perspectives

Mindanao Week of Peace: United for Peace

2011-11-29T00:06:00.001+08:00

“Common word between you and us: Love of God and Love of Neighbor” – the theme of this year’s Mindanao Week of Peace originated from a famous letter written by 138 Muslim religious leaders and scholars from all over the world on October 13, 2007. They addressed the letter to Pope Benedict XVI and other leaders of the Christian faith. It was a call for peace and harmony through inter-religious dialogue. They quoted the Prophet Muhammad who had addressed the “people of the Scripture” concerning a “common word between us and you.” That common word consisted of faith in the One true God, Love of God and love of neighbor.

The reaction by Christians to the 2007 letter was unprecedented. “Common Word” discussions, conferences, dialogues sprouted in many parts of the world. Pope Benedict XVI invited Muslim leaders to a gathering at the Vatican. On November 4-6, 2008 the 1st Catholic-Muslim Forum was held in Rome on the “common word”: “Love of God and Love of Neighbor.” The forum is now held every two years and it involves inter-religious dialogue at the highest level between Catholic and Muslim leaders.

I was invited by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace to represent the Asian Bishops at the 25th anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi, Italy on 27 October 2011 For 25 years this gathering of Christian and Muslim Religious leaders from different parts of the world organized by the Pope has been a significant collaboration of different religions to contribute to world peace on the basis of their own religious traditions.

I believe that one can truly say that “Common Word” and the Assisi event express a common conviction that faith is at the service of peace and harmony.

Let me cite only a few examples of the declarations towards peace articulated by various representatives of different beliefs:

From the President of the Lutheran World Federation: “We commit ourselves to proclaiming our firm conviction that violence and terrorism are incompatible with the authentic spirit of religions.”

From the Metropolitan Patriarch of Moscow: “We commit ourselves to fostering the culture of dialogue.”

From the President of the Muslim Ulama and Mashaik Council of Pakistan: “We commit ourselves to frank and patient dialogue, refusing to consider our differences as an insurmountable barrier.”

From the Vice Supreme Patriarch of Teravada Buddhism in Thailand: “We commit ourselves to taking up the cry of those who refuse to be resigned to violence and evil.”

From an Atheist Representative: “We will make every effort to ensure that believers and non-believers in reciprocal trust can live out the shared quest for truth, justice and peace.”

Pope Benedict XVI summed up the many declarations by echoing the words of Pope John Paul II: “Violence never again! War never again! Terrorism never again! In the name of God, may every religion bring upon the earth Justice and Peace, Forgiveness and Life, Love!

A common quest, a common commitment, and a foundational common word for peace – that is the meaning of the Mindanao Week of Peace.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

Martyr for Justice and Peace

2011-10-24T05:28:00.000+08:00

I HAVE no hesitation to call Fr. Fausto Tentorio, PIME, as a martyr for justice and peace. He is a worthy member of that noble line of martyrs in the Church in Mindanao who in their lives advocated causes that would help create a more just, a more peaceful, a more loving society. Such causes are for the poor like the indigenous peoples as well as for the integrity of creation.

That line of martyrs includes Fr. Alingal, S.J., and Fr. Satur (diocesan priest) in the Diocese of Malaybalay, Fr. Tullio Favali, PIME, in the Diocese of Kidapawan, Fr. Carzedda PIME in the Archdiocese of Zamboanga, Bp. Ben de Jesus, OMI, Fr. Benjie Inocencio, OMI, and Fr. Rey Roday, OMI, all three from the Apostolic Vicariate of Jolo.

Fr. Fausto was a young missionary priest when he was assigned to the Diocese of Kidapawan which I led as its Bishop. He learned Ilonggo quickly and spoke it almost all the time. Like all the PIME in the Diocese of Kidapawan, he was very close to the people, and his convento in Arakan or in Columbio was open to the people. It was always a great joy for me to see him at the Bishop's Residence in Kidapawan taking his day off and watching a VHS movie or two after a long week of trekking up the mountains of Arakan or visiting the villages of Columbio. Like Fr. Tullio he had a soft easy smile and a voice that invited conversation. The only enemies he could make are those who wanted to silence his voice appealing for justice and peace for the indigenous peoples and for God's creation.
I cannot fathom the minds of people who would be so evil as to plot the killing of a justice and peace loving missionary like Fr. Fausto. His assasination creates profound sadness and brings tears to the people who know of his kindness as well as his courage in the face of hazards to his life.

His death is pure murder. I totally condemn it as a crime that cries out to heaven. If the perpetrators think that his murder would silence priests, religious sisters and brothers, and bishops from proclaiming the justice of God's kingdom, they are wrong. The blood of martyrs like Fr. Fausto fans the daring and courage of those who care about peace and justice enough to sacrifice themselves while travelling the road of active non-violence. I strongly appeal to the authorities to search for the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

My prayers to the loving Lord for my friend, Fr. Fausto, PIME.

+ORLANDO B. QUEVEDO, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

Questions to PCSO on its So-Called Expose: The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth?

2011-07-04T07:04:00.000+08:00

1. What happened to the first expose that 7 bishops received Pajeros from President Arroyo through PCSO for their personal use? It is quite simple to put a closure to this issue – just look into your records and reveal the names of the Bishops involved. Perhaps leaving the so called expose open ended would serve your motives better? And what really are your motives? To tell the truth? But why do you keep people guessing as to the truth of these Pajeros and the Bishops who were supposed to have received them?

2. Now that the Pajero issue remains a black mark on suspected Bishops, who one after the other categorically denied that they had solicited or received any Pajero for personal use, what do you wish to gain by redirecting your attack – that some bishops, indeed, received SUVs? If so, why did you not mention that PCSO donated each of the vehicles to Bishops or dioceses for purposes of social action, promotion of health, poverty alleviation, human development – all for the sake of the poor? After all that is their explicit request for help and is contained in the Memorandum of Agreement that both PCSO and beneficiary sign.

3. Why do you say that the donations to the Bishops were anomalous and unconstitutional? Does not the typical PCSO MOA with the beneficiary say that it is the mandate of the PCSO to provide assistance for health programs, health services, other services and charitable purposes? And therefore that the grant is not only meant for medical and health services? Do you think that Bishops and religious institutions use such grants for their own self-interests and not for the poor? Do you think that the cooperation of the Church in your work violates the principle of separation of Church and State? Do you think that by such donation you are establishing one religion as the State religion considering that your grants are given to different religious denominations for the sake of the poor?

4. Why do you single out some bishops in your so called expose when by simply looking into your records from the time of President Cory Aquino up to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, you will find donations to hundreds of religious groups of different denominations through the years for purposes of helping the poor? Would you have us believe that a thorough 2008 and 2009 audit on PCSO donations revealed only Bishops as beneficiaries and not other religious groups? And why do you claim that some three or four years after the “Garci tapes these grants were given to buy Bishops’ support against moves to oust President Arroyo? Do you think that all past Presidents, acting through PCSO, were unwise in having different religious denominations help in alleviating poverty, providing medical and health services, and doing development work for the poor? Did Presidents from the time of President Cory to the time of President Arroyo, acting through PCSO, violate the Constitution?

5. In brief, all the above questions beg the question of motives. What are your real motives in selectively targeting some bishops to whom PCSO gave grants for the sake of the poor?
6. Are you telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or are you giving disinformation to discredit the Bishops for motives of your own?

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
July 3, 2011

Statement

2011-07-01T21:33:00.000+08:00

I wish to reiterate my declaration that I have never requested or received from PCSO any vehicle for my personal use, whether a Pajero or SUV or any other vehicle. This declaration refers to the PCSO allegation that 7 Bishops received Pajeros from PCSO for their personal use.

Yesterday the attack on Bishops changed course: from 7 Pajeros for personal use to vehicles for other purposes. The PCSO revealed that some Bishops, myself included, received SUVs for purposes related to the social action apostolate. In 2008 I, indeed, wrote a request to the PCSO for a vehicle to be used by our Social Action program, especially for our Community Based Health Program. We also wanted to use the vehicle for our training team to give seminars for community organizing at the grassroots, capacity building, training of Indigenous Peoples' leaders, as well as to bring sick people to hospitals when necessary. The request was granted.

This practice of asking for PCSO assistance for social action is not unusual. Since the time of President Cory Aquino up to the present, hundreds of church-related organizations have been granted assistance by PCSO to do social service, human development, poverty alleviation in line with the objectives both of the PCSO and also of social action in general. It is well known that such assistance crossed religious barriers and differences and was not limited to organizations within the Catholic Church. Dioceses, church-related educational institutions, religious congregations of men and women did not hesitate to ask for help to do medical missions, initiate livelihood projects, form and promote cooperatives, do capacity building of people at the grassroots. Cardinal Sin himself in defense of PCSO assistance given to him for his projects for the poor reportedly stated that he would even accept money from the devil in order to help the poor. I myself would not hesitate to ask for PCSO assistance for a very poor individual who needs a costly medical operation but cannot afford it.

Some ten years ago the Bishops in plenary assembly made a collective decision not to solicit or accept donations from legal and illegal gambling. Such a decision was not universally followed. The needs of the poor in the minds of many people in the Church, Bishops included, simply transcended such a decision. After all, the Bishops also knew that gambling is not immoral per se. It becomes immoral because of circumstances. This is why no Episcopal Conference outside the Philippines has addressed the issue of gambling as a pastoral problem in the way Philippine Bishops did. One of the reasons that Philippine Bishops cited regarding the immorality of gambling arose out of the cultural situation. To solicit and accept donations from legal and illegal gambling would be tantamount to promoting a cultural tendency to gamble.

Therefore, in the light of the above situation, to selectively bash the Bishops for soliciting and accepting donations from the PCSO for activities designed to help the poor is clearly unfair and unjust. From the time of President Cory Aquino to that of President Macapagal Arroyo PCSO has approved donations for social action for hundreds of church groups as consonant with PCSO objectives as well as a necessity to help meet the enormous needs of the poor.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
July 1, 2011

Message

2010-09-09T17:51:00.001+08:00

Dear Muslim Friends:

As you celebrate Eid al-Fitr ending your month-long holy fasting of Ramadan, I greet you on behalf of the Archdiocese of Cotabato, “Eid mubarak!”

We share in your joy as you visit your relatives, friends and neighbors. We share in your sentiments of charity as you give alms and help the needy and the poor. We, Christians, have similar values in our traditions that stem from the message and example of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I learned that the al-Azhar Permanent Committee for Dialogue among Monotheistic Religions in Cairo is reflecting on the theme: “Together in overcoming violence among followers of different religions.” The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in Rome is doing the same. How imperative this topic has been for us in the past several decades in our beloved Mindanao, especially as the search for peace hopefully resumes.

The month of Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr stir in your hearts deep religious sentiments of joy, of fellowship, and of charity. On our part we shall soon celebrate the season of Advent, a season for us of physical and spiritual sacrifice, a special time to combat our inner passions and act for the good of others. May we seize the moment of these spiritual experiences to pray and act together for peace. With the Almighty and most beneficent God, we can surely prevail over all obstacles and finally come to that just and lasting peace we all desire.

Once again, Eid mubarak!

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

On Bishop Francisco "Cisco" Claver, S.J.

2010-07-12T05:48:00.002+08:00

(Funeral Mass, Loyola School of Theology, July 7, 2010)

Pre-Note:
I write this sharing two days after the Funeral Mass on Wednesday evening, 7 July 2010. I had spoken without notes and with only a general outline in my mind. Here and there this written piece might be embellishing a bit. But to the best of my memory, it is how I said what I wanted to say about Bishop Cisco Claver, S.J.

My brothers and sisters in Christ,

The Jesuit provincial, Fr. Jojo Magadia, asked me before the Mass if I, as a friend of Bishop Cisco, could speak briefly after Communion. At the chapel sacristy, Cardinal Dency Rosales also asked me if I could speak on behalf of the Bishops.

I am here not out of obedience to Fr. Jojo or to Cardinal Dency but I am here out of fear. I am afraid that Bp. Cisco might visit me tonight and complain, “Orly, my friend, you did not visit me while I was sick.”

But most importantly I am here because of love. At the Wake Mass for Bp. Cisco last Friday evening, I approached Fr. Catalino Arevalo, S.J. and before I could react he hugged me and said with a break in his voice,” How Cisco loved you!” I broke down in tears and held on to Fr. “Rev.” So I am here because of love.

My brothers and sisters, what does Bishop Cisco Claver mean to the Church in the Philippines and beyond?

During the Martial Law period, someone collected his homilies and essays together into one book with the title, “Even the Stones Will Cry Out.” During those very dark years in Philippine history, Bp. Cisco consistently, passionately and courageously denounced the injustices and contradictions of Martial Law. So great were the injustices especially against “the little people” (the “poor, deprived and oppressed”) that if he were silent, “even the stones will cry out!”

I think of Bishop Cisco’s significance to the Church in the Philippines in terms of those biblical stones. He expressed his mind and heart in his pastoral work and theological-pastoral reflections. These are like stones built upon one another that speak of who Bishop Cisco was as a person and as a bishop-shepherd, not unlike the stone rip-rapping and bridge that he built with his Bontoc hands along the creek on this university campus.

His pastoral work and reflections indeed are stones that speak out loud and clear about what lay deep in his mind and heart about the Church. Communion, Co-Responsibility, Participation, Discernment were his constant themes – heady theological themes that came alive concretely in the Basic Ecclesial Communities, particularly in the Diocese of Malaybalay and the Apostolic Vicariate of Bontoc-Lagawe.

He applied these themes in his treatment of social issues – people empowerment, politics, human rights, justice and peace, development, indigenous peoples, environment, land reform, the relationship between ideology and faith, the impact of culture on life, etc. etc.

In the turbulent years of the 1980’s when ideology effectively influenced the minds of many pastoral workers in Mindanao, I am convinced that it was he who turned the tide in the life and death struggle between ideology and faith.

He changed the Marxist structural analysis that was popular in those days by factoring in the reality of culture both in the causes of social problems as well as in the processes of social change. This insight from the anthropologist Bishop Cisco on cultural analysis made us aware of the abundant resources of our deep culture of religious faith.

I believe then that his seminal work on cultural analysis placed religious faith once more at the center of the Church’s response to the politically and ideologically laden field of Mindanao. For the Mindanao dioceses religious faith, untainted by ideology, became once more the measure of ideology itself as well as the dynamic motivation for pastoral workers towards social change.

One can discern the stones built by Bp. Cisco in the major pastoral letters and statements of the Philippine Bishops on social issues, in the writing of which he collaborated or was the principal writer.

These stones are especially discernible in the Acts and Text of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, held five years after that stunning and transforming People Power I Revolution at EDSA. Communion, Co-Responsibility, Participation, Discernment, Dialogue, Basic Ecclesial Communities, people empowerment – these are interweaving themes in PCP-II. As the final redactor of the PCP-II texts, I was more than delighted to retain verbatim most of the things that Bishop Cisco contributed in his easy but elegant and cadenced inimitable prose.

So what does Bishop Cisco mean to the Church in the Philippines? The stones will cry out.

May I now speak of Bishop Cisco as a friend.

In the past 30 years Cisco and I collaborated in possibly more than a hundred projects of reflecting, writing, speaking, in various parts of the Philippines, Asia, and Europe. We relished being in the same discussion panels, interviews, conferences and writing group. We shared our thoughts and brought them to the floor of the CBCP. We agreed on most issues, disagreed on a few, but were united on the issues that counted most.

It was my great misfortune that when the CBCP writing group was about to draft the famous Statement of the Bishops after the 1986 Snap Elections I was in bed at the Heart Center of the Philippines. Cardinal Ricardo Vidal, the CBCP President, had asked me to moderate the Bishops’ session to evaluate the conduct of the Snap Elections. The results were a clear consensus. Widespread fraud in the elections everywhere except in one or two dioceses. What then must we say about the government that assumed power through indubitable rampant fraud? The moral principle was clear. Cardinal Vidal requested me to help write the Statement. I informed him that I had to go to the Heart Center. I gave him my notes for the content of the Statement. While reading the Final Statement at the Heart Center, I consoled myself in believing that Bp. Cisco and the other members of the writing team had indeed read my notes. [At today’s CBCP Plenary Assembly, 10 July 2010, Cardinal Vidal told me that upon receiving my notes, Cisco had remarked, “Good, now I do not have to think too much!” Cisco with his usual dry humor!]

But the basic response of the Statement to the government’s lack of moral authority was classic Claver: “Let us pray together, reason together, and act together” – a mantra on Communion, Co-Responsibility, Participation, Discernment that many subsequent CBCP statements would echo.

It was the anthropologist-Bishop Cisco who understood the 1986 People Power Revolution in terms of the converging values of Lakas and Awa. The People Power Revolution was the explosive irruption of Lakas-Awa, the power of compassion, of love shared, of love expressed in sacrificial, unselfish and generous service of solidarity for the sake of the common good, of a love based on deep religious faith that transcends religious denominations, becoming a massive force for social transformation.

After 1986 we both shared the idea that it was time for the Bishops to withdraw from the public arena and let the people activate their God-given charisms in political leadership.
But after a year of EDSA I, euphoria turned into dismay. The Bishops wrote their first letter on Corruption. Bp. Cisco gave it the title, “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” We also wrote a statement on Land Reform in response to the watering down of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Only two or three years ago the CBCP wrote another letter on corruption, the second of its kind and during the term of a second lady president. This time it was my turn to give it a title. I chose, “Let Justice Flow Like a River.”

It is difficult for me to express what Cisco means to me. (Many have remarked that Cisco and I think uncannily alike. Perhaps.). We both want to stay in the back rows of the Bishops’ Conference. We exchange notes, share ideas, evaluate them, and either write them down or act on them. He was my social conscience. We lined up some collaborative writing projects regarding the Church in Mindanao in the 1980’s and regarding EDSA I, to “correct history” as he said. He asked me to begin the writing. Somehow I did not. But we did push each other into writing things down. I came out with outlines. He came out with books. God gave him immense talents. He shared them in service to the Church, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

In one of our CBCP Pastoral Letters, we quoted Sacred Scriptures about a messianic time of grace when over the land and over the people Justice and Mercy shall embrace and kiss. At the passing away of Bishop Cisco, God’s justice and loving mercy have embraced and kissed – for him. He is with the Father. He is with Jesus whom he proclaimed in the Spirit with eloquent words, spoken and written, in all arena of human life.

I express the collective grief and deep condolences of the Bishops of the Philippines to the Claver family. You have lost a great brother. We have all lost a Filipino prophet without peer, truest priest, innovative humble shepherd, a very dear friend. Who can take his place?

As for me...farewell, Cisco, my dearest friend. Please don’t visit me tonight. Even now the rain continues to fall, the tears of nature flow…my tears flow….

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

“KUNG WALANG CORRUPT, WALANG MAHIRAP”

2010-05-31T05:03:00.000+08:00

President-Elect Noynoy Aquino ran his campaign with this catchy slogan. Like all slogans, it has both an element of truth and an element of oversimplification.

Corruption indeed is a cause of poverty. But it is not true that if there is no corruption, there would be no poverty. Poverty may also be due to misguided economic philosophies and development programs. Poverty may also be due to some extent to some cultural factors. Imbalances in the political sphere can also cause poverty. Destruction of the environment causes poverty.

Thus the campaign slogan is only partly true. As such it is unrealistic. It offers false hopes for a long suffering people.

Why is corruption so difficult to eradicate?

Corruption is a sinful attitude of the heart. It is the surrender of the heart to the temptation of power and wealth. Once the heart succumbs to a first temptation and gains access to some amount of money without being punished, it is easier to surrender to the next temptation. This is even more so when the gains in wealth and power are incredibly huge. The repeated acts of sin become an attitude of the heart. God is sacrificed on the altar of mammon.

But corruption is also embedded in social, economic, political structures. It is a social sin, a structural injustice, built up by repeated personal sins. The many personal sins of corruption build a structure within the economic, social, and political structures, embed corruption in it, and facilitate continuing corruption. The structure of corruption is also built up by imbalances in economic and political power. While powerless people can be easily convicted and jailed, this is not true for the powerful. Bribery, threats to life, and extortion are bedfellows in the structure of corruption.

Because it is both a sinful attitude of the heart as well as an unjust social structure, corruption in the Philippines, as elsewhere in many Asian countries, is firmly entrenched. It is also endemic in private and public life. It infects the whole social ladder, from top to bottom or from bottom to the top. Even elections for kabataang barangay positions are now afflicted by extravagant spending because of the promise of more money gained through one’s position.

No Philippine President has ever made a serious dent on corruption. Each presidential regime has its own anecdotal illustrations of corruption incidence, even if only two suffered legal consequences, sequestration of alleged ill-gotten wealth for one and conviction of plunder for the other. For others, various alleged scams were subjected to grandstanding investigations “in aid of legislation” but for this very reason there has been no conviction.

We are a society that in fact turns a blind eye to past grievous lapses of corruption. A quick scan of election winners will reveal how short our memories are and how easily we put aside moral judgments.

Given the nature of corruption as a personal sin and as a structure of sin and given our own propensity to disregard moral judgments, it is clear that corruption is not going to go away easily.

The President-elect needs all the help he can get to make good on his slogan. He would need a miracle to get rid of corruption in his six years of office. Good intention and good example are not enough. We have the example of the Cory Aquino regime to demonstrate this. Will her son have the same experience? He should have people around him who are incorrupt and who can personify his slogan: Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap. The first question then is: who will serve as his cabinet members, his closest advisers? Do they pass the test of integrity?

Of course we believe that with God everything is possible. That is our faith. In Church language, we need contemplation and solidarity, prayer and cooperation.

Solidarity would dictate that in the battle against corruption, all of us have to be united, striving to be persons of integrity in our areas of responsibility and refusing to connive with others in acts of corruption. In solidarity we need to denounce what we see are corrupt systems in public and private life that ensnare and trap people into corruption. In solidarity we need to work with our leaders who want to establish structures of integrity and justice.

If we believe that with God all things are possible, then prayer for wisdom, guidance, and courage and integrity would be necessary. Through solidarity and prayer miracles do happen.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
May 30, 2010

Peace in Southern Mindanao: Beyond the Rhetoric, Hope

2010-05-30T07:26:00.001+08:00

Christian politicians generally have a skewed view of the peace process between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Their view reflects that of the great majority of Christians all over the country. It consists of the following:

(1) The ill-fated MOA-AD sacrificed national sovereignty and territorial integrity for the sake of peace;
(2) The present peace negotiation between the GRP panel and the MILF is a repeat of the same;
(3) Like the previous peace talks, the present attempt is characterized by lack of consultation and transparency;
(4) Any “midnight” signing must be forestalled;
(5) The fundamental solution to the conflict in southern Mindanao is not a peace agreement, but a comprehensive no-nonsense economic development program.

Such a view, no matter how skewed and incorrect, has been used in the election campaign by politicians at the local and national level as an issue to gain votes from Christians in Mindanao. At the national level among the more prominent were Senators Noynoy Aquino and Mar Roxas. The rhetoric was strident and shrill. No Christian politician dared to go on a limb to defend the present peace talks for fear of losing Christian votes. The rhetoric has successfully glossed over the truth, despite some clear presentation of the government position by the GRP group.

Under the Noynoy Aquino regime, will the peace process progress despite the election campaign rhetoric? There are signs of hope:

(1) Instead of biding his time and even before he takes his oath of office, the president-elect has chosen his primary peace negotiator;
(2) Ging Deles, a person-oriented but hardworking technocrat basically known for her peace advocacy, is familiar with the peace-conflict terrain in southern Mindanao.

These are signs of good will and good intention on the part of the incoming chief executive.

On the part of the MILF, that it has reportedly established a common ground with the MNLF is promising. I also hope that the wisdom of the late Chairman Hashim Salamat who wanted, I believe, to establish peace within the parameters of what he realized as irreversible historical and geographical developments would continue to influence the Bangsa Moro leaders who carry on his legacy.

But the pitfalls regarding the peace process are legion. The incoming Congress (Senate and House) is filled with personalities that generally opposed the MOA-AD. The temptation is strong for the incoming administration to start from zero and not to follow in the footsteps of a peace negotiation that it perceives not only as a “failure” but also a “betrayal” of the Constitution. The primary government negotiator might want to hew closely to the bidding of principals who have expressed mistrust regarding previous peace talks and even tried to discredit them in favor of economic development. It would seem that there is a wall of negative perceptions and feelings that the primary negotiator might have to break through. Her courage to stand up for her convictions is a great asset.

My unsolicited advice to the next GRP peace panel would be the following:

(1) Be open to the positive gains of previous negotiations and do not start from ground zero;
(2) Internalize the results of the wide consultations that have been conducted and be guided by them;
(3) Be open to the principle of self-determination and probe how such a guiding principle could be implemented in fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution while transcending or amending its letter;
(4) Consult the people and political decision makers whenever necessary and always be transparent;
(5) In the face of possible provocations, be persevering, patient and resolute until a fair and just final peace agreement is done;
(6) Both groups in the peace process are believers in the one true God of Peace; while working for peace, do not forget to pray for peace.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

Called to bring Hope, Missioned to Renewal

2010-03-17T23:20:00.000+08:00

Introduction

May I express my deep gratitude to the organizers for inviting me to speak at your Catholic Education Week. I am deeply honored and privileged to speak before you, realizing that I come from a country that is economically “down under.”

I wish to bring an Asian perspective to the theme of Catholic Education Week, “Called to Bring Hope.” The theme flows, I understand, from the message of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, at the 24th World Youth Day in Australia. He encouraged young people all over the world, saying: “If Jesus has become your hope, communicate this to others with your joy and your spiritual, apostolic and social engagement…. spread this hope around you.”

I believe that it is this hope in Jesus that Pope Benedict XVI would refer to in his seminal social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (June 29, 2009). There he speaks to us of hope in taking on a particular social mission, saying:

… we must adopt a realistic attitude as we take up with confidence and hope the new responsibilities to which we are called by the prospects of a world in need of profound cultural renewal, a world that needs to rediscover fundamental values on which to build a better future (no. 21).

Hope in Jesus towards a profound cultural renewal – might this not be the mission of education for our times? I ask this because obviously Australia is a multicultural society and cultures different from ours can sometimes be, unfortunately, the object of discrimination and bias, even of exclusion and alienation, as we so experience in the Philippines with regard to Muslim Moros and indigenous peoples.

Today one Australian newspaper brings this reality of culture to its readers with three news reports on racial abuse, on traditional lands, and on population and migration policies.

Allow me then to reflect with you about this educational mission of cultural renewal from the perspective of an Asian. I take this perspective of Asia not only because it is what I know best, but also because in the past three days I have seen a considerable number of Asians in Melbourne.

The Cultural Situation

In this reflection I take “culture” to mean generally and simply “a way of life”, a set of beliefs, values, attitudes, customs and traditions that are shared by a group and distinguish it from another. It is transmitted from one generation to another through language, rituals, institutions (e.g., family, and schools), laws, art, and tools of social communication. Thus we have Thai culture, Filipino culture, Chinese culture, Australian culture, American culture, an indigenous people’s culture, a culture of the poor, a culture of the young, culture of a dominant group, etc. In my own experience I find the culture of the poor one of simplicity. Even their prayers are direct, concrete, and specific. I remember one Bible Service in a Basic Ecclesial Community in one of the villages of my diocese during the long years of Martial Law. Civilian militias of the Marcos dictatorship had raided a village because of the suspected presence of armed subversives. Not finding them, the raiders took away chickens and pigs from the village people. In their Prayer of Intercession during the Bible Service, one lady prayed, “Let my pig which have been taken away from me die of sickness before the raiders eat it, let us pray to the Lord.” I did not know whether it was a curse or a prayer. Then I recalled the Magnificat of Mary, who declared that the Lord “has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he sent empty away.” With this thought, I responded “Lord, grant our prayer.”

Asia is known to be a rich mosaic of ancient cultures and languages. When I was a theology student in the 1960s many American classmates used to say that we Asians all “look the same.” We really don’t, even though appearances often mislead. Languages separate us. National costumes differ. Even the way we Asian Catholics worship differs from culture to culture. Thais, Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans and Japanese celebrate Mass or relate to the sacred with more awe, silence and solemnity. Filipinos, Malaysians, and Indonesians seem to have more joyful Masses and have a sense of more carefree fellowship with the sacred. (I wonder if the Filipino, Vietnamese, and Indian priests in the St. Patrick’s Cathedral presbytery would agree with me). The way we think and value things also differ. Some observers say, for instance, that Westerners think in a linear way from point A to point B. But Asians think in a circular way arriving at the same point B.

We Asians despite our cultural differences do share some common values, very different from non-Asians. Using a relatively recent study of values held by certain cultures, it is possible to make the following observations regarding Asians:

1. Asian peoples and societies generally accept a structure of inequality as a given social and political reality.

2. Asians are generally low on an individualism index, tending more towards community and clan and are usually not inclined to be individualistic. Nuclear families, extended Asian families, and close family kinship are the general rule for cohesive harmony and security and even for the family’s social advancement.

3. Women in Asian societies are expected to play roles that are more home and children oriented and less career or profession oriented Men are expected to be more competitive, assertive and even aggressive and women to be more caring, gentle, and compassionate.

4. Asians have a high desire for certainty, have less tolerance for ambiguity and unstructured situations. We look for strict rules and believe in absolute religious truths.

5. Saving “face” or the avoidance of shame is one of the major dynamic inner forces that drive the typical Asian toward self development.

The many cases of suicide in some Asian countries are not due to despair or depression but due to lose of face – school children who because of failure in school are ashamed to face their parents, a husband who has lost considerable amount of money feeling too ashamed to face his wife, a young unmarried lady who learns she is pregnant and is ashamed to tell the truth to her parents. Examples abound.

From another perspective Pope John Paul II summed up the observations of Asian Bishops at the 1998 Synod of Bishops for Asia in the following way:

The people of Asia take pride in their religious and cultural values, such as love of silence and contemplation, simplicity, harmony, detachment, non-violence, the spirit of hard work, discipline, frugal living, the thirst for learning and philosophical enquiry. They hold dear the values of respect for life, compassion for all beings, closeness to nature, filial piety towards parents, elders and ancestors, and a highly developed sense of community. In particular they hold the family to be a vital source of strength, a closely knit community with a powerful sense of solidarity….

All of this indicates an innate spiritual insight and moral wisdom in the Asian soul, and it is the core around which a growing sense of “being Asian” is built. This “being Asian” is best discovered and affirmed not in confrontation and opposition, but in the spirit of complementarity and harmony (Ecclesia in Asia, 19986, no. 6)

One outstanding aspect of Asian cultures is our sense of the Transcendent:

A deep sense of the sacred still prevails among Asian peoples. We point to the finger of God in the significant events of our lives. (Natural disasters, floods, drought, earthquakes are due somehow to God’s inscrutable will. Asians can only say, “Leave it to God” - in Pilipino, Bahala na sa Dyos. We are not afraid to speak openly of God and his mysterious ways. We often go to holy places, visit churches, masjids (mosques), and temples for worship or for temporary refuge, silence, solitude from the busyness of life. We are deeply appreciative of men and women of God-experience. The sense of the divine is deeply ingrained in our Asian cultural psyche (Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I, “Today’s Culture and Consecrated Life,” FABC-OCL Seminar, Hua Hin, Thailand, November 17, 2009)

I might ask if the values I have mentioned resonate well with mainstream Australian culture. Perhaps the answer is yes and no, to lesser or greater degree.

The same value study previously cited has the following value description of Australians:

You have a very high level of individuality with the individualism index at 90%, the highest score of any country behind the United States at 91%. You also have greater equality between societal levels, gender, and within families. Further your desire for certainty is much lesser than the world’s average. This would mean that Australians are comfortable with less law, less structure, and less absolute truth, more individual freedom.

Is this true?

Moreover an information sheet by the Australian Foreign Affairs is rather noteworthy. It observes that Australians have commonly shared values, particularly respect for individual dignity and rights regardless of culture, religion, or gender. It has also been said that egalitarianism has become, in the era of multiculturalism, a lived Australian value – a fact that contrasts starkly with the glaring social, economic, and political inequalities in many Asian societies.

The Need for Cultural Renewal

The Asian cultural map is truly striking in its rich kaleidoscope of varying ancient cultures. It is from this cultural reality that the Church in Asia underscores inculturation and the solidarity of diverse cultures as a vision of the Church.

Surely the desired ideal of cultural unity in diversity is an objective as well for a multicultural society like Australia.

But in all cultures there are values that, in the light of our Catholic religious faith, are ambivalent or at worst negative. Take, for instance, the Asian value of strong family-centeredness. How a mother of father or one of the children would sacrifice by venturing abroad at great risk and work for three to five years sometimes under dehumanizing conditions in certain foreign countries! And the reason for this sacrifice is the family. So that with money earned abroad the family might have a better future or that other members of the family could go to school. I remember a Filipina in Italy. Armed with a chemistry degree, she taught for several years at a university in the Philippines. But she wanted to send her children to the best schools in Manila and she could not do that on her teacher’s salary. She applied to be a domestic helper in Italy and she got a job. From university teacher to domestic helper, all for the sake of her family.

But the same value becomes negative when the good of the family comes first before the public good and becomes the cause of corruption in public and private life. Certainly a purification of values would be necessary.

In certain Asian cultures, the renewal of values might require the rooting out of exclusive ethnocentrism and caste-ism that generate biases, discrimination and oppression. Or the dismantling of traditional structures of patriarchy and other forms of social injustice that keep large sectors of society subservient, marginalized, and oppressed.

Social analysis and faith discernment would be needed to judge what values have to be purified and renewed. Surely this is also necessary for Australia in the task of cultural renewal.

A Globalizing Post-Modern Culture – Secularism and Relativism

There is yet another major dimension, not intra-cultural but intercultural. The call to cultural renewal sounded by the Pope Benedict XVI concerns emerging global values.

In 2004 the Plenary Assembly of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences in Daejeon, Korea sounded out an alarm regarding the negative features of globalization:

Of even greater significance, economic globalization is also bringing cultural globalization in its wake. Since the middle of the 20th century Western secularism has been strongly influencing Asian societies. But at no time has the secularizing process, now with significant post-modern spirit of individualistic sense of freedom, been more rapid and effective in reshaping the value systems of Asian families than in the last two decades of the 20th century. The bearers of this change are economics… and the on-going revolution in mass global communications that has truly made the world a global village (Final Document, no.21).

We recall that the philosophies of the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries proclaimed the primacy of reason and rejected religious faith and authority. The emergence of Modernism, coincided with the era of scientific revolution. European intellectuals began to deny divine revelation or “God’s meta-narrative.” Armed with reason and science, Modernism rejected “traditional” religious beliefs and asserted a “meta-narrative of human scientific progress.”

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries came what might be called the post-modern philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche which emphasized subjectivity rather than objectivity. As a consequence they rejected the universality of all meta-narratives whether that of human reason or of religious faith. Skepticism regarding social and moral norms was the order of the day.

The evolution of Western intellectual thought historically followed this trajectory. Today the emerging global technological culture exhibits the world view of the postmodern spirit. It rejects objective truth and gives primacy to personal subjectivity. It professes incredulity at all meta-narratives that claim absolute truth. It believes as true only what the self interprets and constructs in personal narratives. Having rejected all dogma, it ironically presented one universal dogma, namely, truth is relative. Hence pluralism regarding truth. Someone has called this type of pluralism as an ideology of “whateverism.” (On this issue of modernism and post-modernism as developed in terms of “the rise and fall of disbelief in the modern world,” Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism, 2004, pp. 144-169, 217-237, is a highly readable scholarly presentation).

On the other hand from a positive point of view the post-modern spirit has highlighted individual human dignity, autonomy and human rights so characteristic of the West. It has also pointed out the importance and necessity of personal historicity, personal narratives and subjective experience, including feelings, in integral human growth towards maturity in Christ. Today these dimensions of the person are important in discerning the movement of the Holy Spirit in one’s life.

The Marginalization of Faith and of the Sacred

While recognizing some of the positive dimensions of the post-modern spirit, the origins and the emphases of western intellectual thought nevertheless gradually overhauled many cherished fundamental values related to God, the world, the human person and human relationships. Its notable effect is the marginalization of religious faith and the sense of the sacred. In brief, post-modernism represents a world view that in many ways contradicts the view of our own religious faith, anchored as it is in God’s meta-narrative found in Sacred Scriptures, interpreted and taught by the Church.

Admittedly this is a simplified way of considering the post-modern spirit. But it might be helpful towards understanding the emerging and globalizing culture of secularism, subjectivism and relativism that is now a matter of great anxiety for the cultures of Asia. It also helps us to understand why the Popes of the last five decades, particularly Pope John II and Benedict XVI, have inveighed so frequently and forcefully against subjectivism, relativism, individualism, nihilism, and consumerism. The clash of cultures is in fact between that of this world and that of the Gospel.

Here the prayer of Jesus to the Father for his disciples becomes profoundly relevant:

I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world anymore than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may truly be sanctified (Jn. 17: 14-19).

Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, echoes the prayer of the Jesus as he exhorts the Christians in Rome:

I urge you to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will (Rom. 17: 1-2).

Education as Bearer of Hope in a Crisis of Values

The clash of cultures expresses itself concretely in a crisis of values. Economic globalization and cultural globalization together with profound scientific and technological development, disseminated by the tools of social communication, have affected human life throughout the world. Economically and socially the gap between rich and poor has widened. Massive migration of workers from poor countries has put great pressure on their families in their countries of origin and on policy makers in countries of destination. While multiculturalism and ethnic as well as religious pluralism enrich different cultures, they also bring in new challenges. People also speak about the clash of civilizations. Indeed, we observe tensions of value both within cultures and also between cultures.

Clearly we discern here the relevance and necessity of the educational process. Education after all is not merely the imparting of knowledge but also the transmission of cultural values cherished by generations. It has also to sift the ephemeral from the fundamental, the merely temporal from the perennial. In the light of the crisis of values, we might ask what kind of cultural renewal is expected of the educational enterprise.

I believe that educators are called to bring hope:

• to young men and women who are searching for the fundamental meaning of their life;
• to those who find themselves in the periphery of a culture they are not fully at home with;
• to those who by reason of poverty are deprived of access to the wellsprings of cultural development and of scientific and technological knowledge;
• to those who thirst for more than security and stability and crave for the serenity that quenches the innate thirst of the human soul for ultimate truth;
• to those who long for authentic community and fellowship beyond their family circles and their small circle of friends;
• to those who aspire to read more deeply the signs of the times and to reach the answers to questions of human joy and suffering, of justice and peace, and of human destiny;
• to those who want to know lasting reasons for their own hope.

Love as the Driving Force for Cultural Renewal

Education then is called to bring hope, to assist, to guide, slowly, evocatively and gradually young men and women to the ultimate fulfillment of hope.

In fact, Canon Law says:

Since a true education must strive for the integral formation of the human person,
a formation which looks toward the person’s final end,
and at the same time toward the common good of societies,
children and young people are to be so reared that they can develop harmoniously their physical, moral and intellectual talents,
that they acquire a more perfect sense of responsibility and a correct use of freedom,
and that they may be educated for active participation in social life.

Succinctly, here we have the axiomatic fourfold description of Catholic education; holistic and integral, developmental, personal, and social.

However for a person of faith there is one key moral value of development and growth to human maturity that the educational process has to inculcate. This key moral value is authentic love.

Caritas in veritate, charity in truth – this is the resounding theme of Pope Benedict XVI”s social encyclical which begins thus:

Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love – caritas – is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force hat has its origin in God. Eternal Love and Absolute Truth…. Charity is at the heart of the Church’s social doctrine (Caritas in Veritate, nos. 1-2).

Charity as “the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity” -- how could the educational process make learners become deeply aware of the “interior pulse to love authentically” which, as the Pope states, is a “vocation planted by God in the heart of every human person”?

One has to realize that mere self-development through education is incomplete; love is not merely love of self. Beyond self-perfection is self transcendence; love is authentic (love in truth) to the extent that it reaches out to others, particularly to the poor and the needy, in the manner of Jesus, who is God’s compassion.

This is why the Spirit of Love, who is also the Spirit of Wisdom and Knowledge, of Understanding and Counsel, is really the principal educator, renewing, transforming, and guiding. His role in the educational process is an absolute requirement. In the renewal of the mind and heart, in the search for meaning, it is the Holy Spirit who reveals “the dearest freshness deep down things.” This of course entails faith, the eyes of faith.

Educational Implications

What then might be the implications of this mission to renew culture and its values in the face of a crisis of values?

Allow me to respond with a brief personal view of education towards cultural renewal in the light of our faith.

A vision of education as an evangelizing instrument in the renewal of culture is necessary. Without a vision, education would be myopic. We might recall a statement from the Old Testament that without a vision, a people will perish. I believe such of vision of education should include the following major dimensions:

• The work of education is a vocation and a mission;
• This vocation is to draw out from the human person his / her innate vocation to love in truth.
• Beyond simply actual professional training, education must teach perennial values about God, the world, the human person and human community;
• Its aim is to build community out of cultural and economic diversity;
• It assists in the liberation of the human person from the poverty of not having and not knowing to the richness of being more.
• It has to be a vehicle for ultimate meaning and for ultimate truth.

With this vision, education would indeed be a hope bearer resonating with the spirit of that valiant woman of Australia, Blessed Mary MacKillop, who expressed what it means to be a disciple of Christ: “Wherever we are, whoever we are, whatever we do, we are called to relieve suffering and bring hope.”

Conclusion

Deep down, the modern heart wants to hear the “good news.” Is this not the fundamental meaning of the Gospel, the evangelium?

Evangelization is after all the mission of announcing the Good News.

In sum, in its task of evangelization, Education has to announce and communicate the Good News, not words or ideas, not mere knowledgew or skills, not laws or structures, certainly not causes or ideologies.

The Good News is a Person who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life – the sum of all human values, a Person beyond all persons, totally extraordinary in the way he lived, died, and rose from the dead. He has a face. He has a name, Jesus of Nazareth.

He is the one about whom Augustine, that once great pagan sinner and philosopher and later the magnificent African truth-searcher, theologian, and profoundly holy man would exclaim, “My heart is restless until it rests in You.”

Thank you for your patient listening and endurance.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato, Philippines
Secretary General, Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences
Melbourne Catholic Education Week
March 16, 2010

Today's Culture and Consecrated Life

2010-03-15T23:18:00.000+08:00

Introduction

Culture is a pervasive reality. It impacts all dimensions of life, social, economic, political, and religious. We are born into it, we grow and work in it, we live and die in it. We cannot escape it. There is no human reality that is culture-free.

Born into a culture and formed in it, we are influenced by various other cultures for better or for worse. As a human-divine institution the Church both influences and is also influenced by peoples and their cultures. With its own Gospel culture the Church interplays dynamically with the culture of a people in whose midst it is deeply inserted.

The call to consecrated life, formation in consecrated life, the living of the evangelical counsels, community life, spirituality and mission are all impacted by culture. For this reason the present seminar is important and necessary.

Looking at the topics to be discussed, it would seem best for me to provide a description of today’s culture, from which the various speakers could start. Surely there will be some overlapping but there is some benefit from a certain degree of repetition.

What is “Today’s Culture”?

In this presentation the analogical term, “culture” is used to mean generally a “a way of life” or a set of values, attitudes, beliefs, customs and practices that are shared by a group and distinguishes it from another. Culture is transmitted from one generation to another through language, rituals, institutions (e.g., family, schools), laws, art, and tools of social communication. It can refer, among other things, to a certain social group (e.g., the culture of the poor, of the elite), nationality or race (Thai culture, Indian culture, Chinese culture), ethnic group (dalit culture, adivasi culture, the culture of the dominant group), or age group (youth culture). In fact arguably there is a certain culture of consecrated life based on values, beliefs, and practices commonly held.

Other than the question of culture in general, the further question is what is today’s Asian culture?

We are faced with the fact that Asia is characterized by a rich variety, a brilliant mosaic, of ancient cultures and languages, Malay, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Myanmar, etc., each with its own recorded and unrecorded historical roots in time immemorial. Moreover, there have been many inter-cultural developments through trade and commerce, conquest, migration, marriage, mass media, education. While a particular culture may be dominant in one country, it might in fact exhibit such intercultural mix.

In addition today cultural observers speak of an emerging global culture that emanates from the West and is increasingly bearing upon traditional Asian cultures through the process of economic globalization and the rapid advances of technology and science.

When speaking of today’s Asian culture, we take all these observations into account. They speak of cultural heterogeneity in Asia.

Positive Characteristics of “Asian” Culture

Given the rich kaleidoscope of Asian cultures, can we speak of an Asian culture? At the macro-level it is possible to observe commonalities which one could label as Asian cultural values. Reflecting deeply through the years on Asian cultures in its dialogue with the various cultures and peoples, the Church has identified various cultural characteristics generally common to Asians.

In 1998 at the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Asia, the Asian Bishops spoke about such cultural commonalities which Pope John Paul II’s post-synodal exhortation echoes:

The people of Asia take pride in their religious and cultural values, such as love of silence and contemplation, simplicity, harmony, detachment, non-violence, the spirit of hard work, discipline, frugal living, the thirst for learning and philosophical enquiry. They hold dear the values of respect for life, compassion for all beings, closeness to nature, filial piety towards parents, elders and ancestors, and a highly developed sense of community. In particular they hold the family to be a vital source of strength, a closely knit community with a powerful sense of solidarity. Asian peoples are known for their spirit of religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence….Many people, especially the young, experience a deep thirst for spiritual values….

All of this indicates an innate spiritual insight and moral wisdom in the Asian soul, and it is the core around which a growing sense of “being Asian” is built. This “being Asian” is best discovered and affirmed not in confrontation and opposition, but in the spirit of complementarity and harmony [Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Asia, 1998, no. 6].

Cultural Values that Foster Consecrated Life

From the above we perceive cultural values that can promote consecrated life in Asia, from vocation discernment to formation, from the living of evangelical counsels to spirituality and mission.

A sense of the sacred still prevails among Asian peoples. We point to the finger of God in the significant events of our lives. We are not afraid to speak openly of God and his mysterious ways. We go to holy places and shrines, visit churches, mosques, and temples for worship, or for temporary refuge, silence, solitude from the busyness of life. We are deeply appreciative of men and women of God-experience. The sense of the divine is deeply ingrained in our Asian cultural psyche. This is certainly a major reason for the steady increase of vocations in Asia, both to the priestly and religious life.

Perhaps it is our poverty as a continent that promotes frugality, simplicity, hard work, and dependence on God. But certainly such cultural values correspond quite well with the faith and trust in God that the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience express.

The Asian sense of community with its corollary values of complementarity and harmony rather than individualistic assertion and confrontation finds realization in the community life of consecrated persons. Close-knit family relationships, filial piety and respect for elders would likewise promote relationships in the formation process as well as harmony within the religious community. One can cite folklore and stories among Asian peoples of the close relationship between teacher, guro and disciple.

Cultural Values that Hinder Consecrated Life

Yet in Asian cultures we also find values, traditions and practices that are anti-Gospel and hinder the living of consecrated life.

As a preliminary remark, what the Asian Bishops observed some 23 years ago in the 1986 FABC Plenary Assembly in Tokyo on the Laity and reiterated at the 2004 FABC Plenary Assembly in Korea on the Asian family would have to be very seriously considered in relation to consecrated life in Asia. The Asian Bishops observed:

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the Church in Asia is that posed by the Asian family. The Asian family is the cellular receptacle of all of Asia’s problems, poverty, repression, exploitation and degradation, divisions and conflicts. The family is directly affected by the religious, political, economic, social and cultural problems of Asia, by the problems relating to women, health, work, business, education, etc. [For All the Peoples of Asia, 1992, p. 184; Final Document, 2004 FABC Plenary Assembly, The Asian Family towards a Culture of Integral Life,” no. 48].

Close family relationships, we know, are ambivalent. They can be a driving force for great personal sacrifice on behalf of the family, as in the case of migrant workers, many of whom work under contracts and in working conditions that could rightly be called “new slaveries.” But such close-knit family relationships are also often at the root of intermittent violence between families and clans. They are likewise the reason for endemic corruption in Asian societies, where the family comes first before the public good.

In the context of poverty, families can look at consecrated life as a step-up in the social mobility. Vocational motivation can be quite problematic. The concern for family can also become an overwhelming source of tension for a member of the community. In the close-knit Asian family we in the priestly and consecrated life do not seem really able to “leave father, mother, brother or sister” for the new family of faith. We still seem to be primarily attached to our family by blood.

It is also true that Asia is characterized by the great social and economic distances between the rich and the great majority of the people who are poor. Those who are called to consecrated life bring with them a culture of the poor and a culture of the rich. Friendships, and perhaps cliques, in consecrated life are often based on ethnic terms and economic class. Surely the tasks of formation and building community would have to take these divergent cultures into consideration.

In many Asian cultures patriarchy as a social attitude that considers men as superior and women as subservient has far reaching attitudinal effects. This is true for social life in general as well as for priestly and religious life. [As I observed at the recent Second Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Africa last month, patriarchy is probably less general in Asia than in the African continent. But the problem in both continents remains serious]. Formation in consecrated life can react to patriarchy by overemphasizing the opposite behavior. A balanced gender formation can provide a vibrant, healthy and dynamic sense of equality in dignity and complementarity in men and women in consecrated life.

An Emerging Global Culture?

Reflecting on today’s pastoral challenges various church assemblies in Asia have pointed at a present social and cultural phenomenon – the emergence of a global culture. Thus the FABC Plenary Assembly in Korea in 2004 observed:

Of even greater significance, economic globalization is also bringing cultural globalization in its wake. Since the middle of the 20th century Western secularism has been strongly influencing Asian societies. But at no time has the secularizing process, now with a significant post-modern spirit of individualistic sense of freedom, been more rapid and effective in reshaping the value systems of Asian families than in the last two decades of the 20th century. The bearers of this change are economics… and the on-going revolution in mass global communication that has truly made the world a global village [Final Document, no. 21].

What is this cultural phenomenon which we might call a post-modern culture?

It is an off-shoot, even a reaction, to the modern spirit. The modern spirit developed among European intellectuals, like Voltaire, in the 17th and 18th centuries. This was the era of the Enlightenment and scientific revolution. It proclaimed the primacy of human reason and rejected religious faith and authority. It denied divine revelation or “God’s metanarrative”. The philosopher, Rene Descartes, sought absolute certitude through reason immune from faith. Armed with reason and science, Modernism rejected “traditional” religious beliefs. It asserted a “metanarrative of human scientific progress.”

But in the late 19th and early 20th centuries came the philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. They rejected all “metanarratives” as absolutely universal whether that of human reason or that of religious faith. They were skeptical about social and moral norms. Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” was really a critique of the claims of objective truth in the Age of Reason. Other philosophers like Martin Heidegger exalted personal subjectivity rather than objectivity.

The emerging global technological culture exhibits the world view of the postmodern spirit. It rejects objective truth and gives primacy to personal subjectivity. It professes incredulity to all metanarratives that claim absolute truth. It believes that truth is of the moment and in time will change. It believes as true only in what the self interprets and constructs, i.e., in personal narratives. It is individualistic. Therefore truth is relative. Hence, pluralism regarding truth is a “dogma” of postmodernism. Someone has called this type of pluralism as an ideology of “whateverism.”

I admit that this is a simplified way, perhaps even simplistic way, of considering the post-modern spirit.

There are indeed many positive things that it has contributed. “It is bringing into Asia a greater awareness of individual dignity, autonomy, and human rights so characteristic of the West. It creates and promotes global solidarity almost instantaneously in times of great disaster. It has made knowledge of the world and of the human person to grow by leaps and bounds. The application and sharing of that knowledge has generally and significantly improved human life” [2004 FABC Plenary Assembly, Final Document, no. 22].

I would also add that the postmodern spirit has highlighted the importance and necessity of personal historicity, personal narratives, and subjective experience, including feelings, in integral human growth towards maturity in Christ. In a course on spiritual direction that I once attended it was important for me to know the place of feelings in discerning the movement of the Holy Spirit in my own life.

Impact of Postmodern Culture on Values

It has been observed that the emerging global culture is uprooting families from their traditional cultures. Neo-liberalism, materialism, secularism, consumerism are being brought into the sanctuaries of homes even in the grassroots through local TV and radio programs “that ape the media programs served by the West whose values and portrayal of family and life gradually become normative for viewers and listeners” [Ibid.. no. 24].
We can see also see how cinema and the lives and loves of the rich and famous add to the trivialization and subsequently the rejection of values once held sacred regarding love, marriage, family and permanent commitments.

Tools of social communication that are meant to enhance communication become hindrances to unity. They disturb the discipline that harmonious community living requires. They are “wants” that become “needs.” Simplicity and frugality are jeopardized. Silence, solitude and the sense of the sacred are disturbed by the ubiquity of instruments of social communication.

The emerging global culture is likewise creating a new kind of poor, those who, in the language of Pope John Paul II, “who do not know” – the poverty of knowledge, of technological knowledge and of access to that knowledge. Poor countries and poor families are further marginalized by this new form of poverty.

Conclusion

Such is presently the post-modern world into which Asia is entering at a rapid pace. It has been developing for more than a century. It is materialist, secularist, individualistic, and relativist. It disdains authoritative religious and moral norms. What is necessary is not absolute moral or doctrinal truth. Truth is that which people believe in as rooted in subjective experience.

A religious thinker (I don’t’ remember who) has said that we live chronologically in a postmodern world, but as Catholics we are not postmodern in the pejorative sense described above. We do believe in God’s metanarrative, in absolute truths, in objective truth learned by reason and faith, in the “traditional” values of marriage, family and permanent commitments.

This brings us to the reminder that Jesus gave at the Last Supper. We are in this world but we are not of this world.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato, Philippines
FABC-OCL Seminar, Hua Hin, Thailand
November 17, 2009

CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR MESSAGE

2009-12-22T00:08:00.002+08:00

In the Christian tradition an angel announced the birth of Jesus Christ to shepherds at night in the pasture fields of Bethlehem. With the angel was a” multitude of the heavenly host” praising God: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests” (Lk. 2:13-14).

Jesus fulfilled these words. The night before he died Jesus said to his Apostles: “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you” (Jn. 14:27). The Apostle Paul simply says of Christ Jesus: “He is our peace” (Eph. 2: 14).

Yet to this day we continue to live in the darkness of unpeace. The most inhuman of massacres has taken place in our region. Weapons of destruction proliferate. Armed kidnap groups prey on innocent people. Assassinations take place. We are no strangers to fear, tension, and insecurity. It took Martial Law and a State of Emergency to restore a semblance of security.

We ask: Why is this so? Because peace is both gift and task. Ultimately it is a gift of God. But it is also our task. It is our task to be peacemakers rather than to be destroyers of peace. That we do not have peace is due to us. We have not done our task.

Peace does not begin with guns. Peace begins in the heart, a heart of respect, kindness, of sharing and understanding, a heart of justice and truth, and as the basis of everything – a heart of charity.

Christmas and the New Year are signals from God to us to work towards that peace from God. We have to seize the opportunity. We begin with our hearts. That is my prayer.

A blessed Christmas and a Happy Year to one and all!

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

Maguindanao: After Martial Law, State of Emergency

2009-12-13T10:11:00.000+08:00

In an earlier blog I posed the question, “After Martial Law, What?” The Arroyo government answered yesterday, December 13—State of Emergency.

What do I think about this? First of all I do not know exactly what a”State of Emergency” really means. It does mean to me at least that the military will continue to hold sway over Maguindanao. Does it also still cover Sultan Kudarat? Having the good of the people in Maguindanao in mind, continued stay by the military would be good. I would also assume that people in Maguindanao and its adjacent provinces would be in favor of the government decision. They are, after all, familiar with the social, political, and cultural situation of Maguindanao.

Martial Law has accomplished several objectives—the most important being the arrest and detention of the principal suspects in the massacre. It also began the important process of searching for and confiscating weapons and defanging the armed power of one dominant clan. It restored a sense of security to ordinary people outside Shariff Aguak, accustomed to seeing a huge retinue of heavily armed escorts and bodyguards speeding through towns and villages to and from Cotabato City.

Assuming that the administration of justice regarding the massacre would now be in the hands of a fearless, independent and credible judicial group, I would like to see the State of Emergency continue the work that Martial Law began. This uncompleted relates fundamentally to the dysfunctions in Maguindanao. Among the agenda still to be done are: continuing military pursuit of suspected perpetrators of the massacre; completing the confiscation of weapons; dismantling all private armies in Maguindanao; establishing credible executive, judicial, legislative , and security systems, beholden to no one but only to the common good; establishing transparency and accountability in government; reforming the electoral process, including the establishment of credible and honest electoral bodies; ensuring that we would have new names and new faces in the next elections that sincerely have the good of he people in mind; protecting candidates, teachers and ballots. And in all these, the military must respect fundamental human rights.

Those are the objectives I believe the State of Emergency should strive to accomplish. I also believe that the Commission on Human Rights, rather than being adversarial, should play the role of a monitoring and evaluative body with legal teeth to bring cases of human rights violations to court. The vigilance of civil society and the moral guidance of religious leaders from all religious traditions are indispensable.

Between now and elections in ARMM and Maguindanao, the social and political groundwork should be laid down for a more free, a more participatory, honest peaceful, and credible elections that would attract candidates who are capable and may not necessarily carry a political name. There are many out there who would like to contribute towards the forming of a new Maguindanao but may be intimidated by the present post-Martial Law situation. It is my hope that the uncompleted agenda to establish the proper ambience for substantive change may be effectively addressed by a State of Emergency.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

December 13, 2009

After Martial Law in Maguindanao, What?

2009-12-12T10:25:00.002+08:00

Martial Law in Maguindanao will accomplish some objectives: the arrest, detention, and prosecution of clan members suspected of perpetrating the horrendous massacre in Ampatuan town last November 23, 2009; the definite inevitability of justice for the victims; the successful search and confiscation of many legal and illegal weapons from police, CVOs, and some soldiers under the control of powerful clan members; the disempowerment of local authority and power in various municipalities that are subservient to the ruling clan. People feel a greater sense of relief and freedom while traveling on the national highway between the two cities of Cotabato and Tacurong. Gone are the many armed escorts and bodyguards protecting officials and clan members against similarly armed enemies.

Deeply rooted in Maguindanao is a culture of dominant clan power. A false reading of the situation results in a truncated view of Maguindanao political history. This view sees the phenomenon as the product of one government period, the decade of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Arguably a greater share of the blame could be laid at the door of the present government. But the culture of dominant and changing local power has been with us in the once “empire province of Cotabato,” which included the present Maguindanao, since at least the 1950s. To my knowledge, no government from the 1950s to the present did anything serious to root this out. In the past 60 years, all governments and many politicians from all parties wanting to get votes have cultivated this culture and ignored the periodic violence that erupted. It was a case of mutual political exploitation and expediency. We ourselves, ordinary citizens, have kept quiet in the past 60 years and learned the art of accommodation.

But of course criticism of Martial Law in Maguindanao is really based on total distrust of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Survey after survey is paraded to say that this is the pulse of the people. The stand of small protesting “militant” groups is given disproportionate media exposure. Political oppositionists and personalities from “militant” organizations are interviewed again and again to give their expected negative views on actions of government. In a very real sense the extraordinary amount of media exposure that is given to the opposition in Manila provides a distorted view of the country as a whole.

But given all the above it is now clear that the peoples’ hopes and expectations in Central and Central Mindanao regarding Martial Law will not all be realized. Some of these are: the disbanding of all private armies in Maguindanao; the identification and arrest of members of kidnapping and drug syndicates; the restructuring of legislative, judicial, and executive units so as to be more democratic, independent, trustworthy and pro-common good; and the assurance that elections would be honest, clean, and peaceful.

What might be the reason for the failure to meet expectations? Martial Law by its nature as a last resort should be of short duration. But precisely because of its brevity, the following will result: one clan will be significantly disarmed; the balance of political and armed power will shift to other clans; private armies will remain though possibly less visible and probably more sophisticated in behavior; the deep trauma resulting from the massacre will persist; rido is not going to be stopped; the legislative, justice, and executive--and electoral--mechanisms will still be in the hands of those related to or have debts of gratitude to various families; and if a member of the rival clan will somehow gain the top post of the province, do we in Maguindanao really believe that the provincial capitol will remain in Shariff Aguak? Even the peace process will be affected by the loyalties of local rebel commanders to their own clans. Hence, the fundamental dysfunctions in Maguindanao will remain after Martial Law.

What do I see as a possible solution? Even now sentiments are strong in Central and southern Mindanao that elections for local offices in Maguindanao should be deferred. Or at least the term of Martial Law should be extended till after the elections. The fundamental suggestion is for us to move forward from partisan political criticism to collective constructive thinking and effective action on this central issue of Maguindanao dysfunction. I respectfully address this to all concerned, particularly the Senate, House of Representatives, the judicial branch and the Arroyo administration, as well as to all of us Maguindanawons.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
December 11, 2009

MARTIAL LAW IN MAGUINDANAO: A PASTORAL PERSPECTIVE

2009-12-07T07:28:00.000+08:00

“Bishop, what is the Church’s position on Martial Law in Maguindanao?” Muslims and Christians have asked me this question. I have reflected on the question in the light of the situation in Maguindanao and of the social teachings of the Church. It is difficult to provide an indisputable answer. I can only provide some prudential pastoral guidelines for our faithful to consider.

The situation of injustice and unpeace in Maguindanao is very complex. One has to consider the incredible proliferation of firearms, legal and illegal, throughout the province—and these not only in the hands of so-called warlords, CVO’s and police. Liquidations by motorcycle-riding men, kidnapping by armed groups, despite deterrence provided by the army’s Operation Tugis, still occasionally take place. Rido between some MILF commanders and the Ampatuan clan has been going on since Datu Saudi Ampatuan, the young enlightened mayor of Datu Piang, was killed some years ago. This cycle of violence has affected the peace process in that area and its surrounding municipalities. Guns seem to be everywhere. The functioning of courts of justice and of election bodies have been highly suspect for a long time partly due to the political allegiances of court officers. Competence, transparency, and accountability in political governance in many places have to be significantly improved. In Maguindanao, family name and relationships is most important.

The aftermath of November 23, 2009, that day of infamy, shows how slow government reaction can be, given all the above circumstances. Media and politicians from far away Manila do not seem to be familiar with these social, political, and cultural situation in Maguindanao. They seem to think that the police and the military can easily go into an area and just arrest the suspected culprits. Even a “state of emergency” did not seem adequate to cope with the situation.

Thus, a declaration of martial law. What do I think about it? Having reflected on the social, political, and cultural situation I have described above in the light of the social teachings of the Church I offer the following prudential guidelines for our faithful in the Archdiocese of Cotabato:

1. Martial Law is a last resort. I am not a lawyer and a constitutionalist. I shall leave the legal and constitutional debate to them. I do not know if all other recourse to resolve the above situation, particularly the appalling and most dreadful crime of November 23 that cries out to heaven, would be adequate. The complexity and the abnormality of the situation and the need for swift justice for 57 brutally massacred innocent civilians would dictate an extraordinary measure. Since Martial Law has been declared. Let it be. I let the lawyers debate it. I pray that Martial Law resolve the abnormal situation and deal swift justice for the victims.

2. Martial Law is double edged. Military rule is out of the ordinary. The use of weapons to impose that rule is very risky for human rights. We know that even the suspects in the massacre have human rights. Therefore, even as justice for the victims is to be pursued, it should not be by doing injustice to the accused. A wrong cannot be made right by another wrong. Justice is to be pursued in a just way.

3. Martial Law, as a last resort, may be necessary only for the decisive resolution of the problems in Maguindanao I have described. Once it is no longer necessary, it must immediately cease. The shorter the time, the better. This is because of the double-edge nature of Martial Law. The longer it is exercised, the more likely it would be for human rights to be violated and for weapons to be used for evil.

We continue to pray for the victims and their families, some of whom are our own friends. We pray for the quick apprehension and fair trial of all suspects. We pray for the disbanding of all armed groups, the confiscation of all illegal arms, the reform and restructuring of electoral, peace and security agencies. We pray for the arrest and prosecution of kidnapping and liquidating bandits groups. We pray for the return of functioning governing municipal and regional agencies not beholden to any political name. We pray for all the people of Maguindanao, Christian, Muslims, Lumads, Buddhists, Confucianists, etc. that all may live in peace together as brothers and sisters, with leaders that are, in a very true sense, public servants.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
December 6, 2009

A Crime that Cries out to Heaven

2009-11-26T08:04:00.001+08:00

To all People of Good Will:

Last Monday, 23 November 2009, the shocking news of a horrifying massacre began circulating through radio, text messages, and word of mouth. Twenty four hours later, there were still no complete and accurate reports on what really happened along the highway between Shariff Aguak and Kauran, Ampatuan, Maguindanao. The number of people massacred continues to rise even now, family-members, friends, legal advocates, journalists, and civilians who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

From the beginning there was no doubt that we were hearing or reading of a tragedy unprecedented in the history of the once empire province of Cotabato, unprecedented in its ferocity, brutality and brazenness.

People cry out to God and to one another, “How could this thing happen?” And as more and more bodies were unearthed from that now infamous “killing field,” the wailing and grieving of hundreds of families related to the victims as brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, nephews and nieces, in laws or friends are turning into righteous rage and the natural desire for vendetta. For the sake of humanity we must not give in to this desire to seek vengeance that can so easily spiral into a cycle of violence.

From the depths of my soul as a religious leader, I condemn in the strongest possible way this barbaric act of massacre as a conscience-less crime that cries out to heaven.

As a citizen I demand that the government, without fear or favor, use all its powers and decisively act to identify and arrest the perpetrators and apply the full force of the law on them.

As a believer in the God of all, I pray for the souls of the victims and ask the Lord to console, comfort, and give strength to their families. I grieve with them and express my deepest sympathies.

Many politicians and non-politicians have quickly blamed others for this shocking tragedy. This is only partly right and conveniently absolves us from any culpability. My sense of history leads me to believe that somehow we all share the blame to a certain extent. A culture of impunity has, indeed, grown through the years. Political administrations and officials from all parties from the 1960s to the present have cultivated and exploited to their own advantage a social structure of traditional leadership that was meant to be for the good of the people. This was so with powerful political families in other parts of the country. We have not tried to change this culture of political convenience and thus allowed a culture of impunity to endure through successive administrations. Elections have not and will not change this situation. We simply get more of the same.

We need to change from the bottom-up, from individuals to families, from families to communities. We need to change our values that tolerate evil or choose the lesser evil. We need to learn new values that will transform our cultures from within. For Muslims the Koran, faithfully and correctly followed, will be a guide. For Christians, the Holy Bible, also faithfully and correctly interpreted, will provide direction for value transformation.

Beloved People of Good Will, yes, indeed, we must condemn. We must demand decisive action for justice. We must pray. But we also must begin to change. With the grace of God, we can.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.

Archbishop of Cotabato

November 26, 2009

For Cory Aquino: Christmas Reflection, 1989

2009-08-04T19:21:00.000+08:00

(This was written after one of the several failed coups that tried to President Aquino. I gave it to Cory Aquino to share with her my own concern for peace after three years of fledgling fragile democracy).

Peace is wisp of wind in the noonday heat
Stirring the regal pines on distant hills
Sweeping down the fields of golden rice
Cooling feverish cheeks.
Momentarily.
Peace can fade away, quickly, evanescent.

Peace is a young chirping bird
Sallying forth from its mother’s nest
Flapping its wings testing the breeze
Exploring the sky and the earth.
Blithely. Briefly.
Peace can be shot down, cruelly, fragile.

Peace is a throbbing healing “yes”
To the wailing of children for food
The outstretched hands of the poor for justice
The hunger of a nation for integrity
The blessed outrage over blood-spewing guns.
A drive. Spirit-force.
Peace is a flame in the heart searing, perduring.

Peace is frail infant on a manger
Who shall announce: To you
On whom my Father’s favour rests
I give my peace
A peace the world cannot give.
Follow me.

How, Lord, shall we follow?
To drink of your peace?
To end our wars and divisions?
Our mad scrambling for power?
How, Lord, shall we become
Sisters and brothers once more?

Pease is a passion to share, to serve
A compassion for the world’s crippled and maimed
An embrace, a crucifixion, yet freedom to be,
A love without retention limits.
Measureless breadth and depth.
Follow me, come!

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Nueva Segovia, December 8, 1989

Cory—My Personal Symbol of Inang Bayan

2009-08-04T18:38:00.002+08:00

MILLIONS of Filipinos shouted the battle cry, “Cory! Cory! Cory!,” throughout the campaign period for the Snap Elections of 1986. Finally Filipinos had real hope in ousting President Ferdinand Marcos from an office he had held since 1964.

More than an icon of democracy Cory was and is to me my personal symbol of Inang Bayan, our beloved Motherland.

I first met President Cory Aquino during her campaign sortie to Kidapawan. While many of her fellow campaigners delighted the huge crowd in the town plaza, she came for a quiet visit to the Bishop’s Residence.

She wore her signature yellow dress. Obviously she was the darling of our lay staff and she had picture taking with them. After exchanging pleasantries I asked her to go with me and visit the grave of Fr. Tullio Favali, P.I.M.E., The brutal murder of this gentle Italian missionary priest in 1985 by paramilitary forces had demonstrated for me the darkest side of the Marcos regime. We walked the few meters from the Bishop’s residence to the grave and we prayed for Fr. Tullio.

Her brief visit and presence was a lifting of the spirit for a Church that had known so much suffering from human rights abuses from 1980 to 1985.

From that time on Cory was for me the woman who best symbolized motherland, Inang Bayan. And her gracious, gentle, laid back and kind manner just reinforced that first intuition. From afar I followed her progress during the campaign and prayed for her to win.

We organized NAMFREL in Kidapawan. Thank God, most of our Clergy, Religious, and Lay Leaders were willing. A handful did not think that the elections would help and opted with the Left for boycott.

Cory campaigned with a simple down to earth, womanly and motherly style of talking, like telling a story, devoid of the oratorical and sometimes pompous style of many campaigners. Her enthusiastic reception by millions of people made it increasingly clear that change was imminent, in the air. The agents of change would be the enthusiastic millions, young and old, who listened to her and shouted “Cory! Cory! Cory!”

The Snap Elections were held on February 7, 1986. On February 13-14, 1986, the Bishops gathered in plenary assembly as they had previously agreed, should any emergency take place. This was emergency. The government press was saying that Marcos had already won the elections.

Cardinal Ricardo Vidal, the President of the Bishops’ Conference, called for each Bishop to share the experience of NAMFREL in his diocese regarding the honesty and integrity of the elections.

He asked me to moderate the session, summarize and synthesize the results. Each of the Bishops spoke. There was no doubt – the elections were filled with fraud, fraud that literally changed the results.

We then went to reflect on this situation and pray before the Blessed Sacrament. The Bishops came together again and worked on a statement which they approved by consensus. This was the dramatic post-election statement. The Bishops declared: “According to moral principles, a government that assumes or retains power through fraudulent means has no moral basis.”
Until today I deeply regret that I had no direct hand in drafting the final statement. Cardinal Vidal had asked me to help write the draft. But I had to go to the hospital. I gave Cardinal Vidal my three essential points for a draft: (a) that the elections were substantially fraudulent; (b) that Present Marcos had no moral basis to retain power; (c) that this immoral situation had somehow to be corrected. I gave all my notes to Cardinal Vidal.

Cory called for strikes and boycotts. Then Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and General Fidel Ramos broke away from the Marcos government. With that came the call of Cardinal Jaime Sin for people to go to EDSA and protect the small breakaway band of soldiers.

For me the call to EDSA was genuinely a call to protect Cory, my personal symbol of Inang Bayan.

+ORLANDO B. QUEVEDO, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

AN OPEN APPEAL FOR PEACE AND FOR OUR EVACUEES

2009-07-23T13:12:00.000+08:00

To all Warring Parties:

As a Religious leader I respect your causes, although I may not agree with your methods.

But precisely because I am a Religious leader I strongly condemn every violent act perpetrated that has no concern for the innocent.

I condemn in the strongest terms as serious moral evil such crimes as terrorist bombings that by their very nature target the innocent, punitive raids on villages, bombardments that fall on civilian populations, landmines that can kill any passerby. For me “collateral damage” simply means murder and deliberate unjustifiable destruction of property.

War inflicts more destruction on civilians than on combatants. For every combatant killed, scores of civilians suffer or die. In the past twelve months I have seen thousands of civilians languishing in evacuation camps, first in the Pikit and PALMA areas and now in Datu Piang and various other places of Maguindanao. They give birth to babies under dismal conditions, they beg for food and water, they struggle for life in the most miserable situation. They die as statistics. Such human tragedy, it is said, has spawned brutal retaliatory terrorism elsewhere in our region.

From the depths of my soul I can only cry out to all warring parties, “Enough is enough!” End your so called search and punish operations. End your terrorist bombings. End your bombardments, end your raids, all you warring parties! Enough is enough!

Due punishment for raids has long been meted out in an attrition of casualties and damaged properties. And now what most sadly remains is the senseless logic of war, of action and reaction. And the suffering of thousands of civilian evacuees. Enough is enough!

For the sake of our evacuees and in the name of our one God of Peace, end your war! Go back to the negotiating table. Let the thousands of evacuees return safely to their home. Collaborate with one another towards this objective. Together, rehabilitate their destroyed properties. Give them another chance for a truly human life.

With the grace of the Most Merciful, Most Beneficent, Most Compassionate God, the one unique God we all believe in, there is no human conflict that cannot be solved through a genuine honest dialogue of the heart.

May the One Almighty Loving God of all have compassion on us.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
July 23, 2009

The Cha Cha Brouhaha

2008-12-14T21:38:00.003+08:00

From our “remote” world of Cotabato, “far from the madding crowd” of “imperial” Manila, Manila with its peculiar concerns seems to be in another planet.

The people in the former “empire” province of Cotabato are daily generally concerned about violence, armed skirmishes, the security of the highways, floods, and the miserable plight of “bakwits”, families displaced from their homes because of armed encounters between government troops and various rebel groups, prices of basic commodities—i.e, basic necessities—the very first rung of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Manila and our honorable legislators, as the media blare out regularly on their first pages or at prime time, are concerned about “nagbabagang balita.” Such as impeachment of the President, charter change, and senate investigations of various so called “scams.”

There is something really sad and tragic about all this. The following are some personal theses, personal thoughts really, that do not claim to reflect the opinion of the CBCP.

Thesis 1: That the House of Representatives continue to push Con Ass is truly incredible. Some would say asinine. I would tend to agree. Our Congressmen are pushing this agendum for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time. They are out of touch with their own constituents. On this important matter, they no longer represent the people but only themselves. Wrong reasons, because their motivations are not clear and transparent and people simply conclude, rightly I think, that our “representatives” only want extension of terms. Wrong time, because today the whole country and particularly the poor are facing far more urgent concerns. Our legislators need to seriously consider, for instance, the impact of economic globalization and the global financial meltdown, the growing divide between the government and the Bangsamoro, and the undeclared but continuing “war” in the Cotabato areas.

Thesis 2: The Cha Cha brouhaha is even more amusing and exasperating than the Senate investigations to “search for the truth” and the House of Representatives’ yearly attempts to impeach the President. Except for the case against former President Estrada where witnesses who were directly involved bravely came out to testify to what they saw with their own eyes in the jueteng anomaly and regarding the Velarde account, Senate investigation of various “scams” generally is a “road to nowhere.” The Senate has not been the right place to search for the truth. The process undertaken reflects an identity crisis. It is neither in “aid of legislation” nor a process of legal investigation where truth is exposed through declaration and refutation. As a result, no change in belief takes place. Anti-Gloria people remain anti-Gloria and pro-Gloria people remain pro-Gloria. But it does make the “scam” even more public without really proving that it is, indeed, a scam. But perhaps that is the agenda? Thus witnesses are said to be lying when their testimonies do not agree with what Senators may already have believed to be the truth. This is why they would want “more witnesses” to come out. The bottom line seems to be that Senate “investigations” do not really bring out the truth. They belong to the entertainment genre. But the Cha Cha brouhaha takes the cake. In this case, amusement turns to exasperation. Why, oh, why should the Lower House continue to push a concern that seems to be so self-serving and so unpopular? It pushes credibility to its lower depths. Sometimes I wonder what “Lower House” really means.

Thesis 3: Reactions in Manila to its “burning concerns” are usually exaggerated overkill or are meant to overkill. Thus the Cha Cha protest rally of yesterday. Trumpeted one newspaper, “Rage vs GMA, Con Ass.” One would think that the whole country was in rage. But only about 7,000 people led by the same names and same faces (Left, Right, and Center) with the same well known anti-Gloria agenda, showed up for the rally. If it were a Church-sponsored prayer rally for cha cha, the headline would have scoffed at the poor showing. Yet the media keeps dancing to the tune of the same crowd, same names, same faces. These keep appearing in different fora. The forum could be interfaith. It could be a political alliance activity masquerading as a prayer rally. Yearly impeachments, investigations, rallies – why, oh why do they continue? The Lozada “truth” tour fizzled out for lack of public acceptance. Rallies that pre-claim to gather 150,000 to 500,000 can only gather 15,000. The peak of protests was when Susan Roces and Cory Aquino withtheir supporters collaborated with the political opposition and the Left. They could muster only about 50,000 people. These activities are meant to dramatize what they have been trying to push forward since 2001? That Gloria stole the presidency? That everything about Gloria, what she is and what she does is “evil”? The rallies are simply overkill, a hyperbolic reaction to what is perceived as truth. Is it possible that as long as the same faces and alliances with their own questionable varying vested agenda are there, there would be no “tipping point”? Are they perhaps the wrong names, the wrong faces and the wrong groups to call people to action? Are their varying vested agenda perhaps the wrong credentials? And so they ask the Bishops of the Philippines to help them. But is the situation really a matter of “searching for the truth” as the Bishops have consistently urged? Or is it for these groups a matter of the truth already incontrovertibly arrived at?

Thesis 4: My personal position on Cha Cha is the following –

a. No process of charter change should be allowed that intends to extend terms of office;

b. The elections in 2010 must proceed;

c. If charter change is to proceed it must not be by constituent assembly but by constitutional convention;

d. I have a personal conviction about two provisions: a new constitution must not do away with the pro-life and pro-poor provisions of the present Constitution; it must also provide a constitutional basis for Moro self-determination, without violating national sovereignty and territorial integrity;

e. There must be widespread people consultation regarding what needs to be changed in the Constitution;

f. The whole process must be imbued with integrity and transparency;

g. The bottom line is this: this is not the time for a constitutional change; the Bishops of the Philippines have, since the time of President Ramos, repeatedly said that if constitutional change is, indeed, necessary it should be at a time of social serenity, with no polarizing political divisions, with widespread people participation, and through a constitutional convention.

Thesis 5: I base the above position not on any political reason but on the social moral teachings of the Church. I cite particularly the principles of the common good, social justice and truth, freedom and self-determination, participation, integral human development including cultural, and the proper role of political authority. These, I believe, might be the moral bases of any statement that the CBCP could issue on the subject of the cha cha brouhaha.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
December 14, 2008

Two Fundamental Postulates for Lasting Peace in Mindanao

2008-09-04T18:26:00.000+08:00

After the tragic fiasco regarding the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), I presume as a matter of course that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front are incontact with its other.

As a contribution to any backdoor channeling, I address myself to both Moros and non-Moros, and those who claim to represent them.

The following, I believe, are the two fundamental bases for the forging of lasting peace in Mindanao. At the very beginning of any peace negotiation, there has to be a clear and explicit recognition, mutually accepted: (1) of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution; (2) of the Moro aspiration for self determination and its concrete realization in a manner in accord with the Philippine Constitution. It seems to me that these fundamental concepts are at lease implicitly accepted by both groups.

I believe that the lack of clarity in the MOA-AD with regard to the above two-fold fundamental concepts, aggravated by lack of consultation and reinforced by anger, misinformation, misconceptions, biases, prejudices, and resistance to change, led to the present grave uncertainties regarding the peace process.

The first postulate is clear to non-Moros. The second is not. For most of us the recognition of Moro self-determination and the Bangsamoro Juridical entity in which it is exercised are tantamount to giving away parts of Philippine territory and establishing a Moro independent State. It does not matter if there are several examples in the world, where self-determination is recognized and implemented without necessarily establishing an independent State and dismembering a Republic. It does not matter if the rejected MOA-AD does not in any way express such establishment or dismembering. Great anger and violence have resulted from this situation.

The non-Moro should begin with Moro history to understand Moro self-determination. It is undisputed that Islam was brought to the Philippines before the Spaniards came, even before there was such a name as “Philippines.” It is undisputed that Muslim Sultanates exercised sovereignty and wielded political power over most of Mindanao, Tawi-Tawi and Sulu, a territory considerably larger than the present ARMM or the “expanded ARMM” that the MOA-AD envisions. It is undisputed that the demographic composition of the population and the subject of political authority in Mindanao were completely reversed from Moros to non-Moros within only the 50 years between 1920 to 1970, such that Moros became a minority in the large swath of territory over which they, through their Sultanates, once held sway.

We, therefore, need to accept the fact that the Moro aspiration for self-determination is based on indisputable recorded history Our historical consciousness needs to go back to the times of the southern Sultanates and the religion they professed. There we see a people from the Malay race but with a distinct religion and political identity. They had been part of the indigenous peoples who had converted to Islam. We know that the term “Moro” came much later in their history, introduced by Spanish colonizers to refer derogatively to the people who had the same religion as the Moors that had conquered southern Spain. Through the Sultanates this distinct people from various indigenous tribes held political sway, sovereignty, if one may use the term, over a territory covering most of Mindanao and Sulu. Through the Sultans they governed themselves. At documented periods and occasions, Moros expressed their aspiration for self-determination either by peaceful means or by armed interventions. This aspiration has endured through four centuries of relative peace and short periods of war. Restlessness for self-determination lies deep in the collective Moro subconscious. Like Rizal and the Filipino elite of their time, Moro scholars, intellectuals, writers, warriors and leaders kept this aspiration alive.

The desire for self-determination we recognize now as a fundamental right. It does not necessarily mean an independent State. It simply means as a common attribute of all peoples an option for self-government outside or within a national community. It is an option that is enduring, lying deep in the subconscious of the human community, part and parcel of that divine gift we call freedom, or self-determination. It does not die. It maybe dormant, it might be repressed, but sooner or later it will want to surface either in rebellion or in peaceful assertion. War will not defeat this fundamental human option. It cannot be killed. Without recognition and some form of implementation, peaceful co-existence is simply an artificial temporary veneer. That is the human condition, the condition of human communities with distinct cultures and identities, especially with a history of self-determination.

Recognizing that legitimate aspiration, we also need to recognize the realities that came during the American period of our history. Spain ceded the entire islands to the United States. It was the United States that eventually and effectively placed all the islands under its political power. Yet even the United States recognized the aspiration of the Moro people with the creation of a “Moro province.” Historical records tell us that from time to time, Moro leaders would remind the ruling power of their right to self-determination, of not wanting to be under “Filipino” sovereignty.

But we cannot also escape the development of history. The historical reality is that the the United States, followed by the Philippine government, exercised political power over all of the Philippines. And so we have the concepts of national sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in successive Constitutions. Even if one might not accept the Constitution, the reality of national sovereignty and territorial integrity predates the Constitution which simply came later to express or articulate the reality.

These then are the two-fold realities that are fundamental to any peace negotiation: the recognition of Moro self-determination and the acceptance of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

These two concepts are not contradictory. They do not cancel each other out. One can exist with the other. It is the balancing and concrete implementing of these two fundamental postulates that is the central task of peace negotiating.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
September 4, 2008

A General Roadmap towards Lasting Peace in Mindanao

2008-09-04T18:15:00.000+08:00

In the light of the impasse, lack of clarity, and confusion that have resulted from the MOA-AD fiasco, may I respectfully submit the following suggestion for the peace process to move forward.

As essential talking points representing a roadmap towards lasting peace in Mindanao, I believe that the following issues should be agreed upon by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF):

Any peace process in Mindanao must accept two basic principles: the Moro fundamental aspiration for self-determination and the Philippine government’s right to national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The beginning of a solution to balance Moro aspiration for self-determination and Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution is already partly expressed in the concept of ARMM. Despite its many inadequacies the ARMM is an exercise of self-determination in the form of autonomy within the framework of the Philippine Constitution. A more developed balancing elaborating constitutes the road to lasting peace.

The road to lasting peace involves a wholistic solution, political, economic, cultural, and religious.

A political solution, much less a military solution, will not suffice nor will a simply economic one, without the political and cultural/religious. The ill-fated Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) is an attempt to provide a wholistic solution.

The road to lasting peace must resolve the following issues:

(a) the issue of representation in the peace agreement – does the GRP panel really represent the Philippine government; does the MILF really represent the Bangsamoro and the Lumad;
(b) the issue of prior and informed consultation with their respective constituencies;
(c) the issue of the territorial coverage of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE);
(d) the issue of the powers (e.g., judicial, executive, legislative, economic, diplomatic, military, territorial) of the BJE;
(e) the issue of the relationship between the BJE and the Republic of the Philippines (e.g. is the BJE clearly understood as part and parcel of the Republic of the Philippines);
(f) the issue of disarmament, demobilization, and rehabilitation / reintegration (while the actual implementation could wait for the endgame of the peace process, its discussion should be introduced much earlier as in the experience of successful peace processes).

Given the above roadmap, the road ahead consists of the following elements:

(a) continuing the peace process within the parameters presented in number one above;
(b) resolving the questions enumerated in number three above;
(c) forging a unity of opinion – consensus – on the basis of all the above points through widespread consultations by both sides;
(d) building constituencies in order to support the peace process;
(e) stopping all armed conflicts during any peace negotiation.

Any military or violent reaction to respond to the striking down of the MOA-AD would merely reinforce the mindsets of bias, prejudice, anger, and resentment. Even now the volatile situation is threatening to explode through further acts of terrorism and the arming of civilians on both sides of the cultural divide.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
September 4, 2005

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front – a Terrorist Organization?

2008-08-29T21:29:00.000+08:00

In the aftermath of the ruthless attacks by three MILF field commanders on civilian populations in North Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, and Sarangani, the question of the MILF as a terrorist organization has again been raised.

The issue: Is the MILF a terrorist organization and should it be officially declared so?

The usual non-Moro response is, “Yes. The MILF has once again revealed its true colors. It has attacked towns and villages. It has gone on a rampage, killing innocent civilians, murdering, burning, pillaging, looting, using civilians as human shields – these are terrorist acts. Therefore, the MILF is a terrorist organization.”

The Moro general reaction seems to be: “Indeed, these acts are not morally unjustifiable. They are to be condemned. But these do not make the MILF a terrorist organization. These acts were perpetrated by MILF commanders acting on their own against MILF official policy. We deeply regret such acts. They have given a bad name to the MILF. They have seriously set back the peace process.”

Listening to many Moros speak on this issue, I would add the following remarks to this general Moro reaction: “Like us these MILF commanders were angry at the rejection of the MOA-AD by the government. Like us they saw the long peaceful work towards the recognition of our aspirations for self-determination dismissed by the Supreme Court. Anger led them to violence. We do not agree with their reaction but we can understand why.” I might also add this reaction by a few radically inclined Moro thinkers: “We are not asking for independence. But if the government refuses to recognize our fundamental right to self-determination, why don’t we all unite and just go ahead and fight for independence?”

In the light of such context, the real question is: Does the brutal violence of three MILF commanders on civilian populations in Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato, and Sarangani make the whole MILF organization terrorist?

Many Christians all over the Philippines would say yes. Against the opinion of many of my own Christian flock whom I serve as Archbishop, I say no.

May I submit the following points for sober reflection:

Among the scores of MILF commanders in Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, North Cotabato, Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, Shariff Kabungsuan, South Cotabato, Sarangani, Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte, Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur, Basilan, Sulu and Taw-Tawi, how many actually supported the action of the three commanders?
How many instead followed the official policy of the MILF about civilian populations?
Did the MILF Central Committee authorize the action of the three commanders?
Did the Central Committee not try to stop the three commanders?
Did our own military and ceasefire mechanisms not try to limit military objectives and the areas of operation so as to target only the forces of the three commanders?
Did the three commanders act like the Abu Sayaff and take 12 or even only two “kidnappable” people for ransom when they could have easily done so?
Does not the MILF Central Committee believe that the actions of its three commanders have seriously set back the peace process?
If the MILF were a terrorist organization like the Abu Sayaff and Al-Qaeda, would it even have ceased fighting to talk peace?
Would it ever have cooperated with our military to go after bandits going to their areas of influence?
Did investigations on atrocities committed against our Marines in Basilan provide evidence that such atrocities were perpetrated by MILF ambushers?

On the other hand:

We do not believe that our own government with our own military is terrorist, even if:

We had military commanders leading so called “lost commands” that operated freely on their own in Mindanao;
Our troops never really pursued them and rooted them out;
We never brought them to the courts of justice;
Fanatical vigilante groups known for their ruthlessness against Moro civilians were tolerated and even worked quietly with our military commanders;
Our military forces attacked Camp Abubakar, reportedly hours after an accord for ceasefire had been agreed upon;
We never investigated and brought to justice our own soldiers who were accused by human rights organizations for abuses against civilians, whether Moros or non-Moros;

Reflecting on the above questions and soberly responding to them would surely bring us to a wiser position on the issue of terrorism. We need to be more logical and wise in judging the MILF organization as terrorist on the ground that some of its commanders have perpetrated terrorist acts. The actions of a few are not necessarily the actions of the whole.

Mutatis mutandis we also apply, I believe, the same principle and the same logic regarding “scalawags” in the Church, media, military, police, executive, judiciary, and legislative branches of government. We do not necessarily judge the whole by the actions of the few.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
August 29, 2008

Judging the MOA-AD: A Parable for Our Time

2008-08-18T19:10:00.001+08:00

This is the first of two reflections on how to assess the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF in the light of our quest for lasting peace in Mindanao.

Many people reject the MOA-AD because they say the document is giving away Philippine territory to the Moros. It is a dismembering the Philippine Republic.

Other reasons for absolute rejection are:
*The Filipino people were not consulted.
*Even if there will be plebiscites, these will be rigged to favor the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity;
*The Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is simply another name for an Islamic State independent of the Philippines;
*President Macapagal-Arroyo allegedly wants the MOA-AD because it would mean a change in the Constitution to extend her term;
*The President is allegedly so corrupt that we cannot simply trust her with any agreement;
*The United States reportedly influenced the peace process and the MOA-AD because it wants an American military base in southern Philippines and has economic interests in the area.

One observes that most of the above reasons are external to the contents of the MOA-AD. The MOA-AD is not being judged on its own merits. The document is being rejected because of suspicions regarding possible circumstances surrounding it.

For this reason may I tell a story.

The master told his disciples this parable. Jane, a jeweler, saw a beautiful diamond in a shop. She admired and desired it. Unfortunately her competitor, Juan, owned the shop. Juan was reputed to be dishonest and always wanted to take advantage of his customers. But the more Jane looked at the diamond, the more she liked it. So she asked Juan, “How much is that diamond?” “750,000 pesos,” said Juan. Jane was shocked. “The price is too high for such a small diamond!” “Take it or leave it,” answered Juan. But Jane really liked the diamond. So she asked, “Is it genuine?” Another gentleman entered the conversation and said, “Oh, yes. I certify it is genuine. By the way my name is William. I shaped the diamond myself.” Really desiring the diamond, Jane said, “I know you, but can I have the diamond examined?” Both Juan and William agreed. So the next day, Jane brought her husband, Jose, who was an expert diamond examiner. Using his examining tools, Jose scrutinized the diamond from every angle for a whole hour, noting every facet of it. Then he took his wife aside and whispered to her, “You know how much I dislike Juan and suspect that fellow William. I must admit that the diamond is 100% genuine. There is no doubt. But I have noticed certain flaws in the shaping. So try to bring the price down, we can correct the flaws.” So Jane bargained. After a while, Juan and Jane agreed on 700,000 pesos. Both were happy and became good friends.

The disciples asked, “Master, why did Jane buy the diamond from people she did not trust?” “Because the diamond, though imperfect, was genuine,” said the Master.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
August 17, 2008

Let the MOA-AD Speak for Itself

2008-08-17T17:00:00.000+08:00

Violence is breaking out once again in Southern Philippines. Doubly tragic because such violence could be prevented. The popular rejection of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain has separated the positions of Moros and Christians quite clearly.

Many Moros are now saying, “Christians will never recognize our fundamental right to self-determination as a people. We do not want an independent State. We simply want self-determination in our ancestral land.” On the other hand, Christian Filipinos are passionately affirming their stand, “We do not want to be driven away from our lands. We do not want any Philippine territory to be taken away. We do not want to be part of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity.”

The great tragedy for the country is that the MOA-AD is being rejected for reasons that can be resolved or may not even be in the MOA-AD. It is as though our fears and prejudices have become the measure for judging the Memorandum of Agreement. There is no substitute to actually reading and studying the document – in itself – to know what it says, to know what it does not say, and to realize the implications of all these. By rejecting the Memorandum of Agreement on the basis of misconception, prejudices and misinformation, we may be throwing out a “piece of paper” that could very well be a good working basis for lasting peace in Mindanao.

Many Filipinos reject the MOA-AD mainly on the following bases:

(1) It is dismembering the Republic of the Philippines;
(2) It has certain unacceptable or at least questionable provisions;
(3) The Filipino people were not consulted;
(4) The present government cannot be trusted;
(5) President Arroyo wants the MOA-AD in order to extend her term;
(6) The United States had a “hidden” hand in the MOA-AD because of its own interests.

The first and second objections concern the content of the MOA-AD. The third objection is about process. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth objections are about circumstances external to the document.

I believe that all of us should let the MOA-AD speak for itself. To do this may I suggest some points for reflection.

On the concept of Bangsamoro self-determination:
*Do Christian Filipinos recognize that the right to self-determination is a fundamental right?
*Is such a right unconstitutional?
*Are the Bangsamoro people entitled to such a right?

On the Bangsamoro homeland or ancestral domain:
*In their history have the Bangsamoro people ever exercised the right to self-determination and sovereignty?
*Are we, Christian Filipinos, aware that even before the Spaniards came, the Bangsamoro people already had a system of political authority that held sway over a domain that covered most parts of Mindanao and Sulu?
*Despite Spanish and American colonizers, did leaders of the Bangsamoro people continue to claim political authority over their ancestral domain?
*Within the short space of 50 years, from the 1920s to the 1970s, did not Christian Filipinos completely reverse the demographic, territorial, and political situation in Mindanao and Sulu partly through a series of land laws that sent several waves of migrating Christians from the Visayas and Luzon?
*Are we aware that while we Christians call this historical, demographic, and political development quite legal, members of the Bangsamoro believed and continue to believe that this was an injustice to their historic claim to their lands and to the self-determination that they – for a long time – once exercised in their territory?

On Bangsamoro self-determination and exercise of sovereignty in relation to the national sovereignty and territorial integrity:
*Does Bangsamoro self-determination and exercise of sovereignty in their ancestral domain necessarily mean political independence from the Republic of the Philippines?
*Does the MOA-AD say that the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is a separate and independent State? Does it intend to set up such a State?
Is there internal evidence in the MOA-AD that in fact it does not intend to do so, and that the agreement is not setting up an independent State?
*Does the MOA-AD say, even if only equivalently, that it is breaking up the territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines?

If the document has internal merits, surely the problems of lack of consultation can be worked out. Flaws in the concepts and content can be remedied. Suspicions about the hidden hand of the United States or the hidden intentions of the President Macapagal Arroyo behind charter change can be resolved in their own context. But these to my mind are basically extraneous to the internal validity of the MOA-AD. We can surely correct its faults.

But to reject the MOA-AD completely on the basis of what it does not say could be a tragedy of incalculable proportion, possibly a death knell to lasting peace. The two panels have painstakingly worked out the peace documents for 11 long years. I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they have been conscientious in their work, looking out for the interests of their constituencies.

It is my firm conviction that if only the MOA-AD is allowed to speak for itself or examined on its own merits, it can be a good working document for lasting peace in Mindanao.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
August 17, 2008

The MOA-AD, a Memorandum of Intent?

2008-08-09T16:07:00.001+08:00

(Fifth of a Series)

The distinct impression that the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines gives me is that the title is a misnomer. The document is effectively a Memorandum of Intent.

The MOA-AD purports to be precisely what it says, a memorandum of agreement by the MILF and GRP. Both parties agree on the various points of the memo. And presumably both agree to implement them. In this sense the document is a memo of agreement. But can the two panels really bind, without prior consultation and consent, the two bodies they represent to do what is written in the document? That is the question this reflection wants to deal with. It is the reflection of a lay person in matters political and legal.

First with regard to the GRP side. Let us presume that the GRP peace panel did not consult nor have the agreement of the legislative and judicial branches of government. Let us also presume that much of the MOA-AD will depend on the consent of both these bodies. If so, it would seem to me that the GRP side would be assuming too much if it were to sign the Memorandum of Agreement prior to that consultation and consent. The Supreme Court could, for instance, strike down the agreement as illegal or unconstitutional. The legislative branch in turn might not agree with changes in government structures that a peace agreement could require.

Moreover from what I know about the reactions of both government branches to the document, I have the idea that the name “GRP” in the GRP-MILF negotiations would represent only the executive branch of the government of the Philippines. Therefore, if it signs the document prior to consultation and consent the executive branch only really intends to do its very best to persuade both the judicial and legislative branches that everything is above board.

Present developments and reactions to the MOA-AD would indicate this. The MOA-AD is now to be argued by the representatives of the Executive branch before the Supreme Court. Waiting for their chance to attack or support the MOA-AD are the members of Congress, House and Senate. What we read in the newspapers about the reactions of some members, albeit the opposition group, does not bode well for the MOA-AD.

On the other hand, the MILF could face the same challenge. The document is to be signed by the MILF on behalf of the Bangsamoro people. But logic tells me that the MILF cannot do so unless the ARMM and the MNLF that also claim to represent the Bangsamoro would first be consulted and give consent. The document could mean an entirely new basic law for the Bangsamoro people. Or it could mean amendments to the present ARMM law. But would the ARMM agree? Would the MNLF agree to changes that could possibly supersede their 1996 peace agreement with the government? Would both of these agree to changes in the power structure within the Bangsamoro ancestral domain that the MOA-AD implies? Perhaps this is one reason that at least one foreign representative has urged the various Bangsamoro groups to come together and forge a united position.

Moreover, the present MOA-AD contains many provisions stating that such and such points will be the basis of negotiations towards a future Comprehensive Compact. Hence, the present document could be more of preliminary agenda setting by way of consensus points for formal negotiations to take place. But as I go through the MOA-AD it seems to be more than agenda setting.

In the light of all the above, the following would be my conclusion: the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain, initialed by both panels, is in effect an agreement on consensus points. By this document the parties intend to do their very best to have these points approved by the groups they represent. More negotiations and consultations will take place until a Comprehensive Pact is signed, indubitably “owned” by the Bangsamoro and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.

But until such time, the document on consensus points would not really be a memorandum of agreement but a memorandum of intent and perhaps one of commitment to take the necessary steps towards a final Comprehensive Compact.

Should either party fail to get such an approval, the peaceful alternative would be for the peace panels to return to the negotiating table and resolve the problematic issues. It is for this reason that the following, I believe, are imperative: prior as well as ongoing consultation and dialogue with various constituencies on the issues of the peace negotiations, information for and education of the constituencies on the historical, cultural, legal, political, territorial, economic, and social dimensions of the peace talks, and the building of support constituencies.

Therefore, as a way out of the present impasse let organized and focused public discussions on the MOA-AD be conducted for a specific and reasonable period of time so that the two parties may be guided accordingly.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

August 9, 2008

Will People Accept the MOA-AD?

2008-08-09T16:05:00.001+08:00

(Fourth of a series)

While the MOA-AD between the MILF and GRP can be the basis of lasting peace with the Bangsamoro in Mindanao and Sulu, we already see the negative reactions of Christians in North Cotabato and other provinces and of some legislators. Some of these reactions could be knee-jerk reactions with no solid basis. But I believe this is not always the case.

Two immediate reasons for the negative reception of the MOA-AD are lack of information regarding the contents of the document and lack of previous consultation with various stakeholders as to what the document should contain. No serious effort was apparently made to establish a supportive public constituency. Having consultations, asking for directions, providing progress reports – these are proven ways to have people participate in any matter that is of utmost importance to them and their future.

It remains true that many things cannot be negotiated in public, otherwise the plethora of opinions and suggestions, each one passionately presented and defended, would create disorder out of order. But there is a certain irreplaceable and indispensable benefit to people’s participation through consultation and information dissemination at various points in the peace journey. I am quite certain that both the MILF and the GRP have set a certain time for extensive consultations, perhaps when referendum and changes to constitution/law are to be made. But present reactions cannot wait for that time.

The journey to peace in Mindanao is inarguably long and tedious, with many stops and detours. It is almost impossible to accelerate it. Milestones have been set along the way, one of which was the 1996 peace agreement. These milestones are marks of progress. One would think then that along the arduous and difficult journey, certain stops should been made to ask for directions, consult people, set goals and then obtain consensus points at the roadside negotiation table.

This, of course, could simply be hindsight wisdom. Be that as it may, it is wisdom to consult, ask questions, and secure assistance regarding directions and goals from stakeholders, left, right and center. For the government – consult with the different branches of government and with the people directly affected by conflict. For the MILF – consult with the Bangsamoro people, with the MNLF, and with the ARMM. I am not sure that any of these consultations were done -- and in a satisfactory manner. On the GRP side, the negative reactions are open and even hostile. On the MILF side, much less so, except for some ARMM reaction. But the question of Bangsamoro unity (MILF, MNLF, ARMM, and their various constituencies) on the MOA-AD has yet to be established.

For the Bangsamoro people with three different groups wanting to speak in their name, not counting the extremists who claim a certain political or even ideological identity, the need for consensus is as important as for the GRP. For the MILF it may not be as apparently urgent.

There is certainly the imperative of educating all the various constituencies and stakeholders as to the contents (concepts and principles, territory, resources, and governance) of the MOA-AD, their bases in history and in law, the steps still to be taken, the recognition of mutual rights, as well as the mutual sacrifices needed by both peoples, Bangsamoro and non-Bangsamoro.

For the non-Bangsamoro people, knowledge of Moro history will sometimes make a bloody entrance because of mutual prejudices and biases, entrenched through four centuries of attitudinal and psychological buildup. A certain injustice to the Bangsamoro people is not a concept that is easily understood by the non-Bangsamoro, much less accepted. One can already perceive the truth of this statement in the immediate remarks of some politicians regarding the MOA-AD. In their present level of understanding of Bangsamoro history and culture, I doubt very much if they could ever acknowledge the right of various peoples, including the Bangsamoro, to self determination, a fundamental right already enshrined in the present Constitution.

For both peoples, the key to the acceptability of the MOA-AD consists, I believe, in the following: consultation and dialogue, information and education, and building a constituency supportive of the general goals and specific objectives as well as the processes and contents of the peace negotiations.

The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court is an occasion for all of us to reflect on this key to acceptability and work on it. Precipitous haste is not a wise response to urgency nor the way to acceptability.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

August 9, 2008

SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOA-AD

2008-08-09T16:02:00.002+08:00

(Third of a series)

To all of us who were not privy to the intense discussions in the peace negotiations, the MOA-AD has a lot of ambiguity as well as questionable presentation. Muslims, Christians, Lumad would want such issues to be clarified, before saying yes or no to the consensus points.

It is nowhere stated in the MOA-AD that the MILF acknowledges the authority and sovereignty of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines over all the territories covered by the term “Republic” in the Constitution of the Philippines. It has been reported, of course, that the MILF does not recognize the Philippine Constitution. So here are some questions.

2.1.Abstracting from the reported MILF rejection of the Constitution, Filipino citizens would want to know in clear terms: Does the MILF recognize either de iure or de facto that the Republic of the Philippines holds authority and sovereignty over the whole of Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan?

2.2.Does the MILF, with the MOA-AD, as a stepping stone intend to set up an independent State? In other words, is the MOA-AD an initial process of dismembering the Republic of the Philippines?

2.3.Did the Lumad people agree to being coopted into the Bangsamoro? By virtue of the IPRA Law, do they not in fact have their own ancestral domain? What happens to this Lumad ancestral domain when they are coopted by virtue of the MOA-AD into the Bangsamoro?

2.4.What do the negotiating panels mean by “associative relationship and associative arrangements”?

2.5.Does the use of the term “central government” in the MOA-AD connote the idea that the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity recognizes the authority of a central government over it?

2.6.Does the term “shared authority and control” in the MOA-AD connote the exercise of power by two equal authorities, or is it a recognition that in the sharing there is a “primus inter pares” principle?

2.7.Is the MOA-AD faithful to the idea repeatedly reported that negotiations would take place while safeguarding the sovereignty of the Republic?

2.8.What happens if the Congress of the Philippines is unwilling to make the necessary changes in the Constitution envisioned by the MOA-AD? What happens if the MNLF and/or the ARMM do not agree with the MILF vision?

2.9.Why did the peace panels agree to include in Category A many barangays that are obviously Christian-dominated and thus make the MOA-AD unacceptable?

3. At present, I give the MOA-AD and the two peace panels the benefit of the doubt. They have worked at the agreement for years, painstakingly hammering out every word and every phase, every concept and its implications. I know that they have the interests of their respective constituencies always in mind. Right now, despite the ambiguities of the MOA-AD, I sincerely believe that both parties, given the complexities of the situation, have admirably attempted a remarkable balancing between Bangsamoro aspirations for self determination and GRP conviction in its own national sovereignty.

4. Therefore, my present interpretation of the MOA-AD is that it attempts to apply a treasured social principle called the Principle of Subsidiarity. Enshrined in the social teachings of the Catholic Church, the principle of subsidiarity may be expressed in the following way: a member of the social organism may do everything it is capable of, in freedom and self-determination, for its own good and for the good of the social organism. It is only when the member fails to do so that the social organism intervenes and provides the necessary assistance. The principle of subsidiarity is a principle of governance, authority, decision-making, etc., for the secular community. Nowadays Catholic scholars prefer to use an analogically similar principle called the principle of “communion” as more applicable to the Church community.

5. The answers to the questions posed above may prove me wrong about the MOA-AD as a concrete application of the principle of subsidiarity. But if the answers prove me right, then it is my contention that the peace process is going in the right direction.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

August 9, 2008

Can the MOA-AD bring Lasting Peace?

2008-08-07T07:03:00.001+08:00

(Second of a series)

The Memo of Agreement on Ancestral Domain initialled by the peace panels of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a sign of contradiction. For probably most Christians, it is a document that is unpatriotic, a betrayal of the nation, a surrender of national sovereignty over huge swaths of Mindanao, Sulu Archipelago and Palawan, a selling of Christians “down the river”, a document to be rejected. For some Muslims, the document is not enough. It is a betrayal of their hopes and aspirations for self-determination and freedom, a surrender of territories that once belonged to them by right of ancestral domain and native title.

But the MOA-AD, no matter how one looks at it, is a remarkable document. It is a very serious attempt to balance national sovereignty and Bangsamoro aspirations for self-determination and freedom. For this reason, I believe that the MOA-AD can bring lasting peace. Let me elaborate.

The document should be read in the light of Bangsamoro history. This history is not one that our Spanish and Filipino Christian historians have developed. Our history is a history written by one party to the complex human encounter that we call Philippine history, written perhaps by “victors.” Bangsamoro history has largely been one of oral tradition and only in the last 400 years do we see that history written, but not from their point of view.

But it is from the largely unfamiliar side of Philippine history that is also true and indisputable that the concepts of ancestral domain and a Bangsamoro homeland should be understood. The MOA-AD document returns to that concept as a basis for lasting peace.

On the other hand, the document is also remarkable from the angle of what Mindanao is today. Through successive waves of migration and public laws, the face of the population as well as of territories has changed. In less than 50 years beginning with the 1930s Christians now outnumber Muslims in the land once under the sway and influence of Muslim Sultans. The document recognizes this fact. And it is to the credit of the MILF that its vision today carries on the vision of its late Chairman, Hashim Salamat. He had said that his vision for the Bangsamoro people is framed in consideration of present realities. For this reason, the document speaks about the ARMM territory as the core of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity. Altogether, the territory is much less than the original Bangsamoro homeland. The MOA-Ad makes use of present realities as a basis for lasting peace.

The balancing act between Bangsamoro aspirations for self-determination and national sovereignty may be seen in the concepts on governance, concretized in such terms as “associative relationships,” “shared authority,” the idea of “central government,” and its responsibility for external defence, etc. For the GRP the balancing continues with two fundamental democratic safety valves – acts of Congress and referendum.

Perhaps, concepts need to be clearer. They can be made so in future steps of the peace process as both parties move towards a Comprehensive Pact. But the MOA-AD need not be the document that should contain all the details that would resolve all questions and doubts. The peace process will continue even after it is signed. With good will, patience and wisdom --- and consultation ---such further steps will surely resolve substantive questions.

Therefore, if seen from the perspective of history as we usually know it from our own Christian writers (Spanish, American, Filipino), with no consideration to the enduring aspirations of the Bangsamoro for self-determination in their homeland, the MOA-AD will not lead to peace.

But if the document is seen from two perspectives, that of the Bangsamoro historical past and of Mindanao-Sulu-Palawan present day realities, and these two perspectives are somehow respected, then the MOA-AD can lead to lasting peace.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

August 7, 2008

What is the MOA-AD in the MILF-GRP Peace Process?

2008-08-06T14:53:00.001+08:00

(First of a series)

What is the MOA-AD?

It is the Memorandum of Agreement between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines that consists of statements agreed upon by consensus between the peace panels of both parties. It deals with Concepts and Principles, Territory, Resources, Governance of the Ancestral Domain of the Bangsamoro.

What is the Bangsamoro people?

According to the MOA, the Bangsamoro people “refers to those who are natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palawan and the Sulu archipelago at the time of conquest or colonization and their descendants whether mixed or of full native blood. Spouses and their descendants are classified as Bangsamoro. The freedom of choice of the indigenous people shall be respected.”

What is the Bangsamoro homeland?

Historically the Bangsamoro homeland consisted of the territory under the control or influence of the Moro Sultanates. But now as described by the MOA, the Bangsamoro ancestral domain would only include the present territorial territory of the ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) as its core and additional barangays in Region IX, XII, and Palawan. More than 700 barangays outside ARMM would be restored to the ancestral domain, subject to plebiscite within 12 months after the signing of the MOA. More towns would be included, again subject to plebiscite after 25 years. Moreover, this Bangsamoro ancestral domain would consist of land, waters, seas, air, and other resources.

What is the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE)?

The territory described above would have a juridical personality. It is a juridical entity that would have its own form of government and would exercise authority and jurisdiction over the Bangsamoro ancestral domain.

How will the BJE relate to the Republic of the Philippines?

The MOA is silent about the issue whether or not the JBE is part and parcel of the Republic of the Philippines. Instead it recognizes “the Central Government,” and establishes “associative relationship and associative arrangments” between BJE and GRP, as well as “shared authority over territory” “shared responsibility” “sharing of resources,” etc., with a period of transition specifying the relationship. But the MOA also states that “The Parties shall faithfully comply with their commitment to the associative arrangements upon entry into force of the Comprehensive Compact.” Therefore, it may be understood that the “relationship of associative arrangements” will continue even after the JBE shall have been “fully entrenched and established in the basic law of the BJE.”

Will private owners lose their properties in the BJE?

The MOA expressly enjoins that “Vested proprietary rights upon the entrenchment of the BJE shall be recognized and respected subject to paragraph 9 of the strand on Resources.” Paragraph 9 of the strand of Resources refers to forest concessions, timber licenses, contracts or agreements, mining concessions, mineral production and Sharing Agreements, Industrial Forest Management Agreements, etc. By such reference, privately owned farms and other properties would be respected by the BJE.

What changes took place through the years in the Bangsamoro ancestral domain?

To answer the question and to have a better understanding of the MOA-AD, we need to have a quick recall of history. Islam arrived in the Philippines 200 years before Christianity arrived. Eventually and before the Spaniards came a regime of sultans began. From that time on the Bangsamoro people have asserted and exercised self-determination and sovereignty over their ancestral domain, until the effective political power of the sultanates faded away. The Bangsamoro people came under the control of the Americans. The ancestral domain of the Bangsamoro people became public domain.

But even when the Americans gave independence to the Philippines, many of the Bangsamoro people continued to assert their claim to self-determination and sovereignty rather than be under the authority of the Philippine government. Successive waves of migrants from the Visayas and Luzon in the 1900s, authorized by a series of public laws, gained land titles in the form of torrens titles as against the native titles of the Bangsamoro people.

The population pattern in Mindanao significantly changed from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 1930s the great majority of Mindanao people were Muslims and Indigenous Peoples (IP), with a small minority of Christians. By the time the waves of migrations ended in the 1960s, Christians constituted the great majority of Mindanao people, with a minority of Muslim and IPs. In other words the Bangsamoro became a minority in their own ancestral domain. Difference in concepts regarding land ownership also contributed to these major changes in the ancestral Bangsamoro ancestral domain.

How does the MOA-AD respond to the loss of ancestral domain?

The MOA-AD restores a certain self-determination and sovereignty to the Bangsamoro people in their own homeland. Because of historical development since the 1900s the Bangsamoro ancestral domain/homeland is no longer of the same extent over which the sultanates once held sway. It is now limited territorially to what is described in #3 above. The MOA-AD also follows the principle that the IPRA law grants to the Indigenous Peoples, i.e., that their ancestral domain is not part of the public domain. The many details regarding concepts and principles, territory, resources and governance remain subject of negotiations in view of a Comprehensive Peace Pact. The concrete type of governance that would be established by and in the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity would be determined by a basic law. Ultimately the changes regarding territory will depend on the Congress of the Philippine and peoples’ referendum.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

August 6, 2008

Bishop Romulo de la Cruz, Installation – Homily

2008-06-20T21:05:00.000+08:00

[Readings:
Ez. 34: 11 – 16 (“I myself will look after and tend my sheep”).
2 Tm.: 1: 6 – 14 (“I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that
you have through the imposition of my hands”).
Jn. 10: 11 – 18 (“I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down
his life for the sheep”)].

Our beloved Papal Nuncio
Archbishop Edward Joseph Adams,
Our newly installed Bishop,
Bishop Romulo de la Cruz
Immediate Past Bishop of Kidapawan,
Archbishop Romulo Valles of Zamboanga
My Brother Bishops
Reverend Fathers, Brothers and Sisters
Beloved Lay Faithful
Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

Good Morning! What a joyful and historical event this is for the Diocese of Kidapawan! Truly this is a day that the Lord has made! After more than a year of waiting, a new bishop is finally installed -- and someone who is really from among you!

Bishop Romy de la Cruz is a Cotabateño and a Kidapawanon. He had three years of high school at Notre Dame of Kidapawan but graduated from Nuling Seminary in Cotabato. Kidapawan was his hometown. It was in Kidapawan where he was ordained a priest 36 years ago (1972) by Bishop Gerard Mongeau, O.M.I, when Kidapawan was still part of the Diocese of Cotabato. He spent ten years as a seminary formator at Nuling Seminary in Cotabato where all Cotabato and Kidapawan seminarians at that time had their seminary college studies. He was the parish priest of Tacurong for three years. In the mysterious way of God’s wisdom, he has finally returned to Kidapawan via Basilan and Antique. And now he is your fifth Bishop.

It is fitting that the Liturgy of the Word of God this morning speaks about the role of a shepherd.

Bishop Romy is your Shepherd, your leader. He is the head of the diocese, “the household of God.” With the priests as his closest collaborators, he teaches you the mysteries of faith. Through the sacraments he leads you to holiness. He provides direction for the diocese. He is the “visible source and foundation of unity” for clergy, religious, and lay faithful (Lumen Gentium [LG], no.23).

Bishop Romy is your Bishop, not through any merit of his own, not because of the many outstanding leadership qualities that he undoubtedly possesses. He is your bishop for only one essential reason -- God’s grace, God’s love. It is in the Holy Spirit that our Holy Father in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, appointed him to be your Bishop, your Shepherd.

Therefore, always in communion with the Holy Father in Rome, Bishop Romy is “Christ’s vicar and ambassador” among you (LG, no. 27; see also John Paul II, Pastores Gregis, no. 43). God himself has given him that extraordinary grace and power to act in the name and in the person of Christ the Good Shepherd (LG, no. 21). God has given him the fullness of the priesthood (LG, loc. cit.), sharing fully in Christ’s own mission to teach, to sanctify, and to govern. By divine will and by virtue of his Episcopal ordination in Cotabato 20 years ago, he is a successor of the Apostles (LG, no. 20). To him applies the words of Jesus to his Apostles: “He who hears you hears me.” By virtue of their own priestly ordination, the priests of Kidapawan collaborate with him in this same office of teaching, sanctifying and shepherding the people (see Presbyterorum Ordinis, nos. 42 and 44) -- to build up the people of God (see 2 Cor. 10: 8).

Yet Bishop de la Cruz knows fully well that to be your bishop is not so much to be given a title of honor as to receive the grace to serve (see Rite of Ordination of a Bishop, Homily). Honor comes to him when he serves. The word of God to us this morning tells us that a bishop has to follow the way of God’s shepherding: seeking the lost or scattered sheep, uniting the sheep together, binding the injured, healing the sick, bringing them to green pastures, seeking to know them, and willing to lay down his life for them.

He has to do all this not to seek his own glory, his own comfort, his own security, but in order simply to serve -- to serve without self-interest and self-aggrandizement. That great bishop of the ancient Church, St. Augustine, said that the work of shepherding the Lord’s flock is a work of pure love (“Sit amoris officium pascere dominicum gregem,” quoted in John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, no. 24). Hence the Bishop has to exercise in an eminent way that special love of a shepherd for his flock called “pastoral charity.” It is the same compassionate love that Jesus had for the multitude that were like sheep without a shepherd (see Mt. 9: 36).

For this reason Bishop Romy has to remind himself frequently of the instruction that St. Paul gives to the young Bishop Timothy in today’s Liturgy of the Word: “Stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control” (2 Tm. 1: 6-7). Having an office of leadership, the bishop possesses a “gift of power” that has to be exercised as a service of love.

To do this, Bishop de la Cruz will surely follow the example of Jesus the Good Shepherd who in today’s Gospel confidently says: “I know my sheep and my sheep know me” (Jn. 10: 14). This is why, my brothers and sisters, expect Bishop Romy to travel all over the diocese -- from Kidapawan all the way to Tulunan and Colombio in the south, to Kabacan and Pagalungan in the west, to the many barangays of Makilala in the east, and to the mountain parishes of Antipas and Arakan in the north. Hundreds of barangays to visit, thousands of people to meet! To him as a shepherd modeling himself after Jesus the Good Shepherd, the abstract statistics of this diocese have to become faces of concrete people, Christian, Muslim and Lumad, with joys and hopes as well as sorrows and anxieties.

For everyone in this diocese, he has to be Christ’s vicar and ambassador, remaining always in communion with the Holy Father in Rome. More than any one else, he has to be, as the Bishop, the living assurance of God’s goodness and loving presence among the people. And if need be, to the extent of a total donation of his life for the sake of the people! “A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn. 10: 11).

What a heavy responsibility this is for Bishop Romy! This is why, my brothers and sisters, Bishop Romy needs your total support, your continual encouragement, your fervent prayers and your love. He is your Shepherd, your Father. Together with him and under his leadership, God’s family in the Diocese of Kidapawan (clergy, religious, and lay faithful) will be a sign of unity, of justice, of peace and love.

Finally to you, my brother Bishop Romy, on behalf of all the Bishops here present I assure you of our prayers and best wishes. Your Episcopal motto, “crescere in plebem suam,” is taken from that classic religious hymn usually sung for Bishops, “Behold the great priest!” (Ecce sacerdos magnus! See Heb. 10:21). With this motto, crescere in plebem suam, you pray that you may grow in wisdom and love among your people.

But today at this Eucharistic sacrifice of Jesus the Good Shepherd, we pray “crescere tecum plebs tua” – may your people grow with you in God’s wisdom and grace through your Episcopal ministry today, tomorrow and always. God bless you, Bishop Romy! God bless the people of the Diocese of Kidapawan!

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
Kidapawan Cathedral
June 19, 2008

UNDERSTANDING THE ARCHDIOCESAN VISION – MISSION AND PASTORAL PRIORITIES

2008-05-29T07:15:00.000+08:00

My purpose in this presentation is to reflect with you on the draft 2008 Archdiocesan Vision-Mission Statement in the light of the 2000 Archdiocesan Vision Mission Statement and on the priority areas indicated by 28 parishes.

My objectives are to show the continuity and the relationship between the two Statements; and to indicate how the priority areas pointed out by the parishes for APA 2008 may be considered and used.

A. The 2008 APA Theme: Isang Simbahan, Isang Pangarap

The 2000 APA envisioned that all the faithful in the Archdiocese of Cotabato (lay people, religious, and clergy) be genuine disciples of Jesus and a genuine community. This community of believers in Jesus has to be united as One Church, in communion with God, with one another, and with creation. This element of the 2000 Archdiocesan vision aspiring to be a united Church, Isang Simbahan, has been highlighted as the theme of VI APA, 2008.

Oneness is an apostolic mark of the true Church. It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Oneness is our identity. It is the very nature of Church. In Christ, we are one Church. We have one mission – the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus, the Lord and the Savior of the world.

But there are many gifts given to the Church by the Spirit of Jesus for this one mission. Various sectors of the Church have their own gifts, roles, functions. Thus we have the laity and their own roles and responsibilities in the secular world, the religious with their vocations and roles in the Church for the sake of mission, the clergy with their own gifts of ordination and personal roles.

Because of the many gifts, roles, and responsibilities in the church, it is the role of bishops to coordinate the various gifts in the Church so that we may all be one and united for the mission of announcing the Gospel. This is another deeper meaning of “Isang Simbahan” – unity of diverse gifts within the Church, diverse gifts working as one towards the mission.

Although the Church is by nature One, sometimes the diversity of roles are not very well united and coordinated. They are divided, they are sometimes in conflict, they are often subject to self-interest or even vested interest, they are not effective in achieving the mission. It is in the light of this weakness that we at APA 2008 aspire to be what we claim to be -- One Church.

In addition, sometimes we have different purposes and goals that clash with one another. One group would want the whole Archdiocese to be built on PREX, another group would want one religious movement or organization to take over all the formation program, and perhaps the senior citizens of the clergy, including the archbishop, would want one half of all the financial support system of the Archdiocese to be set aside for retirement and sickness benefit of the clergy. This would not, of course, be right. That is why as One Church, we should have one united aspiration – Isang Pangarap.

This why we have the theme: Isang Simbahan, Isang Pangarap.

B. Revisiting the 2000 Archdiocesan Vision

Let us now revisit the 2000 Archdiocesan Vision-Mission Statement in the light our 2008 Vision-Mission. Thus:

Sino?

In the light of our pastoral situation and impelled by our hope in Christ, We [the entire faithful of the Archdiocese of Cotabato]

Ano?

… envision ourselves as genuine disciples of Jesus both in word and deed.

We envision ourselves as Church, in solidarity with the poor among us, living like Jesus in evangelical poverty, promoting justice and peace as Church of the Poor.

We envision ourselves as an inculturated Church, understandable and credible to all cultures in our archdiocese in its announcing of the Kingdom of God.

We envision ourselves a genuine community of disciples, striving together in communion with God, with one another, and with creation.

We shall be a participatory Church whose members activate their God-given gifts and charisms in full co-responsibility toward the mission and work of the Church according to their vocations and various ways of life.

Paano?

We are convinced that our vision and mission are best concretized through the Archdiocesan pastoral thrust of building Basic Ecclesial Communities that reflect at the level of parishes and chapels, our vision of Church and our mission of integral evangelization.

For this reason our central pastoral priority, the core focus of our evangelization efforts is the transformation of the Family into a renewed and renewing domestic Church.

In a special way, in view of our pastoral situation, we shall emphasize the task of faith formation, justice, development and peace and reconciliation, especially between Muslims and Christians. We shall give priority to the poorest of the poor among whom are our indigenous brothers and sisters. We shall ensure that all our pastoral programs, movements and organizations shall be oriented and work actively toward this vision and mission.

[Commitment and Prayer]

To this vision of Church renewed and renewing with a mission of integral evangelization, we commit ourselves. We entrust ourselves to the loving intercession and protection of our Blessed Mother of the Immaculate Conception, the Patroness of our Archdiocese, who with our Lord Jesus acts at all times as our guide to the Kingdom of God, which is now and forever.

Mission

On the other hand, we have just approved our 2008 Archdiocesan Vision-Mission Statement:

Sino? – Kaming mga mananampalataya ng Arkidiyoses ng Cotabato

Ano? – Ay naghahangad ng nagkakaisang simbahang [One Church]
nakaugat kay Kristo [Rooted in Christ],
totoong maka-Diyos [pro-God],
maka-maralita [pro-poor = Church of the Poor]
may matatag na pananalig at paninindigan [Authentic
Discipleship]
at may aktibong partisipasyong ang lahat [Participatory
Church].

Paano? – Isasakatuparan namin ito (sa aming patuloy na paglalakbay)
[a Pilgrim Church]
sa pamamagitan ng pagtataguyod ng
Mumunting Pamayanang (Kristiyano) [BEC]
buhay na sumasaksi [Witnessing]
sa pagbabago at pagkaaktibo sa bawat aspeto ng buhay
[Integral Renewal, Integral Evangelization]
sa pagkalinga sa kapwa [Care / Service for Neighbor]
sa pagpapahalaga sa iba’t ibang kultura at pananam-
palataya [Inculturated Church, Inter-Religious Dialogue],
sa pagmamahal sa kalikasan [Care for the Environment]
sa paggalang sa lahat ng nilikha [Concern for all Creation].
sa pakikipagdayalogo tungo sa kapayapan [Dialogue for
Peace]
at sa pag-aaral upang maunawaan ang mga tanda ng
ng panahon [Discerning the Signs of the Times]

The above 2008 Archdiocesan Vision-Mission Statement is a re-echo of PCP-II. Thus in English:
Vision:

We, the faithful [Lay, Religious, and Clergy]
in the Archdiocese of Cotabato envision ourselves
to be a truly united Church,
rooted in Christ,
pro-God and pro-poor,
a firmly committed disciple-community
that is participatory.

Mission:

We shall journey towards this vision
through the building of Basic Ecclesial Communities that credibly work for and witness to:
Integral renewal and integral evangelization;
Care for others [particularly the poor];
Respect for other cultures and religious beliefs;
Love [care] for the environment;
Respect for the rest of creation;
Dialogue for peace; and
On-going discernment of the signs of the times.

Some Observations: Continuity of Vision - Mission

- Similarities of Vision
· Church of the Poor
· Inculturated Church
· Participatory Church
· Authentic Discipleship

- Similarities of Mission:
· Building BEC
· Peace and Dialogue for Peace

- Dissimilarities of Vision-Mission:
· Integral Evangelization – 2000 Mission; 2008 Vision
· 2008 Vision - Rootedness in Christ, pro-God, concern for Environment (implied in 2000 Mission)
· 2000 Mission – Family as Focal Point of Evangelization, Faith Formation, Justice, Peace, Development, Reconciliation, Orienting all Pastoral Programs to Vision-Mission
· 2008 Mission – Respect/Service to Neighbor (implies justice, peace, development, reconciliation
· Emphasis in the 2008 Vision-Mission on the crucial element of discerning the signs of the times.

Comment: Do we have here a break from the 2000 Vision-Vision? Or do we consider the absence of the major emphasis on Family and Faith Formation in the 2008 Mission as implied and perhaps part of the Strategic Plan that is still to come? I think this is the case.

C. Our work at the Archdiocesan Pastoral Assembly:

· Proclaim and celebrate the final Archdiocesan Vision-Mission
· Priority and Goal Setting at the Archdiocesan level

D. Priority Areas:

A new process:

From what I observe the whole archdiocese was involved in discerning pastoral priorities in the light of the draft vision-mission of the archdiocese and in the light of their parish socio-economic, political, religious and cultural situation (environmental scanning). This took place in several community gatherings at the BEC level to the parish. The process of discernment is similar to that of 2000 prioritizing: from grassroots to the top. However for the 2000 vision, the grassroots participated only through their delegates to the APA. For the 2008 vision-mission prioritizing, the delegates brought with them the results of the prioritizing already done at the grassroots. This is a more reliable and more participatory. More reliable because at APA we are certain of the thinking of the grassroots regarding the priorities they desire.

The process consisted in answering a question which I understand to be the following: “Based on the draft vision-mission statement of the Archdiocese and on environmental scanning, what would your parish consider as the first pastoral priority?” The following are the collated answers:

Kaming mga mananampalataya sa Arkidiyoses ng Cotabato:

· ay naghahangad ng nagkakaisang Simbahan -- 5 parishes
· totoong maka-Diyos -- 5 parishes
· may aktibong partisipasyong ang lahat -- 5 parishes
· may matatag na pananalig at paninindigan -- 5 parishes
· pag-aaral upang maunawaan and mga
tanda ng panahon -- 4 parishes
· bukas sa pagbabago at aktibo sa bawat
aspeto ng buhay -- 3 parishes
· nakaugat kay Kristo -- 2 parishes
· nagpapahalaga sa iba’t ibang kultura
at pananampalataya -- 1 parish
· pagtataguyod ng Mumunting Pamayanan -- 1 parish
· nagmamahal sa kalikasan -- 1 parish
· nakikipagdayalogo tungo sa kapayapaan -- 1 parish

If we study the above, we see that priorities have been made by the parishes on various elements of the vision-mission statement. Some are priorities in the vision (those in bold); others are priorities in the mission (italicized).

On the other hand, pastoral prioritizing the 2000 APA was mainly on the elements of mission (e.g, Building BEC, faith formation, family as pastoral focal point, justice, peace, development work, inter-religious dialogue, orienting all pastoral programs toward the vision-mission statement, etc.

It also seems to me that the 2008 priorities both in the vision and mission elements indicate a picture more of the parish desire than of the desire of the Archdiocese. This has to be so because environmental scanning for the Archdiocese is necessarily different from particular parishes. For instance, Pikit with its Muslim-Christian population would have a different priority from that of Langgal-Gapok with its problems of environment. The Archdiocesan vision-mission would have to consider these two priorities in its over-all perspective but the priority given to these two elements might be different at the Archdiocesan level.

Therefore, an archdiocesan vision-mission statement does not intend to tell each parish what pastoral priority it should have. For instance the element, “Isasakatuparan namin ito sa pamagitan ng pagtataguyod ng Mumunting Pamayanan” - even if only one parish selected it as its first priority, it remains as a fundamental element of the Archdiocesan Vision-Mission. Other parishes have their own priorities. They tell more of the desire of individual parishes than of the Archdiocesan desire. That is the way I would understand the collated priorities.

In addition, even if only five parishes chose “kami’y naghahangad ng nagkaisang Simbahan” as their first priority, one can hardly use less than one fifth of the parishes as expressing the desire of all the 28 parishes of the Archdiocese. 23 parishes did not choose this as their first priority. And yet I am sure that the aspiration to be One Church is the general desire of all the parishes.

Further, one element of the Vision-Mission is “kami’y nakaugat kay Kristo.” We all know that the Church comes from Christ and has to be rooted in Christ. In another image, Christ said, “I am the Vine, you are the branches.” Cut off from the vine, the branch has no life. Therefore, rootedness in Christ is fundamental for the whole community, the Archdiocese, to be an authentic disciple of Christ. Yet only two parishes made this as their first pastoral priority. It means that at the moment it is their most felt-need.

E. Archdiocesan Priorities

At the Archdiocesan level, I suggest the first three priorities of the Archdiocese based on my pastoral visitation to different parishes:

1. the need for more active, more participatory, more evangelizing Basic Ecclesial Communities with more effective trained lay leaders (element no. 10 of the Vision-Mission Statement).

2. The need for more and better faith formation of members of Basic Ecclesial Communities as implied by element nos. 3 to 7 and 11 of the Vision-Mission Satement, naka-ugat kay Kristo, maka-Diyos, maka-maralita, may aktibong partisipasyon, may matatag na pananalig at paninindigan, bukas sa pagbabago at aktibo sa bawat aspeto ng buhay.

3. Need for better and more effective social services for farmers and indigenous peoples in so far as the Church could provide, networking with the government and non-government organizations (see elements nos. 5 and 12, maka-maralita, buhay na sumasaksi sa pagkalinga sa kapwa).

F. Recommendations on Handling Pastoral Priorities

Finally, what should we do with all the priorities identified?
Regarding how to handle them, these are my recommendations:

1. Let each parish use the priorities it has chosen or will choose for its pastoral strategic planning;

2. At the Archdiocesan level let all the Archdiocesan pastoral program and APT consider in their own pastoral strategic planning the main pastoral priorities that the parishes have expressed.

3. Let all the pastoral programs at the pastoral level be ready to serve the different parishes in meeting their own parish priorities.

4. The pastoral priorities at the level of the archdiocese are common objectives for all the parishes. Let all the parishes move as One Church towards meeting these priorities (e.g., the three priorities I have mentioned above). This would be one concrete meaning of Isang Simbahan, Isang Pangarap.

Conclusion

This is what I have done in this reflection:

1. I have provided a theological basis for the theme of APA, Isang Simbahan, Isang Pangarap.

2. I have shown a continuity as well as a dissimilarity between the 2000 Archdiocesan Vision-Mission Statement and the 2008 Statement. Continuity means that the environmental scanning done for both APA was valid. Dissimilarity means that there have been new insights from the process of discernment on the pastoral situation.

3. Finally I have recommended several ways by which the priorities may be handled, both at the parish level and also at the level of the Archdiocese, i.e., Parish priorities and Archdiocesan (common) priorities.

I thank you most deeply for your participation. Thank you.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
VI Archdiocesan Pastoral AssemblyTamontaka
May 28, 2008

Communion, Solidarity and Mission: Response to the Breakup of the Family of Migrants and Itinerant Peoples

2008-05-16T07:22:00.001+08:00

Introduction

The phenomenon of migrants and itinerant peoples of various kinds from workers to refugees has been discussed thoroughly in the past few days at this seminar. Through various conferences we have become more aware of their social, political, cultural, religious, and economic situation. The litany of problems seems to be endless. The problems differ, sometimes in kind and sometimes in degree, from country to country. All these constitute the pastoral situation of migrant workers and itinerant peoples.

My subject matter is limited, namely, the issue of the breakup of the family of migrant workers and itinerant peoples. And the question is simple – what can we do to respond to family breakup?

May I attempt to develop a general pastoral response to this tragic situation.

The pastoral perspective that I shall assume is inspired by three decades of pastoral reflection on various pastoral challenges by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC). The Federation is composed of all the bishops in Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia – from Kazakhstan to East Timor.

The themes that FABC uses to reflect on the pastoral situation include the following:

(1) in the light of the Asian pastoral situation the mission of announcing the Gospel of Jesus is by way of a triple dialogue – dialogue with the peoples of Asia especially the majority poor, dialogue with the various cultures of Asia, and dialogue with the different religions of Asia;

(2) for the common task of social transformation in the Asian situation of religious pluralism, a common basis for action is the universal Reign of God;

(3) the local church is the acting subject of mission;

(4) international collaboration is necessary to face the challenges in the common journey to God’s Reign;

(5) According to the 7th and 8th FABC Plenary Assemblies, the situation of itinerant and migrant workers is one of the major pastoral priorities in Asia.

The pastoral response I wish to present may be summarized in the following way: In the light of the universal mission of the Church to announce the Gospel of Jesus, relevant family ministry should be set up in every local church with the task of building communion and solidarity among members of families, among families and local churches. Such ministry should have a perspective of the Reign of God. It should respond to the needs of families in special situations, such as the families of migrants and itinerant peoples.

1. A Family Ministry in Dialogue with Migrants and Itinerant Peoples.

Without doubt the great majority migrants and itinerant peoples leave their homes and work in other countries without referring themselves to their local church. They go to recruiting agencies and work out their travel and immigration papers directly through them. In many cases they receive only a minimum of information about the receiving countries, the people and their cultures, the employers that hire them, conditions of work, the customs of the people among whom they will work. If they go to countries with a predominantly different religion, they have only little knowledge about the risks to their own faith, the problems of practicing their faith, the pressures on them because of differences of faith.

In general they are aware of the problems of living apart from their families for an extended period of time, the pressures on the brothers, sisters, and parents they leave behind, and particularly on their spouses and children. At the end as Ecclesia in Asia (1999) says, “In the countries to which they come, these people often find themselves friendless, culturally estranged, linguistically disadvantaged and economically vulnerable” (no. 34).

But all these they have decided to go through for the sake of a better future for their families. The future of their family is uppermost in their minds.

As migrants leave for work the temporary break-up of the family of migrants and itinerant peoples becomes actual. In the duration of their work contract, the separation of the members of the family will be keenly felt, even for those who have worked for several years away from their families with brief periods of vacation. Intermittent reunions will not completely assuage the loneliness of being separated from their families.

But it is not only loneliness or homesickness that is of concern to families. It is the negative impact that the absence of perhaps a key member of the family (e.g., a father or mother, an older brother or sister) would have on the family itself, on the natural growth and development of the children.

Moreover in the experience of many families, a permanent breakup is not only possible. It can be real, as when the migrant or itinerant worker falls into other relationships either casually with many persons or permanently with one person. These relationships can ruin the relationship that the migrant worker has with the family that is left behind.

Given the above situation of temporary and permanent family breakup, possible or actual, and the many other social, cultural, religious, economic and legal problems that have been mentioned at this seminar, the setting up of a family ministry at the churches of origin and destination is imperative. Among its tasks would be to help migrants and itinerants regarding legal cases and to be their advocates regarding their rights. But family ministry has to go beyond these tasks.

Family ministry has to be in dialogue with migrant workers and itinerant peoples. Pastoral workers have to know them, their life situations, their conditions of work. Dialogue with them will reveal their real pastoral situation, their priority needs, and the ways by which effective response can be given to their situation. Through such dialogue an effective family ministry with the proper social dimensions on behalf of migrants and itinerant peoples can be set up. Without such dialogue a pastoral response can be misdirected and irrelevant.

2. A Family Ministry that Cares and Serves

Family breakup contradicts the nature of marriage and family. The Lord of families calls the local churches to do the task of explaining in a credible and convincing manner the nature of marriage and of family as a communion of love and care.

This task also aims at educating members of families to reflect in their lives and relationships the communion that they are called to be. The family is a sanctuary within which the unity of husband, wife and children is fostered. It is God’s gift to them for the sake of salvation. In this way their natural desire for unity in love is consciously brought to the realm of the spirit and of the Reign of God. Such formation in faith given by the local church regarding marriage and family builds communion and solidarity within the family. It prepares them to live up to their family commitments while one or more members of the family depart for work in a foreign country.

The task of formation and education requires a family ministry that cares for and serves families of migrants and itinerant peoples.

When migrants and itinerants actually leave for their places of work, the local church of origin still has the task helping maintain and promote the communion and solidarity of the family. Through pastoral guidance and encouragement, the local church provides the spiritual resources that give them strength to bear and cope with separation.

On the other hand, in communion and solidarity with the local church of origin and with the migrant and itinerant worker, the church of arrival has to provide a similar ministry of care and service. It begins with a “ministry of welcome” (see Erga migrantes caritas Christi, no. 40). In this way the “stranger” will find a home away from home -- in the Lord’s household that is the Church. The local church of arrival is not only a place where migrants and itinerant peoples go for worship. It should be a place where they find “family” belongingness, friendship and fellowship in community. Simple celebrations of birthdays and other anniversaries take on greater meaning when celebrated within such fellowships.

Concretely, this means the active presence and ministry of chaplains and pastoral workers to whom migrant workers and itinerant peoples can refer their problems and find a listening ear and caring hand. Letters of introduction would also help. It is important for pastoral workers to know a little bit of the cultures of migrants and itinerant workers and be able to speak to speak to them in a language they understand. The lack of ability to communicate in a language that is understood is one of the most serious causes of loneliness and alienation. Associations of migrants and itinerant peoples will add to the spirit of common strength, belongingness and fellowship they find in the church.

Such pastoral care was envisioned by the FABC at its 8th Plenary Assembly held in Daejeon, Korea in 2004 on the topic: “The Asian Family towards a Culture of Integral Life.”

One of its pastoral recommendations is the setting up of family ministries in Asia that “form and empower,” “care and serve,” and “promote social transformation.” Among the special programs of a caring and serving family ministry, the Plenary Assembly recommended “setting up programs for families with migrant workers abroad and helping migrant workers before they leave and when they return” (Final Document, no. 119).

The FABC vision of family ministry in Asia calls for pastoral programs that should “make the inner resources of our faith (the sacraments, liturgy, prayer, day-to-day spirituality) available to couples and heir families in their striving toward a culture of integral life… and should empower families to become evangelizers, such that ministry is not only for families but by families” (no. 116).

3. A Family Ministry that Forms and Empowers

Beyond the simple idea of receiving pastoral care is the universal mission, valid also for migrants and itinerants, to evangelize others. For this reason, a family ministry should form and empower in the faith. In communion and solidarity both the church of origin and the church of destination have to work on empowering migrants and itinerant peoples to become evangelizers.

It is well known that by the dynamism of their religious faith migrant workers and itinerant peoples have impressed peoples with weakened faith or with hardly any practical faith. Domestic workers in many countries of Europe bring the children of their employers to church on Sundays, teach them how to pray and what the basic tenets of the Church are.

In the churches of origin faith formation and empowerment can be done through the regular catechetical and biblical programs at the parish level in collaboration with the family ministry of the parish. The local church should especially emphasize formation to a spirituality of communion in the family:

… at the heart of the family is Communion, communion with God, communion of the spouses, communion of young or elderly parents and their children, communion with grandparents and other members of the extended family…. It is a union of hearts and minds that in a human way reflects the communion of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – the Triune God from whom the family came to be…. Communion within the family, however, reaches out to the wider community and impels the family toward a mission of service for the sake of the Reign of God. This outward movement enables the family to share the Trinitarian communion that it is gifted with. A spirituality of communion infuses vigor and enthusiasm – life – into the dynamics of the family, the relationship between spouses, between parents and children, between members of the extended family (8th FABC Plenary Assembly, Daejeon, Korea, August 17-23, 2004, Final Document, nos. 105-106).

A spirituality of communion, unity, and solidarity will definitely help spouses and children cope better with the aches and pains of temporary separation. Kept alive through prayer and communication, it would also serve to overcome temptations to permanent separation.

In the churches of arrival, migrant workers and itinerant peoples could follow a designed program of catechesis and have on-going faith and biblical formation. For instance Filipino migrant workers who come together for Mass and socialization every Sunday could have on-going faith formation for an hour after the Mass and before their socialization and fellowship activities. [In Rome student priests at the Pontificio Collegio Filippino are assigned to various churches on Sundays where Filipino migrants and itinerants gather for Mass and fellowship. They act as chaplains providing religious services, giving spiritual conferences, helping organize them, and bringing them together for various events, social and religious. This is a practice that can not be replicated in other places, simply because of the lack of chaplains].

But on the issue of on-going formation and empowerment, an initiative in some countries like the Philippines is significant in the light of the concerns of migrants and itinerant people. This is the training of pastoral workers. A week-long course was started six years ago by the Scalabrini Migration Center in Manila in collaboration with the Philippine Bishops’ Commission on the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. This was designed to train pastoral workers for migrants. Last January the course was attended by 46 pastoral workers from Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia and the Philippines. They went through learning modules covering the migrant situation in Asia, church teachings on migration, the mission with migrants in Asia, specific issues on the care of migrants, networking and planning future programs.

The more programs there are to train pastoral workers, the better for the mission of caring and serving migrants and their families.

My suggestion is for pastoral care and activities to go beyond worship, socialization and fellowship and into ongoing formation and empowerment for integral evangelization.

Evangelizing by migrants and itinerant peoples may seem to be idealistic but for many Filipino migrant workers this is already a lived experience. Already many Filipino migrants who belong to various lay religious movements such as El Shaddai, Couples for Christ, and other charismatic groups follow the faith formation sessions of their lay groups.

It is a matter simply of consciously bringing the missionary or evangelizing dimension into the on-going faith formation session and continuing what may already have been started at the local church of origin.

Here again we see the great need of collaboration – of communion and solidarity for mission among migrants and itinerant peoples, between them and the local churches of origin and arrival.

4. In Dialogue with Other Cultures and Religions

What has been said so far would seem to apply only in places where migrants and itinerant peoples can practice their own religion freely and where local churches of origin and destination play a great role.

But the great majority of Asian migrants and itinerant peoples live and work in countries where they cannot freely and safely practice a religion different from that of their host country. In such countries temporary separation from one’s own family becomes even more acute. They are deprived of the strength and consolation that religious faith and fellowship could provide even when a celebration is merely a birthday or anniversary.

It is in this situation that prior formation and empowerment in the local church of origin is important and imperative. Prior faith formation can help migrant workers and itinerant peoples cope with the pressures of work in a country of different religious persuasion and where religious conversion in order to have better work conditions and higher compensation is always a severe temptation.

Only a dialogue of life is possible in such situation. For domestic workers, more restricted to the home of employers perhaps not even this is possible. Friendship and fellowship with peoples of other faiths and cultures would certainly ease the aches of homesickness and being separated from families.

Moreover, dialogue – solidarity and collaboration (or diplomatic arrangemenst) -- between governments with peoples of predominantly different religions will go a long way to make migrants and itinerant peoples feel at home in their countries of work.

5. Solidarity and Collaboration at the International Level

Beyond decent and humane working conditions is a mutuality and reciprocity of rights, especially of the fundamental freedom of religion, based on the universal golden rule – “Do unto others what you want them do unto you.” Recent appeals by the Holy Father for such reciprocity of rights and freedom of religion have raised the consciousness of people around the world regarding this human rights issue. It has also raised the bar of inter-religious dialogue a bit higher.

To promote this reciprocity of rights and to ensure that peoples of different faiths practice their religion freely and safely everywhere would be a paramount responsibility of international decision makers. It needs dialogue, solidarity, and collaboration between States. It would also be necessary for the United Nations to act determinedly on this issue in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Dialogue towards recognizing and practicing reciprocity of the freedom of religion is a task needing the utmost mutual respect, openness, persistence and determination. For if States do not recognize such freedom for their own citizen-minorities, how much more difficult it would be for States to recognize the same freedom to migrants and itinerant workers.

Dialogue, solidarity and collaboration at the international level should also address another burning issue – the issue of reuniting the families of migrants and of recognizing their rights as families, according them the same protection as other families (see the Holy See’s Charter of the Rights of the Family, 1983, Article 12).

Granted that there are many obstacles that prevent effective resolution, including concerns about internal security, economics and demography, the obstacles are not insurmountable. The pastoral care of migrants and itinerant peoples would call for local and international advocacy on these issues regarding family unification and family rights.

To be highly commended is the work of non-governmental organizations both at the local and international levels, such as the International Catholic Migration Commission, that pushes the advocacy of the Church and its dicasteries forward at various fora. Advocacy is part and parcel of pastoral care and strives to press forward ethical decisions on migrants and their families in accord with the teachings of the Church.

2. A Common Basis for Pastoral Work toward Communion and Solidarity -- the Reign of God

In a situation where peoples of different religious traditions and their governments are involved, the pastoral care of migrant workers and itinerant peoples would require a common perspective. We who believe in Jesus Christ are guided in our work by this belief in Jesus and by the mission of proclaiming him as the Lord and Savior of the world. This is our unique perspective. We need to keep this perspective in our consciousness. It should always motivate and energize our pastoral work.

But in the care of migrant workers and itinerants, collaboration and solidarity with other religious traditions and their governments would require a common perspective. This is provided by the perspective of God’s Reign. Brothers and sisters under the one God are on a journey together towards God’s Reign which comes definitively a the end of time. We are in the “now and not yet” dimension of God’s Reign. We are called to make this one globalized world a safe home for all, a home to be built on justice, truth, freedom, peace, and love. These are fundamental values of the Reign of God.

It is this perspective of God’s Reign, of God’s loving dominion over us, that pulls together efforts of various religions and ideologies to respond to the family breakup of migrant workers and itinerant peoples.

Conclusion

To the question how can we respond effectively to the breakup of the family of migrant workers and itinerant peoples, I have attempted to provide a pastoral response in the light of reflections of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences.

The response concretely calls for a triple dialogue – with the poor, with cultures, and religious traditions. It calls for the setting up of a family ministry that is in dialogue with migrants and itinerants, with their cultures and religious traditions.

It is a family ministry that cares and serves, forms and empowers for mission. Formation towards a spirituality of communion which is at the heart of marriage and the family is the key element of this pastoral response.

The response also calls for solidarity and collaboration between churches of origin and arrival, and between States at the international level. The crux of the matter is reciprocity and mutuality of rights, particularly of the freedom of religion. When migrant workers and itinerant peoples enjoy freedom of religion, they are able to avail themselves of the spiritual resources of their faith. They are better able to cope with pressures of temporary family breakup and the severe temptations to permanent family break-up.

The common basis of action for such solidarity and collaboration is the universal journey of all peoples towards the Reign of God, a journey towards justice and truth, peace, freedom and love.

A Recommendation to the Pontifical Council

In two full days we have listened to 22 conferences on the situation of various kinds of migrant workers and itinerant peoples. For us who are new to this ministry of pastoral care, the conferences have given us an excellent panoramic view of the pastoral situation. But due to time constraints we may not have been able to explore major issues in depth.

In a certain sense, migrant workers and itinerant peoples constitute a global “diocese” or even a number of global “dioceses.”

Therefore, for a better and more effective collaboration and solidarity, may I respectfully recommend that those responsible in regional and continental Episcopal assemblies come together every two or three years under the leadership of the Pontifical Council for the purpose of discussing in depth two or three burning issues affecting migrant workers, itinerant peoples and their families.

Thank you.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
FABC Secretary General
Rome, May 15, 2008

MYSTERY, COMMUNION AND MISSION FOR THE CHURCHES IN ASIA

2008-04-15T04:12:00.001+08:00

Introduction

The topic, “Mystery, Communion and Mission for the Churches in Asia,” is assigned to our Workshop.

May I briefly and simply present the message I wish to develop:

In the context of tragic massive poverty in Asia and of its rich and varied cultures and religious traditions, the mystery of Divine Mercy resonates deeply with Asian peoples. Divine Mercy calls Asian Catholics to communion with God, with other Asian peoples, and with the rest of creation. It calls all disciples of the Lord to tell the story of Jesus to Asia: Jesus, the Compassion of God, is our Lord and Savior!

The Mystery of Divine Mercy – Asian Dimensions

We all know that God’s compassion, mercy and love embraces everyone with absolutely no exception.

But from the Scriptures we also know of a special category of people to whom God demonstrates an especially benevolent love – namely the poor (see for example Ps. 41: 1-2; 69: 32-34; 72: 12-14; 113: 7-9; Is. 25: 4). In the Old Testament, they were the widows, orphans, strangers (see for example Ps. 68: 5-6). How often God demanded of his chosen people to take care of widows, orphans, and strangers in their midst and meted reward or punishment accordingly (see Ex. 22: 20-24; Jb 29: 12-13; Is. 10: 1-2; Ez. 22: 6-8; Mal. 3: 5)! These represent all those who were poor and needy, those seemingly without any rights, those deprived of economic security and had less access to the goods of society.

In the New Testament, God sends not just prophets to call sinners to repentance and salvation. He sent his own beloved Son to live among us, to forgive sins and bring sinners back to God his Father. The characteristic saving way of Jesus with those who were considered sinners by others and deprived of God’s spiritual blessings is his reaching out to them, his presence among them, and his forgiving them (see for example Mk. 2: 15-17; Lk. 5: 29-32; 7: 32-35). Remember the three parables of God’s mercy in Lk. 15: the lost sheep, the lost drachma, and the prodigal son. The concluding words of the three parables describe the joy of the compassionate God over sinners who repent: Rejoice with me for what was lost is found! As God’s merciful love is directed in a special way to the poor, so a relationship of love with God depends very much on how one treats the poor, those without adequate food, clothes, health and shelter (see Mt. 25: 31-36; Jas. 1:27; 2: 5).

In the Asian situation of massive poverty and insecurity the mystery of Divine Mercy resonates greatly with Asians. We are a continent of the poor. Two thirds of the world’s poor live in Asia. They live in tragic deprivation of basic material goods. Many Asians die of ordinary illness because they do not have adequate food and access to medicines and medical treatment. They can hardly send their children to school. They spend the savings of a lifetime in order to be able to send a member of the family abroad to work for the sake of the family.

Without material resources and political power, Asia’s teeming millions place their trust in the Divine Mercy. Whatever the divine name might be for the many different Asian religious traditions, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews and indigenous peoples with their own natural religions Asians invoke divine mercy. They put their trust in Divine Mercy. In the midst of life’s tribulations and trials they have no one else to trust in but the Divine Mercy. They thirst and hunger for God.

Asians flock to various religious shrines in search of divine healing. There they take refuge and consolation in the serenity of God’s presence in the midst of daily hardship and suffering. They travel far and wide for advice and healing from priests, other holy people, gurus and sages who are reputed to be healers and instruments of grace. They tell stories of wonderful marvelous cases of Divine Mercy, and especially of liberation from sinfulness.

In the light of this tremendous thirst and hunger for Divine Mercy and in the context of massive poverty and deprivation as well as of varied cultures and religious traditions, Divine Mercy has caught the imagination of Asians. There is no doubt that in Asia the devotion to the Divine Mercy is the fastest growing devotion. Diocesan, regional, national Congresses on Divine Mercy have been held in various countries.

Divine Mercy Calls to Communion

The thirst and hunger for Divine Mercy as well as the experience of God’s compassion for the poor and needy impel us to communion, to be in solidarity with God, with other Asian peoples particularly the poor, and with all creation.

In the Gospel stories when Jesus heals people from their physical ailments he tells them to go and sin no more (see Mt. 9: 1-8; Mk. 2: 1-12; Lk. 5: 7-26; Jn 5: 1-17), to be just, and to rejoice in the wonderful work of Divine Mercy that they have been part of. They are called to reconciliation and solidarity with God and with their neighbor. They are called to give thanks and be true believers in word and deed.

For this reason Asian disciples of Jesus have to celebrate and live their blessings of mercy and compassion from God. How are we to do this? By building bridges of communion and solidarity with others.

How imperative this is for Asians! Asia has always been known as a land of ancient spirituality. Here the major ancient religions were born. Jesus himself was Asian. He was born in Asia. He suffered and died in Asia. He rose from the dead in Asia. Peoples from other continents flock to Asia to search for spiritual serenity, peace and harmony.

But how ironic it is that Asia has become the arena of conflict and war, of division and contestation due to culture, ethnicity, and religious radicalism! Economic and political power, minority and majority relationships apparently play a great role in such conflicts.

We are also deeply aware of the traditional closeness of Asian peoples, especially of the millions of indigenous and tribal peoples, to the environment and to all of God’s creation. Yet now we also observe the gradual but long-term destruction of the Asian environment for short term economic gains.

Such destruction, disharmony and unpeace, gravely offend the deep Asian sense of religiosity and spiritual harmony. The call of Divine Mercy to unity and solidarity – communion – is particularly poignant, powerful and peremptory.
Divine Mercy Calls Asians to Mission

Those blessed in the Gospels who have been touched by the compassion of God felt impelled by gratitude and love to tell others of their marvelous experience with Jesus.

Their stories are fundamentally about Jesus in the Gospels. They tell us so eloquently of the Father’s compassion for us through his Son, Jesus. Jesus had compassion of the “multitude” of the materially and spiritually poor. He lived among them, walked with them, healed them of their various afflictions, taught them the Good News of salvation, blessed them in the midst of their material and spiritual poverty, ennobled them, and called them to be his disciples. He not only had compassion. Jesus, “having emptied himself of his divinity” is the Compassion of God, the Divine Mercy in Jesus’ humanity.

We have all been recipients in one way or another of Divine Mercy in Jesus. Trace your own life back to the very beginning. How innumerable have been the ways and occasions of mercy that the Father, Son and Spirit have blessed each one of us throughout our lives, in riches or in poverty, in sickness or in health! Most of all, Divine Mercy has led us through our own Easter journey from sin to grace, from darkness to light, from death to life.

In our day we are likewise called to tell the story of Jesus, the compassion of God, to all our Asian brothers and sisters. His Asian face is the face of one in solidarity with the poor, at home with the poor, a refuge of the sick and needy, healer of bodies and liberator of souls, a guru, bearer of Good News, the one who dares to call himself not only one with God but God himself and the Savior of the world through his Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

We are called to be humble in our conviction and belief in Jesus and to be respectful of the beliefs of others. But the mystery of Divine Mercy in our own lives, in the lives of so many other Asians, calls us to be fearless, generous, zealous, and loving in our proclamation of Divine Mercy to all the peoples of Asia.

We can do this mission most eloquently through the silent witness of an authentic disciple-life, a Christian witness that would make our own lives a pointer to Christ, a letter of Christ to others.

May you and I be authentic proclaimers and witnesses of Divine Mercy! Thank you and God bless!

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato,
PhilippinesWorld Apostolic Congress on Divine MercyRome
Workshop - April 3, 2008

[Some notes for the introduction: Archbishop Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I., was ordained a priest of the Missionary Congregation of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in 1964. He has been a priest for 44 years, including 28 years as a Bishop. More than one half of his life as priest and Bishop has been spent among Christians and Muslims in Southern Philippines. The Archdiocese of Cotabato is his 2nd Archdiocese. It is located on the island of Mindanao with a population of 1.5 million people, 47% are Catholics and 46% are Muslims. Economically underdeveloped, more than 60% of its families are below the poverty line. His interests are: Building Basic Ecclesial Communities, Church Renewal, and Issues of Justice and Peace.]

Commentary on the CBCP Statement: Seeking the Truth, Restoring Integrity

2008-03-11T15:06:00.000+08:00

May I provide some personal thoughts toward a better and more accurate understanding of the CBCP statement of February 26, 2008. These are my personal thoughts and do not necessarily reflect the thought of CBCP.

1. Emergency meeting? Special Meeting?

The background of the meeting: The CBCP Permanent Council was going to meet in order to decide on the present situation. Wisely the CBCP President wanted to consult the Bishops so that the Permanent Council decision would reflect the mind of the “college of bishops.” When the Bishops finally met, they discussed the nature of the meeting. Would it be a consultation or would it be a regular CBCP meeting? At the end the Bishops decided: Let the assembly be a meeting of the CBCP rather than simply a consultative meeting.

2. Is it true that it was the Mindanao Bishops who “saved” GMA?

Absolutely false. There were 55 Bishops present at the meeting of February 26, 2008. Four of the 55 were non-voting. Of the voting Bishops, 29 were from Luzon, 17 from Mindanao (among those absent from Mindanao was Bishop Pueblos), 6 from Visayas. From the numbers alone one can readily see how evidently false it would be for anyone to claim that the Mindanao Bishops “saved” GMA. In fact, the Bishops’ statement was approved unanimously. Even the handful known to favour Gloria’s resignation approved the statement.

3. It is often said that the Bishops are divided. Is this true?

The oft-mentioned “divided hierarchy” is false. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines is made up of 115 Bishops. Of these, 100 are active voting members. Less than 10 of the Bishops are “pro-resign.” Such numbers do not make a “divided” CBCP. The unity of the Bishops has always been there even when they issued their statement on July 10, 2005 that they were not demanding the resignation of the President.

The image of a divided hierarchy could be a media creation. Four or five Bishops with a contrary opinion receive a lot of disproportionate media exposure and mileage. If one studies newspaper reports and interviews, their names appear again and again. Yet Bishops with this contrary opinion constitute less than 10% of the whole hierarchy.

4. This time why did not the Bishops demand GMA to resign?

Choose from the following:
a) They are blind and cannot see reality;
b) They do not listen to the people and specially to the poor;
c) Many of them have received money from the President.
d) They have no spine.
e) All of the above.

Are these charges true? No they are not. Bishops do visit people in the barrios and listen to them. They know what the poor are saying. In the provinces people have problems quite different from those in Manila and are not as much affected by issues that the national media and various groups in Metro Manila project. Mindanao-based groups, for instance, try to project these issues unto the public but for various reasons, particularly ideological, the public does not favourably respond. Some groups in Manila might speak of massive rallies nation-wide, but the Bishops do not see this happening in their own dioceses. And so the Bishops see the difference between Manila and their own provincial dioceses. Their people generally see things differently. Maybe, just maybe, it also takes a bit of courage for Bishops to go against the current “popular” political opinion and public clamor?

How about gifts and money from the President? My answer is quite simple. For how much could a Bishop sell his soul or conscience to someone else? 10,000 pesos? 20,000 pesos? 100,000 pesos? 500,000 pesos? One million pesos? Five or 10 million pesos? That gifts or money would blind the eyes of Bishops and seal their lips to gross corruption when solidly proven would be a tragic contradiction to their experience as pastors at EDSA I and EDSA II.

5. If the claims are only hearsay passed on from one to another, why then did the Bishops not go along with the “growing clamor for resignation”?

What I sense from the Bishops is this. Very many believe that the present process of arriving at the truth is seriously flawed for several reasons, some of which are the following:

(a) The Senate has become a partisan venue for the opposition to pile up charges upon charges, proven or not, for their own political interests;
(b) Although many developments have taken place since the Garci tapes, these developments beg for proof, the truth, closure.
(c) Senate work on the ZTE-NBN issue is “in aid of legislation.” By its very nature the process – which is sometimes without the benefit of the other side being heard or witnesses being interpellated by “defense” - is not ultimately meant to determine responsibility and guilt. In fact some of the Senators are saying, “Enough. We already have enough facts to aid us in legislation.” Hence, the Senate may not really the proper venue for seeking the truth;
(d) All of the above.

6. But does not the Lozano testimony in the Senate establish once and for all that GMA is guilty of the highest type of corruption? Isn’t the testimony of Lozada similar to the testimonies against former President Erap leading to EDSA II?

On these issues many Bishops would believe the following: In the case of EDSA II, there were Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings. But the final stage of investigation was a formal impeachment process, with lawyers presenting and rebutting, etc. and with the Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding. Both sides were heard fairly. We saw on TV Governor Singson’s ledger, a money trail right up to Clarissa Ocampo’s riveting story of signature-writing by the former President – all irrefutable testimonies despite efforts by defense lawyers. The stage for EDSA II was set. The verdict of guilty was a foregone conclusion based on real evidences and not simply on stories. The non-opening of an infamous envelope was simply the trigger. There is, therefore, a great difference between the Lozano testimony and the testimonies leading to EDSA II. Today, lawyers would most likely dispute the truth of the Lozano testimony. Some people who are for the resignation of Gloria in fact have some reservations about it.

Considering today’s political polarization it is unfortunate that the veracity of witnesses would also depend to some extent on the mind set of the observer. If I am anti-Gloria I would be very inclined to say that Lozada is truthful. But even in the anti-Gloria group we find many who would rather go through a legal process of finding the truth. The pro-Gloria camp would say that no solid evidence has been presented. As a result of these divergent perspectives many Bishops believe that the truth is far from settled and that we must continue to seek the truth.

7. Why do the Bishops say that the President and all the branches of government should lead in combating corruption from top to bottom?

The Bishops’ suggestion may not be as bizarre or as weird as it seems. Even today people, including some of our present senators, keep telling the President to do something about corruption in the different branches of government. The President should do this or do that, they say. In other words, she should take the lead. And yet many of these would say that the President is Ali Baba herself.

But should we not also wonder who should clean up corruption regarding the use of Pork Barrel given to the Senators and Congressmen. Should it be the Senate? The House? Strangely, it seems that the Senate Ethics Committee has made some inquiries into allegations regarding certain alleged corrupt practices within their ranks but we have not seen any reports on these inquiries. So who should take the lead? Or maybe there is no corruption regarding the Pork Barrel?

In their statement the Bishops go on official record that the President and all the branches of government must take the lead. If nothing is done, there would really be no one else to blame.

Perhaps when all is said and done, despite the weirdness of the suggestion, the Bishops and ordinary people could be right. The President does have some role - other than herself being investigated, and every government official should be when charged - in rooting out corruption (if at all possible) in government. If not she, then who? Civil society? The Church? A junta? The military? The people? All of us together?

8. Is the Bishops’ statement political or moral?

From the very beginning, we all knew that we had to take a stand from the moral point of view. The reasoning for our stand must be on moral grounds. That is why we insisted on the Gospel moral values of truth and integrity. But we also knew that from one united moral stand, varying political options could flow.

Let me present, for instance, a rhetorical moral argument. Corruption at the highest level is to be unequivocally morally condemned. But there is, indeed, corruption at the highest level. Therefore, it is to be unequivocally morally condemned. Let us also presume that the second premise is solidly supported.

The conclusion is a moral statement that is dependent on the usual circumstances (who, what, when, where, why, how, etc). It has political implications. Some will demand resignation. Others will demand impeachment. Still others will require the legal processes to proceed. Some will wait for 2010 to give their political response. Etc., etc. It is quite clear that one moral statement does not peremptorily demand only one political option. This reality flows both from the nature of the given moral statement and from the contingent, relative nature of political decisions. This is why continuing discernment is necessary to arrive at the truth. From a dialogue both of thought and action one united political stand might prudentially emerge.

9. Why did the Bishops “strongly recommend” the abolition of EO 464?

The abolition of EO 464 will greatly help the process of seeking the truth. Many questions can be answered by Cabinet Secretaries and they can provide a lot of information related to the present controversies. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., informed the Bishops that even if EO 464 were to be abolished, “Executive Privilege” would still remain. To a Bishop’s question Fr. Bernas answered that the President cannot waive Executive Privilege since it is not given to her personally but is granted to the Office itself. (Many people think that “the President can waive this privilege if she has nothing to hide. If she does not waive it, she must be hiding something.”). But there are specific parameters, he said, to Executive Privilege. Therefore, without EO 464 a Cabinet Secretary can answer many questions and provide many kinds of information about alleged corruption cases as long as the questions are not about specific areas covered by executive privilege.

Hence despite its obvious limitations the recommendation to abolish EO 464 is a priority recommendation of the Bishops to help seek the truth.

10. What is the most important recommendation in the Bishops statement?

I believe it is a recommendation that unfortunately has been hardly mentioned by the media, although it was emphasized at the press conference. The Bishops recommend the formation of circles of prayer, discernment and action in parishes, religious organizations and movements, colleges and universities, and Basic Ecclesial Communities. This communal process/action focuses on the issues of truth and integrity facing us today, including their causes and remedies. The Bishops believe that from such circles of prayer, discernment and action at the grassroots a culture of truth and integrity will emerge and spread. It is people power at and from the grassroots. Concretely it would require of each diocese a pastoral program of moral conscientization. From reports in the media, it seems that the prayer rally in Zamboanga calls for action along this line.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
February 29, 2008

New Year's Message

2007-01-01T09:35:00.000+08:00

Beloved People of the Archdiocese:

Greetings of peace and joy in the Lord our God! May I especially greet our Muslim brothers and sisters as they celebrate a very special day in their religious life. May God’s spiritual blessings through Eid’l Adha abound for their benefit and for our whole region!

I have three hopes for the New Year. The first hope is this: that all the families in the Archdiocese of Cotabato may witness in 2007 the coming of definitive peace in our region. There are still many obstacles to the signing of a long-desired peace agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. But with mutual sacrifices and the prevailing good intentions of both parties including the efforts and encouragement of all other stakeholders in Mindanao, we pray that a peace agreement will be a gift from the Lord to the people of Mindanao in 2007.

My second hope for the New Year is this: that all major political divisions and conflicts at the national level will end in 2007. These conflicts have been a major cause of a lack of rapid progress and development in our country. We know that the economy has grown but the benefits are still to reach the ordinary people. Unity and stability in 2007 would make it more possible for economic benefits to reach the grassroots.

My final hope is this: that political governance in 2007 from top to bottom will be significantly less burdened with graft and corruption. In this way the delivery of social and economic services to the people would substantially improve. The quality of life among our average citizens and especially the poor would also be greatly uplifted.

May I urge you to pray with me for these hopes to come true. Once again a blessed and prosperous New Year for you and your families!

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

NOTES: WHAT BISHOPS EXPECT OF JOURNALISTS

2006-11-22T17:19:00.000+08:00

Introduction

May I thank Archbishop Lawrence of Lahore, Pakistan and Fr. Josef-Franz Eilers, SVD, his executive secretary in the FABC-OSC, for inviting me to share my thoughts at this seminar.

What I wish to share with you comes from almost 30 years of experience with journalists in my various roles as President of a Philippines Catholic University in Southern Philippines, as a bishop, as a lead person in press conferences given by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines or by the Synod of Bishops in Rome, and recently by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences.

A Word to Bishops

If one is interviewed as an individual bishop speaking in his own name, there does not seem to be much of a problem. But when one is interviewed as representing a Bishops’ Conference, or a Synod of Bishops, or a Federation of Episcopal Conferences, one would have to be extremely careful about what to say.

The interviews I dread most are “ambush interviews” especially when a Manila radio or television station would call me up in Cotabato, 500 miles away, and say, “Bishop, in about 10 minutes may we interview you on such and such issues.” In many cases the radio/TV station would tell you to comment about what one bishop or the President of the country has said. In most of these cases I decline to comment on the ground that I have not read nor verified the comment. But the other reason is to avoid being part of the game that some Philippine media seem inclined to play, i.e., to pit one person against another or to show a division of opinion or even conflict in the hierarchy, or between bishops and the government. But the real risk in “ambush interviews” is when there are no written press releases and no time to prepare one’s thoughts about some burning issues. Then I really dread what one or two reporters out of 15 will write for the next day’s papers.

A classic case for me was in 1997 when the Philippine Bishops appointed me to draft a pastoral exhortation on the ethical aspects of the Philippine economy. I was then interviewed by several reporters after the Bishops’ Plenary Assembly. One question was: “Do the Bishops think there are more poor people now than in the last ten years?” I gave a two part answer: “The Bishops do not have the data. Therefore, we do not know. But we will examine the available economic indicators to prepare the CBCP document. The answer could be one of three: yes, no or there is no difference.” The following day all the newspapers reported correctly. But one newspaper the banner headline that trumpeted the idea that: Bishops Say - More Poor Now Under President Ramos. It was simply a case of an erroneous headline that did not reflect the actual content of the report. But naturally the headline was more important than the write-up and this created a political war of words. The political opposition naturally supported the headline. The President requested to see me. At the presidential palace, he and his economic advisers treated me and two other bishops to a power point presentation of the pro-poor achievements and agenda of his government. I clarified the erroneous report. We shook hands, had a good lunch, and became close friends.

In another case five years ago, a newspaper reporter quoted me and after the quote he added what he thought was a logical conclusion. It changed the meaning of the quote. Our CBCP press office (we had a functioning media office at that time) sent a correction to the editor. Instead of simply publishing the correction, the newspaper decided to write a short article with the title, “CBCP flip-flops.” A double whammy on the Bishops!

Through the years I have learned that in any interview, a bishop cannot simply come out with whatever comes to his mind. Things said cannot be erased. When you read the next day’s paper, you might regret what you have said uncritically, even if only as obiter dicta and off the cuff.

In relation to media and media practitioners a Bishop has to consistently reflect the following values:

truth and charity;
clarity and conciseness;
an occasional felicitous quotable phrase;
a sense of humor and a lot of patience.

Beyond gimmicks to have good public relations, these values are most important.

A Word to Journalists

On the other hand, I likewise have some observations and suggestions for journalists who write about the Church.

The basic attitude of the Church towards media and journalists is positive. Media are instruments for the communication of truth, justice, peace and love – the Gospel or Kingdom values that serve as the pillars of society. God is truth. Everything that is true reflects the nature of God.

Media practitioners have more than a profession by which they earn their livelihood. They have a vocation – a vocation that is God given. The communication of deep human values that are values of God’s reign is their vocation. In this they also have a task to help inform and educate, to help form individuals and human society in accordance with these values.

This vocation reflects a God-given dignity, the dignity of sharing in and reflecting the very nature of God, who is Truth, communicating himself to us in space and time through the eternal Word, his own Son Jesus, in the Spirit of Wisdom and Truth. Every communication of truth is an act that is a seed of the Divine.

But media are “human-made” and are utilized by human beings. They, therefore, share likewise – and sadly - - in the evil and weakness that we are all heir to – pride, arrogance, selfishness, inability to see the whole truth, biases and prejudices, one-sidedness, lack of objectivity and perspective.
Therefore, the Church’s attitude to the tools and practitioners of social communication is both positive and also mixed with caution.

With the above presuppositions, these are some suggestions:

It is necessary for journalists to understand the Church from its own perspective. That perspective is fundamentally religious, spiritual and ethical. This dimension is its very nature and mission in the world. Although it may be seen by secular society as a political force, the Church does not engage society in terms of a political agenda or political motivation. Therefore, to interpret the Church from a political angle and to speculate on possible political motivations for its various positions on burning issues of the day is to grossly misinterpret the Church. For instance, a close reading of the CBCP statements of July 2005, January 2006 and July 2006 on the issues of presidential resignation and impeachment would provide discerning readers the moral reasons for their stand. But it is unfortunate that media in general only presented the CBCP stand without really delving into the moral reasons for it. Instead the possible political motivations were discussed by many journalists. I believe this is because many fail to interpret the Church from its own perspective as a moral and religious force.

Armed with the proper perspective regarding the Church, journalists can be better equipped to follow their vocation – to communicate Truth. Truth requires fairness, accuracy, and objectivity.

However, the pursuit and communication of truth has to hurdle many obstacles. We all know that truth is not served:

by distorting information -- and truth is distorted by omitting essential information or disregarding context;
by using misleading and even erroneous headlines or illustrations;
by half-truths;
by not differentiating between advocacy and news reporting;
by oversimplifying;
by misrepresenting fact or context (all the above, from Society of Professional Journalists, “Code of Ethics,” 1996, Indianapolis);
by improper emphasis (see Philippine Press Institute and National Press Club, “Journalist’s Code of Ethics”);
by not verifying alleged facts (later corrections not being given proper space);
by mixing speculation with facts.

It is for the above reasons that in Philippine media one needs to be very careful about information “according to a reliable source.” The source might not at all be reliable.

For instance in one classic case, someone had interviewed an “anonymous bishop.” He allegedly told the reporter that the Bishops received a “tongue lashing” from the Papal Nuncio before they wrote their statement in July 2005 on the issue of presidential resignation. According to the newspaper report, the Nuncio had “scolded” the Bishops regarding their alleged past political “interference.” So, when the Bishops issued a statement that seemed like a “neutral position” to some in the face of the call by the political opposition for the President of the country to resign, the alleged “scolding” by the Papal Nuncio was considered a reason. Much of this was a fallacious argument, “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”, since the statement came after the scolding, then the kind of statement that the Bishops issued must have been because of the “scolding.”

I received many local and foreign inquiries about what really happened. Did the Nuncio really give us a “tongue lashing”? Did Rome really impose its will on us? I simply had to tell them that the main consensus points had been written out the night before the talk of the Papal Nuncio. His talk could in no way be called “tongue-lashing” nor even a mild “scolding.” It was simply a calm objective review of church teachings that all the bishops already knew. Hence, the Bishops did not make the slightest deviation from the general consensus points that they had already reached the night before. In fact the rest of the day was spent refining the consensus points and discussing how to write them in as clear a language as possible. This was especially so since many people regarded as simply “black and white” what, indeed, was a very complex political situation with many debatable legal issues. The bottom line – the reporter picked out the wrong bishop for his “reliable source” and as we say in the Philippines “nakuryente siya”; he got burned. But unfortunately the report also damaged the credibility of the Bishops as an independent body.

Or take the case of “improper emphasis” that distorts the truth. Here in the Philippines an example is the difference between “imperial Manila” and the provinces outside Metro Manila. Emphasis seems to be placed by media by what is happening in Manila. But what is true is the fact that the sentiments of many in Manila may not necessarily be the sentiments of the rest of the country. It is the sentiment of the rest of the country that the Bishops in the different dioceses carry with them to their plenary assemblies. At the peak of all the political opposition rallies in Manila, there was no similar general reaction in the provinces. The rest of the Philippines perceive things differently. Morally what may be simply black and white to some may be tinged with a lot of debatable grey to many others.

Finally, it is the moral perspective that impels the bishops to take seemingly contrary positions on some political issues: their position regarding the resignation and impeachment of the President may seem to be supportive of the President; but their position on constitutional change very clearly does not support the President’s own position.

Again, it is absolutely necessary to interpret the bishops’ positions on political issues from the moral perspective rather than from within a political framework.

Philippine journalism is a mixed bag of freedom and responsibility; fairness, accuracy, and objectivity. I sometimes think that the freewheeling type of news reporting and opinion-making in Philippine media is a reflection of the free-wheeling type of politics that we have. I have often wondered how two reporters at the same CBCP press conference could report the same event so differently. A veteran journalist explained to me that the two papers they write for represent two different political perspectives. As they say, “meron angulo na politika” – they have a political angle.

Conclusion

My own expectation then of journalists is quite simple:

Be true to your vocation as vehicles of truth. Tell the truth and do it charitably.

God through His Spirit of wisdom and Truth ceaselessly communicates his gift to humanity – God’s eternal Word -- who is Jesus the Truth.

When you tell the truth and do it charitably, you share in this divine communication.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
FABC-OSC Communications Seminar
Bukal ng Tipan, Antipolo, Rizal (Philippines)
November 22, 2006

TOWARDS A NEW CATECHESIS OF THE FAMILY IN ASIA

2006-10-25T20:18:00.000+08:00

Introduction

May I thank FABC-OESC, led by Bishop Aloysius Sudarsu of Indonesia and Fr. Vicente Cajilig, O.P., for the kind invitation that the Office has extended to me to speak at this important gathering.

I have listened attentively to the sub-regional reports. They have been very interesting and informative. The reports serve as a valuable background to my reflection. Here my purpose is to suggest certain directions for the catechesis and faith formation of the Family in Asia.

As indicated in your program, my present reflection will look into the catechetical implications of the 8th Plenary Assembly of the FABC in Korea in 2004. The theme of the Plenary Assembly was: “The Asian Family towards a Culture of integral Life.” This was also the title of its Final Document, which shall serve as the basic reference for the present reflection.

A. The Shape of Present Family Ministry – a Focus on the Culture of Life.

Before the 8th Plenary Assembly the FABC Office of the Laity, did an informal survey of the objectives and activities of the offices of Asian Episcopal Conferences that are in charge of Family ministry. The survey result indicated the common concerns of family ministry and family catechesis. These common concerns may be said to describe the general shape of family ministry in Asia.

Quite obviously, as seen in the activities of family ministry the general direction of family catechesis is to promote the “culture of life” and to evangelize the “culture of death” seeping insidiously and subtly into Asian cultures. Pope John Paul II’s document, Evangelium Vitae, has persuasively pressed this general concern into Catholic consciousness and to a certain extent into the consciousness of all humanity.

All over Asia is a concern for “pro-Life” catechesis and advocacy based on the Catholic belief of the seamless nature of life from conception to death. Thus family catechesis all over Asia is directed to raising awareness on the dignity and sacredness of human life, respect for and defense of human life. The major traditional threats to human life are seen to be contraception, abortion, and capital punishment. These threats take various forms. They are also at various levels, including international, as seen in the lobbying done by international groups on the policies of national governments in favor of population control through every means possible, including abortion.

In addition most family catechesis is focused on the faith-formation of man and woman in view of marriage, such as pre-matrimonial catechesis and marriage enrichment, and family responsibility with regard to the upbringing of children toward maturity. More recently there has been a renewed interest in Bible studies as part of the on-going faith-formation of couples.

With due consideration for other concerns that family catechesis in various countries might have, what I have just presented is, I believe, a general description of present family ministry in Asia.

B. A New Shape of Family Catechesis:

Let us now look at new directions for the catechesis of the family as suggested 8th FABC Plenary Assembly in 2004.

1. Implication of the methodological approach:

FABC’s discernment on the Family in Asia followed what is called “the Pastoral Spiral.” This method of discernment starts with an analysis of the situation and is followed by reflection-in-faith. In the light of both the situational analysis and the faith-reflection, certain pastoral recommendations or decisions are made. At the FABC Plenary Assembly, this third phase (decision-making) was the end of the discernment process. It was left to the Episcopal conferences and their Family Life Commissions to continue the pastoral spiral by going into the planning on how to implement the decisions. Action or implementation then follows. To conclude the pastoral spiral, evaluation is made not only of the result or impact of the action but also of the whole process of discernment. This is really an elaboration of the well known process of “see --- judge --- act.”

Thus:

Situation ‪→→ Reflection in Faith →→ Decisions/Recommendations →→

Planning →→ Action →→ Evaluation.

The Pastoral Spiral ensures that faith reflection is situated in context – contextualized. Faith does not operate in a vacuum. This is so because the light of faith bears upon the situation and illumines it. Pastoral decision and action are likewise the fruit of the interaction between situation and faith.

Therefore, being a principal instrument for faith-formation, catechesis has to be contextualized. It may deal with doctrine but that doctrine has to be applied to the situation in order to be meaningful and relevant.

This has also to be true of family catechesis. The factors that impact family life positively or negatively are important for catechesis. The daily struggles that families experience or suffer through are part and parcel of family catechesis. Contextualization will prevent irrelevance and pure abstraction. On the other hand, faith-reflection on the situation in the light of Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the Church will prevent merely secular or even ideological interpretation of family realities.

Obviously the method of discernment that the 8th FABC Plenary Assembly used would be extremely useful for family catechesis. It can more easily lead to the application of teaching to life, i.e., to orthopraxis. It is necessary for catechesis to go beyond orthodoxy to orthopraxis.

2. The Global and the Asian Context of the Family: Implications to Catechesis.

If family catechesis is to be contextualized, we need to realize that the family is influenced by various factors at three general levels: local, regional, and global.

At the local and regional levels are factors such as the social, political, and economic situation, the rural and agricultural character of most Asian families, the cultural and religious elements such as language, religious beliefs and traditions, customs, etc.

At the global level, one may sum up many of the factors that impact the family under the rubric of “globalization,” economic and cultural.

The 8th FABC Plenary Assembly analyzed the impact of globalization on the family in the following terms:

- the weakening of cherished traditional family values, such as the sense of the sacred, respect for parents and the elderly, marriage as sacred life-time commitment, etc.;
- the rise of new family forms, different from is traditionally believed is the ideal, i.e., a family founded on the marriage between man and woman;
- the breaking up of the Asian “nuclear family” because of poverty, job opportunities, migration, new family values, emerging secular ideas;

The Plenary Assembly also realized that many traditional family values might actually be quite negative in terms of the message of the Gospel and of the teachings of the Church: e.g. values arising from caste-ism, from an extreme type of “patriarchal” framework where women are subordinate, subservient, and disposable.

Thus, one can immediately see that any genuine catechesis, particularly family catechesis, would have to discern the significance of globalization, its impact on the human person, families, on communities, on the beliefs and values of people, on the way they live their faith.

We can also see that catechesis is more than just religious doctrine. It is about the formation of individuals and communities that are impacted not only by religious and spiritual factors but, indeed, by all the other dimensions that make up human life. The faith that is to be formed through catechesis is more than devotional and spiritual. The faith to be formed is integral faith, faith that remains mature, can interface, and can engage with religious, cultural, political, economic, and social challenges.

3. Various Forms of the Asian Family: Implications to Catechesis.

May I elaborate a bit more on what I have briefly mentioned – the rise of “new” family forms in Asia.

Many of these forms have been with us for a long, long time. They seem to be new only because we never really paid pastoral attention to them. They are new because they have only recently come to our pastoral consciousness in the Church in Asia.

I am not referring to “same-sex unions.” I am referring to families consisting of single parents, divorced or separated parents, families where mothers and/or fathers are absent for a long time because of migrant work, inter-cultural and/or inter-religious parents and families.

It seems to me that family catechesis and family ministry in Asia have not given adequate attention to these various forms of family. I would be happy to be corrected. But I do know that in one Asian country where almost 70% of marriages are inter-faith marriages, the dioceses do not have pastoral guidelines or formation courses that would help the couples deal with serious issues regarding their practice of faith, the faith of their children, the worship that the family will give to God, etc.

Because Asia has a basically inter-cultural and inter-faith character, I would think that a sort of “paradigm shift” should take place with regard to the priorities of family catechesis and family ministry. What we face daily in most of Asia is not so much the so-called “ideal” family of a Catholic mother and a Catholic father of the same culture, but a husband and wife belonging to different cultures and different religions, etc.

4. The Theological Vision of Family in 8th FABC Plenary Assembly – Implications to Catechesis.

It is from the pastoral situation of the Asian family that the 8th Plenary Assembly draws up the key themes that are required for a theological vision of the family. Among these themes are:

- towards a culture of integral life – covenant love and life, communion and solidarity;
- towards the family as a sanctuary of love and life, covenant and communion;
- vocation and mission of the family in the church and in society;
- spirituality of communion, discipleship and “the way of the ordinary”;
- human relationships in the family;
- the family, the Reign of God, and social transformation.

Indeed, one can make a quick contrast between the above theological themes and a traditional theological framework for viewing marriage and the family.

If this is so, then new catechetical modules for family catechesis would be needed.

5. Evangelization and Social transformation in Asia – Implications to Family Catechesis.

The Lord has entrusted the whole Church with a mission of evangelization. This is so with the family, the domestic church. The catechetical formation of the Asian family’s missionary consciousness would require formators to be thoroughly familiar not only with the basic references – the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church, particularly Vatican II teachings and great papal documents.

But in a special way catechists in Asia should be also familiar with the main FABC documents which, in a certain sense, contextualize the teachings of Vatican II into the Asian situation, its peoples especially the poor, its cultures, and its religions. Here we see the great themes of mission and evangelization, inculturation, inter-religious dialogue, and integral human development.

In a particularly way, within the general consciousness of mission and considering Asia’s complex realities, the Church in Asia needs to needs to “accompany” families in faith-inspired social discernment. The Church has to form the religious faith of families so that they may be able to cope with their own social concerns. The formation of a social conscience in the family would be particularly imperative.

Beyond the family’s own social concerns are the wider challenges that confront Asian societies. The mission of evangelization urges the family to go out its own confines and into the neighborhood and even beyond. For the families to do this, the church needs to assist families through catechesis and other means to engage in concerns regarding poverty, injustice, development, peace, conflict, ecological issues, youth, exploitation of children and women, HIV/AIDS, etc.

Faith-formation would include enabling the Asian family to build communities of justice and harmony, to build bridges of solidarity with other families toward the work of social transformation.

6. Family and Basic Ecclesial Community – Implications on Catechesis.

This solidarity with other families brings us to consider the implication of the FABC Plenary Assembly’s treatment of the relationship between the family and the Basic Ecclesial Community.

BEC building is one of the major pastoral priorities of the Church in Asia. For most BEC’s the family is the building block. In fact in some approaches to BEC, a cluster of 10 to 20 families, called Family Groups, makes up one BEC. It is evident that the strength, the unity, and the life of the BEC depend very strongly on the quality of life and faith of each family in the BEC, as well as on their relationships with one another.

This is even more so when we consider the building of Basic Human Communities (BHC) which are composed of families of different faiths.

In a very true sense the faith formation of the family is not only for itself but also for he sake of the Basic Ecclesial / Human Community. Hence, faith-formation through catechesis will have to include relationships within the family, relationships with other families. Catechesis will have to include formation to a community of disciples, formation as well to leadership in community, formation to prayer and community prayer, formation finally in community building.

Summing up - A Contextualized Catechesis on the Family:

From the above observations one can see the far-reaching implications of the 8th FABC Plenary Assembly document, “The Asian Family towards a Culture of Integral Life.” Among these implications are the following needs that are, in effect, pastoral directives for catechesis:

- contextualizing family catechesis by way of a pastoral spiral of discernment that starts with the pastoral situation of the family and the social, political, economic, religious and cultural factors that impact the family;
- a new paradigm of family ministry that would go beyond the traditional concerns of a “pro-life” program to include also the new concerns that are required of a culture of “integral life”;
- faith formation in the family that would enable it to be a community of committed faith and to help build similar communities;
- family catechesis to look beyond internal needs of a family and empower it for the task of social transformation.

In the light of the above perspective, one can see the usefulness and validity of the vision and framework that the 8th Plenary Assembly suggested for family ministry in Asia and the corresponding catechesis that it requires:

- a Family Ministry that Forms and empowers;
- a Family Ministry that Cares and Serves;
- a Family Ministry that Promotes Social Transformation;

In fact, the Plenary Assembly has said: “May it not even be said that the focal point of evangelization should be the family as object and subject, to which all parish pastoral programs are geared?” (no. 100).

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
FABC-OESC Assembly on Catechesis
Assumption University, Bangkok
October 25, 2006

PCP-II ON A RENEWED CHURCH PURSUING JUSTICE, DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE

2006-10-10T09:15:00.000+08:00

Introduction

The very first talk in this national orientation for new SAC directors has set the tone for the next three days. In his usual competent way Bishop Francisco Claver, S.J., has presented the vision of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) with regard to the Church of the Poor. This vision may be considered as the overarching goal and framework for social action ministry in the Philippines.

My talk this morning will dwell on:

a) the PCP-II larger vision of Church;
b) the implication of this vision on the renewal of the Church;
c) and on the Church’s task of pursuing justice, development and peace.

[To understand better the thought of PCP-II in the light of later Episcopal pronouncements, read the four CBCP pastoral exhortations to prepare for the Great Jubilee Year 2000: on Philippine Politics, 1997; on the Philippine Economy, 1998; on Filipino Culture, 1999; and on Filipino Spirituality, 2000].

A. The PCP-II Vision of Church and Society.

The general question that PCP-II grappled with in 1991 was: How can the Church be a more effective and credible evangelizer, given the present pastoral situation of the Philippines? The general answer was: by being a renewed Church and by being faithful to its mission of integral evangelization.

The term “integral evangelization” meant that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus has both eternal and temporal dimensions. Jesus announced salvation in the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice and peace, truth and love, which has now begun in Jesus here on earth but is not fulfilled definitively except at the end of time. It is in the “here and now” dimension of the Kingdom of God that integral liberation from everything that is dehumanizing, most especially sinfulness, finds its place. Eternal salvation does not exclude human liberation. In fact, the church teaches that human liberation is intimately linked to the mission of evangelization. It is here – in the task of human liberation - that the social action apostolate is grounded.

Surveying the national situation PCP-II discerned many “lights and shadows” (See PCP-II Final Document, nos. 18-32, and especially Appendix I, “The Contemporary Philippine Situation,” pp. 275-91). PCP-II described the imbalances of the economic and political situation and saw these imbalances as reinforced by the negative features of our cultural life. From such a situation PCP-II proceeded to describe a vision of society toward which the Church would carry out its task of social transformation. This is the PCP-II vision of society:

That all may have life (mabigyan ng buhay) –
we shall have to create a free nation:
where human dignity and solidarity
are respected and promoted;
where moral principles prevail in socio-economic life and structure;
where justice, love, and solidarity are the inner driving forces of development.

We shall have to build a sovereign nation:
where every tribe and faith are respected;
where diverse tongues and traditions work together for the good of all;
where membership is a call to participation and involvement
and leadership a summon to generous service.

Ours will have to be a people
in harmony with one another through unity in diversity;
in harmony with creation,
and in harmony with God.

Ours shall be a civilization of life and love (PCP-II Final Document, nos. 253-55).

The above vision of Philippine society expresses the following values of the Kingdom of God:

1) freedom and sovereignty;
2) human dignity and solidarity;
3) the primacy of morality in the social order;
4) justice and love as driving forces of development;
5) respect for cultural values and traditions;
6) the common good as goal;
7) participation and service as responsibility;
8) unity in diversity;
9) harmony with creation and with God.

Presumably, if the above values become operative in society, the result would be “a civilization of life and love.”

The general response of the Church toward this vision and the task of social transformation is its vision of itself.

Although PCP-II did not provide an explicit and concise enunciation of this vision, we are by now generally aware of its fundamental components, namely:

1) a Church of authentic disciples;
2) a Church of communion;
3) a participatory Church;
4) a Church engaged in integral evangelization;
5) an inculturated Church;
6) and a Church of the Poor.

The following would be a personal summing up of the PCP-II vision of Church in the Philippines:

To announce effectively and credibly the Gospel of Jesus as truly salvific and liberating, to be truly a leaven in society transforming the Filipino person into a new creation and the Filipino nation into a closer reflection of the Kingdom of God, we Filipino Catholics have to be what we claim we are: a community of the Lord’s disciples, where everyone participates actively in the building of God’s people, each one totally motivated by God’s love which expresses itself most especially in a Christian love of preference for the poor, thus making the community of disciples a Church of the Poor (see my talk, “The Formation of Teachers and Lay Leaders in Service of the Faith and the Filipino,” CEAP National Convention, July 4, 1991; also NASAGA, Naga City, October 2, 1991).

The PCP-II vision of Church is, indeed, formidable. And the most difficult to realize, I believe, is to be a Church of the Poor, because this vision requires a profound conversion of every facet of our lives.

From the situation to the vision, the Church committed itself to a journey of renewal, a journey of integral evangelization, so that the Church could be credible and effective in its over-all mission in the Philippines. The Church would have to avoid the failures of its evangelizing efforts (see PCP-II Final Document, e.g., nos. 30-31) as a “potent yet flawed” evangelizer.

In 2001, ten years after PCP-II, the National Pastoral Consultation on Church Renewal (NPCCR) stated that the PCP-II reading of the Philippine situation was still quite valid. The imbalances remained generally the same. The Church reviewed what it had accomplished in its 10-year journey of renewal and integral evangelization. The review showed similar “lights and shadows” that PCP-II had already seen. The economic, political, cultural, and religious problems remained generally the same. Nonetheless there were many significant advances in renewal especially where the BECs were active.

One of the problems that dioceses encountered was the sheer comprehensiveness and magnitude of renewal. The 132 decrees of PCP-II and the many other recommendations found within the text of the Council, were very difficult to implement. In order, therefore, to make the goals of renewal more simple, the National Consultation drew up nine major pastoral priorities for the Church in the Philippines (see Final Message of NPCCR, “Behold I Make All things New,” 7), namely:

1) Integral Faith Formation;
2) Empowerment of the Laity towards Social Transformation;
3) Active Presence and Participation of the Poor;
4) The Family as the Focal Point of Evangelization;
5) Building and Strengthening of Participatory Communities that make up the Parish as a Community of Communities;
6) Integral Renewal of the Clergy (and Religious);
7) Journeying with the Youth;
8) Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue;
9) Animation and Formation for Mission ad Gentes.

The Consultation exhorted, “We enjoin all communities of faith to engage in contextualized pastoral reflection, dialogue, discernment, planning and action based on these nine priorities” (Message of NPCCR, 8).

It is now 15 years since PCP-II ended. In many dioceses all over the country the work of renewal toward the vision of church and society has focused on the building of Basic Ecclesial Communities as the pastoral priority. The BEC as a vision of “a new way of being Church” has the advantage of concentrating pastoral efforts on the family level of grassroots communities, namely, on the cluster of families that make up the BEC (thus nos. 3-5 of the pastoral priorities).

In the BEC the focal point of evangelization is, indeed, the family. Toward the BEC all the pastoral programs of the diocese, including social action, is directed. The BEC in turn becomes the agent of integral evangelization.

B. In Pursuit of Justice, Development and Peace.

From the perspective of integral renewal and of integral evangelization, we now ask: what is the place of Social Ministry or Social Apostolate?

Bishop Claver’s talk provided a first answer in terms of the relationship between social ministry and the vision of a Church of the Poor.

Allow me to place his topic within the general context of my own topic.

PCP-II itself raised the urgent and relevant questions:

How should the Church foster social transformation and assist the little people in bringing about harmony and kaayusan in their lives? How should the Church announce the Kingdom of Justice, Peace and Love in the context of great social, economic, political and cultural imbalances? How can we as a community of the Lord’s disciples be a leaven of social transformation? (no. 261).
Responding to the questions PCP-II prescribed four general directions for social action to take (see nos.262-373):

1) the Formation of a Social Conscience;
2) the Application of the Social Doctrine of the Church;
3) the Renewal of the Political Order;
4) The Living of a Spirituality of Social Transformation.

How urgent and imperative these four general directions are in our day! I am sometimes shocked that many well educated Catholics think of the mission of the church in purely “other worldly” terms, in exclusively spiritual terms. We are aware. of course, of the many current misunderstandings of the role of the Church regarding issues of politics, economics, ecology and the like. And we are often frustrated and exasperated by the political circus played by politicians from left, right, and center that happens daily in “imperial” Manila. Unfortunately media seems treat this political bickering with an intensity and seriousness that it does not really deserve. People in the countryside do not are concerned more about their own economic survival and politicians have ignored these more primary needs. Hence, we see how absolutely necessary it is for us to form a truly Christian social conscience and to renew the political order with the guidance of the social doctrine of the Church. The social doctrine of the church consists of “principles
of reflection, criteria for judgment, and directives of action.”

Thank God, we now have in our hands a Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. A copy of this should be in the hands of every Social Action director. In fact, it should be translated into the major languages of the Philippines for easy access to lay leaders in the Basic Ecclesial Communities.

Let me suggest further supplementary answers to the questions PCP-II asked by way of a process of discernment and a general schema for the social apostolate.

1. A Process of Discernment.

PCP-II followed a process of discernment that is known as the Pastoral Spiral. This was developed in the 1980s by two FABC Offices, Human Development and Laity, in order to help participants in social immersion programs to interiorize and express their experience.

The process begins with a holistic analysis (social and cultural analysis) of the pastoral situation. It is followed by faith-reflection on the situation in the light of Sacred Scriptures and the Teachings of the Church. It then proceeds to pastoral decisions, planning and action. The spiral ends with evaluation, after which a new spiral begins. It is a fuller version of the usual “see, judge, act” process. The Final Document of PCP was also constructed according to the same process, although the documents end with pastoral decisions or decrees. Thus, the Pastoral Spiral:

Situation Analysis → → Reflection in Faith → → Pastoral Decision → →Planning → →

Action → → Evaluation.

2. A Schema for the Social Action Apostolate.

To give some sense to the PCP-II decrees of the social apostolate, may I suggest a schema. At the outset Article 20 of PCP-II provides a general pastoral orientation for all the decrees on the social apostolate:

#1. The Church must exert all efforts to reduce the gap between faith and practice in the area of social justice by working for greater justice and equality in Philippine society.

#2. Action on behalf of justice is to be pursued as a sign of Christian witnessing to Chirst and His teachings.

#3. The social action apostolate is to be constantly given solid religious grounding through catechesis and organic linking with worship.

The decrees then specifically target three areas as tasks of renewal, namely, Formation, Inculturation, and Spirituality. Moreover Article 22.1 notes the necessity of holistic analysis:

A thorough social analysis, structural and cultural is to be promoted more intensely in the process of building u[p discerning communities of faith, precisely to the end that their efforts at social transformation take into account hard social realities and carried through from a genuine perspective of faith.

Hence, the following suggested Schema for Social Ministry in Pursuit of Justice, Development and Peace. See PCP-II articles 22 - 33:

PROCESS / ACTIVITIES

Holistic Analysis
- through brainstorming sessions in dioceses and parishes;

Formation and Inculturation

- through immersion-exposure programs, reflection-action process;
- formation of a Christian social conscience;
- biblical catechesis for social involvement and transformation;
- formation in the social teachings of the Church;
- emphasis on value formation;
- political formation for lay people;
- skills training;
- grounding the social apostolate in the teachings of the Church and linking it with worship - the liturgy and the sacraments.

Organization

- Social Action steering committee made up of the different sectors of theChurch;
- Lay people to assume leadership roles;
- Coordination of all pastoral programs based on a common vision;
- Inter-sectoral, inter-faith, international linkages.

Programs and Projects

- e.g., ecology, labor, rural poor;
- women, sick and handicapped, youth, families of OFWs;
- setting up social fund for the poor;
- research by Catholic educational institutions on basic causes of social problems.

Spirituality

- development of a holistic spirituality for social transformation;
- Christian witnessing in action for justice.

THRUST

- toward Justice, Development and Peace;
- toward Empowerment of the Poor / Grassroots Communities (BECs);
- toward Building Discerning and Transformative Communities.

SETTING / TARGET

- Diocese, Parish;
- Small Faith Communities, Schools, Seminaries, Formation Houses;
- Religious Organizations, etc.

VISION OF CHURCH AND SOCIETY

C. SPIRITUALITY OF SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION – THE SYNTHESIZING PRINCIPLE

What I would consider as the synthesizing principle, the summing up of the requirements of renewal in the pursuit of justice, development and peace, is “a spirituality of social transformation.” [This section is mostly taken from my CBCP article, “Announcing a Message of Liberation,” 1992]. PCP-II develops this spirituality in nos. 262-282.

In no. 261, PCP-II asks: “How can we, as a community of the Lord’s disciples, be a leaven of social transformation?”

The answer immediately follows in no. 262: “the most basic and effective response… can come only from the very depths of our being as disciples of the Lord,.. in our following of Jesus, in our fidelity to his Gospel of Justice and Love and thus, in our spirituality.”

The faith-reflection of PCP-II looks at the socio-economic and political problems in terms of sinfulness (nos. 264-70). This realization of sinfulness as the root cause must lead to conversion and social transformation (nos. 272-74).

For this to happen, a definite way of life – a spirituality – has to develop, “which is nothing more and nothing less than a following of Jesus-in-mission. It is the spirituality of the community of disciples” (See a further elaboration of this spirituality in my talk, “Spirituality of Social Transformation,” 1990 National Social Action General Assembly, Dumaguete City).

PCP-II firmly believed that a spirituality of “following Jesus-in-mission” bears the key to authentic social transformation, to the overcoming of sinfulness and the dismantling of structures of sin. This spirituality is “marked by an enduring and intimate commitment to Jesus, .. by a love of preference for the poor” (no. 278). It is “a hunger and thirst for justice,” a heeding of God’s word “in the voices of the voiceless and powerless,” an urging “to care for the earth as God’s gift,” “a witnessing to the radical demands of the Gospel” (nos. 278-82).

To recognize spirituality as the synthesizing principle in the task of pursuing justice, development and peace is to recognize the role of the Spirit of God in recreating a new nation and a new Filipino. It is also a confession of our own utter human lack of power in the face of evil.

It is, finally, a declaration that, when all is said and done, it is the power and the wisdom of God manifested by the Cross and the Empty Tomb that ultimately brings “into our midst a fuller realization of the Kingdom of Jesus, a kingdom of justice, peace and love” (no. 401).

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Orientation for New SAC Directors
Tagaytay, March 23, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI and the Clash of Faith and Reason

2006-09-20T14:17:00.000+08:00

1. I have not made any public comment on the Pope's lecture on Faith and Reason at the University of Regensburg, except to my own Clergy and Religious. I have read the Pope's lecture twice—very closely. I have analyzed its tone, its premise, its main issue, the way it is developed, its conclusions. It is closely reasoned. It was given to scholars in an academic setting.

2. As a former academic, frankly I am completely shocked and bewildered by the vehement reaction to the Pope's lecture from various quarters of the Muslim world. TV has shown effigies of Benedict XVI being burned as an enemy of Islam. Churches in several countries have been attacked. The murder of a religious Sister in Somalia has been speculated on as a possible retaliation. I even surmised that the violent reactions could unfortunately confirm the wrong belief of many non-Islam people that Islam may, indeed, be a religion of violence. If this were so, it would be a great pity.

3. But most certainly Pope Benedict XVI is definitely not anti-Muslim. This I declare unequivocally from personal knowledge. I have talked with him several times when he was yet a Cardinal. I have referred issues of inter-religious dialogue to him. He was the closest and most trusted theological adviser of Pope John Paul II. I personally know that he shared the vision of the late Pope John Paul II with regard to inter-religious dialogue.

4. I know that he has the greatest respect for peoples of different religions, particularly of Islam. Together with the Pontifical Commission on Inter-Religious Dialogue, he collaborated with the late Pope on the many significant papal documents and events that had significantly promoted respectful dialogue with Islam. He thought that dialogue with the great religious traditions had a lot to do with the deeply rooted cultural traditions of various peoples.

5. That is why I was not surprised when he placed the Pontifical Commission on Inter-Religious Dialogue under the Vatican office on Culture - a move that was misinterpreted by some critics as a down grading of the process of dialogue. I am sure that he thought of the move as enriching the process and emphasizing the role of culture in inter-religious dialogue. One can see his emphasis on cultural religious values on his insistence that Europe recognize this in its Constitution. One can likewise see this point clearly in his lecture at the University of Regensburg.

6. Further, he continues to regard the continuing war in Iraq with great disapproval. In his own academic style he severely and negatively judged the anti-Islam cartoons in Denmark. In doctrine and in practice, he certainly holds great respect for Islam and its believers. With his great predecessor, Pope John Paul II, he holds in common the conviction that violence is not to be justified in the name of religion, Christian or otherwise. The tragic blunders of religious belief in this regard have littered history with thousands of corpses.

6. The one fault the Pope could have had at the University of Regensburg is his "political" simplicity. Some might call it "naiveté." Certainly I see him as a simple person without any worldly political sophistication, a scholar "without guile". Perhaps he believed that everyone would understand his use of a medieval text in its proper context -- as a simple starting point for a wide-ranging scholarly discussion on the need for the West to restore faith and religious values into its secular mentality. Such restoration has to be done, he says, if the West were to successfully enter into dialogue with the great cultural religious traditions of peoples. Here I suppose he would include such traditions as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

7. We now know, of course, from his message of September 16, that was covered live by Al-Jazeera that he does not endorse the medieval text. In fact, we are told that the German word that he used in his lecture to describe the statement of the Byzantine Emperor really means "crude."

8. I pray that things will settle down quickly with the apology so humbly expressed by this simple yet learned religious leader.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, OMI, DD
September 20, 2006

Peace Negotiations Southern Philippines in Jeopardy.

2006-09-19T15:58:00.000+08:00

1. The "breakdown" of peace negotiations is truly disturbing. But it is a possibility that I had always, kept in mind. The reason? The very reason for the "breakdown" as reported by the MILF and given some clarification by the GRP—namely the Philippine Constitution. In the past two years I have asked myself the question: How will the GRP understand the problem of ancestral domain? The answer that always comes to my mind—within the framework of the Constitution. After all, the Executive Branch has to have the Legislative Branch approve an "agreement" reached with the MILF. And on what basis will Congress approve the agreement? On the basis of the Constitution. Thus, the GRP is stuck with what Chairman Murad of the MILF describes very aptly as "in the box" mentality. But I guess this basic preoccupation with the Constitution is part of the democratic process. Fundamentally then, no matter who is at the helm of the GRP (FVR, Erap, Arroyo or her successor) would inevitably have to grapple with that issue. It is not a matter of personalities as some critics seem to think. It is a matter of one normative document for a democracy – a Constitution.

2. On the other hand, how does the MILF look at the issue of ancestral domain? Naturally on the basis of historical and current developments. The injection of current history into the issue of territory is one of the things I admired in the vision of the late Chairman Salamat. His was a vision of a Bangsamoro homeland blended with realism. But even the use of current historical developments could certainly go against the framework that the GRP has to use. Hence such problems as territorial contiguity.

3. I would not be surprised if the discussion on charter change would take on an added issue—the Constitution and the concept of ancestral domain in the light of peace negotiations and in the light of historical and current developments regarding territories.

4. What is certainly needed by both sides is what Chairman Murad has also so aptly described as "creativity" in resolving the issue. I believe this "creative" way is incumbent on BOTH parties. Hence a pause in the negotiations (not necessarily a breakdown) is imperative—for the negotiators to go back to their principals and ask the question: How can our group more creatively push the discussion forward and not remain "in the box" of our set perspective and position? The answer I dare say is a converging move towards a middle ground, which is only arrived at by way of a reciprocal "give and take" dynamic. This is why the peace talks are called "negotiations."

5. The views of a third party—constituted by civil society—could put some light on the present impasse. Somewhere out there are creative ideas to help both sides get out of the box. Could such a group come together to provide a breakthrough?

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato

Notes on the Human Formation of Priests.

2006-05-16T12:30:00.000+08:00

Introduction

May I thank Fr. Lawrence Pinto for inviting me to give you this “keynote” address. My task, I take it, is to set the tone of the consultation and provide some preliminary points of reflection. Two questions are in my mind as I develop this reflection, namely:

a. What kind of priests are to be formed in and for Asia?
b. What kind of formation should they undergo?

It is not my intention to respond to these questions but only to describe the pastoral situation from which these questions arise. I hope that at the end of this consultation, the concrete shape of the answers might begin to emerge from your own reflection and discussion.

This reflection is from the perspective of a former seminary formator and of a pastor. My pastoral experience has been generally in rural areas and, for 20 years years, in a situation where the population is almost equally divided into Muslim and Christian.

Although my perspective so described may apply to many parts of Asia, I do not intend to generalize for Asia. I really wish to apply my observations to a much more restricted area, i.e., Southern Mindanao, Philippines. I shall develop my topic in three steps:

A. Lights and Shadows of the Life and Ministry of Priests in Asia;
B. Some Observations on the Formation Of Priests;
C. A Vision of Priests in Asia.

A. Lights and Shadows of Priestly Life and Ministry in Asia.

On May 25, 1992, Pope John Paul II issued his post-synodal exhortation on the formation of priests in our present circumstances, Pastores Dabo Vobis. He began with the words of Yahweh to the Prophet Jeremiah: “I shall give you shepherds after my own heart.” How would we see the fulfillment of these prophetic words today?

With lights and shadows, I am quite certain.

First of all, it would be safe to say that generally in Asia, God has blessed us with an embarrassment of riches with regard to vocations to the priestly and religious life. Seminaries and religious houses of formation usually do not lack candidates. Our problem is usually not the lack of vocations but the lack of material support for vocations. For instance, in the past five years I have seriously thought – twice - of temporarily closing our philosophy seminary until I could find enough financial support for it. I begin every school year with an act of faith, bordering on presumption, that “Deus providebit.”

There are many more lights in the situation regarding shepherds after the heart of God. Generally our priests are well educated, above the average population. Although most would come from obscure provincial or regional seminaries, priests do have solid academic training and a reasonably adequate spiritual formation. They might not always be the best and the brightest, but we can certainly be proud of them when they are ordained. They are deemed “worthy” in so far as human judgment can declare. They have successfully undergone many years of training and formation.

In the priestly ministry the lifestyle of our priests is simple, many times even austere to the point of being poor. They do reach out to the margins of society, even to remote villages. They exhibit a particular closeness – solidarity - with the poor, an ability to talk with them and be with them, based on sincere Christ-like compassion. Asian priests usually do not come from the Asian social elite. But after many years of seminary formation they generally do not forget or abandon their humble roots. In their ministry among the poor, they demonstrate an authentic seeking for the freedom and love, justice and peace of the Kingdom of God. They would be great promoters of a Church of the Poor.

Generally they get along well with most of their fellow priests and exhibit, at least with their ordination group, a deep human and spiritual bonding, befitting the sacramental bonding of all priests. They do strive together toward an ever deeper spirituality through prayer and ongoing formation by way of occasional seminars, regular retreats and recollections. There is no doubt that each one wishes and strives to follow Jesus, the Good Shepherd, his pastoral charity, his life and message.

But in the Asian priestly landscape are certain shadows that darken and disfigure the image of the priest. The number of priestly failure is surely insignificant among the tens of thousands of Asian priests. But the notoriety that this small number creates is sadly disproportionate.

People are scandalized and shocked by the extreme cases of egregious infidelity to priestly commitments, particularly to celibacy. They talk among themselves about the playboy image of this or that priest or suspect the sexual orientation of some others. It is tragic to note that in this matter a few priests may have become predatory. People are deeply pained by the lack of congruence between priestly commitment and priestly behavior. But the faithful are often a captive audience and they just have no choice but to bear with and pray for their priests, although they might send letters of complaint, even a delegation of parishioners, to their bishop.

So they also bear with the aloofness and patronizing attitude of some priests, their superior and domineering attitude, their lack of consultative and enabling leadership, the absence of collaboration with the laity and religious in pastoral decision making.

But they are even more saddened by what they see as pastoral mediocrity among some priests, their apparent disinterest in seeking more effective ways of ministry, their proclivity for the “easy way” of merely “sacramental” ministry, their wanting to remain in the status quo of ministry.

We can also see that quite a number have succumbed to the temptation of comfort and security. Sometimes it is also obvious that some priests have abandoned their priestly idealism and spirit of self-sacrifice for the more practical outlook of considering their priestly vocation as a step-up in the social and economic scale. For them the priesthood has become a means of livelihood, a career, rather than as a God-given vocation to serve. People make snide remarks about the “Church of the Poor” when they see some priests with the latest expensive electronic gadgets or even vehicles.

Moreover, in the eyes of people, a good number of priests are good priests simply because they are good organizers or planners, excellent managers or administrators.

Most of all, the fall of many a priest from their identity and place before the Lord and among the people has been significantly due to the lack of prayer life, a loss of awareness of the more fundamental elements of the gift of priesthood as a configuration to Christ, Head and Shepherd. This is the loss of an intimate relationship with Christ. The mutual cause-effect relationship between prayer and virtue, or between spiritual dryness, vice and errant personal relationships can be explored by scholars. But sooner or later, the loss of intimacy with the Lord leads to complete disaster -- the breakdown of priestly identity and the collapse of priestly ministry.

What is particularly tragic in all these various situations is the inability of a troubled priest to seek advice and solution from his bishop or from his fellow priests or to find any strength and healing as well as a compassionate support from his fraternity of priests. Most of the time, his undoing is his own sole responsibility. Sometimes his problem might be the bishop himself. Or it could also mean that the presbyterium does not live up to what it should be – a prayerful, caring, loving, personally and vocationally nurturing community of priests. Or the problem is all of the above.

Whatever the problem may be, priestly failure has far ranging ripple effect that does great damage to the priestly image and to the credibility of the Church. We need only cite the example of the Church in the United States.

B. Some Observations on Priestly Formation.

Many observers naturally inquire about the reasons for these lights and shadows in priestly life and ministry. Some will attribute responsibility to the kind of seminary formation that candidates to the priesthood go through.

There is some validity to that observation. Still I can sincerely state that despite the failures of a small minority of priests that I have spoken about, seminary formation – in terms of both personnel and process – is doing quite well.

However, may I mention a few areas where substantial improvement would be greatly desired.

1. It is axiomatic that seminary formation has to be a holistic continuum. It builds up from stage to stage. Yet in many cases there seems to be a lack of continuity between a special stage – a year - of spirituality formation and the other stages of formation. For instance, since the year of spirituality formation has been undergone, spiritual formation seems to be gradually taken for granted. There seems to be no real systematic follow-up of spiritual formation in the succeeding years.

2. In many cases there does not seem to be a definite orientation for the priesthood from day one of seminary formation. The idea seems to be that the seminarian should be given an opportunity to get a good education and in the process he would somehow get the call from God. Or there is the case of candidates, not yet deemed mature in their decision-making, where every year is a year of testing and discerning, until the final months before diaconate ordination.

3. The absence in seminary formation of a definitive orientation toward the priesthood or of a so-called mature decision to be a priest seems to make it possible for seminarians to have dangerous relationships up to the eve of definitive decision-making, i.e., up to the last year of theology.

4. In many cases, too, human maturity is not presumed until the beginning of theology, while their peers outside the seminary are considered mature enough to marry and have children of their own. This point of view is also carried over to the first few years of priestly ministry, during which the “baby”, meaning young, priests are not given heavy responsibilities. Surely the need for special care of priests in their first few years of ministry does not include the idea of being “babied” with regard to pastoral ministry and decision-making.

5. In the growth toward human maturity, perhaps not enough attention is given to the various stages of human development, as in Erickson’s theory regarding identity, intimacy and generativity, especially when the absence or delay of a definitive orientation to the priesthood makes “identity” problematic. Is it not rather late for already ordained priests to have seminars on psycho-sexual maturity? Would it not be better for such formation to be given to seminarians, especially in the latter part of their formation?

6. In many formation staff the services of a professional guidance counselor / psychologist are lacking. Where these are present, the need for consultation and coordination with professionally trained Spiritual Directors is strongly felt, with absolute respect for the “internal forum” and professional confidentiality. However, much care has to be taken to ensure that professional guidance counselors and psychologists at the service of seminary formation have the Christian vision of the human person and demonstrate great fidelity to the teachings of the Church on human behavior.

7. The idea and the reasons for “regency” or “leave of absence” to enable seminarians with special difficulties to continue their formation outside the seminary setting have to be better understood, both by the seminary staff and the diocesan pastoral staff to whom such seminarians might be asked to report. A lack of understanding, consultation and coordination has very unfortunate results on the vocation of a seminarian.

8. In most seminaries that I know of there is a lack of a practical pastoral theology course that would provide seminarians with the knowledge and skills of inter-religious dialogue, of pastoral planning, organizing and community building, e.g., the building of Basic Ecclesial / Human Communities, etc. Thus they do a sort of “on the job” training after ordination, most of it on their own, or through short term seminars.

D. A Vision of the Priest in Asia.

The final point I would like to deal with is the question: What kind of priest should we be forming in and for Asia?

The answer is suggested by the vision of Church in Asia that the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences has articulated in various ways.

Let me highlight certain elements of that vision in terms of priestly identity. These elements address the shadows of priestly failures and build on the lights of priestly life and ministry that I have mentioned.

I believe that Asian seminaries should help form a priest who is:

1. An integrally mature person – humanly, intellectually, spiritually, pastorally;

2. A person of God-experience;

3. A person driven by the Reign of God;

4. A person of the evangelical counsels;

5. A person of the poor;

6. A person of community;

7. A person of dialogue and peace;

8. A person of mission, in-mission, led by pastoral charity;

9. A humble companion, brother, father, mother, friend on the journey to the Kingdom;

10. A compassionate servant-leader.

Conclusion.

The list above is quite formidable. Seminaries have about 10 years of formation to achieve this vision of the priest. Seminary formators can only do so much. The individual candidate himself is the principal agent. We can be strengthened and comforted by the realization that throughout the entire process of formation, the Holy Spirit is the Primary Formator.

But the teacher, as wise men in the Church have told us, cannot be really effective unless he is also a witness -- of the Good Shepherd unto whose image he helps form the seminarian. Beyond teaching then is the daunting task of being a role model.

May Mary, the Mother of Priests, intercede for us as we respond to the Lord’s call, Pastores dabo vobis.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Consultation by FABC-Office of the Clergy
Hua Hin, Thailand
May 15, 2006

CHARTER CHANGE AND MORAL WISDOM

2006-05-05T08:14:00.000+08:00

What should we think about Charter Change? Congress is now starting to discuss the issue. An issue that deals with the central and most fundamental document of the land is the concern of all citizens.

In their 1977 comprehensive Pastoral Exhortation on politics, the Bishops of the Philippines wrote the following:

“We believe that the way to unity is to unconditionally, unequivocally and irrevocably terminate all attempts to revise the Constitution at this time. When the time does come, let it be done with widespread participation and a unity of vision, with total transparency and serenity, with reasons unarguably directed to the common good rather than to the self-serving interests of politicians…” (No. 45).

Should the bishops say the same thing today? Here is my own opinion on the matter.

Prudence is a moral virtue. It is right judgment about what needs to be done. It is both moral and practical wisdom. Neither good intention nor charity suffices. Charity forms a good intention. But charity has to be guided by prudence. “A prudent person knows how to find the right means for a good end.” (Michael Downey, ed. The New Dictionary of Spirituality, 1993, “Prudence”, p. 1005). Prudence is the moral virtue that is needed to discern what must be done for the common good.

Prudence or moral wisdom is necessary when considering the issue of Charter Change. We need to consider the following, among others:

1. Will Charter Change solve our political and economic problems? I would submit that the answer is No. We cannot blame the Constitution for our political problems. They are of our own making. These problems are basically rooted in the way we see and use politics as a politics of patronage, of personalities, and of pay-offs. The craving for political power is colored by this exploitation of politics for goals foreign to the common good. Political divisiveness, adversarial politics, political gridlock, hypercritical politics, political pettiness – these are some of the results of such mental framework. For the same reasons, electoral processes are easily tainted with dishonesty. Charter Change is not, a much less the, solution. A Constitution is as good as the people and their leaders make it to be. Similarly, the Constitution does not make people poor. What makes people poor is injustice, the diversion of government funds to vested interests, or worse, to pockets unknown, three decades of misdirected economic development, the bias for a macro-view of economic development to the neglect of “the little people”, lack of access for the poor to economic opportunities, unjust distribution of resources and the benefits of development, etc. (see other reasons in CBCP 1998 Pastoral Exhortation on Economics, 1998). Therefore, the priorities today are political and economic reforms, especially the renewal of persons and the reform of policies. Charter Change is certainly not the priority.

2. Will Charter Change be beneficial? Considering the urgent needs of the country, I submit that the answer is No. Our legislators are targeting 2004, less than two years from now, as the time for Charter Change. Until then our legislators will spend a lot of valuable time discussing matters of Charter Change rather than focusing on the urgent ans serious needs of the country. The total process of Charter Change will eat up billions of pesos that could be used for micro-economic initiatives of the poor so urgently needed today. Charter Change at this time would simply be counter-productive. It distracts the attention and interests of legislators and people from the real problems that beset the country.

3. Is Charter Change timely? I submit that the answer is No. Charter Change in 2004 is absolutely premature. The main issue that proponents of Charter Change wish to tackle is the question of the form of government. Will it be parliamentary? Will it be federalist? Or is the present system adequate? These are questions that require widespread participation, not merely the so-called barangay consultations or “signature campaigns” that we all know about and are amused by, simply because of the lack of any time for intelligent and mature discussion provided for the people. Given many other issues regarding the Constitution that should be discussed by the people in general, the time before 2004 is just too short for such people participation.

Therefore, what the Bishops in 1998 wrote is still very true today. The time has not yet come for Charter Change. “When the time does come, let it be done with widespread participation and a unity of vision, with total transparency and serenity, with reasons unarguably directed to the common good…”

Prudence or moral wisdom urged President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo not to run for the presidency in 2004, but to concentrate all her efforts during her remaining time to solving the economic problems of the country. Moral wisdom would also demand that our legislators concentrate all their efforts toward the same objective in collaboration with the President, rather than on Charter Change.

(Note: this is a reprint of an article of Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, OMI, that appeared in the CBCP Monitor, January 12, 2003)

What do Bishops say about the Political Situation?

2005-09-24T16:35:00.000+08:00

Last Tuesday, September 13, 2005, the Permanent Council of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines headed by the CBCP President, Archbishop Fernando Capalla, issued a statement on the present political situation. Media interpreted the statement differently by giving a variety of focus. Some emphasized the search for truth. Others the economic problem of the country.

The variety of emphasis in media reveals the lack of standard and objective perspective. Each newspaper, radio station, and television network had its own perspective. This perspective may have depended on their varied position regarding the situation. In correctly reporting the Bishops’ Statement, the CBCP perspective should be used. May I offer a personal interpretation of the statement and its perspective. A simple question and answer primer should provide a better understanding.

What is the Bishops’ core message?

The core message is this: While the search for truth must continue, the main problem that now faces the greatest majority of our people is economic survival. All politicians have to face this problem squarely. They have to act together to resolve the problem. To do this they have to stop their political bickering and division.

Why do the Bishops say that the economic problem is now the main problem?

The Bishops know this firsthand from their pastoral experience and also from what people in the town and barrios of their dioceses tell the. The Bishops themselves see the problem as a fact. The problem in the provinces is the rising cost of basic commodities, the lack of adequate income, the inadequate delivery of basic services, the poverty and hunger of people. In short, the main problem is economic survival. Their people complain that instead of focusing on the economic problem politicians are busy arguing with each other about “the truth” they are “weary and tired” of all the politicking that is going on. They fear that continuing the debate about the truth in Congress or in the streets will simply worsen the economic situation.

So, what do the Bishops recommend?

All of us are indeed accountable to the truth. The truth has to be pursued. But we are also accountable to the poor. This accountability to the poor has to be demonstrated in our full concern for the economic hardships of our people. This is the more immediate and more urgent problem facing the whole nation. Full and undivided focus on the economic problem that requires the total cooperation of all our political leaders and representatives is the main recommendation of the Bishops. Media has not generally picked up this message. Instead some of the media focused more on the bishops’ position to pursue the truth.

With regard to this search for truth what do the Bishops believe?

The constitutional and legal processes have to continue even as our legislators must tackle as a first priority the more urgent problem of the economy. To search for the truth “in the streets” or through the so-called “people’s court” seems to be mere political and even ideological ploy. The many failed efforts to get people out into the streets demonstrate the weariness of people regarding the mixed political and ideological agenda of organizers and sponsors. People are indifferent and do not respond to the call of the opposition to go out into the streets. Their indifference may also mean that they may not totally believe in the so-called “truth” presented by the opposition. Hence, Bishops would rather urge that legal and constitutional luminaries come together and reflect on possible but creative ways by which the search for truth could be pursued in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution.

Do the bishops endorse People Power?

No, the bishops do not encourage people power. Archbishop Capalla commended that People Power is the people’s prerogative. But he neither encouraged nor endorsed it as the proper course of action in the present circumstances. His comment was simply a statement of fact. But the perspective of the Bishops’ statement is that further attempts to “induce” people power would simple worsen the economic situation.

+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
September 14, 2005

Are the Bishops Divided?

2005-09-24T15:14:00.000+08:00

The answer is no. To understand this we need to use a common sense perspective. Let us give an example of perspective. When one or two of the Supreme Court justices dissent from the majority vote, do we normally describe the Court as a “divided court”? No. Because from common sense, the term “divided Court” would describe a vote that is rather substantially divided between for and against, even though one side might have a slight numerical superiority. Dwelling on the fact that one or two of the justices have dissented in order to portray a “divided Supreme Court” simply projects the wrong image. It is not the common sense perspective.

In like manner, when three or four Bishops are known to have a different opinion from that or more than 85 active Bishops, it would be against common sense to describe the Bishops’ Conference as a “divided hierarchy.” The term is not accurate and is misleading. Some opinion writers even to the extent of saying that the Bishops are “clearly divided.” This is an erroneous judgment. And to dwell continually and even editorialize on this matter simply projects the wrong image to the nation. It fails against common sense.

One can apply this common sense perspective to other examples. Is it correct to say that “business” is for this or that issue when only a few members of the Board of Directors of one business organization, no matter how prestigious, hold one view while most other business organizations nationwide hold the other view? Is it correct to say that Religious Sisters, Brothers, and Priests in the Philippines are against this or that, simply because some members of the Board of Directors of the Association of Major Religious Superiors voted against it, while other religious congregations do not hold the same view? Is it correct to say as a consequence that the Religious are against the Hierarchy on this issue? Is it correct to say that the Church is polarized, when two or three priests are out on the streets protesting against a CBCP position? All these examples mistake the trees for the forest. Unfortunately, this is how some reporting is being done about the present situation.

Moreover, why would media focus on the few that dissent and ignore the many that do not? Would not such reporting give the wrong impression of the “big picture”? When some cities in Mindanao are “paralyzed” by a transport strike, would it not be wrong to report that Mindanao was paralyzed? By the same token would it not be wrong to say that the Philippines is not safe for tourists when only a few places may not be safe for them?

One newspaper claims that there is a “militant faction” within the CBCP. Is this True? This information supposedly came from a “Church insider.” The information is absolutely false. Beware of so-called “church insiders.” Beware, too, of the information they give. So often have such informants given inaccurate and wrong “reports” as to make the term “hearsay” almost synonymous with “falsehood.”

What is the nature of a reflection group? The truth is this: now and then, a group of bishops would come together and reflect on the pastoral situation so that they would be personally guided by their reflection. It used to be just the Mindanao bishops that would gather. Now some other regional bishops do so, such as the Northern Luzon Bishops. In time such a “reflection” group expanded such that Bishops from various parts of the Philippines would come together and reflect on the “Church of the Poor.” It is by invitation so that the reflection process would not be unwieldy. Participation is by region, from North to South, so that the pulse of the country would be known. It is by no means a militant group. It is far from being a pressure group. The result of reflection are usually only for personal guidance of the participants. It might surprise media that the President of CB CP, Archbishop Capalla, encouraged the holding of the most recent reflection and asked that the results be given to him. He knows the value of such reflection since he himself had been a member of past reflection groups. Thus the media report that there is a “militant faction” within the CBCP is absolutely false and absurd. At a time of political divisiveness, would the Bishops insanely add fuel to the fire? That would be an extraordinary lack of common sense.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of common sense perspective in some media people. Hence, the bishops would agree with the complaint of Cardinal Vidal who was reported as saying that it is media that is creating the image of division among the bishops.

This brings up the question: What really is the task of media? The Church has a whole body of social teaching with regard to media and all the other tools of social communications. Suffice it to state the following. It is our belief that media does not make its own truth. The Church teaches that the means of social communication are instruments, not creators, of goodness and truth.