Q & A Series - No. 1

On Couples for Christ Representation in the Philippines

            The Chairman of CBCP’s (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines) Episcopal Commission for the Laity stated that it is acceptable for another association in the Philippines to use the name Couples for Christ “provided the bishop of the diocese will permit them.” 

            In essence, it is the Commission Chairman's opinion that the issue of Couples for Christ’s representation in the Philippine should be left to the sole discretion of the local bishops rather than the Vatican.

            We do not understand this position, coming as it is from a high-ranking member of the CBCP.  With love and all due respect to Bishop Gabriel Reyes, we believe that His Excellency's policy causes more problems than it solves for the following reasons:

    • It is having adverse effects on the pastoral well-being of both associations of Couples for Christ and the Foundation for Family and Life.
    • It is undermining Vatican authority.

Adverse Effects on the Pastoral Well-being of Couples for Christ and the Foundation for Family and Life

            It is harming the pastoral well-being of Couples for Christ and the Foundation for Family and Life because:

    • It encourages intense and prolonged campaigning with the bishops.
    • It promotes competition, rivalry and adversarial posturing.
    • It encourages disputes on which association is "authentic" and “real”.
    • It creates confusion among all concerned.
    • It provokes adverse reactions from members of both associations.
    • It elicits frustrations from the members of the clergy.
    • It results in conflicting directions from the bishops.

            Considering that there are approximately a hundred bishops in the Philippines, the situation has been reduced to a political exercise where the energies of both associations are now being placed on prolonged campaigning in dioceses in the Philippines where both associations have a presence .  In the case of dioceses where the bishops have signified their preference not to get involved, the campaigning is being conducted at the parochial level. 

            The adversarial posturing encouraged by the policy largely explains the bitterness and confusion exhibited by members of both associations, the spillover of the dispute that we are experiencing abroad, and the frustrations expressed by members of the Philippine clergy.

            Numerous cases abound of parents and (grown-up) children, or among siblings, or between best friends for that matter who are no longer speaking to each other as a result of this policy.

            In fairness to the members of both associations, we understand that there are also numerous instances where they try to reach out to each another.  But because of the existing environment brought about by the policy, such efforts are proving to be difficult to accomplish.

Undermining Vatican Authority

            With regards to the Vatican, our concerns pertain to the following: first, the policy is pre-empting the Vatican’s decision at the very least, or at most contradicts it, considering that Stanislaw Cardinal Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, in his letter to Joe Tale dated 3 April 2008, stated that the “… name Couples for Christ cannot be used by any other association.”

             Second, by advocating a per diocese approach, the policy ignores the universal nature of the Catholic Church.  Such an approach, it seems, is more akin to that of the Protestants where a unifying structure, such as the Vatican, does not exist.

            Third, the policy allows the ecclesial authorities in the Philippines to reject CFC’s Vatican-approved International Statutes, where it is stated that Couples for Christ is an association that is governed by the International Council and where Gawad Kalinga is integral to its life and mission, thus rendering Vatican approval as insignificant.

            We understand that a few bishops in the Philippines decided to consider the Foundation for Family and Life as representing Couples for Christ.  However, we understand also that other bishops have specifically stated that they would recognize only one association of Couples for Christ.  And yet still, there is at least one bishop who implied that no association should be called Couples for Christ in his diocese.

            It is clear that by ignoring the unifying influence of the Vatican, confusion and frustrations abound which often result to conflicting directions from the members of the Philippine clergy.

            Had the issue been referred to Rome when it began in 2007, we think that this pastoral problem would not have escalated to the level where it is right now .

            We believe in the importance of recognizing the Vatican’s unifying authority in resolving this issue of Couples for Christ’s representation in the Philippines in order for all those involved to start finding forgiveness and healing, and to move on in our respective services to the Lord.

             This, we are praying that the Chairman of CBCP’s Commission for the Laity would understand which would allow him, by God’s grace, to re-consider his position and finally agree (with appropriate public statement) to defer to the Pontifical Council for the Laity in Rome, rather than the Commission for the Laity, to resolve this pastoral problem of CFC and FFL in the Philippines and elsewhere.

On Gawak Kalinga Prohibition

            We are deeply saddened by the decision to prohibit GK from accepting donations from certain pharmaceutical companies seemingly without in-depth and impartial investigation of the decision’s harmful consequences.  Among the thousands of Catholic charities in the Philippines, we understand that GK is the only one who has this kind of prohibition.

            It is difficult for us to comprehend this double standard, knowing that much of these donations are in the form of much needed medicines intended for the poor and indigent recipients of GK.  In fact, this makes them the biggest victims of this crisis. 

            Based on our understanding, one of the consequences of this prohibition is that the poor children of GK would no longer be receiving anti-TB vaccines which would expose them to greater risk of contracting the disease and if not arrested, God forbidding, early death. 

            This is saddening indeed.
 

                                                                                                                                 Couples for Christ
                                                                                                                                Europe
                                                                                                                              

Please click here to download the full text of the document.