dialogues

Message for Advent 2005

2005-11-26T10:27:00.000+08:00

Restoring the Filipino nation with Jesus in our hearts

Advent is upon us. With this Sunday begins a season of waiting for the birth of our Savior. Far from being a period of refreshing memories of Christmases past, Advent gently reminds us that God took flesh in Jesus Christ through Mary and came to live among us humans on earth. More than just being a fact of history that is celebrated year after year, His birth is a way of salvation meant to realize God’s dream for us and the world.

Our Savior was born in the dark of night. Now, the season of waiting, we Filipinos also wait in the dark, so to speak. In this darkness, we hear strange noises and loud voices saying that our country’s situation is hopeless. We hear that we are led by blind leaders; that we are crippled by dysfunctional politics; that we are held in bondage by our materialism; that we are imprisoned in ignorance and poverty; that we are rendered Godless by our immorality. We are told that we are a hopeless case.

But are we, really? What are we called Christians for if we will accept this hopelessness without question?

Why do we light a parol, “the Star of Hope” in our homes if this can not enkindle in our hearts the hope that the coming of the Savior brings? If the star led the three hopeful wise men through the dark desert to the Child Jesus in the manger; may not our parol make us also look forward and move forward to a future made luminous by the presence of Jesus in our midst?

During Simbang Gabi, why do we wake up at dawn and brave the chill to go and hear Mass if not to fuse memory and hope in preparation for His birth? Why do we celebrate His birth if this does not lead us to desire and welcome His birth in our hearts as well?

In Advent, waiting is also welcoming. We wait and welcome God’s offer of salvation to us by preparing a room for our Savior in our hearts where the change from darkness to light begins. Jesus born and alive in our hearts is what will transform us into a people of light. Enlightened by Jesus Christ we will reconcile with God and neighbor, restore peace and order in our communities, and rebuild a nation that is free of corruption and Godlessness.

We hold on to hope, sustained by St. Paul’s words to the Colossians: “God willed to make known to them the riches and even the glory that His mysterious plan reserved for the pagan nations: Christ in you and the hope of God’s glory.” (Col. 1:27)

May Mary, a woman of hope, be our model and inspiration as we wait to welcome the arrival of Jesus our Savior in our land!

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, DD
President
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines
27 November 2005

How far can we go with Jesus?

2005-10-27T11:22:00.000+08:00

It is easy to love those who are lovable, those who love us, or those who are “on our side”.
One does not have to believe or follow Jesus to be able to do that. But to love those who do not care about us, those we consider our enemy, is not an easy thing to do. One question we Filipinos might as well ask ourselves in these trying times for our country is: How far can we go with Jesus in loving for the sake of our country? Are we willing to turn the other cheek. so to speak, to love those we consider beneath us in the hope of evangelizing our fellow Filipinos?
In September, 2004, I issued a new method of evangelization. I called it “Alay Gobyerno Alay Filipino”.

As the title indicates, one can help every Filipino, especially the majority—the poor—by helping the government which at the time was experiencing fiscal crisis. The help I was proposing was a massive, nationwide self-sacrifice available to and attainable by everyone—rich and poor alike. It was a call to self-sacrifice, and I was referring to any self-sacrifice that entails pain and suffering. The objects of the self-sacrifice were the corrupt people in government so that they would be converted, changed, and transformed. It was my fervent hope that once transformed they would so run the government responsibly and effectively as to eradicate the biggest problem of the country—poverty.

How should this self-sacrifice be carried out so as to be effective? I proposed—and I was speaking to Catholic Christians—that the self-sacrifice be offered together with the suffering of Jesus on the Cross, as taught by St. Paul in his letter to the Colossians, Chapter 1, verse 24. Suffering, according to Paul, acquires salvific value when joined to the sufferings of Christ.
I gave the example of St. Therese of Lisieux and Blessed Pope John XXIII. The Carmelite saint, who never left the monastery, offered her sufferings and pains for the intentions and needs of specific missionaries in Vietnam who later confirmed the positive effects of the nun’s prayer accompanied by self-sacrifice. Likewise, Pope John XXIII asked certain sick and bedridden people in Europe to offer their suffering and pain for the success of the Second Vatican Council which—four decades later—continues to be seen as a shining proof of the vitality and dynamism of the Catholic Church.

Sadly, very few seemed to understand the spirit behind “Alay Gobyerno, Alay Filipino.” Many ridiculed the idea of the Cross entering social and political life in this way. Might we not rethink the matter over and ask ourselves why this kind of self-giving does not appeal to us? Have we totally lost our faith in people’s ability to change, or in the power of our sacrifice to touch sinners? Have we given up hope that the Lord will honor our self-donation, no matter how puny, and grant our aspirations for a more God-fearing country? Or do we see ourselves to be so immaculate that we think it is beneath us to go through pain for the sake of the corrupt?

Church history gleams with accounts of the wayward being saved from perdition due to the self-sacrifice of those who unconditionally love and suffer with Jesus. The unfolding social unrest and political turmoil in our country at present calls for the forgetting of the self for the sake of the common good—is this very hard to understand by a people whose faith is supposedly founded on the supreme act of self-sacrifice by one sinless man who died for all sinners? If we do not take up our Cross today when it is most needed, will we be able to bear it when it is thrust upon our shoulder tomorrow?

MOST REV. FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

Hope opens human hearts to reconciliation, solidarity and peace

2005-10-17T17:14:00.000+08:00

A telephone interview:
CBCP president Archbishop Fernando Capalla
answers media’s questions on Friday’s dispersal

We caught CBCP President Archbishop Fernando Capalla a few minutes before he was to leave Pontificio Collegio Filippino for the Synod Hall. Abp. Capalla has been in Rome since Sept. 30, as one of the three delegates representing the Philippines in the Synod of Bishops being held from October 1-23. The other two are Archbishop Carmelo Morelos of Zamboanga and Bishop Antonio Tagle of Imus.

Q: What can you say about the recent incident involving three bishops, priests and nuns in a procession that was dispersed through the use of water cannons?

A: It is very difficult to appreciate a situation from miles away; the local bishops are in a better position to take care of the flock or to air their thoughts on the incident.

Q: Well, the bishops have spoken, interviewed by media, although we have yet to hear from the local bishops—Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales of Manila (since the incident happened in Manila) and Bishop Honesto Ongtioco (since some priests and nuns supposedly come from his diocese)—but we would like to hear from you being the CBCP President.

A: First, allow me to tell you that the picture for me is rather hazy. The sessions at the Synod Hall last the whole day, and they are heavy; leaving us no time to even watch the news on TV. The only updating I get is from a handful of priests and friends, if they can catch me at all. So they told me about the incident you are referring to, and asked me if it is right that bishops, priests and nuns be there, but I understand it was a religious procession, so why should it be surprising to find them there?

Q: Yes it was supposed to be a religious procession, although some politicians were present…

A: And even if it was a political rally the nuns and priests were joining, I’m willing to believe that they were acting to the best of their understanding, out of conviction and deep faith.

Q: If that’s the case, was it right that they be dispersed as they were?

A: I am willing to believe, too, that the police were also acting out of a deep sense of duty to ensure order. Both sides want justice and peace. I am reminded of a saying that goes: “There are always three sides to an argument: your side, my side, and the side of Truth.” The fighting will never stop until we acknowledge the third side: the Truth. That is what we have to see or to look at: if we want peace, we must be ready to be peacemakers. Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, called the peacemakers “blessed.” We must be willing to believe that we all want peace, whatever is our political color, because peace is everyone's responsibility which passes through the thousand little acts that make up everyday life. In the midst of armed conflict, the Bishop is a shepherd who, while exhorting his flock to assert their rights, must always remind them that Christians are obliged in all cases to reject vengeance and to be prepared to forgive and to love their enemies. There can be no justice without forgiveness. Hard as it may be to accept, for any sensible person the matter seems obvious: true peace is possible only through forgiveness. Those are not only my ideas—I am merely rephrasing from Pastores Gregis, Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the Bishop as Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Q: Perhaps you can articulate your personal opinion as a bishop and CBCP President away from the homeland? What is the role of the bishop in these trying times?

A: The Bishop is a prophet, witness and servant of hope who has the duty of instilling confidence and proclaiming before all people the basis of Christian hope. Where there is no hope, people question faith and love is weakened. Especially in times of growing unbelief and indifference such as our country is in at present, the bishop is the Shepherd who reminds the flock of God’s love for His people. This God does not want us fighting; He wants salvation of all people. The bishop as shepherd leads his flock to hope in Jesus Christ—that hope will open human hearts to reconciliation, solidarity and peace.

PRESS RELEASE
17 October 2005

Refer to:
Teresa Tunay
CBCP Media Office
527-4139

Pedagogy of the Cross

2005-09-04T11:36:00.000+08:00

In a previous column I wrote about the seeming absence of the Cross in our social, political, economic, cultural-even religious-life in this country. To this absence I attribute one strong reason why the process or has become ineffective. There is need therefore to begin reexamining this process.

One area to be given a through reexamination is the so-called holy reason of Lent. It is here where the values arising from the Cross abound. This period of forty days, popularly known as Cuaresma (Quadragesima in Latin), is designed to prepare Catholics for a meaningful and fruitful celebration of Semana Santa or Holy Week. It is the traditional teaching of the Church that the process of personal and social tradition happens or culminates during this week.

The correct meaning and fruitfulness of the Holy Week celebration basically focuses on the paschal mystery which is the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. These divine mysteries are recalled in the sacred liturgy of the Holy Week. Because of its power to effect change in the individual person and consequently in the community, the Second Vatican Council defines Sacred Liturgy as the “source and summit of Christian life.”

In focusing then our reexamination on the Lenten observances, we should look into the four general activities which characterize this period. They are intense prayer, intense meditation/reflection on the Scriptures, fasting and abstinence, and charitable works. It might help us in this endeavor to review the ALAY KAPWA Evangelization Program which had been established and promoted nationwide since 1966 by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines through the National Secretariat of Social Action, Justice and Peace under the leadership of Bishop Julio Labayen. Sadly, only the financial aspect remains while the evangelizing component of the program has been forgotten.

It is relevant and urgent that we reexamine the meaning of fasting and abstinence, the difference between fasting and hunger strike, between self-immolation and suicide bombing. In this age of social protests and terrorism the correct and clear understanding of these practices would surely benefit everyone even those not of our faith. I would add also the explanation of the difference between the Christian and Islamic teachings on fasting would certainly be of help, and between active and passive non-violence.

Another area to be looked into are the retreats, recollections, graduation Masses, and Commencement Exercises organized by our Catholic Schools, during this Lenten period. I have observed worry of these activities as not being inspired by the spirit of Lent. They are even contrary to what the Church expects of Catholic schools and institutions.

The reexamination I am explaining here is being recommended not only to my brother bishops but also to our theologians, catchiest, religious education teachers, educators, liturgists, formators, and campus ministers. I think it is possible to incorporate the values arising from the paschal mystery into the content of the educational, formative, and catechetical processes.

A pedagogy of the Cross is certainly needed, and urgently so, in our country today. This pedagogy should desire its inspiration from St. John of the Cross, a Spanish mystic, doctor of the Church, on expert in the process of conversion and union with God. The Spanish equivalent of the name Juan de la Cruz – has been used to portray the typical poor Filipino. The pedagogy of the Cross therefore should include a historical reference to the origin of the name and its deeper meaning and crucial challenge especially to the millions of Juan de la Cruz – and others who bear the name “Cruz”. Clearly understood in the light of faith and faithfully lived, this pedagogy would make a difference in any console and in those who experience excruciating pain and suffering. For, as I wrote in the previous column, nothing and no one matures to perfections without pain or something analogous to pain.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

September 4, 2005

Answers to Questions on Jueteng

2005-08-12T09:16:00.000+08:00

CBCP President answers media questions on Archbishop Cruz’s involvement in jueteng

Q: Personally, how do you see Abp. Oscar Cruz’s involvement in the crusade against jueteng?

FRC: (Abp. Fernando R. Capalla) I wholeheartedly support Abp. Cruz’s crusade against jueteng. He is pointing out one of the ills of society, and that is part of his duties as a priest. In calling our attention to the evils of jueteng Abp. Cruz is meeting a need in the Church, the need for us bishops to fulfill our prophetic role as pastors.

Q: While many people support him, there are also others who criticize him for purportedly being too involved in the issue, as indicated by his regular appearance in televised Senate investigations and media interviews.

FRC: Too involved? What he is doing—fighting the evil in jueteng— is in accordance with Church teachings; how he does it—in other words, how he conducts his fight—is his personal responsibility. Abp. Cruz is a righteous man, guided by his conscience. Conscience is higher than the Pope; it is a matter between you and God, so how can anyone judge whether or not Abp. Cruz is already “being too involved” as you say?

Q: If Abp. Cruz’s cause is all that worthy, why is he the only bishop fighting it?

FRC: Jueteng or illegal gambling is only one of the problems in our society. Even if all of us 90 or so active bishops were assigned one evil to fight each, still we would have our hands full fighting our individual battles in addition to our responsibilities in our respective dioceses. I, for example, have my hands full with peace-building concerns and the plight of coconut farmers, plus my duties in the Archdiocese of Davao. Some of us may be occupied with problems of oppressed farm workers in their dioceses. Some may be concerned with giving land to the landless—and in many cases in our far-flung barrios even the lack of clean water and electricity would be the concern of the bishops! And although all of us bishops would be doing our part in forming future priests, some of us are called upon to focus more on that work. These are but a few issues that bishops deal with. We may not all be that interesting to media, and most of us are quiet workers who really would rather not be known or talked about, but rest assured that we are waging our own wars against problems that plague our people, and expending our energies to remain true to our calling in building God’s kingdom. So you ask me my personal opinion about a brother-bishop’s jueteng crusade? We are participating in different ways—by addressing the situations, for instance, that lead people to trust luck more than hard work. Why do people not mind losing a few pesos each day in the hope of winning easy money one day? Educating our people in the faith, forming their conscience and instilling in them sound values and attitudes—this occupies us as pastors, and if we persevere in doing this, by the grace of God, we will finally enjoy a society without jueteng.

(Sgd) + FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines

August 12, 2005

The Inside Story--On Hindsight

2005-08-07T15:57:00.000+08:00

Q & A on The Making of The Pastoral Statement of 10 July 2005

A: On August 10, the historic CBCP Pastoral Statement, entitled “Restoring Trust: A Plea for Moral Values in Philippine Politics”, issued July 10, 2005, will have been one month old. Yet, the controversial statement continues to draw varied reactions from the public. Some view it as a “pro-GMA” move; others laud it as a masterstroke coming from the country’s spiritual leaders. What really went on during its drafting? How did 85 bishops coming from various places and persuasions findally decide on what to say as a body? CBCP President Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla takes us behind the scenes as he answers questions from media.

Q: The CBCP Pastoral Statement of July 10, 2005, was a much awaited document in view of the country’s political situation then. Can you tell us something about the public’s reaction to that Statement?

A: In my 30 years as bishop and active member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, I have never seen a CBCP Pastoral Statement so closely scrutinized and analyzed, widely disseminated, profusely lauded and commented on as that one. A cross section of society—rich and poor, government and non-government personalities, professional and non-professional, Christians and Muslims, religious and non-religious, even the left-leaning Bayan, KMM, Karapatan, CNL—have registered their reactions, mostly positive, to that 3-page document. It’s nearly a month now, and headlines are focusing on different issues, but we are still receiving kudos for it.

Q: Some quarters claim that the document, although it contains nothing new, and to some it was even a disappointment, was historic. Do you agree with this?

A: In a way, yes. Actually, the main content of the Statement is nothing really new. They have been part of the ordinary teaching of the Church for many many years. In fact, our conference has already issued in the not-too-distant past a Pastoral Letter entitled Church and Politics. What made this recent Episcopal document apparently historic and memorable was the occasion that motivated it. As bishops we were confronted by the recent political crisis and the social turmoil it was, and still is, generating. The entire nation was expecting the bishops to speak out and the pressures were mounting as our Statement was being awaited.

Q: We understand there were 85 bishops present then, a good number if we may say so. How did you manage, under so much clamor from the public, to pull it together?

A: Yes, almost all active bishops were there, with the exception of a few who had previous commitments. It is not possible or necessary to retrace step by step how I presided over the assembly of 85 bishops and led them through serious discussions towards a consensus. It was a long process that started at 5 o’clock in the afternoon, before the Plenary Assembly opened. The Permanent Council and the chairmen of the different commissions met then to review important matters taken in the previous general assembly and to finalize the agenda for the present plenary. When 12 council members and 30 chairmen had gathered, I suggested that—since the times were abnormal—we dispense with the minutes of the previous meeting as well as with the plenary agenda, and start discussing the present situation instead. They all agreed.

Q: You mean the bishops were really aware that issuing a statement then was of paramount concern, even if they had been on closed retreat for days?

A. Of course. All of us were aware of what was happening outside. We knew, too, that time was of the essence, and that we had to make a statement before anarchy could erupt in the streets. Even days before the assembly I had been hounded by media already, demanding both my personal opinion and a CBCP statement on the political situation. We were so concerned that we had to make a change in our evening schedule. With so many items on the agenda omitted, we even agreed to advance the session on the political situation from Saturday to Thursday. So I assigned Archbishop Quevedo and Archbishop Legazpi to compose the drafting committee with the help of Bishop Tagle and Bishop Odchimar. Before the formal opening of the Plenary Assembly, the first draft of the Statement was ready. It is true that the Statement had to go through four drafts. Through all these there were important moments that led to that eventful afternoon of July 10 when these 85 bishops spoke with one voice to a nation anxiously looking for immediate guidance—I’m referring to the press conference when the CBCP finally came out in public with a stand, when we opened the session hall to over a hundred media people who would convey our statement to millions of our countrymen here and abroad. I am of the firm conviction that God’s gentle spirit was at work in the minds and hearts of my brother-bishops during those days.

Q: How did the bishops prepare for that session? Were they armed with data from research?

A: We must not forget that we are priests, first and foremost. Although the burning issue at hand was political, we do not approach it the way politicians or ordinary lay people do. And it’s not fair for the public or anyone to pressure us into “making a political stand.” So I must say, for the record, that I attribute the success of our deliberation to the 3-day Holy Retreat that preceded our Plenary Assembly, CBCP’s 91st which was held at the Pius XII Catholic Center. Those were three grace-filled days with the Lord. It was such a precious time when we bishops could all be together, devoting ourselves to daily mass, liturgy of the hours prayed in common, meditative talks on the Eucharist and daily Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament. The retreat prepared and strengthened us We listened to experts. Three Jesuit priests spoke to us: Fr. Jose Magadia on the state of the economy, Fr. Joaquin Bernas on the legal aspects of the burning issues, and Fr. Daniel Huang on the moral choices. Contrary to later reports, we did not invite any other resource persons.

Q: Would you say the bishops were adequately informed prior to the deliberations?

A: Some of us were better informed about the political situation than the others, but I cannot claim that the information we had was absolutely true. As you may observe, much is clouded or distorted in media coverage. The bishops had their own personal observations to begin with, and by text messaging from friends and other contacts “outside” many bishops were further updated on some aspects of the political crisis. During our deliberation, the observations of the bishops from the countryside also proved to be an invaluable addition to our existing knowledge. If you will notice, our fellow Filipinos outside of the key cities are hardly heard from in media; so we depended on the bishops to convey to us what their people felt about the prevailing situation. Then we had an open forum which also helped us to deepen our understanding of the situation. By the afternoon of July 8, eve of the Plenary Assembly, we were ready to reflect and discuss what we must do.

Q: Shortly after the CBCP Statement was released, certain news items also said that the statement was watered down due to the “tongue-lashing” that the bishops got from the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Antonio Franco. Could the bishops have taken a stronger stand for or against PGMA had the Papal Nuncio not intervened?

A: Allow me to correct that false assumption. Banking on a so-called “expose” that the Papal Nuncio had given the bishops a “tongue-lashing” before the assembly began, many news reports claimed that the Nuncio’s speech influenced the bishops to take a soft stand on the political question. This is not true. The Papal Nuncio’s address, which was the first item in the opening ceremony, was simply a confirmation and an additional reminder on the roles of the bishops and laity in political affairs as contained in conciliar and papal documents. The reference to the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI was not even in the Nuncio’s address. It was in the short version of the statement by Archbishop Legazpi. I saw the need of putting it in the final draft, thus I privately requested Cardinal Vidal to make a motion to that effect—which was accepted.

Q: So the Statement was purely the product of the bishops’ deliberation? Was it really that agonizing, as the news reports said? We’d be interested to know how 85 bishops finally agreed on one statement.

A. Well, that Statement underwent close scrutiny to say the least. It is also of great importance to note, for historical reasons, that the draft which went into a third version, was finely dissected line by line and paragraph by paragraph by the assembly of 85 bishops. We had to be careful in our choice of words, for obvious reasons. For instance, the choice between the verbal expressions “cannot demand her resignation” and “do not demand her resignation” took some time to agree on. So with “options demanded by the Gospel” and “options that are not against the Gospel.” In general, the process was smooth and orderly. Contrary to media reports we did not “agonize on the deliberations” because all along we were very much aware that we were addressing the issues and the crises from “who we are”—and we are bishops, pastors, moral guides.

Q: If you had to be that careful, did that mean back-breaking seriousness?

A: Of course, there were lighter moments during our sessions, too. Human as we are, the bishops knew how to handle difficult or delicate situations with serenity and a sense of humor. During coffee breaks and mealtimes we had many opportunities to update one another, to talk about other things than the gospel or politics. We would laugh and tell jokes, even. But the most enjoyable moment was the dinner with the Nuncio in his residence. He gamely acted as our emcee, and we interspersed our meal with singing by groups according to age bracket—the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Even our 83-year old Bishop Mondejar contributed a number. It was fun, a refreshing evening for all of us.

Q: That’s nice, but let’s go back to the assembly hall. It’s a fact that prior to the plenary assembly, some bishops had been openly anti-GMA. Did this not adversely affect the process? How did you handle those bishops, considering that you yourself have been viewed by media as being pro-GMA?

A: Media, for all its power to gather and disseminate information, can only come up with part of the truth. As the wise would say, don’t believe everything you read in the papers. Some bishops may have causes to fight, and if they find friends in the media who will support them, well and good. If bishops seem very vocal about being anti-GMA or anti-administration as the news say, they must have very good reasons for taking their stand, so let’s listen to them. But no, I did not find the need to “handle” them because in the assembly hall where all of us gather, we come as bishops—pastors, not mere voters. And when we speak of truth, we mean Gospel truth; that’s the bottom line. No matter our political color, once we are asked by circumstances to speak as one, we do not forget that we are pastors, men consecrated to proclaim the Truth, and the Truth we proclaim is the Truth of Christ.

Q: Do you mean to say that those bishops did not even care to air their side? And you, too, did not find the need to defend your own stand?

A: As I said, we listen to everybody. In fact, a bishop counted 120 interventions all in all. “Those bishops” naturally spoke up, and so did the others practically unknown to media but who had very relevant inputs which, I surmise, contributed vitally to the completion of the picture. I told you earlier that I attribute the success of our assembly to our three-day closed retreat. It did us a lot of good, giving us time to reflect. All of us emerged from that more enlightened than when we came, more open-minded, more receptive to the proddings of the Holy Spirit. All of us approved that Statement, we were one, as you may have seen in the photographs subsequently published of that gathering. As for the allegations that I am “pro-GMA,” you will have to interview me again as that will be another long story.

Q: Which then would you say was the most difficult moment during the deliberation and drafting of the statement?

A: The most crucial moment was when we discussed Paragraphs 7 and 8. First, we had to agree that there were conflicting opinions and positions regarding the President, and that our role was not to point out one or the other as the Gospel choice because they were either speculative in nature or grounded on controvertible basis. Second, we agreed that no single concrete option regarding President Arroyo could claim to be the only one demanded by the Gospel. Third, we concluded by saying “Therefore, in a spirit if humility and truth, we declare our prayerfully discerned collective decision that we do not demand her resignation. Yet neither do we encourage her simply to dismiss such a call from others. For we recognize that non-violent appeals for her resignation, the demand for a Truth Commission and the filing of an impeachment case are not against the Gospel.”

Q: There were criticisms leveled later on at CBCP for proposing the formation of a Truth Commission. Could you please comment on this?

A: First of all, we did not propose the formation of Truth Commission. In reacting to the Pastoral Statement later, some people—including newspaper readers and commentators and columnists—would conclude that the bishops were giving a “formula” like the Truth Commission first, then the impeachment. This is not correct. Again this is a case of miscommunication. After the Statement was released, media chased the bishops for comments and “inside stories”. Reporters were generally very open to any bishop (or anyone in a cassock for that matter) who would talk, because anything they said could be news then. So the impression (or misimpression) created was, the CBCP “formula” was Truth Commission and then Impeachment. This is completely erroneous. In fact, on July 19, from Lucena City where I was having a meeting with 200 coconut farmers, I would answer by text through the CBCP Media Office that “while we respect the government’s choice of this option (Truth Commission), we could not at the moment comment on its viability.” For the record, again, let me say that nowhere in our statement do we “propose” these. We merely cite them as being among the several options of the people—not our own because we do not have one—“that are not against the Gospel.”

Q: In the Statement, the bishops seem to delegate to the laity the responsibility of choosing from these options “that are not against the gospel.” Is this impression correct?

A: Very much so, but we bishops do have our distinct responsibility, too, and this is contained in that Statement as well. Since we leave it to the people to choose their options we felt we could not just stop there. So we decided to offer moral guidelines which they must observe while pursuing their options within the parameters of the Constitution. By “people” we refer not only to those in government service but also to our lay people in the different Church organizations. And we suggested that they do this through discernment and dialogue, which means they have to “come and pray together, reason, decide and act together…” This is the second most important point in the Statement: that political issues and affairs are the responsibility of the lay people, not of the bishops. And then, to help our people to deepen their “moral discernment” we offered moral guidelines (nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) on specific subjects like accountability, constitutionality, non-violence, and effective governance without excluding ourselves.

Q: That whole process took all of two days?

A: Two and a half, which, on hindsight, was swift, considering our limitations and the pressures upon us. To speed up the process of deliberating and owning each important issue or point and paragraph, I decided to put to vote right then and there each of these; that minimized the work of the drafting committee. We finished everything by 12:30 that Sunday noon of July 10. After lunch and a little siesta we returned to the assembly hall to hear the reading of Archbishop Quevedo of the final and polished draft.

Q: There were no more objections entertained to that final draft?

A: No more. In fact, it was met with thunderous applause—unanimous approval, no objection, no abstentions. The last crucial question was to decide what time to hold the press conference and where. To allow our media office to inform the reporters and journalists and to prepare copies for them and the bishops, we decided to hold it at 4:00 PM. I suggested to hold it in the assembly hall with everyone in attendance. I told the bishops that the presence of the 85 members will reinforce the message of our Statement, since it would clearly show the unity and solidarity in the bishops’ conference. The suggestion was loudly approved. The rest is history.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

August 7, 2005

Answers to Questions on CBCP Press Corps

2005-08-02T10:15:00.000+08:00

CBCP President Archbishop Capalla’s (FRC) answers to some questions from the CBCP Press Corps

1. Will the stand of the CBCP on GMA change in the wake of the new developments (witnesses accusing her of electoral fraud, bribery allegations)?

FRC’S ANSWER:First of all, the CBCP Pastoral Statement is not a “stand on GMA”. If it must be called a “stand” at all, it is a stand for sobriety, for upholding constitutional processes, for the rule of law, which everybody is subject to, whether one is a president or a pauper. It is very clear in the Statement that bishops are not supposed to tell the president what to do or what not to do. We are supposed to be moral guides, not king makers or king bashers. Under all circumstances, and especially in the present, decisions must not be made in terms of political loyalties but in the light of truth, justice and the common good, which are all Gospel values, and which we as bishops must uphold and promote, not only in CBCP statements but from the pulpits. Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales put it very well in his recent press conference, “We are here to evangelize, not to politicize.”

2. Do you think GMA will be able to finish her term as president?

FRC’S ANSWER: I can not predict the future; only God knows. But more important than the issue of whether the president will finish her term or not is the question of the people’s willingness and preparedness to help themselves. If she stays until her term ends, are the people going to cooperate with her in a spirit of trust and confidence, with an eye towards the country’s good? If she is not able to finish her term, are the people ready for whatever may come, or will they just keep on electing public servants and deposing them when they prove to be unworthy or worse, not to their liking after all? As a people of God we are to be so formed that we will choose our leaders with intelligence and guided by Christ’s light.

3. GMA has been reported to be considering “reconciliation” with the opposition. Considering your experience at reconciliation and your reputation as a “negotiator” and a man of peace, would you be willing, if invited, to act as go-between this time?

FRC’S ANSWER:My role has been a facilitator of meeting, not negotiator or go-between. But if invited? As long as they are meeting on moral, not political grounds, perhaps I will consider it—it depends on the tenor of the invitation. If they want a retreat together I can conduct it for them. Do they want to go to confession? I can also hear that.

ABP. FERNANDO R. CAPALLA
Archbishop of Davao
CBCP President

August 2, 2005

Like All Great Personages, He was a Man of Contradiction

2005-07-24T17:18:00.000+08:00

Like all great personages, he was a man of contradiction

Message at the funeral Mass for Jaime Cardinal Sin, Manila Cathedral June 28, 2005

On this prayerful day, the Church and the nation gather to bid final farewell to an outstanding Cardinal. Like all great personages, our beloved Cardinal Sin was a man of contradiction. He was loved and he was disliked. He was a gentle pastor and he was an unyielding prophet. He was a serious organizer and he was a witty jester. He was a conservative protecting the tradition of the Church and he was also a progressive who preferred work along the frontiers where brutal poverty broke human lives.

Unlike at the funeral of Pope John Paul II, there are no public banners clamoring for his early canonization “Santo Subito.” But etched in the heart of many of our people is an abiding sense of gratitude for the pastor and the shepherd that was Cardinal Sin.

That great gratitude of our people, we, bishops of the Philippines, also share.
No bishop stands alone. He needs an affective community where he experiences the unique joy reserved to those who belong to the brotherhood of bishops. We thank our brother Jaime who strengthened our ecclesial unity; he was a brother who regaled us with his humor and who came to our support in times of need.
No man, not even a Prince of the Church, enters eternity assured he has left nothing undoneand unfinished.

For Cardinal Sin, I surmise—the task he left undone which he leaves as a challenge to his bishop-brothers to assume and finish—is our much needed national reconciliation. He saw the great need for unity among Filipinos but it must have pained him deeply that his charisma remained insufficient to accomplish this elusive goal.

Dear Jaime, rest in the peace of our Father in Heaven. We your brother bishops shall carry on with our meager efforts the apostolate of national solidarity you left behind. Since we lack you instinctive insights into the essence of problems, since we are not gifted with your daring simplicity, and since we are unable to even imitate your unerring use of humor—we shall rely on your intercession in accomplishing this goal.

Vamos, Hermano Jaime! Vamos! Let us go to the Kingdom of our Father—for us to work for its coming, for you to enjoy eternal peace—in Christ united to His Spirit in company of our blessed Mother Mary whom you dearly loved during your sojourn in our vale of tears. Vamos… Jaime, vamos!

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

July 24, 2004

In Time of Political Crisis, Everyone can be a Peacemaker

2005-06-26T07:50:00.000+08:00

In Time of Political Crisis, Everyone can be a Peacemaker

As of this writing, there seems to be quite a furor just outside of San Carlos Seminary in Makati where witness Sammy Ong has reportedly sought refuge. Reports reaching me in Bantayan Island at the northern tip of Cebu, seem to speak of an impending political upheaval in the National Capital Region. My thoughts naturally turn to a longing for peace.

In one of the printed materials given to me by the Brahma Kumaris, an international peace group with a branch in Davao City, there is a write-up about peace that attracted my attention. According to the author of the article, the human mind processes forty thousand thoughts a day. The predominance of thoughts on a certain subject will be a powerful influence in the person’s character. Thoughts about peace are a form of energy, the author adds.

This statement is confirmed by the popular saying, “You are what your thoughts are.” According to this principle (if it can be considered a principle), a person’s character is formed by ingrained habits. Habits in turn are acquired by the repetition of individual acts. Acts or behavior is largely influenced by the repeated spoken or written words. And words come from thoughts.

A bad character therefore is traceable to one’s obsessive bad thoughts. Conversely, a good character results from good thoughts. So, imagine what a powerful energy forty thousand thoughts about peace can unleash in one day! What formidable impact could be created if forty thousand people could think forty thousand thoughts of peace in one day!

If this can happen in Manila and in the entire National Capital Region (NCR), what an enormous force will that be to minimize the tension now obtaining in this area at this time of political crisis.

It is wishful thinking, of course, to believe that everyone in the NCR would think forty thousand thoughts everyday this week. But it will be a good start, even if there are only forty thousand thoughts of peace per person in an area where at least 16 million persons reside. Whatever the number is in terms of thousands, a figure we can use here, it would be a great step towards a culture of peace.

To continue with the Brahma Kumaris pages, the author thinks that culture is created by consciousness or by lingering thoughts. Consciousness creates values, systems, laws, behavior, ideology etc., all of which make up what we call culture. So the culture of peace begins with the thought of peace.

For us Christians and Catholics, it is imperative that thoughts of peace move on to a desire for peace. A desire for peace should became a love for peace. A love for peace should be raised to the level of grace. To put it in another way this human love should be graced by God’s Holy Spirit who lives in the heart of the baptized person. This grace is directed or focused towards the model of peace—Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. This is what St. Paul meant when he said that we have to grow into the stature of Jesus Christ, that is to be Christlike.

Jesus is the perfect human person because there is no disorder in His thoughts, words, behavior and relationships. Order creates peace; peace is the result of order or harmony. St. Thomas Aquinas defines peace as the “tranquility of order.” This is the reason why Jesus is the Prince of Peace, a peace that begins in the core or heart of His person.

It is for this reason that the late Pope John Paul in one of his speeches in New Zealand in 1995 said: “The peace of the heart is the heart of peace.” To acquire a Christ-like personality should therefore be a desire of everyone, of every Filipino, so that she or he can be an effective peacemaker especially in critical times as now. In this kind of peacemaking, everyone can make a contribution. At this point in the history of our country, it is an urgent call to the silent majority— as well as for the articulate minority. We owe it to ourselves and to our country to be a true Christian at heart.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

June 26, 2005

The Church Grows From Within

2005-06-12T14:48:00.000+08:00

The Church has been the special focus of world attention recently, especially during the months of April and May 2005. The last days of the beloved Pope John Paul II, his lingering illness and suffering, his death and funeral, and the conclave that elected his successor hugged the headlines and major news releases around the world.

Here in the Philippines the late Pope’s visit in 1995 and the enthusiasm of Filipino Catholics were also highlighted. This was followed by the issue of corruption in high echelons of society and government, and, together with the House bills on population and reproductive health made the Church the focus of wide and recurrent media attention.

Myriad reactions and commentaries on the nature and role of the Church both positive and negative have been the subject of newspaper columns and talk shows. These wide, public, and often biased discussions on the Church’s influence once again provoked questions which are actually not new. The Second Vatican Council and the Popes have answered them exhaustively. Even our conference has come out with such in-depth Pastoral Letters like the Church and Politics, the Church and the Economy, the Church and Culture, and many other documents explaining the nature and role of the Church in our country. The present pontiff, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, has the unique way of responding to these questions. In his masterly lecture on the Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentuim), the then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger said that the Church grows from within, not from without. He said that this “inwardness” of the Church is the work of the Holy Spirit in each and every baptized person; it manifests itself in personal and communal prayer, and reception of the Sacraments and community activities.

This statement of the future pope echoes a somewhat similar statement of Saint Basil the Great, one of the early Fathers of the Church. To him the Church grows and derives her strength not from the eloquence of her preachers and pastors, not from thousands of conversions, not from her institutions and structures, not from her socio-pastoral apostolates. The Church grows and derives her strength from the Holy Spirit working in the soul of the baptized. Saint Basil added that to think otherwise would be to engage in worldly thinking. He referred to worldly thinking as the effect of the devil’s work in the soul whose structures have not changed since Adam and Eve. Without the Spirit the soul is vulnerable to the subtle influence of evil. Consequently the root of all evil is self-love, not self esteem. Self-love has many manifestations but the three major ones from which others derive are sensuality, avarice and ambition.

St. Basil warns us always to remember the advice of St. John “to test the spirit” (1 John 4:1) so that the Church will continue to grow from within enlightened, strengthened, and guided by the Holy Spirit. Doing this would ensure that the outward and external activity of the Church must flow from the inward and indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

June 12, 2005

Reopening the Spirit to Hope in the Face of 'Disunity' in the Church

2005-05-29T15:38:00.000+08:00

Many people who rely heavily on news media to be informed tend to take superficial news items as gospel truth. Perhaps they are too busy to investigate further, and so they take the news at face value, without realizing that once this practice becomes a habit, it could lead to disastrous results in one’s thinking. Having the habit of watching only the surface of things, one can be misled to making wrong conclusions and going further and further away from the truth. As an example we can look at some reactions (from the kind of people I am referring to) to the news items about the Church in the Philippines that various media have of late been focusing on.

Whatever their reasons may be, media perceive bishops and priests to be newsworthy; they like to ask us always about our “reactions” to issues. Many of us would prefer to stay out of the limelight, but some of us grant occasional interviews to media people, particularly when we have causes to champion or when we feel that what we know may contribute towards enlightening or improving things for our people. Unfortunately, we are often quoted out of context, or at times, casual remarks are blown out of proportion and find their way into headlines. Worse, when the resulting news stories make bishops and priests appear as though they are in conflict with one another. I learned that the word for this is “pinagsasabong”; and “sabong” as you may know is the Tagalog word for cockfighting. And so we are thrown into a pit and made to appear as though we were fighting when in fact we are not; it is of course ludicrous, like producing smoke where there is no fire.

One can not really say whether this is intentional on the part of media practitioners or is but the result of miscommunication and differences in ways of thinking and perception, but it certainly causes a certain amount of damage in that it somehow soils the face of Mother Church: it gives the erroneous impression that the Philippine Church has lost its moral leadership because its leaders can not agree on issues. As the news stories depict, ours has become a disunited Church.

Whether we like it or not, this is the confusing picture being formed by media reporting that is way below the ideal. It is saddening to be asked, even by devoted Church people themselves, “What’s happening in the Church? Why can’t you bishops have a definite stand on (for example) Ligtas Buntis?” The dark picture is both untrue and unfair but what can we do as victims of iniquitous talks? The situation is more often than not like being in quicksand—the more you move, the deeper you sink. In this case, the more we say, the more misunderstood (or misquoted) we get. Is there a way for the true picture to surface?

We can begin by using a different standpoint in viewing this apparent “disunity” in the Church which threatens to rob its members of peace—and that is the standpoint of prayer. By this picture of disunity, might it not be that God is inviting us to a more intimate personal union with Him through an intensified prayer life? If our days are filled with so much activity that we can hardly see beneath the surface of things, or seek the truth underlying the flawed coverage of Church thought or teachings, surely it would do us some good to give more time to listening to God in silence. It is in the silence that God speaks His wisest words; it is in the darkness of confusion that God shows us His beautiful face.

A revitalized personal prayer life might just be the answer to this seeming disunity in the Church for it leads us to a renewed acquaintance with the Risen Lord, which in turn allows us to see that in Him the Church cannot but be a unified Church. The forces of darkness and falsehood cannot annihilate the Body of Christ whose members are linked one to the other by the thread of deep personal union with the Risen Lord. As John Paul II wrote in his message for Divine Mercy Sunday, “To humanity, which at times seems to be lost and dominated by the power of evil, egoism and fear, the Risen Lord offers as a gift His love that forgives, reconciles and reopens the spirit to hope.”

We continue to hope and trust, in union with the Risen Lord (as branches that cling to the vine), that God is at work in and through each and every one of us even in the most confusing of times.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

May 29, 2005

Looking at the Balanced Picture

2005-05-15T11:39:00.000+08:00

To the outside world the Philippines is pictured as Abu Sayaff country where Moro kidnappers roam around freely; it is the most corrupt country in Asia; it is a country where journalists are being murdered; it is a country where a simmering discontent is claimed by a group of anti-government rallyists which include even religious leaders.

Is this picture true? Are the ragtag groups of kidnappers really swarming all over the cities and the countryside? Are embassy advisories correct when they warn tourists that they are not safe here? Are journalists really being gunned down everywhere? Is it true that the present government cannot do anything for the people especially the poor? Is this anti-government sentiment really brewing throughout the archipelago?

If the picture were true and factual, this country would have been destroyed a long time ago. Law and order would have broken down. Anarchy and chaos would have gripped the populace. In other words the process of fragmentation in this picture has accelerated and has slowed down the process of unification—good has been overcome by evil.

One does not need to be a political expert to know this picture is not complete, is not true at all. The picture is false. For one thing, what is happening in the capital region is made to appear as happening everywhere else as though it is the microcosm of the entire country; what is regional is very often claimed to be national in scope. The fault of some government officials is made to appear as the fault of everyone in the administration. It seems the Philippines is being deliberately likened to Sodom and Gomorra, ready to be destroyed because there is not one individual who fears God.

There is no doubt about the presence of kidnappers, terrorists, criminals, corrupt officials, summary killings, drug addicts, gunrunners, et al in our midst. There is no doubt about the existence of injustice, corruption, crimes and immoral behavior as well as violence around the country. All that is part of the present reality which everyone must be aware of and must be concerned about.

There is another reality seldom talked about and mentioned in media, a reality that could complete the picture. This is the good that is being done everywhere in our country by millions of good people, good institutions, good groups, good associations, good government officials and personnel, and good young people who take the future of this country seriously. They are the answer to the depressing picture presented by the doomsayers of this country, people who think hopelessness and despair prevail nationwide.
I believe that if the picture is presented in a balanced way—that is, if the total reality of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious situation of our country is made to appear clearly—there are many things that we can be happy and grateful about. We can then see that many good and positive things are being undertaken; that the development and progress both of the body and spirit of the human community is going on; that the processes of unification out number and surpass the processes of fragmentation; that evil is being overcome by good.

The bright side of the total reality constitutes, to my mind, the seeds of hope which “springs eternal in the human breast.” Presenting this side of the total reality will generate interest in many sectors and individuals to unite and set in motion the process of eradicating the dark side. This is one of the objectives of the Church’s ministry of Social Communications. If an incomplete and false picture of our country has been painted worldwide through the use of modern information technology, we followers of Jesus Christ can use the same technology to serve the Truth. As John Paul II says in his message for World Communications Day entitled The Communications Media: At the Service of Understanding Among Peoples— “Modern technology places at our disposal unprecedented possibilities for good, for spreading the truth of our salvation in Jesus Christ and for fostering harmony and reconciliation… Indeed, the media have enormous potential for promoting peace and building bridges between peoples, breaking the fatal cycle of violence, reprisal, and fresh violence…”

In our struggle for peace and unity through forgiveness, healing and reconciliation, let us be strengthened by our faith in God’s justice and mercy, taking to heart the words of St. Paul: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:21)

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

May 15, 2005

John Paul II and Benedict XVI: The Medium is the Message

2005-05-01T15:40:00.000+08:00

It was his personality that attracted people to him. Heads of State, rich and poor, listened to him and respected the values he taught with authority and courage though they did not agree with him. That was John Paul II. And that I believe will be Benedict XVI.

He had special preference for the poor, the abandoned, the sick, the handicapped, even his assailant. In General Audiences, his visits in many countries, his advocacy and letters, were testimonies to his special love for those who have less in life. That was John Paul II. And I believe that will be Benedict XVI.

He allowed the young and children to come near and touch him, kiss him, sing with him and dance with him. He was not afraid to call them to holiness, to self-discipline, to value their dignity as persons loved by God. Never have we seen a man—already old and sickly as he was—yet so full of fire for the young! That was John Paul II. And I believe that will be Benedict XVI although in a different way.

He was a man of peace and reconciliation. A great believer in ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, he called and gathered religious leaders of many and varied faiths to the Vatican and to Assisi to pray for peace. I had the privilege to be with them. He opposed war and capital punishment and other anti-life movements—ever consistent with his pro-life stance. Even those who do the opposite in their countries came to his funeral. That was John Paul II. And I believe that will be Benedict XVI.

The main reason for the attraction is their person, the medium, not their message or teaching. Benedict XVI is a theological giant but very humble, gentle and unassuming. Those who denigrate him do not know the person, only his message. But to me the medium is the message.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

May 1, 2005

Random Thoughts on the Funeral of Pope John Paul II

2005-04-17T15:49:00.000+08:00

Many Filipinos share the conviction of millions of people that John Paul II was a saint. This was my feeling before we left for Rome on the evening of April 6, 2005.

On my way to the airport I was receiving through texts and calls requests for prayers. Friends were asking me to pray to the Pope for certain important intentions. The requests were accompanied with what I first thought was a bit of humor: “Don’t take a bath before seeing us – ok?” It later dawned on me as the desire for a vicarious experience, a second hand experience. They were trying to tell me that through me as an eyewitness they were expecting to feel the same way I felt when I was there in the Vatican. This was later confirmed by personal requests to share after we arrived back from Rome. And those who couldn’t meet and hear me were asking for “souvenirs” of the funeral. This is the reason why I am writing this narrative—to share thoughts that people can also vicariously experience.

We left Manila around 11 P.M. on board a Philippine Airline Airbus jet as part of the Philippine delegation to the funeral. We were four bishops, one priest, three religious sisters and one lay woman among the 70 entourage of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Because of short notice this was the only number we could get to represent Church people.

We arrived in Rome early morning of April 7. We proceeded to the Collegio Filippino to get properly attired. Then we went to the Philippine Embassy right beside St. Peter’s Square which was already swarmed and circled with long lines of people. After picture taking with the Philippine ambassador to the Holy See, Mrs. Leonida Vera, we walked to St. Peter’s Basilica passing by the side of the huge cathedral. Upon seeing us in black cassock with pectoral cross and purple skullcap the Swiss guards saluted us and allowed us into the Church. Our companions were allowed to come along.

Inside St. Peter’s we were able to kneel and pray near the lifeless body of John Paul which was about two meters in front of us. On my knees on the floor I prayed to John Paul for the intentions of those who texted and called me before departing Manila. I prayed for my mother, brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces. I prayed for the clergy, religious and lay faithful of Davao City. And also for my work in interreligious dialogue, a ministry so dear to John Paul.

After praying, I kept my eyes focused on the body of John Paul. Thoughts began to rush in. I recalled the many times we met in the past: The one-on-one conversation during my Ad Limina visit, the mass we said together in his private chapel on the occasion of my silver jubilee as a priest in 1986, and the several audiences in Rome after the meeting of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue where I am still a member since 1991, and of course the lunches we had with him in 1996, 1998 and 2003. I wanted to stay the longer on my knees there but the papal security was beckoning us to leave as many were waiting to get in.

Walking on the way back to the Philippine Embassy, I was interviewed twice by a media team from Italy and from Spain in English and Spanish respectively. The questions were the same: What was the legacy of John Paul to the Philippines? My answer was the challenge to share Jesus Christ to our Asian neighbors. After the funeral I was also interviewed by media from Panama about John Paul being a saint. I said definitely yes.

That evening of Thursday, April 7, 2005 I was invited by the Ambassador to concelebrate the Mass at 7:00 P.M. at the Basilica of St. Mary Major. Cardinal Vidal was supposed to be the presider but he couldn’t make it. The cardinals were having their meeting in the Vatican. The basilica was filled with Filipinos, about 2,000 of them. About 60 priests concelebrated. I presided and gave the homily. Ambassador Vera introduced President Arroyo who gave a beautiful tribute to John Paul II. As we made our exit for the recessional I was swarmed by Filipinos trying to kiss both of my hands, a custom foreigners find strange. Cardinal Bernard Law, retired Archbishop of Boston, attended to our needs and was in attendance during the celebration. It was a humble gesture from a cardinal who was attired in his scarlet robes.

Friday, April 8, 2005 at 10 A.M. was the announced date and time of the funeral mass for the Holy Father. Since all streets around the Vatican were closed from 2 A.M. to 10 P.M. we had to go there early. So we went at 6 A.M. It was difficult to get near the basilica. We had to walk for half a kilometer to reach St. Peter’s Square.

Thousands of people were already on the streets very early and edging slowly towards the square. Only those with tickets were allowed through the police barricades. We edged our way slowly until we were under the colonnades. We were the early ones on the spot near the altar in front of the basilica, about three meters away from the left of the altar if you are facing the church.

Slowly the bishops and cardinals began to arrive in their purple and scarlet robes. I forgot my purple robes, so I wore my black cassock with purple piping, skullcap and pectoral cross, still looking formally attired. The breeze was cool and gave a little discomfort to some. I had my sweater under my cassock and a thermal underwear. So it was bearable.

Then the VIPs began to arrive through the main door of St. Peter. It was very touching to see hundreds of heads of State and their representatives in formal attire. Then came the leaders of the different religions of the world. This was the first moving moment for me. It dawned on me that here and now at this moment almost all major races and cultures of the world are represented. This is virtual union and communion of all peoples as the Scriptures speak of. Then came a staggering thought that made me shudder a bit: Isn’t this the end of the world? It was just a sudden, passing thought. I recalled the time in October 1999 when the Holy Father invited 250 world leaders of religion to the Vatican. I brought along a Muslim from Jolo. When he saw this crowd of religious leaders in different attires and speaking different languages he remarked to me with misty eyes: “Monsignor, this must be the end of the world.”

Another touching moment was when the multitudes interrupted Cardinal Ratzinger’s homily and filled the square with repeated shouts of “Santo Subito” (Saint Immediately). But the most touching moment was when the wooden coffin was being carried into the basilica amidst thunderous applause. I didn’t clap my hands. I simply waved towards the coffin while some bishops began to stand on top of their chairs applauding intensely. When the coffin bearers stopped and turned around to make the body face the multitudes, the applause grew louder. I could see many with handkerchief wiping their tears away. It was an emotional moment that seemed to shake your body and yet you felt uplifted, peaceful, happy, and grateful that you were there.

Unlike the feeling of loss when the burial here is over, I felt as if the saintly John Paul is still around. He did not disappear into nothingness. His spirit lives on in the lips, hearts, and minds of many for many days, months, and years to come. For me this is easily possible. I was there as an eyewitness to the unfolding of an historic event in the life of the Church.

But for others, they need a souvenir to keep that spirit alive and fresh. Watching television, listening to the radio, and reading newspapers were not enough. Some people asked for formal account of the event, and for souvenirs of the Pope’s funeral.

I brought home a photo of the Holy Father being embraced by Our Lady of Guadalupe. Before deciding to have copies for distribution, I checked the authenticity of the miracle in photography. Sr. Luisa Prandina, Superior General of the Daughters of St. Anne, who had been assigned in Mexico for many years, confirmed the photographic miracle. She said that a photographer took a photo of the pope inside the Cathedral in Mexico. When the film was developed, it shows the pope’s head resting on the shoulder of the Blessed Mother who has her hands around the pope in a maternal embrace.
I had the photo multiplied and distributed after my homily last April 11 at the solemn funeral Mass for the Holy Father in our Cathedral in Davao. We’ll have it published in the CBCP Monitor.

Perhaps through the written words and photo the Spirit may inspire the reader to experience vicariously a rare spiritual moment that happens but once in a life time. It was a moment that seemed to usher us into eternity when time is no more. And perhaps this is the reason why Rome has been traditionally called the Eternal City, timeless, ageless, like heaven. Mysteries connected with God and eternity were being celebrated there in human symbols. Being there made me feel eternity shining into time!

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

April 17, 2005

Defending the Primacy of the Spirit

2005-04-03T14:41:00.000+08:00

The Honorable Congressman Edcel C. Lagman recently invited me to a debate on the controversial House Bill 3773, also known as the “Population Management Bill”, and referred to as the “Killer Bill”, being anti-life. I had to decline the Congressman’s invitation, stating my reasons in a letter sent to him last March 21.
I explained to the Congressman that debating on public issues, even if they have a moral content, is not part of our role as bishops and spiritual leaders. We are duty-bound to teach and guide our people through our preaching, pastoral letters, and catechetical instructions as well as through our schools and lay associations which are the normal and traditional ways of forming and educating them in the faith. We have our schools of philosophy and theology where intellectual debates are encouraged for the purpose of acquiring skills in rational argumentation and also for clarifying and deepening comprehension of shared doctrines. I suggested to him that they would welcome his challenge.

A debate on the issue, I believe, would be an exercise in futility; thus I wrote him: “It is on this point of shared doctrines that we differ. We do not share with you the same world view and the same understanding of the human person and of human life that needs growth and development. The title of your Bill 3773, its declaration of policy and guiding principles reflect an understanding of a reality as purely material, that is, the world, life, development, population, responsible parenthood, and population management—are about the needs of the human body only. This is a philosophical understanding of Reality that can be traced to Karl Marx and other materialist philosophers.”

Though we are embodied spirits we uphold and defend the primacy of the spirit over the body/matter. From this are derived spiritual and moral values which complete the total development of the human person. The bill reverses and turns upside down this universally accepted scale of values and makes the human body superior to the spirit which is the transformative element in the human psyche. An example of this is its first guiding principle: “Since manpower is the principal asset of every country, effective reproductive health services must be given primacy to ensure the birth of healthy children and to promote responsible parenting.” Healthy babies only for the manpower needs of the country? Manpower is the principal asset in every country? This is not acceptable at all. Common sense says so.

I assured the Congressman that we respect their views and we admire the logic in the bill’s presentation. But their premise is wrong. Therefore, their conclusions are also wrong. The bill could still be improved if its authors are open to our suggestions. I reminded Congressman Lagman that most of his constituencies are Catholics, some of whom are bishops, priests and religious of his beloved Albay and he can approach them. I myself would welcome a one-on-one private talk with him.

I can only hope that Congressman Lagman understands the Church’s position on human life and total human development. It is still the same in substance and principle since its beginnings two thousand years ago.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

April 3, 2005

An Easter Tragedy

2005-03-20T15:15:00.000+08:00

As I write I have in mind our fellow Catholics who are survivors of the killer typhoons in Luzon and of the giant tsunami in the neighboring Asian countries. I include here those relief workers who are also Catholics. How will they celebrate Easter this year? Without the church buildings, the images of the Santo Entiero (the dead Christ), of the Resurrected Christ, and of the Mater Dolorosa (the Sorrowful Mother) etc., what kind of celebration will theirs be? Or will there be a celebration at all? When calamities of such magnitude happen, Easter would certainly be difficult to celebrate. I know because I had witnessed personally an Easter tragedy.

It was 4 a.m. in the early dawn of April 1992 in the City of Iligan, my former diocese. I was supposed to be up before 4 a.m., to be in front of the platform just outside the entrance of St. Michael’s Cathedral. On this platform were 15 little “angels” who would welcome with flowers and sing Regina Caeli to the meeting of the images of the Sorrowful Mother and her Resurrected Son. Heavily tired due to previous Holy Week ceremonies I was not able to wake up on time.

At four o’clock the constant ringing of the house phone made me jump out of bed. A frantic Msgr. Labiste, Cathedral parish priest, was on the line with a shocking news. Someone threw a bomb on the spot where I was supposed to be standing during the Salubong. All the children died instantly –—15 of them. Many more were wounded. Hundreds of people screaming in fear and running away from the scene. It was shocking as it was heartbreaking to see those lifeless little children and the wounded writhing in pain on the pavement full of blood, just outside the Cathedral!

As we scurried around bringing the dead bodies to the funeral parlors and the wounded to the hospitals, I was thinking very deeply … was I the real target? Why? Would I be one of the dead or the wounded? Why did I oversleep? Easter means new life. How would I celebrate it now?

As I look back now to that horrible experience I realize that God is never absent in human suffering and pain. He is never separated from us, not even for a split second. The reason is because by His power He keeps us and the world in existence. And so He is with us all the time, even in times of tragic deaths and calamities. Why He would call people back to Himself by means of a killer typhoon, giant tsunami or deadly bomb on Easter day, we do not know and we can never know. If we knew we would be God. He knows what He is doing. He is the author and giver of life. With the blameless and upright Job we can only say: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, naked shall I return. Yahweh gave, Yahweh has taken away. Blessed be His name!” (1:21) And the Scripture writer adds: “In spite of this calamity, Job did not sin by blaspheming God” (1:22).

To avoid blasphemous complaints against God when tragedies hit us, I find helpful these words from A Portrait of Jesus by Joseph F. Girzone: “As humans, we find it impossible to break out of a human way of thinking. Consequently, when we think of God, it is difficult for us to consider God as He is, and we end up reducing Him, giving Him a sex, molding Him into an image we can understand. As a result, we make Him one of ourselves, with the same myopic human vision of life and the same views and values and hang-ups that condition us to respond to situations the way we do” (page 103).

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

March 20, 2005

Why is This Friday Good?

2005-03-06T16:49:00.000+08:00

Someone wrote that nothing matures to perfection without pain or something analogous to pain. It is true. It is common knowledge. Everyone knows that a perfect gymnastic form, for instance, is not acquired overnight. The athlete has to undergo a lot of practice, a lot of repetitions. The long practice involves a lot of sacrifices. These sacrifices are mostly self-deprivations which entail pain, bearable pain.

The pain is bearable because, for one thing, it is voluntary. The expectation of mastering the art or the game lightens the pain, thus making it easily bearable. The hope of winning the contest and the forthcoming award and the accompanying fame already reduce the burden of physical exertions.

The same principle is also operative in the process of self-mastery, of acquiring self-control, of training in self-discipline. All of which is also part of what we call Christian asceticism or the practice of acquiring Christian virtues. A real virtuous person is one who has undergone a lot of voluntary self-deprivations, most of which are painful, like fasting, abstinence, mortification, long hours of prayer and meditations, etc.

This same principle has been translated into a paradox with a Christian flavor. It says “there is no life without death” or “there is no Easter Sunday without Good Friday,” etc. Here Good Friday refers to suffering, pain and death, and recalls the Paschal Mystery of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection which He has to undergo to redeem us from the slavery of sin.

Christ’s pain was redemptive and salvific. But how can human pain and suffering be also redemptive and salvific? For others? Not just for oneself? Not just for my personal transformation?

St. Therese of the Child Jesus, recently proclaimed Doctor of the Church, has her answer. She says, we join Jesus in His suffering and offer our pain for others out of love as He did. This was what she did in her own little way inside the monastery. How does she explain this teaching and experience?

She says that the Church, of which we are all members by baptismal consecration, is the Body of Christ. Just as the human body lives because of the blood coming from the heart, so the Church lives because of love coming from the heart of Christ. When we fill our hearts with the love of Christ and offer everything we experience, especially pain, out of love for the other members of the Church, our offering acquires, or rather, participates in the redemptive power of Christ. We have this privilege because of baptism.
St. Therese stressed that this voluntary offering of our pain is not to be done as a payment for sin or, as they say, an act of reparation. It must be done purely out of love because God is Love and Mercy. Reparation emphasizes only the justice of God or the God of justice who demands payment for injustices done to Him. We alone can never make an equal payment for the sins we commit. Only Christ can and did do it for us and with us.

We must therefore join the Heart of Jesus and be set afire with His love. We must offer our pain and sufferings, hardships and deprivation together with the pains of Jesus on the Cross so that we can participate in His self-immolation for the redemption of the world.

This is the real message of Good Friday. This is the reason why this Friday is Good.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

March 6, 2005

What Easter Means, What Lent Must Bring About

2005-02-06T16:18:00.000+08:00

The season of Lent begins on Ash Wednesday which is February 9 this year. It is a period of 40 days. It is called Quadragessima in Latin and Cuaresma in Spanish.

Jesus spent 40 days and 40 nights in prayer and fasting in the desert before He started His mission. In imitation of Him, Christians, especially Catholics, are enjoined to engage in intense prayer, meditation on the Scriptures, penitential practices and alms-giving. When done individually and in a disciplined manner, a Catholic can experience a renewed and transformed life; when done collectively, society is renewed and transformed as a result.

The renewal of minds and hearts and its life-transforming effects begin with the wake-up call to repentance. This is symbolized by the ashes on the forehead. As the ashes are put, the celebrant says: “Repent and believe in the Good News” (Mark 1:15).

How can repentance be evoked? How can a Catholic repent when his/her spirit has been stifled, his/her soul numbed? And his/her conscience has become callused by sin and immoral habits? How can a sinner be made to realize that, when committing sin in thought, word, or action, he/she is refusing God’s love or God’s offer of Himself that surpasses material lusts and cravings that enslave the soul and the spirit? How can he/she prefer God above the false self, the root of all evil?

The penitential practices of Lent, like the Way of the Cross, intense prayer and meditations of Scriptures, self-denials and mortifications, fasting and abstinence, sacramental confession, recollection and retreats, should help the Catholic to realize the malice of sin in order to repent and to evoke sorrow that leads to confession. Viewing again and again Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ is a powerful help to evoke such sorrow.

The malice of sin refers to the depth and intensity of the hurt and the pain it inflicts on Jesus. We really do not know to what extent He suffered. The film’s portrayal is only a small human approximation. The malice of sin also refers to the depth and intensity of our refusal or NO to God, to our relegating Him as below everyone and everything we love in life. This deep and sinful refusal disfigures the image of God in us, making us unloving and unlovable.

The penitential observance of Lent and Holy Week, if done well through a meaningful catechesis, should help us experience God’s mercy and forgiveness. This is why on the Cross, Jesus writhing with pain asked His Father: “Forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23-34).

But we have been forgiven (Col.3:3). Our sins have been embraced by our Lord in His suffering Body. And even if sin has brought Him to death, He has overcome it by rising again to new life. With our sincere repentance for sin, this compassionate forgiveness is ready to be given to us in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Jesus invites us to follow Him. He says: “If you want to be my followers, you must deny yourselves, take up your cross, and follow me” (Mark 8:34). It is painful to deprive ourselves of many comforts and privileges that have weakened our spirit. It is painful to prefer God above everything and everyone else. It is a cross, a heavy one, to mortify oneself and to lessen our artificial needs. It is like dying to oneself, to my false self. But by doing this after the example of Jesus, I renew my mind and my heart, that is, I acquire self-control and will-power over myself. I become Christlike; a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). This is what Easter means. This is what Lent must bring about.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

February 6, 2005

Cynicism

2005-02-02T15:50:00.000+08:00

There are so many cynics in the country. This cynicism is directed at government and at people in government. It is a deep mistrust which explains the relentless criticism and attacks against the present administration as well as the cold and icy indifference to what is being done by government. The critics and the so-called fiscalizers don’t discriminate. Everyone in government is bad, very bad. So this government is going to the dogs, they say.

This cynicism is like an epidemic spreading fast nationwide. It is abetted and transmitted by some irresponsible media practitioners. Because the media networks have a wide coverage and pervade almost every nook and cranny of society, even the privacy of the bedroom, the contamination is assuredly effective. Cynicism, as a result, has become communal, sectoral, regional, and has the makings of a national malaise.

The exposé of corrupt officials has deepened cynical attitudes while measures to correct corrupt practices are either ignored or at least belittled. In summary, what the cynics are saying is that this present administration cannot do anything good.
But reason and common sense tell us that we cannot do and live without government, or outside of government. Our social, economic, political, cultural, and even religious, life is regulated by government. We cannot live outside of, and in defiance of, the rule of law. We can get into trouble if we violate the law, although some of us have gotten away with it—ignoring the law or taking the law into our hands. But this way of behaving is short-lived. Sooner or later, the law catches up with the culprits.

So we have no choices but to live within the parameters of governmental regulations and structures. And reason as well as common sense tell us we can do something to make government serve the interests and welfare of the people, the common good of everyone. How?

Weeding out corrupt people in government has already begun. The private sector, especially the churches and NGOs, have launched and undertaken projects towards this purpose. But while the process of cleaning government of corrupt personnel has been underway, the replacement process is slow and difficult. Many good and competent people tend to hesitate and have second thoughts in serving government. They are sincere and honest and possess good and noble ideas as well as remarkable skills. Their complaint is the system of government which, they say, breeds corruption. So, change the system by any means.

My personal view is that any system is as good as the people manning it. I do not know the ends and outs of unitary and federal forms of government. But I do know that competent, honest, strong, humane government officials can make any system within democracy really work for the common welfare of its people. This is the essence of democracy—the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. So people is crucially important and indispensable in government.

I believe that cynicism against government will slowly diminish if we all concentrate on people in government. They, too, need help. The help that can be offered to them is one that can improve their performance or one that can make them realize and accept that they are not the type to be in government, and to have the courage and humility to resign. What is this help?

This is what I may call systematic values formation program for people in government, from top to bottom beginning with the president herself. She may not need the program herself but her humble personal participation will inspire others. The institutions of higher learning and the churches can pool their talents and know-how to formulate such a program. The core value of this program should be the universal moral truth and principle which makes a person truly human and behave in a humane way. This truth is found in Christianity, Islam and in the Fundamental Religions of our indigenous peoples. Discovering this truth, being possessed by it, and making it the core of human relations and aspirations, will affirm the universal declaration that we all have a common origin and a common destiny.

When this program takes off the ground, the cynic will still find it difficult to appreciate. For cynicism blurs the cynic’s vision and incapacitates him/her to see the reality of emerging change and the moral truth underpinning it. But not for long. The private sector, that is, the citizenry to which the cynic belongs, will eventually feel the need to join the undertaking and get involved in the process. A new culture shall have been started—the culture of change which paradoxically is the only permanent thing in life.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

February 2, 2005

Alay Gobyerno, Alay Pilipino (AGAP)

2005-01-23T08:42:00.000+08:00

This is the name of the project I started last August 2004. It is an attempt at promoting the sense of nationhood. It is the small people giving their small and hard-earned money which they give to the government. It is their way of pricking the conscience of government officials so that these can give better service to the people. So it is a conscientizing project aimed at changing attitudes and consciousness.

This was my answer to the so-called fiscal crisis. It zeroed in on the root of the crisis which is moral. I also called it fiscal discipline pointing out the fact that our crisis stems from living beyond our means. Living beyond our means is the source of extravagance and wasteful living and causes corruption, crimes, and scandals or scams.

I also introduced the discipline of the cross or the idea of self-sacrifice which, I have noticed, was easily understood mainly and readily by the poorer sector of Church and society. I was touched by their responses.

A group of young people from Tacloban, Leyte, sent me a 20-peso bill. A dance troupe of the university of Mindanao gave up P400.00 of their snack money. Religious men and women in Davao gave up their month’s allowance. Students from different Catholic schools got the message and sacrifice hard-earned pocket money.

A group of religious women in Thailand saw our project in the internet and gave P26,000.00. Filipinos in New York and New Jersey contributed their hard-earned dollars. Archbishop Gordoncillo of Capiz circularized my appeal and the poor of the diocese came up with P109,000.00 for the government. The BECs of St. Joseph’s parish came up with coins amounting to P30,000.00.

We opened an account with the Philippine National Bank and its branches overseas. The PNB president exempted it from bank charges. Our statement and the names of the contributors are in the website. We are in the process of coming up with striking and catching ads that will be posted in strategic places and splashed on television nationwide. The posters will carry the slogans that simplify the meaning and purpose of the project—helping government is helping the Filipino nation. It is the poor helping the rich, the powerless helping the powerful.
So far the amount collected is nearing the half million mark. We are hoping and praying that a collective consciousness will be created by this Alay Gobyerno Alay Pilipino project. Here are the project’s bank account number, the e-mail address, and the website:

Website: www.alaygobyerno.cbj.net
Email Address: alaygobyerno@yahoo.com
Account number: PNB Bajada Branch
# 398-510521-8
Account name: Alay Gobyerno
Alay Pilipino Fund

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

January 23, 2005

We Are A People of Dialogue

2005-01-09T10:34:00.000+08:00

We are a people of dialogue. God initiated this dialogue by creating us in order to live in dialogue and in peace. As such we have the moral obligation to search for the truth in freedom, the truth about God, about life, about ourselves, our country, our society, our world and the events around us.

For it is only the truth that will set us free … to be ourselves to love and respect each other, to enrich and develop each other and the environment, thus building a relationship of harmony and peace in spite of our social, cultural and religious differences.

Through dialogue we come to know the truth. When the truth possesses us, we discover aspects of the issue we have not seen before. We are then liberated from our mistrusts and prejudices. We eventually change our views. And as partners in dialogue, we together reach a happy consensus. Hence in authentic dialogue, there are no losers— only winners.

With this in mind we can now make a shift in our perspective on the issues that face us and reconsider our respective roles. The new perspective is Dialogue for Peace and Development. Our only role is that of partners in dialogue. So we are all dialogue partners. We are all peacemakers and peace-builders. Our peacemaking and peace building is directed towards the total, human and sustainable development of our people and our land.

This is the common good. This is and must always be our real motive in any social, economic, political and cultural activity we undertake. In this new perspective, we are not promoters and oppositors, pros and antis, protagonists and antagonists, progressives and conservatives, concerned and unconcerned, involved and uninvolved, neutrals and partisans.

We are and must be a people in constant dialogue with one another. So wherever this friendly encounter is held, wherever the partners stand:

- whether separately or together, whether through media or correspondence,
- whether in private or in public, in the Churches or in Congress, in the streets or at home, in symposia or in consultation the dialogue is characterized by attentive listening on the levels of words, meaning and persons, but most especially on this third level.

Listening on the level of persons is possible only when there is love and respect, acceptance and openness, sincerity and truthfulness, calmness and sobriety, humility and patience, reasonableness and clarity.

This is the attitude, the outlook, the spirit that leads to the discovery of the truth that will set the partners free to disagree without being disagreeable, and to arrive at or postpone a consensus for the good of all.

Without these elements in dialogue, the truth and, consequently, peace, will always elude us. Without them we are doomed to live with untruth and half-truths, errors and lies, deceit and mistrust. Without them dialogue is turned into insulting debates and bitter diatribes, into debilitating argumentation and anarchic squabble where the winner is determined by the tyranny of banners and placards, and God forbid … by the tyranny of force of arms.

Because we are a multi-religious and multi-cultural society engaged in a peace process that is still holding, we can continue to prove, as it is being proven, that sustainable development and lasting peace through authentic dialogue is possible in a democracy and society such as ours.

+ FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, D.D.
Archbishop of Davao
President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference

January 9, 2005