Introduction
May I thank Fr. Lawrence Pinto for inviting me to give you this “keynote” address. My task, I take it, is to set the tone of the consultation and provide some preliminary points of reflection. Two questions are in my mind as I develop this reflection, namely:
a. What kind of priests are to be formed in and for Asia?
b. What kind of formation should they undergo?
It is not my intention to respond to these questions but only to describe the pastoral situation from which these questions arise. I hope that at the end of this consultation, the concrete shape of the answers might begin to emerge from your own reflection and discussion.
This reflection is from the perspective of a former seminary formator and of a pastor. My pastoral experience has been generally in rural areas and, for 20 years years, in a situation where the population is almost equally divided into Muslim and Christian.
Although my perspective so described may apply to many parts of Asia, I do not intend to generalize for Asia. I really wish to apply my observations to a much more restricted area, i.e., Southern Mindanao, Philippines. I shall develop my topic in three steps:
A. Lights and Shadows of the Life and Ministry of Priests in Asia;
B. Some Observations on the Formation Of Priests;
C. A Vision of Priests in Asia.
A. Lights and Shadows of Priestly Life and Ministry in Asia.
On May 25, 1992, Pope John Paul II issued his post-synodal exhortation on the formation of priests in our present circumstances, Pastores Dabo Vobis. He began with the words of Yahweh to the Prophet Jeremiah: “I shall give you shepherds after my own heart.” How would we see the fulfillment of these prophetic words today?
With lights and shadows, I am quite certain.
First of all, it would be safe to say that generally in Asia, God has blessed us with an embarrassment of riches with regard to vocations to the priestly and religious life. Seminaries and religious houses of formation usually do not lack candidates. Our problem is usually not the lack of vocations but the lack of material support for vocations. For instance, in the past five years I have seriously thought – twice - of temporarily closing our philosophy seminary until I could find enough financial support for it. I begin every school year with an act of faith, bordering on presumption, that “Deus providebit.”
There are many more lights in the situation regarding shepherds after the heart of God. Generally our priests are well educated, above the average population. Although most would come from obscure provincial or regional seminaries, priests do have solid academic training and a reasonably adequate spiritual formation. They might not always be the best and the brightest, but we can certainly be proud of them when they are ordained. They are deemed “worthy” in so far as human judgment can declare. They have successfully undergone many years of training and formation.
In the priestly ministry the lifestyle of our priests is simple, many times even austere to the point of being poor. They do reach out to the margins of society, even to remote villages. They exhibit a particular closeness – solidarity - with the poor, an ability to talk with them and be with them, based on sincere Christ-like compassion. Asian priests usually do not come from the Asian social elite. But after many years of seminary formation they generally do not forget or abandon their humble roots. In their ministry among the poor, they demonstrate an authentic seeking for the freedom and love, justice and peace of the Kingdom of God. They would be great promoters of a Church of the Poor.
Generally they get along well with most of their fellow priests and exhibit, at least with their ordination group, a deep human and spiritual bonding, befitting the sacramental bonding of all priests. They do strive together toward an ever deeper spirituality through prayer and ongoing formation by way of occasional seminars, regular retreats and recollections. There is no doubt that each one wishes and strives to follow Jesus, the Good Shepherd, his pastoral charity, his life and message.
But in the Asian priestly landscape are certain shadows that darken and disfigure the image of the priest. The number of priestly failure is surely insignificant among the tens of thousands of Asian priests. But the notoriety that this small number creates is sadly disproportionate.
People are scandalized and shocked by the extreme cases of egregious infidelity to priestly commitments, particularly to celibacy. They talk among themselves about the playboy image of this or that priest or suspect the sexual orientation of some others. It is tragic to note that in this matter a few priests may have become predatory. People are deeply pained by the lack of congruence between priestly commitment and priestly behavior. But the faithful are often a captive audience and they just have no choice but to bear with and pray for their priests, although they might send letters of complaint, even a delegation of parishioners, to their bishop.
So they also bear with the aloofness and patronizing attitude of some priests, their superior and domineering attitude, their lack of consultative and enabling leadership, the absence of collaboration with the laity and religious in pastoral decision making.
But they are even more saddened by what they see as pastoral mediocrity among some priests, their apparent disinterest in seeking more effective ways of ministry, their proclivity for the “easy way” of merely “sacramental” ministry, their wanting to remain in the status quo of ministry.
We can also see that quite a number have succumbed to the temptation of comfort and security. Sometimes it is also obvious that some priests have abandoned their priestly idealism and spirit of self-sacrifice for the more practical outlook of considering their priestly vocation as a step-up in the social and economic scale. For them the priesthood has become a means of livelihood, a career, rather than as a God-given vocation to serve. People make snide remarks about the “Church of the Poor” when they see some priests with the latest expensive electronic gadgets or even vehicles.
Moreover, in the eyes of people, a good number of priests are good priests simply because they are good organizers or planners, excellent managers or administrators.
Most of all, the fall of many a priest from their identity and place before the Lord and among the people has been significantly due to the lack of prayer life, a loss of awareness of the more fundamental elements of the gift of priesthood as a configuration to Christ, Head and Shepherd. This is the loss of an intimate relationship with Christ. The mutual cause-effect relationship between prayer and virtue, or between spiritual dryness, vice and errant personal relationships can be explored by scholars. But sooner or later, the loss of intimacy with the Lord leads to complete disaster -- the breakdown of priestly identity and the collapse of priestly ministry.
What is particularly tragic in all these various situations is the inability of a troubled priest to seek advice and solution from his bishop or from his fellow priests or to find any strength and healing as well as a compassionate support from his fraternity of priests. Most of the time, his undoing is his own sole responsibility. Sometimes his problem might be the bishop himself. Or it could also mean that the presbyterium does not live up to what it should be – a prayerful, caring, loving, personally and vocationally nurturing community of priests. Or the problem is all of the above.
Whatever the problem may be, priestly failure has far ranging ripple effect that does great damage to the priestly image and to the credibility of the Church. We need only cite the example of the Church in the United States.
B. Some Observations on Priestly Formation.
Many observers naturally inquire about the reasons for these lights and shadows in priestly life and ministry. Some will attribute responsibility to the kind of seminary formation that candidates to the priesthood go through.
There is some validity to that observation. Still I can sincerely state that despite the failures of a small minority of priests that I have spoken about, seminary formation – in terms of both personnel and process – is doing quite well.
However, may I mention a few areas where substantial improvement would be greatly desired.
1. It is axiomatic that seminary formation has to be a holistic continuum. It builds up from stage to stage. Yet in many cases there seems to be a lack of continuity between a special stage – a year - of spirituality formation and the other stages of formation. For instance, since the year of spirituality formation has been undergone, spiritual formation seems to be gradually taken for granted. There seems to be no real systematic follow-up of spiritual formation in the succeeding years.
2. In many cases there does not seem to be a definite orientation for the priesthood from day one of seminary formation. The idea seems to be that the seminarian should be given an opportunity to get a good education and in the process he would somehow get the call from God. Or there is the case of candidates, not yet deemed mature in their decision-making, where every year is a year of testing and discerning, until the final months before diaconate ordination.
3. The absence in seminary formation of a definitive orientation toward the priesthood or of a so-called mature decision to be a priest seems to make it possible for seminarians to have dangerous relationships up to the eve of definitive decision-making, i.e., up to the last year of theology.
4. In many cases, too, human maturity is not presumed until the beginning of theology, while their peers outside the seminary are considered mature enough to marry and have children of their own. This point of view is also carried over to the first few years of priestly ministry, during which the “baby”, meaning young, priests are not given heavy responsibilities. Surely the need for special care of priests in their first few years of ministry does not include the idea of being “babied” with regard to pastoral ministry and decision-making.
5. In the growth toward human maturity, perhaps not enough attention is given to the various stages of human development, as in Erickson’s theory regarding identity, intimacy and generativity, especially when the absence or delay of a definitive orientation to the priesthood makes “identity” problematic. Is it not rather late for already ordained priests to have seminars on psycho-sexual maturity? Would it not be better for such formation to be given to seminarians, especially in the latter part of their formation?
6. In many formation staff the services of a professional guidance counselor / psychologist are lacking. Where these are present, the need for consultation and coordination with professionally trained Spiritual Directors is strongly felt, with absolute respect for the “internal forum” and professional confidentiality. However, much care has to be taken to ensure that professional guidance counselors and psychologists at the service of seminary formation have the Christian vision of the human person and demonstrate great fidelity to the teachings of the Church on human behavior.
7. The idea and the reasons for “regency” or “leave of absence” to enable seminarians with special difficulties to continue their formation outside the seminary setting have to be better understood, both by the seminary staff and the diocesan pastoral staff to whom such seminarians might be asked to report. A lack of understanding, consultation and coordination has very unfortunate results on the vocation of a seminarian.
8. In most seminaries that I know of there is a lack of a practical pastoral theology course that would provide seminarians with the knowledge and skills of inter-religious dialogue, of pastoral planning, organizing and community building, e.g., the building of Basic Ecclesial / Human Communities, etc. Thus they do a sort of “on the job” training after ordination, most of it on their own, or through short term seminars.
D. A Vision of the Priest in Asia.
The final point I would like to deal with is the question: What kind of priest should we be forming in and for Asia?
The answer is suggested by the vision of Church in Asia that the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences has articulated in various ways.
Let me highlight certain elements of that vision in terms of priestly identity. These elements address the shadows of priestly failures and build on the lights of priestly life and ministry that I have mentioned.
I believe that Asian seminaries should help form a priest who is:
1. An integrally mature person – humanly, intellectually, spiritually, pastorally;
2. A person of God-experience;
3. A person driven by the Reign of God;
4. A person of the evangelical counsels;
5. A person of the poor;
6. A person of community;
7. A person of dialogue and peace;
8. A person of mission, in-mission, led by pastoral charity;
9. A humble companion, brother, father, mother, friend on the journey to the Kingdom;
10. A compassionate servant-leader.
Conclusion.
The list above is quite formidable. Seminaries have about 10 years of formation to achieve this vision of the priest. Seminary formators can only do so much. The individual candidate himself is the principal agent. We can be strengthened and comforted by the realization that throughout the entire process of formation, the Holy Spirit is the Primary Formator.
But the teacher, as wise men in the Church have told us, cannot be really effective unless he is also a witness -- of the Good Shepherd unto whose image he helps form the seminarian. Beyond teaching then is the daunting task of being a role model.
May Mary, the Mother of Priests, intercede for us as we respond to the Lord’s call, Pastores dabo vobis.
+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Consultation by FABC-Office of the Clergy
Hua Hin, Thailand
May 15, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
CHARTER CHANGE AND MORAL WISDOM
What should we think about Charter Change? Congress is now starting to discuss the issue. An issue that deals with the central and most fundamental document of the land is the concern of all citizens.
In their 1977 comprehensive Pastoral Exhortation on politics, the Bishops of the Philippines wrote the following:
“We believe that the way to unity is to unconditionally, unequivocally and irrevocably terminate all attempts to revise the Constitution at this time. When the time does come, let it be done with widespread participation and a unity of vision, with total transparency and serenity, with reasons unarguably directed to the common good rather than to the self-serving interests of politicians…” (No. 45).
Should the bishops say the same thing today? Here is my own opinion on the matter.
Prudence is a moral virtue. It is right judgment about what needs to be done. It is both moral and practical wisdom. Neither good intention nor charity suffices. Charity forms a good intention. But charity has to be guided by prudence. “A prudent person knows how to find the right means for a good end.” (Michael Downey, ed. The New Dictionary of Spirituality, 1993, “Prudence”, p. 1005). Prudence is the moral virtue that is needed to discern what must be done for the common good.
Prudence or moral wisdom is necessary when considering the issue of Charter Change. We need to consider the following, among others:
1. Will Charter Change solve our political and economic problems? I would submit that the answer is No. We cannot blame the Constitution for our political problems. They are of our own making. These problems are basically rooted in the way we see and use politics as a politics of patronage, of personalities, and of pay-offs. The craving for political power is colored by this exploitation of politics for goals foreign to the common good. Political divisiveness, adversarial politics, political gridlock, hypercritical politics, political pettiness – these are some of the results of such mental framework. For the same reasons, electoral processes are easily tainted with dishonesty. Charter Change is not, a much less the, solution. A Constitution is as good as the people and their leaders make it to be. Similarly, the Constitution does not make people poor. What makes people poor is injustice, the diversion of government funds to vested interests, or worse, to pockets unknown, three decades of misdirected economic development, the bias for a macro-view of economic development to the neglect of “the little people”, lack of access for the poor to economic opportunities, unjust distribution of resources and the benefits of development, etc. (see other reasons in CBCP 1998 Pastoral Exhortation on Economics, 1998). Therefore, the priorities today are political and economic reforms, especially the renewal of persons and the reform of policies. Charter Change is certainly not the priority.
2. Will Charter Change be beneficial? Considering the urgent needs of the country, I submit that the answer is No. Our legislators are targeting 2004, less than two years from now, as the time for Charter Change. Until then our legislators will spend a lot of valuable time discussing matters of Charter Change rather than focusing on the urgent ans serious needs of the country. The total process of Charter Change will eat up billions of pesos that could be used for micro-economic initiatives of the poor so urgently needed today. Charter Change at this time would simply be counter-productive. It distracts the attention and interests of legislators and people from the real problems that beset the country.
3. Is Charter Change timely? I submit that the answer is No. Charter Change in 2004 is absolutely premature. The main issue that proponents of Charter Change wish to tackle is the question of the form of government. Will it be parliamentary? Will it be federalist? Or is the present system adequate? These are questions that require widespread participation, not merely the so-called barangay consultations or “signature campaigns” that we all know about and are amused by, simply because of the lack of any time for intelligent and mature discussion provided for the people. Given many other issues regarding the Constitution that should be discussed by the people in general, the time before 2004 is just too short for such people participation.
Therefore, what the Bishops in 1998 wrote is still very true today. The time has not yet come for Charter Change. “When the time does come, let it be done with widespread participation and a unity of vision, with total transparency and serenity, with reasons unarguably directed to the common good…”
Prudence or moral wisdom urged President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo not to run for the presidency in 2004, but to concentrate all her efforts during her remaining time to solving the economic problems of the country. Moral wisdom would also demand that our legislators concentrate all their efforts toward the same objective in collaboration with the President, rather than on Charter Change.
(Note: this is a reprint of an article of Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, OMI, that appeared in the CBCP Monitor, January 12, 2003)
In their 1977 comprehensive Pastoral Exhortation on politics, the Bishops of the Philippines wrote the following:
“We believe that the way to unity is to unconditionally, unequivocally and irrevocably terminate all attempts to revise the Constitution at this time. When the time does come, let it be done with widespread participation and a unity of vision, with total transparency and serenity, with reasons unarguably directed to the common good rather than to the self-serving interests of politicians…” (No. 45).
Should the bishops say the same thing today? Here is my own opinion on the matter.
Prudence is a moral virtue. It is right judgment about what needs to be done. It is both moral and practical wisdom. Neither good intention nor charity suffices. Charity forms a good intention. But charity has to be guided by prudence. “A prudent person knows how to find the right means for a good end.” (Michael Downey, ed. The New Dictionary of Spirituality, 1993, “Prudence”, p. 1005). Prudence is the moral virtue that is needed to discern what must be done for the common good.
Prudence or moral wisdom is necessary when considering the issue of Charter Change. We need to consider the following, among others:
1. Will Charter Change solve our political and economic problems? I would submit that the answer is No. We cannot blame the Constitution for our political problems. They are of our own making. These problems are basically rooted in the way we see and use politics as a politics of patronage, of personalities, and of pay-offs. The craving for political power is colored by this exploitation of politics for goals foreign to the common good. Political divisiveness, adversarial politics, political gridlock, hypercritical politics, political pettiness – these are some of the results of such mental framework. For the same reasons, electoral processes are easily tainted with dishonesty. Charter Change is not, a much less the, solution. A Constitution is as good as the people and their leaders make it to be. Similarly, the Constitution does not make people poor. What makes people poor is injustice, the diversion of government funds to vested interests, or worse, to pockets unknown, three decades of misdirected economic development, the bias for a macro-view of economic development to the neglect of “the little people”, lack of access for the poor to economic opportunities, unjust distribution of resources and the benefits of development, etc. (see other reasons in CBCP 1998 Pastoral Exhortation on Economics, 1998). Therefore, the priorities today are political and economic reforms, especially the renewal of persons and the reform of policies. Charter Change is certainly not the priority.
2. Will Charter Change be beneficial? Considering the urgent needs of the country, I submit that the answer is No. Our legislators are targeting 2004, less than two years from now, as the time for Charter Change. Until then our legislators will spend a lot of valuable time discussing matters of Charter Change rather than focusing on the urgent ans serious needs of the country. The total process of Charter Change will eat up billions of pesos that could be used for micro-economic initiatives of the poor so urgently needed today. Charter Change at this time would simply be counter-productive. It distracts the attention and interests of legislators and people from the real problems that beset the country.
3. Is Charter Change timely? I submit that the answer is No. Charter Change in 2004 is absolutely premature. The main issue that proponents of Charter Change wish to tackle is the question of the form of government. Will it be parliamentary? Will it be federalist? Or is the present system adequate? These are questions that require widespread participation, not merely the so-called barangay consultations or “signature campaigns” that we all know about and are amused by, simply because of the lack of any time for intelligent and mature discussion provided for the people. Given many other issues regarding the Constitution that should be discussed by the people in general, the time before 2004 is just too short for such people participation.
Therefore, what the Bishops in 1998 wrote is still very true today. The time has not yet come for Charter Change. “When the time does come, let it be done with widespread participation and a unity of vision, with total transparency and serenity, with reasons unarguably directed to the common good…”
Prudence or moral wisdom urged President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo not to run for the presidency in 2004, but to concentrate all her efforts during her remaining time to solving the economic problems of the country. Moral wisdom would also demand that our legislators concentrate all their efforts toward the same objective in collaboration with the President, rather than on Charter Change.
(Note: this is a reprint of an article of Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, OMI, that appeared in the CBCP Monitor, January 12, 2003)
Saturday, September 24, 2005
What do Bishops say about the Political Situation?
Last Tuesday, September 13, 2005, the Permanent Council of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines headed by the CBCP President, Archbishop Fernando Capalla, issued a statement on the present political situation. Media interpreted the statement differently by giving a variety of focus. Some emphasized the search for truth. Others the economic problem of the country.
The variety of emphasis in media reveals the lack of standard and objective perspective. Each newspaper, radio station, and television network had its own perspective. This perspective may have depended on their varied position regarding the situation. In correctly reporting the Bishops’ Statement, the CBCP perspective should be used. May I offer a personal interpretation of the statement and its perspective. A simple question and answer primer should provide a better understanding.
What is the Bishops’ core message?
The core message is this: While the search for truth must continue, the main problem that now faces the greatest majority of our people is economic survival. All politicians have to face this problem squarely. They have to act together to resolve the problem. To do this they have to stop their political bickering and division.
Why do the Bishops say that the economic problem is now the main problem?
The Bishops know this firsthand from their pastoral experience and also from what people in the town and barrios of their dioceses tell the. The Bishops themselves see the problem as a fact. The problem in the provinces is the rising cost of basic commodities, the lack of adequate income, the inadequate delivery of basic services, the poverty and hunger of people. In short, the main problem is economic survival. Their people complain that instead of focusing on the economic problem politicians are busy arguing with each other about “the truth” they are “weary and tired” of all the politicking that is going on. They fear that continuing the debate about the truth in Congress or in the streets will simply worsen the economic situation.
So, what do the Bishops recommend?
All of us are indeed accountable to the truth. The truth has to be pursued. But we are also accountable to the poor. This accountability to the poor has to be demonstrated in our full concern for the economic hardships of our people. This is the more immediate and more urgent problem facing the whole nation. Full and undivided focus on the economic problem that requires the total cooperation of all our political leaders and representatives is the main recommendation of the Bishops. Media has not generally picked up this message. Instead some of the media focused more on the bishops’ position to pursue the truth.
With regard to this search for truth what do the Bishops believe?
The constitutional and legal processes have to continue even as our legislators must tackle as a first priority the more urgent problem of the economy. To search for the truth “in the streets” or through the so-called “people’s court” seems to be mere political and even ideological ploy. The many failed efforts to get people out into the streets demonstrate the weariness of people regarding the mixed political and ideological agenda of organizers and sponsors. People are indifferent and do not respond to the call of the opposition to go out into the streets. Their indifference may also mean that they may not totally believe in the so-called “truth” presented by the opposition. Hence, Bishops would rather urge that legal and constitutional luminaries come together and reflect on possible but creative ways by which the search for truth could be pursued in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution.
Do the bishops endorse People Power?
No, the bishops do not encourage people power. Archbishop Capalla commended that People Power is the people’s prerogative. But he neither encouraged nor endorsed it as the proper course of action in the present circumstances. His comment was simply a statement of fact. But the perspective of the Bishops’ statement is that further attempts to “induce” people power would simple worsen the economic situation.
+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
September 14, 2005
The variety of emphasis in media reveals the lack of standard and objective perspective. Each newspaper, radio station, and television network had its own perspective. This perspective may have depended on their varied position regarding the situation. In correctly reporting the Bishops’ Statement, the CBCP perspective should be used. May I offer a personal interpretation of the statement and its perspective. A simple question and answer primer should provide a better understanding.
What is the Bishops’ core message?
The core message is this: While the search for truth must continue, the main problem that now faces the greatest majority of our people is economic survival. All politicians have to face this problem squarely. They have to act together to resolve the problem. To do this they have to stop their political bickering and division.
Why do the Bishops say that the economic problem is now the main problem?
The Bishops know this firsthand from their pastoral experience and also from what people in the town and barrios of their dioceses tell the. The Bishops themselves see the problem as a fact. The problem in the provinces is the rising cost of basic commodities, the lack of adequate income, the inadequate delivery of basic services, the poverty and hunger of people. In short, the main problem is economic survival. Their people complain that instead of focusing on the economic problem politicians are busy arguing with each other about “the truth” they are “weary and tired” of all the politicking that is going on. They fear that continuing the debate about the truth in Congress or in the streets will simply worsen the economic situation.
So, what do the Bishops recommend?
All of us are indeed accountable to the truth. The truth has to be pursued. But we are also accountable to the poor. This accountability to the poor has to be demonstrated in our full concern for the economic hardships of our people. This is the more immediate and more urgent problem facing the whole nation. Full and undivided focus on the economic problem that requires the total cooperation of all our political leaders and representatives is the main recommendation of the Bishops. Media has not generally picked up this message. Instead some of the media focused more on the bishops’ position to pursue the truth.
With regard to this search for truth what do the Bishops believe?
The constitutional and legal processes have to continue even as our legislators must tackle as a first priority the more urgent problem of the economy. To search for the truth “in the streets” or through the so-called “people’s court” seems to be mere political and even ideological ploy. The many failed efforts to get people out into the streets demonstrate the weariness of people regarding the mixed political and ideological agenda of organizers and sponsors. People are indifferent and do not respond to the call of the opposition to go out into the streets. Their indifference may also mean that they may not totally believe in the so-called “truth” presented by the opposition. Hence, Bishops would rather urge that legal and constitutional luminaries come together and reflect on possible but creative ways by which the search for truth could be pursued in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution.
Do the bishops endorse People Power?
No, the bishops do not encourage people power. Archbishop Capalla commended that People Power is the people’s prerogative. But he neither encouraged nor endorsed it as the proper course of action in the present circumstances. His comment was simply a statement of fact. But the perspective of the Bishops’ statement is that further attempts to “induce” people power would simple worsen the economic situation.
+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
September 14, 2005
Are the Bishops Divided?
The answer is no. To understand this we need to use a common sense perspective. Let us give an example of perspective. When one or two of the Supreme Court justices dissent from the majority vote, do we normally describe the Court as a “divided court”? No. Because from common sense, the term “divided Court” would describe a vote that is rather substantially divided between for and against, even though one side might have a slight numerical superiority. Dwelling on the fact that one or two of the justices have dissented in order to portray a “divided Supreme Court” simply projects the wrong image. It is not the common sense perspective.
In like manner, when three or four Bishops are known to have a different opinion from that or more than 85 active Bishops, it would be against common sense to describe the Bishops’ Conference as a “divided hierarchy.” The term is not accurate and is misleading. Some opinion writers even to the extent of saying that the Bishops are “clearly divided.” This is an erroneous judgment. And to dwell continually and even editorialize on this matter simply projects the wrong image to the nation. It fails against common sense.
One can apply this common sense perspective to other examples. Is it correct to say that “business” is for this or that issue when only a few members of the Board of Directors of one business organization, no matter how prestigious, hold one view while most other business organizations nationwide hold the other view? Is it correct to say that Religious Sisters, Brothers, and Priests in the Philippines are against this or that, simply because some members of the Board of Directors of the Association of Major Religious Superiors voted against it, while other religious congregations do not hold the same view? Is it correct to say as a consequence that the Religious are against the Hierarchy on this issue? Is it correct to say that the Church is polarized, when two or three priests are out on the streets protesting against a CBCP position? All these examples mistake the trees for the forest. Unfortunately, this is how some reporting is being done about the present situation.
Moreover, why would media focus on the few that dissent and ignore the many that do not? Would not such reporting give the wrong impression of the “big picture”? When some cities in Mindanao are “paralyzed” by a transport strike, would it not be wrong to report that Mindanao was paralyzed? By the same token would it not be wrong to say that the Philippines is not safe for tourists when only a few places may not be safe for them?
One newspaper claims that there is a “militant faction” within the CBCP. Is this True? This information supposedly came from a “Church insider.” The information is absolutely false. Beware of so-called “church insiders.” Beware, too, of the information they give. So often have such informants given inaccurate and wrong “reports” as to make the term “hearsay” almost synonymous with “falsehood.”
What is the nature of a reflection group? The truth is this: now and then, a group of bishops would come together and reflect on the pastoral situation so that they would be personally guided by their reflection. It used to be just the Mindanao bishops that would gather. Now some other regional bishops do so, such as the Northern Luzon Bishops. In time such a “reflection” group expanded such that Bishops from various parts of the Philippines would come together and reflect on the “Church of the Poor.” It is by invitation so that the reflection process would not be unwieldy. Participation is by region, from North to South, so that the pulse of the country would be known. It is by no means a militant group. It is far from being a pressure group. The result of reflection are usually only for personal guidance of the participants. It might surprise media that the President of CB CP, Archbishop Capalla, encouraged the holding of the most recent reflection and asked that the results be given to him. He knows the value of such reflection since he himself had been a member of past reflection groups. Thus the media report that there is a “militant faction” within the CBCP is absolutely false and absurd. At a time of political divisiveness, would the Bishops insanely add fuel to the fire? That would be an extraordinary lack of common sense.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of common sense perspective in some media people. Hence, the bishops would agree with the complaint of Cardinal Vidal who was reported as saying that it is media that is creating the image of division among the bishops.
This brings up the question: What really is the task of media? The Church has a whole body of social teaching with regard to media and all the other tools of social communications. Suffice it to state the following. It is our belief that media does not make its own truth. The Church teaches that the means of social communication are instruments, not creators, of goodness and truth.
In like manner, when three or four Bishops are known to have a different opinion from that or more than 85 active Bishops, it would be against common sense to describe the Bishops’ Conference as a “divided hierarchy.” The term is not accurate and is misleading. Some opinion writers even to the extent of saying that the Bishops are “clearly divided.” This is an erroneous judgment. And to dwell continually and even editorialize on this matter simply projects the wrong image to the nation. It fails against common sense.
One can apply this common sense perspective to other examples. Is it correct to say that “business” is for this or that issue when only a few members of the Board of Directors of one business organization, no matter how prestigious, hold one view while most other business organizations nationwide hold the other view? Is it correct to say that Religious Sisters, Brothers, and Priests in the Philippines are against this or that, simply because some members of the Board of Directors of the Association of Major Religious Superiors voted against it, while other religious congregations do not hold the same view? Is it correct to say as a consequence that the Religious are against the Hierarchy on this issue? Is it correct to say that the Church is polarized, when two or three priests are out on the streets protesting against a CBCP position? All these examples mistake the trees for the forest. Unfortunately, this is how some reporting is being done about the present situation.
Moreover, why would media focus on the few that dissent and ignore the many that do not? Would not such reporting give the wrong impression of the “big picture”? When some cities in Mindanao are “paralyzed” by a transport strike, would it not be wrong to report that Mindanao was paralyzed? By the same token would it not be wrong to say that the Philippines is not safe for tourists when only a few places may not be safe for them?
One newspaper claims that there is a “militant faction” within the CBCP. Is this True? This information supposedly came from a “Church insider.” The information is absolutely false. Beware of so-called “church insiders.” Beware, too, of the information they give. So often have such informants given inaccurate and wrong “reports” as to make the term “hearsay” almost synonymous with “falsehood.”
What is the nature of a reflection group? The truth is this: now and then, a group of bishops would come together and reflect on the pastoral situation so that they would be personally guided by their reflection. It used to be just the Mindanao bishops that would gather. Now some other regional bishops do so, such as the Northern Luzon Bishops. In time such a “reflection” group expanded such that Bishops from various parts of the Philippines would come together and reflect on the “Church of the Poor.” It is by invitation so that the reflection process would not be unwieldy. Participation is by region, from North to South, so that the pulse of the country would be known. It is by no means a militant group. It is far from being a pressure group. The result of reflection are usually only for personal guidance of the participants. It might surprise media that the President of CB CP, Archbishop Capalla, encouraged the holding of the most recent reflection and asked that the results be given to him. He knows the value of such reflection since he himself had been a member of past reflection groups. Thus the media report that there is a “militant faction” within the CBCP is absolutely false and absurd. At a time of political divisiveness, would the Bishops insanely add fuel to the fire? That would be an extraordinary lack of common sense.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of common sense perspective in some media people. Hence, the bishops would agree with the complaint of Cardinal Vidal who was reported as saying that it is media that is creating the image of division among the bishops.
This brings up the question: What really is the task of media? The Church has a whole body of social teaching with regard to media and all the other tools of social communications. Suffice it to state the following. It is our belief that media does not make its own truth. The Church teaches that the means of social communication are instruments, not creators, of goodness and truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)