Et tu, Brute?

It's a bit past the Ides of March, but I think the title is still fitting. As was expected, Frank/Easter Group has released their own spin on CFC's ads, complete with their own supplied copies of the March 11 and (newly released) April 3 letter, where they are questioning, of all things, Vatican's judgement.

I'm not going to waste energy on picking their arguments apart, since they've sunk down to a series of "but...but...buts" like petulant children, and have resorted to focusing on a couple of sentences that are truly....well, besides the point. I mean, c'mon now, lets get to THE point you are trying to skip around:

You may not use the CFC name, Frank.

Would you like that in Latin, since you don't seem to like the English used by the good Cardinal of the Vatican?

It is heartbreaking to see you sink down to a legalistic approach (on registering the name with the SEC, since there are supposedly 8 companies that carry the CFC name), which you so blatantly use to attack Joe Tale and the IC with. I'd just like to point out that the SEC will most likely rule on whether your use of the name pertains to an industry similar to that whose name you are coveting and therefore cause legal and consumer confusion. The other 8 names are what, a school, a soap company I think...and well, you get the picture. Or do you?

How do you explain this email then Frank, where you acknowledge CFC's claim to the name but paint the Vatican in a bad light:

Hello all. I am in receipt of the attached letter from the Vatican to JT, which you may already have seen from the Net.

I do not know why JT would want to change the name in the Vatican approval from CFC to CFCGMFI. Perhaps it is to strengthen their claim on the name, since we left CFCGMFI but we did not leave CFC, and this our bishops have recognized. Anyway, the Vatican's reply reinforces our position that there is the spiritual reality of CFC, of which we are still a part, and then there is the legal reality, which is a subordinate reality. It also impacts on the reality that there are many CFC corporations throughout the world.

The Vatican says that the name CFC cannot be used by another association, and rightly so. However, CFC with something attached to it is another matter altogether. In fact, there are 8 corporations with the name CFC (with something after this) that are registered with the Philippine SEC. And of course the Philippine bishops have recognized CFC-FFL.

Bp Gabby Reyes met with Cardinal Rylko last April 21, in response to the lawyering of Archbp Arguelles on behalf of the IC and his brother. Archbp Arguelles, JT and Rouquel Ponte met with Cardinal Rylko last March 3. The fruit of that visit was Cardinal Rylko's letter to JT dated March 11. It was clear they were chastised, and this is the reason the IC never told anyone about the Vatican visit, much less show the Rylko letter even to their own elders. What the IC is doing now is trying to appear to comply with the Vatican's directives, but not really doing so. We pray that the Vatican will see through their machinations.

I have not yet talked with Bp Reyes, but Maribel has. She says he said the Vatican will recognize 2 CFCs in the Philippines, but would not permit the use of the CFC name in other countries by associations other than the CFC Global. If this is so, then it is good news that the Vatican will accept the Philippine bishops' decision to recognize CFC-FFL. But isn't their stand contradictory, accepting CFC-FFL in the Philippines but not "other CFCs" in other countries? I do not have the full story, but I do know, from my own visit last April 7, that the Vatican is concerned about the split that comes just two years after the permanent approval of CFC in 2005. In other words, though it was not said, I feel the Vatican needs to save face. That is why in the letter to JT, Cardinal Rylko stressed that the Philippine problem should not extend to other regions of the world. Of course he did not know that it already had divided the whole CFC world. This is probably because JT assured him that the split was just a local problem with a small splinter group leaving CFC.

So the Vatican might be forced by circumstances to continue to recognize CFC Global, since they exist by virtue of the statutes, even though the election of the IC was done not in communion with the bishops. Legal but not spiritual. What is now important for us is that we also be allowed to use the CFC name, though no longer just strictly CFC but with something appended to it.

I will be following up this email with another a little later. God bless.

frank

Has it come to this? Where you feel you can overstep the Vatican's rule on the matter because YOU think you know what they are thinking? Ingat brother...lest you commit the sin you keep accusing others of.

Well anyway, that's not for me to say, right? I am in no position to judge on whether the Vatican needs to save face, except maybe to recommend a good moisturizer. *drum roll please*

I'd just like to point out one tiny issue that jumped out at me after I saw your opus rely to the CFC ads. You might want to pay close attention to your attachments, since you are still distributing a forgery. Yeap, the March 11 letter you just emailed to everyone is the same document that ABS-CBN has. Et tu Frank?

Why didn't you just send out the one that Lachie received? You've had that even before the ABS article came out and it is much clearer, yet still forged. Or, just ask the Center for the originals? I'm sure they'd be happy to give you a copy.

To end, I'd like to share a bit more on why I don't believe the forged March 11 letter was just mistakenly folded when it was scanned, copied, cried over, whatever.

Lets go back to to the Love and Forgiveness entry. There you will find a letter from Cardinal Rylko to Bishop Reyes, dated March 15. I quote the good Cardinal:

I am enclosing a copy of the letter we sent to Mr Tale regarding also the steps to be taken.

Does it make sense now? Frank's good friend, Bishop Reyes has a copy of this letter. If Frank's copy had gone bad, mysteriously folded, or Photoshopped itself, it would be an easy matter to request another, correct copy from the good Bishop.

IF I was acting in good faith, that's what I would do.

Yet, Frank is email blasting out the forged one, again, and again...and again.

If any of you would like a copy of the Easter Group's response to the CFC ads, you know where to reach me. It's the least I can do to help Frank get his point across to as many of you as possible.

My friends, for the weekend I leave you on a happy note and a tune from the 80's, my favorite decade. In honor of all the spinning going on, here's Dead or Alive's You Spin Me Around.

God Bless and good cheer. =)

D.E.C.E.I.T.

All warfare is based on deception.
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

You all might be wondering why I'm starting off with a quote from someone far removed from Biblical reference.

Let me just say that things will make more sense as we go along.

Follow me now, not forward, but back several days to April 16, as I read, with chagrin and gritted teeth, that first ABS-CBN article. My heart dropped as the reporter described 4 documents they had obtained, that supposedly chastised (our dear friend Frank sure loves that word) CFC over GK. I wondered how they were able to get their hands on CFC's internal documents, and I have to admit, the first thoughts in my mind weren't pretty.

The reluctant star of that article was a letter dated March 11, from the Vatican's Cardinal Rylko addressed to Joe Tale, since it was the source of several quotes. In fact, of the 4 documents that ABS-CBN supposedly had, it was the only one that ABS made available on their downloads page.

But the article failed to disclose the actual context in which those letters were sent (A conjecture: Possibly because they didn't even bother asking anyone in the CFC leadership about it, choosing instead to interview someone not in the IC anymore, Tony Meloto). That the March 11 letter was just one in a series of communiques (a dialogue) between the IC and the Vatican.

So that article came out on April 16. As early as April 13, 4 letters, including the March 11 one ,were already being circulated in the FFL community. Frank outright denies having a copy of this letter in his April 30 email blast, saying instead it came from the IC supposedly "as they tried to downplay" the article. Now that makes no sense since ABS had it as a download when the article came out. How can you reveal what has already been revealed, complete with yellow highlighting on the important phrases, I might add.

So, who then supplied these letters to ABS, and even more importantly, who stood the most to gain from the supposed controversy it would cause? (That backfired, btw.)

Lets take a look at the ABS-CBN copy:

























Now the version being circulated in the FFL emails:

























The original document from the CFC Home office:

























Do you notice anything different?

Try the second paragraph.

Let me type it out for you, since I'm in a generous typing mood. The 2nd paragraph of both the ABS copy and the FFL emailed version reads like this:

In describing the facts, you admitted that in this difficult period lived by the association Couples for Christ, there have been mistakes. It was also important that you have realized that much scandal to correct this. In this regard, it is important that you follow the recommendations that the ecclesiastical authorities have indicated.

Did I get that right?

Now the text from the same paragraph in the Center's copy:

In describing the facts, you admitted that in this difficult period lived by the association Couples for Christ, there have been mistakes. It was also important that you have realized that much scandal and confusion is being provoked by the fact that Couples for Christ received funds from pharmaceutical firms producing contraceptives. We appreciated the explanation on your part and your sincere willingness to correct this. In this regard, it is important that you follow the recommendations that the ecclesiastical authorities have indicated.

Hightlights mine.

The underlined sentence is completely missing from the other versions.

The sentence in bold sure means a LOT.

It's amazing how a single sentence can change the tone of a missive. Equally amazing is how its omission can give certain parties fuel for their rants.

I ask again, who stands to gain the most from the clever editing of an official letter from the Vatican?

Oh and by the way, the tampering and altering of an original work and claiming it as the original is called forgery.

It is also morally wrong and reprehensible.

Calling ABS-CBN and Miss Carmela Fonbuena: PLEASE CHECK YOUR SOURCES. The last time a news agency went to press using forged sources, someone huge in the industry lost his job.

I end this entry with another quote from Sun Tzu. Not that I'm an adherent, but because sometimes we have to look at history from time to time and learn from it.

"Every battle is won before it takes place"

Love and Forgiveness

Update 4/20/08:

After much thought and contemplation, I decided I should also show you the letter that prompted Bishop Reyes to write his. There seems to be a bit of confusion in the comments as to who Bishop Reyes' letter was addressed to, and this will help clear things up. Also, as to who the source of these letters are, well, they are currently being circulated in the FFL community, so I don't see why we in CFC should not have access to them as well. They are part of the "truths" that are being revealed, and each serve in its own way to give clarity to what is happening now.

So, to give a bit of background:

March 3, 2008.

Bro Joe Tale, along with Archbishop Arguelles and Rouquel Ponte paid a visit to the Vatican on march 3, 2008 and met with Cardinal Rylko. They had, according to the Cardinal, a "dialogue."

March 15, 2008

The Cardinal, presumably out of respect to the official spiritual adviser of CFC, notified Bishop Reyes of Bro Joe Tale's visit in a letter dated March 15, 2008.

March 15 Letter from Cardinal Rylko to Bishop Reyes

Back track...

A few days before that letter to Bishop Reyes, March 11 to be exact, another letter was sent by the Cardinal to Bro Joe Tale, acknowledging a fax sent (I assume, in relation to and in deference to the Vatican's wishes), a recap of their dialogue, and to further clear up the Vatican's wishes. It was this letter that the ABS-CBN got their hands on and made available for download. I believe this letter was sent only to two parties, CFC/Joe Tale and Bishop Reyes, who the Cardinal said he furnished a copy to in his March 15 letter.

About two weeks later...

That leads us now to this letter sent on April 3 by Bishop Reyes to Cardinal Rylko, apparently in response to the Cardinal's march 15 letter. There are many ways to look at this, but as I've refrained from giving my input earlier, I will allow you all to make up your own minds. I think it speaks for itself and the Bishop himself lets us know exactly where he stands in it.

April 3 letter from Bishop Reyes to Cardinal Rylko/The Vatican

I'd like to make a call to everyone for reflection. Let us be careful how WE react.

Anger and vengeance are not Fruits of the Holy Spirit. Reflect deeply on what you really want to express. I will not be moderating comments.

Disclaimer:
I have tried to detail the timeline of these letters to best of my understanding. I don't claim to know the exact chain of events, but merely used common sense and logic to put two and two together. I may be wrong, and I welcome correction or your own take on things.