) issued a circular to his diocese that he "will recognize only one group and that is Couples for Christ and all the seven pillars including Gawad Kalinga."

The statement of the CFC Council received in cellphone text is ..."We Thank God for our Bishops (reyes, pacana, villena, lagdameo, afable) who affirmed that the Vatican Recognition and the CBCP recognition are with the CFC International Council who were elected by the CFC Elders Assembly last June 22 --- let us respect the decision of Bro Frank's group to serve God in their new ministry called FFL while leaving the door open to those who wish to return and keeping the openness to serve together at the right time. Let us close our ranks and build a stronger and more vibrant CFC that will renew the face of the earth".

The Bishops further recognized the continuing mission of Couples for Christ and its Seven Pillars including Gawad Kalinga (which will need closer watch and correction along the way), "Families in the Holy Spirit Renewing the Face of the Earth and its Work for the Poor program thru Gawad Kalinga".

May God Bless our work. -- Kuya MON de Leon"

Now, somehow, the FFL seem to feel that Mon De Leon does not have the crediblity to report with any accuracy, hence the release of this 2nd email penned by Nonong Contreras:

"Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:34:12 +0800
To:
From: "Easter Group"

Subject: Rejoinder to Mon de Leon's account of Dialogue with Bishops, Aug. 28, 2007


There was no categorical mention from the Bishops allegedly retaining both the CBCP and Vatican recognitions. What the Council has done could be a great disservice to the Bishops who still have to come up with an official communique' on the events which transpired on Aug. 28. The act of preempting the body of Bishops is indeed regretful.

The reportage ostensibly done by Kuya Mon could be a view from the balcony and perhaps from notes or remarks culled by a person who was actually in the proceedings. I flew in at 4:30 am Aug. 28 but was asked to proceed to the Laiko building to be an actual participant in the proceedings and perhaps, we can offer you a better context of what really transpired and compare this with the 2nd hand accounts.

1. The context of reporting on the Mormons could be captured very well if you download the GK website, unless Gk has taken pains to remove this item. We presented documents to justify this claim. It is reported that in at least one GK village, the Mormons have indeed installed a complete water system. Even in the GK expo at the Mall of Asia, the Mormons were very prominent in displaying their water system model.

The whole rationale beyond accepting all parties with good intentions should be qualified in the context of protecting our Christian values and being circumspect in refusing any undue influence that could pose a threat to these. This is very much in line with Vatican teachings, just like the Pontifical Commission for the Family where any form of collaboration with pharma companies selling pro-choice devices is followed to the letter. In this aspect, even if these companies do not attach any conditions to the donations they offer, any wiggling on our part constitutes a violation of the very core beliefs we adhere to in our pro life program. A simple refusal with a thorough explanation of the reasons why can gain us more respect rather than sticking to plain legalities. Who can indeed bring us to court for sticking to our beliefs and unfurling our Christian banner? In this connection, we also presented equally documented cases where CFC stickers displayed on doorposts of CFC beneficiaries in Gk sites are ordered to be taken out, including testimonies that wearing CFC t-shirts in GK gatherings are not allowed for fear of ostracizing partners. We could have cited more cases except that limitations of time prevented us from doing so.

2. This brings us to the point of passing the mantle of responsibility to Bro. Frank who should have ordered Bro. Tony from desisting in such acts. I have worked with both up close as a former member of the Council and it is a bit unfair to comment that Frank did not practice pastoral correction over Tony regarding the one and many indiscretions committed in favor of romanticizing the work because while he corrects, a lot of the activities reported to us were either after the fact, already in progress and too late to wiggle away from or just plain stubbornness. Perhaps, that is why Frank had just to accept part of the collective responsibility owing to his lack of oversight and lamented. We cannot perceive the same behaviour from the other party whose absence and silence after the resignations have been noticeable but whose influence in pursuing the "veering away" course remains palpable up to this point in time. This has prompted the Bishops to exhort the Council to investigate further and more deeply these reported cases, which the Council would make us believe are "isolated."

.3. Let us dwell on the veracity of the witchhunt. Both Lito and Mon should know better and recall that it was the continued vigilance of the Board of Elders (all 3 of us were members) that prevented the witchhunts from proceeding because we called the attention of the Council on the non-pastoral way it was conducting the investigations, complete from the taking down of statements and the preparation of notarized affidavits. The Council apologized to us in one of our meetings for its "procedural lapse", trivializing and dismissing in a cavalier fashion the anguish and agony these have caused the families of those involved. The fact remains that there have been no findings enough for the Council to build a case.

3. The matters of loans and the unfunded retirement plan are items of obligation the Council now has to bear, particularly since tithes have reportedly dwindled to all time lows these past few months. Does our brother intend to pass on these liabilities to a separate juridical body and escape the responsibility due its creditors and the would-be retirees? Hasn't the Council claimed that is it now the annointed body tasked with the administration of CFC affairs since it was legally elected under the by-laws? Has it not chosen, together with the Elders, Assembly not to heed the strong call of the Bishops to postpone the elections?

4. It could be a great disservice to Bisops Lagdameo, Villegas and Reyes and their wisdom and intelligence for us to hear that the Council has washed its hands off the responsibility of pushing thru with our win-win formula. Again, it seems Bro. Mon can wish away the heart and core of agreements arrived at thru negotiations and dialogue---that both parties who enter into them are bound by the agreement. Those who break away from negotiated settlements violate trust and confidence supposedly reposed by both parties on each other, if not the probity and sincerity of those who choose to enter into them tongue-in-cheek. The fact remains we had an agreement to resolve the crisis which was watered down by the Council and Joe Tale to a mere "proposal" to make it appear that the Elders' Assembly had every right to proceed with the election of the 7 instead of sticking to the agreement. To top it all, Bro.Lito, one of those who participated in the dialogue and brokered the agreement stood up before the elections to make a public pronouncement that "he was prepared to change his mind" regarding honoring the agreement. Of course, it was merely incidental that he was a candidate for a council position.

5. Again, the danger of not being a participant nor an eyewitness is seen on how the wisdom of the Bishops can be slanted to favor the other side. A reading of the official statement coming from the CBCP website does not contain any mention of what party retains or loses recognition whether at the CBCP or Vatican levels. It only says both parties should work for their respective recognitions depending on the wishes of the Bishop. In fact, in preempting an official communique coming from the 5-man investigation body, the Council runs the risk of being corrected again by the Bishops for inaccurate reporting and preempting their moves. The case of Bishop Arguelles was cited, conveniently missing the good Bishop's preamble that he was "one of those who first decried the veering away of GK from the life and mission of CFC."

It is our ardent hope that the next time reportage on important events is resorted to, we should focus and verify the facts before we release these reports. In all these events happening in the community, we should show equanimity and be more circumspect in reporting what are the ones true, precise and accurate.

Please pass this on in the interest of fairness. God bless.

Nonong Contreras"

I think this rejoinder is best rejoined by commentary in the 2nd Council Statement and When entries, but I'll bring up a couple of things:

1. Nonong Contreras was reported to have not been present in the late afternoon joint meeting with the Bishops, as he had left earlier in the day. In that case, There may have been things discussed that he was not personally privy to.

2. His passing of responsiblity for past financial issues committed during their tenure to the newly elected Council is......well, I don't know, you all can try to come up with the term.

Anyway, what follows then is the latest statement from Frank Padilla, dated Sept. 1, 2007:

"My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Peace be with you!
The meeting of the Int’l Council, Tony Meloto, Lachie Agana and myself last August 14 resulted in both sides accepting that the only way left to go was to separate. Last August 28, CFC-GK represented by the Int’l Council and CFC-FFL affirmed their decision to go separate ways, and this was accepted by the bishops. As one of the bishops said, CFC has been held in bondage by GK, and so now each one, CFC and GK, should be given freedom.

As we separate, know the following:
(1) We in CFC-FFL remain as “Couples for Christ.” We have not left CFC, which is the global spiritual body distinct from the Philippine corporation. What we have left is the legal entity of “Couples for Christ Global Mission Foundation Inc.” We in CFC-FFL have as much right, if not more, to remain as CFC than those who have veered away from our original charism. Bp Gabriel Reyes said it was acceptable to have two CFCs.

(2) We in CFC-FFL, contrary to pronouncements and threats from the other side, can and will make use of all teachings, formation programs, materials, the CLP, songs, etc. of CFC. CFC-GK does not have exclusive rights to these materials. CFC-FFL has the right to make use of these CFC materials for the work of the Lord. Later we will also make revisions as needed.

(3) In the Philippines, it is time for all who are for CFC-FFL to remove themselves from the official CFC-GK structure. You no longer have to attend CFC-GK activities. We will integrate you in our own structure, and we will have our own activities. 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.

(4) Try to remain peaceful with those who opt to stay with CFC-GK. Maintain your friendships and remain as brethren, though now separated.

I had proposed to the Int’l Council in the presence of the bishops that we can maintain some sort of unity within CFC, by having one CFC but with two independent branches. Each branch, CFC-GK and CFC-FFL, can pursue its own particular charism. Each can bless the other. Both can have joint activities during the year. Though the Int’l Council did not accept this, I continue to leave this proposal on the table.

Let those of us in CFC-FFL now move on. There is much to be done.

God bless.
In the service of Christ,
Frank Padilla"

Speaking of anomalies, I wonder how Frank Padilla can reconcile being identified with but not be a part of the legal entity that is Couples for Christ. Is this because their application to the SEC to use the CfC name for his new corporation was not approved? It is also quite interesting that he's taken it upon himself to bestow a new name to CfC: CFC-GK.

Also, many rights are written about, but are these rights legally conferred or just imagined?

"Try to remain peaceful with those who opt to stay with CFC-GK. Maintain your friendships and remain as brethren, though now separated." - Now this is what I'd really like to see put into practice, maybe for starters by Nonong Contreras, to lead by example of course.

"Let those of us in CFC-FFL now move on." One wonders if "moving on" means they'll leave the current CfC members in the Philippines and Worldwide alone and start recruiting legitimately.

Lastly, this statement is what I have a problem with:

"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."

FP claims that international members should just "go on with their life and mission..." yet he is even at the present actively campaigning for them to join the FFL fold, as evidenced by this flyer (actually more like a resume) for his appearance at a "CfC" event in the USA:

"Catch the Authentic Vision!
A lot have been said about this man of God, a prophet for our times.
Pray and worship with him. Hear and ask him yourself.
Frank Padilla
One of the original 16 couples who started Couples for Christ in 1981 Former Executive Director of Couples for Christ for the past 26 years Sole Signatory and Proponent to the CFC Vatican Recognition, The Driving Force to the Establishment of CFC in 160 Countries Worldwide Chairman and Founder of Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life, and Author of the following Christian books: Bringing Glad Tidings to the Poor, Facing the Future, Families in the Holy Spirit, Females are Fabulous, Fishers of Men, Focused on Christ, Freeing the Captives, Fulfilling the Mandate, Renewing the Face of the Earth, Witnesses to the Ends of the Earth, Forty Days with the Poor, Friend and Foe and more at the First Regional Assembly and Open Forum CFCUSA Mid-Atlantic Region CFC Washington DC and Missions, CFC Maryland, CFC Virginia, CFC Delaware, CFC West Virginia and CFC North Carolina
(Free Admissions – No Charge for Registration)

on Saturday, September 8, 2007
(the birthday of Mother Mary)

at the St. Aloysius Gonzaga Church
600 North Capitol St. NW Washington DC 20001
Arrival at 12:30 pm for the Assembly
and 4:30 Anticipated Sunday Mass

Reception follows at 6:00 pm
to honor Bro. Frank, his party and out-of-town CFCs and guests
at the Taylor residence."

To whoever sent this flyer/email to me, my thanks and gratitude goes out to you.

Nonong Contreras throws about words like trust, sincerity, and confidence like they are light as feathers. Does this also apply to the underground recruitment of CfC members worldwide?

To complete the title phrase (a quote from Newton's Third Law of Motion):

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

What should the reaction be to FFL's actions?

Coming later....the bunny minutes and closure to past posts...

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.

More News...and an Analysis

News about the "split" is starting to appear more regularly in the news:

In Newsbreak

and

The Manila Standard


Here's the analysis, and a quote from the forwarded email that says it all:

"I agree with his point of view that we should not allow the pride of two leaders lead to the breakup of the community."

THE CFC CRISIS: WHAT WENT WRONG AND ITS RESOLUTION

(A PSYCHIATRIST’S POINT OF VIEW)

By

Dr Vic S. Cabuquit

CFC-North B

Introduction

The Couples for Christ, the foremost Catholic lay organization, is 26 years old this year. It has grown into a world-wide network of about one million members. Its thrust has been mainly on evangelization, beginning with the couples themselves and gradually branching into several family and social ministries, offering a unique "womb to tomb" type of evangelization that has reached all the corners of this country and in 160 countries in the world.

It has done remarkably well in its efforts to make a difference, particularly for the poor and indeed, it has achieved accolades from all sectors of society. The plaudits though may have lulled CFC into a false sense of achievement. And pride is just a step away from this.

Now, CFC is on the throes of its most severe crisis; a crisis within its ranks, a crisis amongst its leaders. During the last few years, there had been tell-tale signs of a looming crisis. Unfortunately, these signs were largely ignored.

What Went Wrong? (1)

The decline in membership was one sign. From a high of about 1.2 million members, CFC’s membership dropped to a low of 900,000 in a period of just five years. New members were hard to recruit; participants in Christian Life Programmes (CLPs) were disappointingly low. Ominously, members were simply dropping out. The reasons were varied: different priorities, conflict with members/leaders, wrong charism, lost zeal. Some preferred to stay in the background, as if waiting for the penny to drop.

The significant drop in membership resulted in a decrease in tithes, a perennial problem going from bad to worse. The unexplained CFC debts, which, for a time, ballooned to millions of pesos, further worsened the situation. Overall, there was lack of transparency in how money was being handled. There were instances when money was being spent in advance, that the council was spending beyond its means. This cavalier attitude on finances was reflected in the absence of year-end financial reports and an aversion to so-called "corporate" auditing procedures. Members were asking amongst themselves, "how is our money being spent?" The council’s reply, equally cavalier, was, "trust us."

Another sign centred on the interminable tenures of the members of the Executive Council, the governing body of CFC. Key figures like Frank Padilla, Tony Meloto, Lachie Agana, and Roquel Ponte, had had uninterrupted memberships in the council for about a quarter of a century; an endless merry-go-round of multiple positions and of course, attractive perks. It was not uncommon, for example, for Frank Padilla to report to Frank Padilla who would also report to Frank Padilla. Padilla, in an audacious retort to probing e-mails last year, rationalized this anomaly by claiming no one outside of the council was competent enough to do multiple jobs. These astute men were able to wield a kind of collusive leadership because they themselves were the ones who determined who would constitute the Elder’s Assembly, ostensibly the body with the final say on CFC policies. It was observed that the members of the Executive Council, to preserve their territoriality, nominated only those members who they saw fit as friendly and obedient to their cause. Members who asked too many questions, especially the awkward questions, were excluded. The ‘awkward’ members who somehow managed to get in the council did not last long and were speedily replaced. "Obedience" was the unofficial mantra for that select group.

What Went Wrong? (2)

The Executive Council was dominated by two individuals. Frank Padilla and Tony Meloto: both brilliant, headstrong, and ambitious. One can say that they epitomized CFC. Padilla is a great communicator: excellent in speech and prose. But he often exudes a stiff countenance, lacks a sense of humour, and comes off as an obsessive, controlling icon.

Meloto is a first class strategist, an exceptional man who can readily walk his talk. He has more charisma than Padilla. He has an incredible memory which can be quite disarming. He has the knack of making the other person feel important. Like Padilla, Meloto is passionately controlling.

In the hierarchy of things, Padilla is the mentor, Meloto is the protégé. That is, until Gawad Kalinga. The success of Gawad Kalinga, rightly or wrongly attributed to Meloto, upset the hierarchical apple cart. GK generated so much positive publicity that it created a bandwagon effect. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry wanted to be part of the ground-breaking phenomenon called GK. Meloto began to reap laurels from all quarters. Meloto basked in the limelight. Meloto felt heady with success. Can pride be far behind?

A significant event that catalysed the crisis was the Ramon Magsaysay Award given to Meloto, as an individual achievement. Significantly, the announcement of the award was met with less than cacophonous jubilation by the CFC. Many were wondering, "why Meloto, why not CFC?" There were unconfirmed but widely believed reports that there were attempts by some backroom boys (actually girls) to prevent Meloto from garnering the individual award. To make a long story short, Meloto and CFC, represented by Padilla, received individual and group awards, unprecedented in the history of Asia’s equivalent of the Nobel Prize. It was plain the backroom boys (girls) were able to strike a compromise.

But the arrow had been released, and CFC bled. Many felt that Meloto should have declined the honour as an individual achievement because it was not he but CFC which created, nurtured, and sustained GK. The fact that Meloto accepted the award meant he thought otherwise.

As Executive Director, Meloto controlled GK. Controlled, with a capital C. Meloto became the face of GK, a fact not all discouraged by the council. It turned out to be a big time blunder. The GK bandwagon rolled on but somewhere along the way, CFC’s evangelical wheel suffered a puncture. It was now becoming evident that GK, spearheaded by Meloto, was getting too big at the expense of CFC. CFC programmes were taking a backseat in favour of GK activities. CFC talks were being cancelled or postponed because of GK. On a personal note, the protégé has now overshadowed his mentor. Not a good recipe for equanimity. When two brilliant, headstrong, and ambitious egos clash, a crisis inevitably erupts. Publicly, Meloto would say Padilla remains as his mentor. But Meloto was less than vociferous, let alone enthusiastic, in proclaiming CFC during his numerous public orations. Meloto’s star shone so brightly that some political commentators started to consider him as presidential timbre.

As GK Chair, Padilla was out of the media limelight. For the first time, people were talking more about the protégé than the mentor. Padilla was quite supportive of GK from its inception up to as late as November 2006. Padilla has high regards for Meloto and the feeling is mutual. Both had developed a very close bond after being together so long in the council. That is why his trenchant defense of GK in his paper CFC-GK2 was no surprise.

But his paper CFC-GK3, released six months later, was a shocking surprise. In it, he spun 180 degrees from his former position on GK. In GK2, he was all for it; in GK3, he was against it, raising the spectre of a split between the original wholistic, global, Catholic CFC from the CFC-GK, which has turned, in Padilla’s opinion, into a mere social phenomenon. Padilla, in a brilliant anticipatory move, got the bishops involved. He knew that when push comes to shove, the bishops would be on his side. He was right, as subsequent events showed. The gambit worked like a charm.

Are You Pride? Come In

What drove Padilla, in just six months, to change his ideological suit from GK2 to GK3? In that six- month period, Padilla, Meloto, and Agana resigned from the Executive Council for reasons largely unexplained. It is not certain if their resignations were for good or for the meantime, with the elections coming in about four months. Speculations abound, from the sublime to the ridiculous. But their resignations had one stunning effect: they were out of the Executive Council, their power base for so long. Suddenly, they found themselves out looking in. A thoroughly unfamiliar position for the trio.

Padilla, whose creativity and energy require power and position, felt like fish out of water. The report, most likely true, that he was surprised and piqued that he was not re-nominated, speaks of his penchant to remain in control. Meloto, surprisingly (perhaps not really, for his protégé, an obtrusive young chap, whose loyalty to him is second to none, took over as Executive Director of GK, ) coped better than Padilla in the aftermath of their resignations.

Psychologically, any man who publicly declares he has no need for power and position actually hungers for them. Padilla and Meloto are such men. Meloto does it more subtly, though. For Padilla, there has to be a stage to showcase his admittedly prodigious talents; one smart way to get back on track was to get back people’s attention. He got their attention indeed with his CFC-GK3 paper.

Read on its own, the CFC-GK3 paper is a bombshell. In measured tones and exquisite prose, he seemingly hit the bull’s-eye. But read in tandem with his CFC-GK2 paper (something highly recommended) written barely six months earlier, one realizes that all his GK3 arguments are hollow and shallow, and a bellow from someone who is barely mellow.

For he could as well have rebutted the GK3 issues he raised by quoting his own defense in GK2. Call it semantic somersault. Call it erudite contradictions. Call it strange ruminations but this kind of thinking needs further observation. It is worrisome. He was the GK chair all those years the problems were incubating. His hands, one may argue, are also tainted.

Nevertheless, his moves rattled everyone. The Executive Council members, headed by the disenchantingly ineffective Joe Tale, did not know what hit them. Tale, who is really a nice chap, was not impressive in communicating the council’s defense and Padilla simply found him and the rest vulnerable. Meloto’s sepulchral silence did not help the council’s cause. And people wondered why. "Our house was on fire and he did not do anything," noted an insightful member.

The Choices We Have to Make

Now, CFC is virtually rendered split into two factions: the original CFC (with GK) and the CFC (with Foundation for Family and Life or FFL). It might as well read "Meloto versus Padilla." Curiously, both deny a continuing desire for power or position. But both suffer from cognitive dissonance: what they say do not tally with what they do.

Consider these: Meloto’s influence in CFC-GK remains potent. The CFC Executive Council and the majority of the Board of Elders are loyal to him. His hold on GK is secure: lock, stock, and barrel. He remains the power behind GK. Padilla, who implored members to trust him, is now the President of the CFC-FFL and will surely be the leader of his group. He may act coy about it but a clamour for his leadership is too tempting to ignore.

Talk about not wanting power and position. That is cognitive dissonance.


Updated:

More news links in the comments.

Side Notes: On the INSIDE looking IN

I was given permission to re-print this here. It is a response to Frank Padilla's Open Letter to the CFC Global Family from a brother who was actually close to the issues, Carlos Yturzaeta, a former Metro Manila Sector Head. His responses appear in bold/italics. This entry is quite long but one that is worth the read. It reads from top to bottom in reverse order as I included a short exchange that I felt was worth posting as well for its insightful content.

Carlos Yturzaeta wrote:

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:36:13 +0800 (CST)
From: Carlos Yturzaeta
Subject: Fwd: Re: rejoinder/comments on Community in Crisis
To: bebot tantuico

Dear Bebot,

The most important thing is that we use our common sense, practical wisdom, wisdom of others, day to day circumstances in our lives, voices and opinion of others, etc. in trying to know God's will in our lives. Elders in our community are human beings too and can commit mistakes or be blinded by their beliefs of anointing.

A leader from the Visayas told me: "Brod, satan must be very happy in what's happening in CFC (that includes GK and all other ministries, special, family, etc.), di ba?"

I answered him: "Brod baka magalit si Satan! Sabihin niya sa atin na since time and memorial, alam na natin dapat ang mga dahilan kung bakit may downfall ang isang community or organization (and even a family). These were or are power, fame/glory, money, sex, perks, and most of all PRIDE. Even before Jesus came into this world, yan na sakit ng tao. Eh, dina kayo natuto. Not my fault!".

Mag-golf na lang tayo.I will play tomorrow at 6am. happy weekend.

Caloy

At 11:11 PM 6/13/2007, Caloy Yturzaeta wrote:

Dear Shirley,

thanks for passing this on to me.

Actually i already received them from other sources.

Looks like everyone knows about this open letter of Frank already.

Looks like Frank does not see the point anymore--he already resigned and should already keep his mouth shut. afterall, he already mentioned that succession of leaders in CFC is already in place (Q&A part 2). also, if CFC is God's work, then it will flourish if God would like that to happen.

Frank should learn how to let go. Let others reign in the community. Unless, there are unfinished business that he would like to do inside the corridors of power. Or his resignation and lamentation discourse is not really sincere. We love Frank, but its time for him to move on. He is not a messiah that can save CFC.

Maybe its time for CFC to move on. Some said that the elders are no longer anointed. CFC no longer anointed. the work of God in CFC as part of His plan has already been consumated. time to move on. Why do you think these things are happening in CFC? the Lord allowed these things to happen for a purpose.....it's finished. Just like the other groups who came and went--Cursillo, Charismatic, Marriage encounter groups, Bukas Loob sa Diyos, Loved Flock, Lord's Flock, Oasis of Love, Pag-Ibig sa Diyos, CPPJ, Elim, Shalom, BNP, etc. They were good only up to the extent that their leaders were still in control. Same with CFC.

Events do not happen for nothing. either God is teaching us or leading us or directing us to a more urgent and important tasks. GK is only the vehicle that contributed to the conflict of CFC leaders. Behind such conflict is God's wisdom and plan. We hope, we can see that plan.

Question: Are these the end days of CFC?

Answer: Maybe.

Keep on doing the work with the poor--quietly and sincerely--no flare, no funfare, no awards, no photo-ops, no bloated figures. no deceit, no half truths-no half lies. Just keep on working for the poor. God will reward you and your work. God will bless you and your work. Take care.

Caloy
PS--on the second thought. I would like to make comments on Frank's letter.
My comments are in italics. Pls. forgive me for my provoking comments.

Shirley Young Bangayan wrote:

From: Frank Padilla

Date: Jun 10, 2007 1:38 AM

Subject: our community in crisis

To: "Council\"" <"CFC>, "OF ELDERS 2005-2007\"" <"BOARD>

Cc: COUNTRY COORDINATORS < <"

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CFC GLOBAL FAMILY

June 10, 2007

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

The peace, hope and joy of the Lord be with you all.

OUR BELOVED COMMUNITY IS IN DEEP CRISIS AND INTERNAL CONFLICT.(Who started it?)

The Lord brought us to Lamentations for this year 2007. But no one could have imagined the conflict and disunity that the top leaders in our community would be facing now. We are in crisis. I am deeply concerned. (Crisis started when Frank, Tony and Lachie resigned hastily on Feb. 20, when they could have all waited for a smooth election on June 22. Had they they waited until June 22, it would have been less dramatic or no drama at all. Just a simple stepping down to give way to others would have been a better move, unless Frank had really an agenda. Frank is not the only one deeply concerned--we all are. This is a mesaianic posture. )

But first, since even I am under attack, and there are those who would question my authority to speak, I am involving myself because CFC is the community I love and will spend the rest of my life in. Do I have the right to speak? Of course, and so does anyone else in our community, especially if there is a great threat to our very life and mission. (Who is under attack? Frank admitted the guilt; repented for the sins of the Council and the sins of the Community on Feb. 20. He resigned and that was accepted--how could he be under attack? We all love CFC. What threat? This is God's work..it will flourish even if we are not here...unless the Lord has some other plans for CFC already that's why these things are happening, because God is allowing such things to happen--for a purpose.)

Further, my wife Gerry and I were here from the very start, I have witnessed the blessings of God upon CFC for the last 26 years, I can see what is really going on, and I do have a responsibility, together with everyone else, to protect our life and mission.

(yes, we all have experienced God's blessings and we all have responsibilities...God will protect CFC life and mission, even if we do nothing. This is His work. Again Frank's posture is a form of mesaianic complex...we also see what's going on. In fact, many things Frank were not able to see but many saw and some even brought these to his attention. He did not do the right thing...sorry.)

What is the concern?

At the very heart of my concern is the tension between the parent CFC and the child GK. (some of us already saw these early on. Pia and I already foretold this as early as 2002...I talked to Roquel on this. my words to Roquel at Shangrila Hotel during lunch with Greg Monteclaro were: Rendahan ninyo si Tony sa GK work. Kung hindi, lalamunin ng GK ang CFC. Tatabunan ni Tony ang CFC. Tony will drag the whole CFC into GK; evangelization will suffer. Of course, many knows Roquel as a so-so person. So, nothing happened)

Briefly, this has to do with:

(1) The social versus the spiritual dimension of the work;(From the start of GK in 2001, it was already clear that this is a social work. Unless the beneficiaries that GK will select will be from our own CFC members. That's what we did in North A. We practically selected CFC members as our beneficiaries in our "Gklets")

(2) The tendency of certain top leaders of GK to exclude the Family and Social Ministries in real integration in the GK work;(There's nothing wrong with this if only the beneficiaries came from CFC members who do not have their own house and lot. In fairness to GK, the Family and Soc Min could not catch up with the GK work...so they have to find solutions...to the extent of excluding them)

(3) Looking on CFC as basically just a resource base (warm bodies, money, territorial presence, integrity) but not fully submitted to the overall governance of CFC. (We already saw this happening that's why we did not allow Tony to dictate us on our GK work in North A. If he wanted something installed, planted and constructed, we would tell him: where's the money? That's why we generated our funds separate from Ancop and GK National. We got the funds directly without passing through GK National nor Ancop. We accounted for all the money formally to all our donors...about P20 million in total.)

(4) The singular focus on GK that denigrates the other pillars, such as Pro-Life and Social Ministries. (Again, we did not allow Tony and his Team to interfere in such areas. we were independently managed GK villages. No problem on these areas)

The above are causing serious disunity and tension in CFC, especially among top leaders. Some would say that it is just a conflict between Tony Meloto and myself. This is not true.

Let me make it very clear, I am not against GK. Those who want to put me down have spread the lie that I am against or am attacking Tony Meloto or GK. But my record speaks for itself. All my books, articles, talks, teachings and papers are in strong support of GK. I do believe God gave GK to CFC so that it could do the wonderful work it is doing. As for Tony, he is my brother, with whom I have issues. For 7 long years I was Tony's defender and supporter. (Sorry na lang si Frank. Some leaders already saw this coming. But then Frank was an avid supporter of Tony. Malas...sa huli ang pagsisisi. Some brought this to the attention of Frank..Shirley was one of them. Instead Frank protected Tony. When we heard the way Frank and Tony talked on conferences, we knew, arrogance and pride was already building up. Tensions and conflicts bound to take place)

But the issues have persisted and the tension deepened, and I precisely want to confront the issues because of my love for and support to GK. (Let go. The new council members to be elected will finish this job. there are other leaders who know more than Frank in managing a foundation like CFC, GK and Ancop. Let God. Let the new Council do this job.)

Exacerbating this tension is the lack of dialogue. Tony Meloto does not want to have a dialogue or even meet. He does not attend our fraternal household meetings and he does not attend the meeting called by the Council to talk about the issues. Unfortunately, the Council itself, while having many meetings with different leaders, has not been eager to meet with me or with Lachie Agana. I and Lachie have always been the ones pursuing them for a dialogue. While there have been some meetings, there has certainly not been enough talking among us. (Frank should not think highly of himself. He should allow and respect the 4 council members to do their jobs---what he failed to do in the last 20 years for CFC and the last 7 years for GK and Ancop. Let go. There are leaders better than us!)

Is this about power and control?

There are also those who insinuate that I am just after power and control. Again this is farthest from the truth, and my record bears this out.

(1) When CFC went separate ways with Ang Ligaya ng Panginoon (LNP) in 1993, I voluntarily relinquished my position of Executive Director and did not stand for election to the CFC Council for the 1993-1995 term.

(2) When I sensed the Lord wanting the Council to take command responsibility for collective guilt of the whole community, I voluntarily stepped down from the Council and being CFC Director last February 20. (Many of us also get leadings and sense from the Lord. Sorry, no one has monopoly of gifts. In fact, the sudden stepping down and resignation on Feb. 20 should not have been done..they should have waited until June 22...It would not have been dramatic and controversies and conflicts would not have surfaced. Unless, it was part of a "game plan" ---so sure that they will be nominated again. It did not happen! Run to the bishops! Sorry, Frank mishandled the Feb. 20 resignation...Lamentation.)

(3) When I saw how the top leaders (the 7 in the former Council) were in conflict, I said it was no longer a question of who was right or wrong, but we needed to acknowledge that we were the problem, and so I proposed that the 7 of us should not be available to the new Council (2007-2009). Luis Oquinena and Issa Santos of GK agreed with this in principle, and the members of the Board of Elders (12 present out of 15) all agreed with this. However, the Council (of 4) did not agree.(Sorry, but the 4 must have decided this way. We have to respect their decision. Frank was the bossman for more than 20 years...he should let go and allow the 4 to manage and even commit mistakes..if need be. Once you resigned, that's it! Huwag ka nang makialam, please. time is up...give chance to others.)

(4) Even as I was trying to find ways and means of resolving some of the conflicts, and thus proposed being given the opportunity to name additional nominees to the Council, I told the Council and Bp Gabby Reyes that I would exclude myself. (I think, not the nature of Frank to go to the Bishops. It was Frank's loyalists who must have done the Bishop route. Sad because some bishops find Frank and CFC arrogant. Now, Frank is using the bishop when Lamentation did not work? Let's be men and not boys. Let's face our problems squarely. Why run to the Bishops when all these years, we tried to ignore them? this is not consistent. Para tayong mga batang naagawan ng lolipop at tumatakbo sa ating tatay at nagsusumbong....nakakahiya!)

Even now, I have no problem being excluded, if that is what it will take to gain moral ascendancy and thus be given the opportunity to help bring peace, reconciliation, healing and unity to our community.

Elders should not hold on to position, especially if they are the cause of conflict and disunity. This calls for simple humility, delicadeza, not hardening our hearts, and confidence in our deep bench of leaders, especially the younger ones. (Let go and let God. If CFC is still part of God's plan, it will recover and flourish once more....not with the old leaders but with new ones. Actually, Frank, Tony, Roquel and Lachie were overstaying aging leaders. they should have stepped down 10 years ago. Power, fame, glory, perks....control....one fund concept....service cum vacation.....etc.)

The current issue right now is that our bishops, deeply cognizant of the conflict within CFC (especially among each one of the 7 brothers in the former Council), have issued a letter to the Elders Assembly strongly recommending the 7 to talk about the issues and for the June elections to be postponed. They wisely say that major decisions should not be made in a situation of deep conflict and division.(What divides the body is the intereference of Frank and his group in the running of affairs by the remaining four (4). Please give them a chance. We gave Frank more than 20 years to rule...let go and let God)

The 3 bishops who issued the letter are: Bp Gabby Reyes (Chair of the Episcopal Commission on the Laity and our CFC National Spiritual Director), Archbp Angel Lagdameo (President of the CBCP) and Bp Soc Villegas (under the direct authority of Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales, Archbishop of Manila). We can see that collectively they truly represent the Church hierarchy. (I wonder if Bishop Lagdameo and the two other bishops really know the "real score"? Let us not run to the Bishop on matters that we normally do on our own on a year to year basis..Election takes place every two years and there were no such problems. why? Because they were all part of the nominations...If no election will take place, then the 4 will be on a hold over situation. sorry, hindi parin makakapasok si Frank.)

The bishops issued their letter last June 7, with Bp Gabby Reyes himself bringing the letter to the Home Office. However, instead of bringing the 7 together to talk, the Council issued its "CFC Council Statement" the next day, June 8, but dated (antedated?) June 6, regarding the holding of the elections on June 22. Then the Council issued its letter to the bishops also on June 8 but dated June 7, rejecting the postponement of the elections. The bishops had just released their letter, and the Council was immediately rejecting it. Why? (I heard that the bishops were still in Rome on June 7--how come they were able to write and sign the letter on June 7? Why zero in on such matters when what matters is only an election? why are Frank and co. so concerned about the election? Are they protecting something inside CFC?)

I believe this is very disrespectful to the bishops. (sorry, this is too judgemental! Not typical of Frank.)

As such, this can endanger our evangelization work, as the other bishops in the provinces (and even abroad) may look on CFC as disobedient at worse or as disrespectful at best. (Let it be. Let go and let God)

This can also endanger our official recognition, as a National Association of Lay Faithful by the CBCP and as an International Lay Association of Christian Faithful by the Holy See (Vatican).(why are we concerned of recognitions and titles? Can we not work without such recognitions and titles? A good work cannot be hidden. With or without recognition, all of us should simply do our day-to-day witnessing...with or without CFC.)

Further, the bishops' letter was addressed to the Elders Assembly. The Council did not have the right to reject the bishops, as they do not speak for the Elders Assembly. Neither did they consult the Elders Assembly. They simply bypassed and usurped the power and authority of the Elders Assembly. This is very disrespectful to the Elders Assembly. This is so ironic, being done by those so intent on legalities. (we cannot judge. I wonder if Frank is still in power if he will ever think about these things? If i was Joe Tale, the Exec. Director, i would have caused the immediate election of 3 new Board/Council to replace them when they resigned on Feb. 20. Mabuti na lang mabait pa at hindi alam ni Joe T ang tamang procedure in case of vacancy. Of course, they can still do this now, even before June 22.)

But will postponing the elections cause greater disunity as the Council claims? I believe not, since we precisely will have the opportunity to talk about the issues and work at healing and reconciliation. But how about our time-honored tradition and process of elections? Well, what the bishops are asking for is just a postponement, not a total scrapping. Besides, when David and Jesus' own disciples "violated" the sabbath and did what was unlawful, Jesus defended them, saying "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." (Mk 2:24-28). By the same token, our processes are at the service of our community. When the bishops are so concerned that they issue such a strong recommendation, it is improper for us to cite tradition or processes.( If i were in the place of Joe T. i will elect the 3 and rule CFC until the Elders Assembly are ready to elect. In the meantime, the work continues. The 4 plus the new elected 3 can now take over CFC Board, GK Board and Ancop Board, and EFI Board. And maybe start auditing all the books of accounts of these 4 foundations---which by the way should have been conducted immediately when Joe T assumed the post.)

Brothers and sisters, our bishops are not "pakialamero." They have better things to do than to involve themselves in petty quarrels. But this is not the case with CFC. They see that what is happening as very serious and can indeed threaten the very life and mission of CFC, which is the life and mission of the Church herself. The bishops are acting as concerned pastors, aside from the reality that they love CFC, just as we do. Why can we not heed these holy and discerning pastors given by God to us, among other things, for our protection? Why are we so quick to deny the spiritual discernment of our 3 bishops, whom we know to be holy men and loving pastors? Are we not a Catholic community? (Actually, i had a proposal before that all the CFC provinces should become autonomous with the CFC Center reduced to 5 full time staff for coordination purposes. Then each CFC group will be submitted to the Bishops. Tithes should go to the Bishops rather than the CFC Center. What is the added value of "feeding a CFC Center" when each CFC area is a stand alone CFC life--mission and vision--family renewal-parish renewl and society renewal.)

My posture

I am for peace, healing, reconciliation and unity. I do understand that we are in Lamentations and God is pruning us, so I can look at the difficulties and challenges quite positively. We have much to learn. But for us to learn the lessons of Lamentations, we need humility. In humility, we must defer to our beloved bishops.(Let go, let God!)

If the elections, contrary to the direction of the bishops, are still held this June 22 as the Council insists, without dialogue and without hearing the Elders Assembly, I cannot in conscience participate. I cannot defy the bishops when they are in the right and are just so very concerned about our well-being.(We might as well attach ourselves to the Bishops. Each Province and Each Sector submitted totally to the Bishop..under the direction of the Bishop...under the umbrella of the Family Life Apostolate...no more powerful CFC Center. The CFC work will be managed by a group of elders who are all volunteers--no salaries...meeting every quarter with Sector Heads overseeing provincial work...anyway, manuals and procedures are available already)

The Elders Assembly on June 22 does not have to go to waste. I can see certain things it can profitably take on.

(1) Start working on the issues, or at least defining them.

(2) Appoint a Lamentations Commission that will look into the issues.

(3) Set parameters and timetables.

(4) Appoint an interim governing "Council."

(5) Even look into changes in the by-laws proposed by the BOE.

My appeal

I ask the current Council to humbly heed the bishops. I ask my brothers to be at the forefront of working at healing and unity, and this entails not being legalistic or unyielding or even disrespectful to our bishops. I continue to assure them, as I have already done so, that I look on them as my brothers and continue to extend the hand of peace.

I ask the Elders Assembly to seek the truth. In this, you may freely ask me anything and I will try to answer objectively. I know from reports that there are those doing a demolition job on me. But I have nothing to hide. I aspire for no position. I am your brother who all this time, in spite of my own shortcomings, have tried to be faithful to God and CFC and to all of you. I believe you can still rely on me to stand for truth and justice.

Since Manila is the center of our global work and is the center of governance over CFC, I ask the Metro Manila elders to seriously consider the proper posture we should have in relation to the Church hierarchy. It must be no other than respect and submission. You know that I myself have been very strong on lay empowerment and on recognizing the shortcomings of some clergy. But these 3 bishops are beyond any reproach, and are very clearly holy men of God. Their word, and their common discernment, should bear much weight for us.

I ask the Area Heads to consult with the Area Councils, and for them together to go to their bishops for advice. Any backlash from this action of the Council will affect our evangelization in your provinces. And you cannot point to the Council because the bishops' letter is addressed to the Elders Assembly, which include you (Area Heads).

I ask our beloved bishops to be patient with us. We are your children who are quarreling. You have lovingly tried to intervene as pastors. You have been rejected. Please forgive us. There are still many of us who look to you for wisdom and guidance and who are obedient to holy Mother Church. Please continue to show us the way.

And to all my beloved brothers and sisters in CFC, forgive us our transgressions. Forgive us for falling short on our being pastors and models. But please continue your work. Be focused on Jesus. God loves CFC and will continue to use CFC in the power of the Spirit. For those among us who stand in God's way, God will deal with us. Please pray for us. (Frank, Tony and Lachie's time are up. Let others do the work accordingly. let's give them a chance. Let us not undermine the work that they can do for CFC. Let go. Let God.)

This is the feast of Corpus Christi, the body of Christ. May the Lord look kindly upon us in CFC, the body of disciples He has raised, and faithfully renew His favors and mercies upon us all.

May God bless us all.

In the service of Christ,

Frank Padilla

On the feast of Corpus Christi

Note: This is sent to the global family, as the letter of the Council has been sent to the global family, in the interest of fairness, truth and justice. I also attach the bishops' letter, which as far as I know has not been sent out by the Council.

"For to me life is Christ, and death is gain." (Phil 1:21)

Still coming, where does the money (tithes) go? Pandora's Box, Home Office financial issues, and the CFC Cash box.