Challenges of the Times and the CBCP's Responses: A History of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines
By Lope C. Robredillo, SThD
(Originally,
a paper read by the author before the assembly of the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of the Philippines in Tagaytay City, in January 1995 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the CBCP.)
I
Introduction
Best
known for its initials CBCP, the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the
Philippines of the Philippines is, in its present structure, a creation
of the Second Vatican Council. A
Permanent institution, it is a grouping of the bishops of the
Philippines “whereby, according to the norm of law, they jointly
exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful
of their territory in view of promoting that greater good which the
Church offers to humankind, especially through forms and programs of the
apostolate which are fittingly adapted to the circumstances of the time
and place” (CIC, c. 447). However, it does not, in the exercise of its apostolic and pastoral role, encroach the autonomy of the individual bishop. In its recently amended constitution (1994), the CBCP specifies the following among its objectives: the
promotion of the spirit of solidarity in the Philippine Church; the
formulation of joint pastoral policies and programs; the active
engagement of the Philippine Church as a body in the pastoral thrusts of
the universal Church; and the assumption of responsibilities as
evangelizer in its relationship with all peoples in the country,
especially the civil authority. Its
pastoral policies and programs are implemented through its 23
commissions with the coordination of the resources of the different
dioceses. It meets twice a year. Aside
from a president, a vice-president, a secretary-general, and a
treasurer, it has an Administrative Council which acts on its behalf in
between meetings. At present, it has 96 active members who are diocesan bishops or their equivalent in law, coadjutor and auxiliary bishops. Headed
by the Most Rev. Oscar V. Cruz, D.D., archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan,
the CBCP holds offices in a three-storey building at 470 General Luna
Street, Intramuros, Manila and is staffed by 27 priests/religious and
more than 82 lay workers.
In
1995, the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines was 50 years
old, not many years in terms of the whole life of the Philippine Church,
but sufficient to show its usefulness and relevance to the time and the
people it serves, and the degree to which it so far realized its major
objectives. It is the purpose of this essay to write the history of the CBCP’s 50 years of existence. In writing that history, one has various options. He
may follow the traditional historiography in which history is centered
on the acts, achievements or failures of its leaders, as is employed in
most history textbooks. This is “history from above.” Or, he may approach it from the point of view of all the bishops and their co-workers. This is “history from below.” Or he may even apply a philosophical approach (e.g., Marxist theory of class struggle) to interpret the CBCP history. Here,
I do not intend to use any of these approaches. Rather, in describing
the 50 years of its existence, I would like to take into account the
ecclesiological framework within which the Conference operated and
moved, as well as the changing and diverse historical experiences of the
Filipino people which shaped it. In
writing this essay, it is my thesis that the major shift in
ecclesiological paradigm in the Philippine Church, which entailed
changes in values and orientations, transpired in the Second Vatican
Council and that when the CBCP responded to the various challenges which
the particular situation of the country presented, it did so within the
possibilities of its perception and its ecclesiological framework which
did not always coincide with the paradigm-shift. In
view of these two considerations, I would like--at the risk of
oversimplification--to divide the history of the CBCP into four periods:
(a) the period of defensiveness (1945-1965); (b) the period of difficult transition (1966-1975); (c)
the period of awakening and prophetic ministry (1976-1986); and (d) the
period of renewed vision for the Church and society (1987-1995). Before treating these periods, I would like, first of all, to describe the beginnings of the CBCP.
II
The Beginnings of the CBCP
The
origins of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines may be
traced to as far back as February 15, 1945 when the Apostolic Delegate,
Bishop William (Guglielmo) Piani, even as the war was raging, created
the Catholic Welfare Organization (CWO), with its central office at a
remodeled coop at the University of Santo Tomas interment camp. (Eventually, the office was moved to the following addresses in succession: La
Consolacion College at 260 San Rafael Street, Manila in the same year;
1500 Taft Avenue in 1953; 2472 Taft Avenue in 1955; 2655 F.B Harrison in
1974; Cabildo; and finally, 470 General Luna Street, Intramuros in 1983.) Obviously
with the National Catholic Welfare Council (NCWC) of the bishops of the
United States as his inspiration and model, Msgr. Piani’s major
objective was “to meet the war emergency created by the destruction of
so many towns.” Seeing the need of a coordinated effort to aid the stricken populace, Msgr. Piani offered the services of the CWO to General Douglas MacArthur, and the offer was accepted. In charge of the relief work was the Rev. John Hurley, SJ. Its first personnel included lay men and women as well as clerics. During
and after the battle refugees, acted as important outlet of the PCAU
(Philippine Civil Affairs Unit) foodstuff, and sent out burial squads to
bury countless corpses. In the first five months of its existence, it distributed food, medicine, clothing, etc. valued at P906,030.
On
July 17, 1945, all the bishops met in Manila for their first meeting
after the Japanese Occupation, and three days after, Msgr. Piani granted
their request to place in their hands the direction of the CWO and make
it the official organization of the Hierarchy of the Philippines. After
the Apostolic Delegate received from the Holy See the proposal and
directive to incorporate the CWO, the articles of incorporation were
duly registered in the Securities and Exchange in Manila, on January 23,
1946, with 18 incorporators. As
appears in the Articles on Incorporation, the purpose of the CWO was
“to unify, coordinate, and organize the Catholic people of the
Philippines in works of education, social welfare, religious and
spiritual aid and other activities.” The
Board of Directors was composed of bishops Gabriel Reyes (Cebu),
chairman; Constancio Jurgens (Tuguegarao), Mariano Madriaga (Lingayen),
Santiago Sancho (Nueva Segovia) and Alfredo Verzosa (Lipa), members. A
few years later, a new constitution was approved by the Sacred
Consistorial Congregation on June 28, 1952 and took effect on June 30,
1953. Such were the beginnings of the CWO. It was a welfare organization which had no juridical status in the Church. It
was financed through regular quota subscription from all the bishops.
and partly from the shipping service and the War Relief Services (WRS). Later on, the quota subscription was made on the basis of the Catholic population in each diocese.
The Period of Defensiveness (1945-1965)
To understand its subsequent history until the close of the Second
Vatican Council in 1965, it is to be remembered that with the
imposition of the American rule, and in the aftermath of the Second
World War, the Philippine Church found itself in a new and difficult
situation. Quite apart from the
destruction of its churches, schools, hospitals and other institutions
which was estimated at P25,000,000, it continued to be confronted with
various enormous problems which compounded the problem of poorly
instructed Catholics, it suffered from a dearth of financial resources
because the people, though generous in other ways, were slow to
contribute to the Church, whose needs were supplied by the Patronato Real for nearly four centuries. It
wasl also faced with the invasion of Protestant missionaries, the
anti-religious influence of masonry, the anti-Catholic tendencies, the
anti-clerical Filipino elite who were inheritors of the anti-clerical
feeling during the Revolution of 1898, and those who held up important
positions in the government and in business. It suffered, too, from the effects created by the Aglipayan schism. In addition, it came to grips with such American innovations as public school system and the separation of the Church and State. While
all this had to do with the inner life of the Church, the bishops were
aware of such social problems as social injustice and the menace of
Communism, especially with the growth of the Communist Party’s military
arm, the Hukbalahap (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon, later renamed Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan), not to mention the incursion of Western ways and styles and their corresponding values. Given
its ecclesiological framework which was largely defined by the
ecclesiology of the Council of Trent and baroque theology, it is not
surprising that since its foundation until the end of the Second Vatican
Council, the CWO for the most part looked inwardly, and was principally
concerned with the defense, protection, strengthening and furtherance
of vital interest of the Catholic Church as a social institution and of
supernatural values. (During this period of CBCP history, the body was headed successively by the following archbishops: Gabriel Reyes [1945-1949/1950-1952], Rufino Santos [1953-1956], Juan Sison [1957-1960] and Julio Rosales [1961-1965].)
Immediately after the war, the CWO was largely engaged in relief services. When
it was made the agency for War Relief Services (WRS), its 18 bishops
and prefects apostolic became the 18 regional directors for WRS relief,
with the parish priests and various congregations seeing to the
equitable distribution without racial or religious distinctions. From 1946 through 1948, it distributed relief amounting to P4,645,282. 95. Not a few of its services were directed toward the institution herself. For
instance, aside from the War Damage Claims services it offered to make
possible the war damage payments to the Catholic Church, its churches,
rectories and schools, it rendered services in particular legal problems
for various bishops and religious orders, and, through its Shipping
Department, handled their incoming and outgoing, cargoes, inter-island
and overseas. Likewise, it took
care of a variety of problems of bishops, priests and religious with
the Department of Foreign Affairs, Customs, Immigration, Office of the
Registrar General, Registrar of Priests and Ministers division, among
others. Its information Department issued bulletins that were of interest and use of the bishops and the major religious communities.
Eventually,
the CWO became the means through which the interests and values of the
Catholic Church were defended, protected and furthered. Faced
with the consequences of the separation of Church and State, among them
being lessening of the means by which it could fulfill its teaching
mission and influence the people, the CWO fought much for the religious
instruction in public schools which was strongly opposed by Masons,
anti-Catholic individuals and religious sects, and the private schools’
right to exist. For the bishops, the Catholic schools could help create and support a Catholic order. Largely for the same reason, and to spread the faith under constant attack, it tried to maintain a national weekly, The Sentinel, despite the financial burden, until its closure in 1968. Likewise,
it had a radio program over DZPI and DZST in Manila and DXMS in
Cotabato, even though its original plan, as early as 1949, was to put up
its own radio station in order to “guarantee Catholic independence to
speak out on any question of morals.” The “Ting in Mange Juan”
radio program was instrumental both in the defense of Catholic faith
against Masons and other anti-Catholics, and in the return of many to
the Catholic fold. Faced with
the treat of the Communist take over in the 1950’s, the latter two
became vehicles through which the Catholic view on Communism was
expounded. In the face of
indifferent or even anti-Catholic politicians and Masons, it tried to
influence elections and the legislature, and mobilized public opinion.
For example, it helped rouse public opinion against the efforts to
liberalize divorce, introduce unwise sex education in the schools,
discriminate European teachers in private school because of their
religion, sterilize children of lepers, etc. With not much success, it opposed taxation or religious organizations. And
against the corruption of morals, it set up, among others, the Legion
of Decency, which later became a commission, to discourage the public
from seeing morally objectionable pictures and from patronizing theaters
which exhibited indecent films. As
can be gleaned from its resolutions and letters, the CWO, of course,
tended to confine the problems of morals to issues related to smutty
movies, sex and birth control. In 1956, it approved not to admit ballet students to Catholic high schools. Obviously, it then lacked focus on more important moral hardly ecumenical, either in its pronouncements or its activities. As
already noted, all this reflects the ecclesiology of the period, and
illustrates an effort to construct a social order in which faith can be
embraced, grow, and thus create a Christian culture.
At
times, its battles for the protection of the legitimate interests of
the Church and the furtherance of supernatural values became celebrated
cases. In 1952, for instance,
it was discovered that three top men in the Department of Education,
sworn into office to uphold and implement the teaching of religion in
public schools, were also sworn in by their Masonic affiliation to
eliminate it. The CWO handed a
letter to the President stating the stand of the Church with regard to
the Masonic commitment of the three officials. It
availed of the services of Atty. Raul Manglapus, Atty. Ambrosio
Padilla, Atty. Jose Feria and Atty. Francisco Rodrigo in prosecuting the
cause of the Church. The Rizal Bill No. 438 is another case in point. Jose Laurel, proposed to make Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo compulsory reading in all universities and colleges. The
measure ignited a hot controversy, and encountered a determined
opposition from the CWO, not to mention the various Catholic
organizations, on the ground that it violated freedom of conscience and
religion. The controversy ended with a susbstitution of a different measure which accommodated the objections of the CWO.
But
the concerted voice of the CWO was also communicated to the Catholics
and the whole nation at large through its letters and statements. The CWO was almost able issue them on issues of national importance. Its
opposition to Freemasonry found expression in a joint pastoral letter,
issued on Jan. 18 and 24, 1950, on the anti-Catholic book of Rafael
Palma, The Pride of Malay Race, which
tried to prove the Jesuits concerned were liars and the ecclesiastical
authorities forgers of Rizal’s retraction, and in its statement on
Masonry (Jan. 14, 1954). Its
concern over the threat of Communist takeover can be seen in its
pastoral letter on social justice (1949) and on Communism (August 15,
1954). In these letters, the
bishops wisely pointed out the social roots, and criticized the
injustices of Capitalism which encouraged the growth of the communist
movement; and with the surrender of Luis Taruc, showed its opposition to
witch-hunt, even though it rejected Communism. That
it considered the transmission of Christian truth and values through
the schools important in a society that fostered pluralism in religion
can be inferred from its letters and statements on Religious Instruction
in Public Schools on Feb. 18, 1953, on Catholic Education on April 10,
1955, and on the Religious Instruction Bill on June 6, 1965. The ground for its opposition to the Rizal Bill finds expression in a statement on the two novels on April 21, 1956. And against the corruption of morals, it wrote a pastoral on materialism, its first joint letter to Filipinos after the war. All in all, the CWO issued 39 joint pastoral letters and statements from 1945 to 1965. It
may be observed that although these letters and statements were strong
when Catholic interests were under attack, in general they tended to
dwell on general principles and lack of prophetic slant when it came to
political and social questions.
It would appear from the foregoing that the CWO was for the most part concerned with the Church ad intra. In fact, its administrative structure lends support to this observation. After 8 years of existence, in addition to the agencies under the secretary general (Sentinel,
Relief, Legion of Decency, and Public Relation Office), it had only
three episcopal commissions: Department of Catholic and Social Action,
and Department of Mission. That, however, is understandable. The
ecclesiological framework derived from the theology of the Council of
Trent put theological limits to the CWO involvement in the
socio-economic and the political structure of the nation. It
is not surprising, therefore, that despite the unrest in agriculture
and labor fronts, its involvement in these spheres may be characterized
chiefly as social charity or welfare. The importance of the Catholic schools, orphanages, hospitals and other charitable institutions may be viewed from this angle. Indeed,
although it issued letters on social principles (1948) and social
justice (1949), the place of these social principles was not yet well
integrated into the ecclesiological outlook inherited from Trent. Obviously, the CWO needed some vehicles to translate these principles into the particular situation.
Initially, its work for the socio-economic aspect of the people’s lives was handled by the Social Welfare Department. However,
in 1952, the Social Action Department of the CWO was established to
promote, on the national level, a sound and effective program of
Catholic action in the social order in accord with the directives set
forth by the popes especially in Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno . On
April 13-27, 1953, the department organized the Priests and Laymen’s
Institute of Social Action (PLISA) under, auspices of the Ateneo de
Manila, and one of the concrete results of the PLISA was the
establishment of the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) on Sept. 8, 1953,
under the leadership of Atty Jeremias Montemayor. Staunchly
anti-Communist, its purpose was the organization of small farmers and
tenants for cooperative action defense of their rights, and promotion of
their social welfare. (Federation
of Free Works [FFW] was organized earlier, but this was not the
initiative of the CWO, even though it was inspired by Catholic social
teaching). Even so, the CWO was
not very much involved in labor and rural problems of the day, despite
the fact that its statements often quoted papal social encyclicals. In
1956, the organization suffered a setback in its socio-economic
involvement, because after the UST strike by the FFW--affiliated UST
Employees Organization, the Catholic Church, in the words of Bishop Lino
Gonzaga, “lost much prestige in the labor front.” It would not be until 1970, and even more strongly in 1976, that the bishops’ body issued a statement on labor.
The same ecclesiological framework limited the lay participation in the social apostolate. Understandably, Pius XI, in his “Ubi arcano Dei”
(1922), within the limits of a monarchial ecclesiology, defined lay
apostolate in terms of cooperation in the apostolate of the Hierarchy. Still,
that cooperation was a major link between the Bellarminian view of the
Church which rooted all ministry in the Hierarchy and the consciousness
that each Christian had to be a witness to the Gospel in the world. In
the Philippines, the lay participation was effected through the
coordination of various religious organizations on a national scale
under the Episcopal Commission on Catholic Action. Their primary objective was to strive, give practical effect, in their respective fields, to the mandata of the Hierarchy in accord with the directives of Pius XI. The Catholic Action was represented at both the diocesan and parochial levels: the Barangay Sang Birhen, Knights
of Columbus, Catholic Women’s League, Legion of Mary, Student Catholic
Action, Young Christian Workers, Sodality of Our Lady, etc. At the national level, these federated into the Catholic Action of the Philippines (CAP). Aside
from such traditional activities as organization of religious
celebrations, congresses, and catechesis, these organizations were the
front liners in many rallies, lobbying in Congress, and in various
social activities. The Catholic
Action of the Philippines sponsored the first Lay Institute of Social
Action (LISA), and held its first post-war convention in 1952. It
was not within the province of the lay apostolate to be directly
involved in socio-economic institutions and their activities. Obviously, it was the thinking at that time that if the social order was to be renewed, it would come from the top.
Four
outstanding events, which occurred during this period of CBCP history,
and in which the CWO was involved, may be recalled because, among other
reasons, they demonstrated that the Philippine Church, despite the
onslaughts against it by the anti-Catholics, was vibrant and
flourishing. The first one was
the convocation of the First Plenary Council of the Philippines in
Manila from Jan. 7 to 25, 1953, presided over by Norman Thomas Cardinal
Gilroy, archbishop of Sydney (Australia). Its
purpose was to bear witness to the Catholic faith of the Filipino
people, and to decree such legislations as may be necessary for the
preservation, enrichment and propagation of Catholic life. To
solve the problems confronted at the time, the Council offered to renew
the social order through the renewal of spirit of both clergy and
laity. That spirit was to be manifested in the concern for individual salvation and formation of social conscience. And
the individual and social energy generated was to be organized in the
forms approved by the Church and under the direction of the hierarchy. The
second one was the Marian Congress in Manila, held on Dec. 1-5, 1954,
with Fernando Cardinal Quiroga y Palacios, archbishop of Santiago de
Compostela (Spain) , presiding. It
was a grand demonstration of Catholic faith, which culminated in
liturgical celebration, participated in by more than a million
Catholics, headed by President Ramon Magsaysay and his family. Then,
on Oct. 7, 1961, the Pontificio Collegio-Seminario Filippino, whose
cornerstone was laid on Aug. 1, 1959, was finally inaugurated and
blessed, so that Filipino seminarians and priests could be trained sub umbra Petri. Lastly,
the nation observed a six-day celebration of the 4th centenary of the
Philippine Christianization in Cebu (Apr. 27-May 2), graced by
Archbishop Vagnozzi, Apostolic Delegate to the US, and by most of the Philippine bishops. It saw the birth of the Philippines Mission Society.
The Period of Difficult Transition (1966-1975)
When the Second Vatican Council ended in December 1965, it created a paradigm shift in ecclesiology, as noted earlier: from a Church understood mainly as a social institution, the self-understanding moved to a Church as the people of God. The CWO was met by the challenge of the shift, and its corresponding theological and pastoral implications. The
changes brought about by the council was, of course, partly noticed
even in the CWO Constitution itself which was revised pursuant to the
conciliar decree, Christus Dominus (nn. 37-38), and in accordance with the legal specifics provided for by Paul VI’s motu propio, Ecclesiae santae (I, 41). The revisions chiefly consisted in the altering of the name from CWO to Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines thus: “to
study, promote, coordinate in a way corresponding ever more to the
needs of the present time the apostolate of the Church in the
Philippines.” Unlike the CWO, however, the CBCP was now a canonical
body, a status not given in the preconciliar period. Approved
by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation on Dec. 12, 1967, the newly
amended constitution was filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 29, 1968. (However, since this constitution was ad quinquinnium experimenti gratia, it was revised and approved in July 1973, and given recognitio by the Holy See on May 21, 11974). The episcopal commissions were augmented: created
were the Commission on Seminaries, Commission on Family Life
Remuneration and Distribution of the Clergy, and the Commission on
Emigration. (From 1966 to 1975, the following were Presidents of the Conference: Archbishops
Lino Gonzaga [1966-1969], Teopisto Alberto [1970-1973] and Julio
Rosales, whose terms extended to the next, more difficult, period.)
Admittedly,
however, the impact of the conciliar ecclesiology in terms of the
collective theological outlook of the bishops was not immediately felt
in the years that immediately followed. Like
the pre-Vatican II CWO, the CBCP tended to look inwardly, and it would,
and it would even seem that Bellarmine’s institutional model of the
Church continued to dominate the greater part of this period, and its
mission in society seemed to be premised, at least in the initial stage,
still on the social-charity model. In
fact, on average, most of the CWO/CBCP decisions were concerned with
intra-Church renewal in accord with the conciliar decrees on liturgy,
ecumenism, seminaries, canon law, etc.: others
pertain to CBCP internal affairs, and the promotion of Catholic faith
and doctrine (religious instruction, clerical attire, etc.). On this score, the post-1965 episcopal body was much in continuity with the post-war CWO. This is reflected in the subject matter of most of its joint pastoral statements from 1965 to 1971: religious instruction, Humanae vitae, priestly celibacy, the Holy Father, East Pakistan Refugees, prayer and interior life, etc. The intra-Church
endeavors saw an important event when Pope IV visited the country on
Nov. 27-29, 1970 which the bishops regarded as a reminder of the
country’s vocation in a new world. A year before, the Radio Veritas (Asia), which could be heard as far as the People’s Republic of China, was founded.
This is not to say, however, that the CBCP remained on the defensive. Quite
the contrary, it slowly changed its focus from defensiveness to
awareness of the role of social apostolate in the mission of the Church,
as it did not fail to address the problems of the time, which by 1968
through 1970, especially in the First Quarter Storm, became the issues
of rallies, strikes and demonstrations in Metro Manila. Hence, the appropriateness of calling this period (1966-1975) one of difficult transition. The
issues during these years of rage were the widening gap between the
rich and the poor, the feudal economy, graft and corruption,
compartmentalized justice, and inadequate law implementation. These were summed up in the student slogan, “Down with Feudalism, Fascism and Imperialism.” These
years saw the resurgence of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and
its influence on students was greatly felt in the unprecedented growth
of the Kabataang Makabayan (KM) in 1964. Later,
a Marxist-oriented group of the CCP was established, and by 1969, the
New People’s Army (NPA) was already vocal about its intention to change
the society by revolution. But while some sectors of society opted for radical change, others preferred social and political reforms.
The CBCP was socially aware, and it stood for the amelioration of the socio-economic order. Indeed, at this stage the Conference, in its letters and statements, showed a better contextualization of Christian principles. Already
on Jan 8, 1967, it issued a pastoral letter on social action and
development in which it stressed, among others, the mission of the
Church in the temporal order, the relationship between evangelization
and development, and, in particular, the rights of workers. In answer to the request of PISA
(Priests’ Institute of Social Action) participants, the CBCP created
the NASSA (National Secretariat for Social Action) which served as the
secretariat of the Commission on Social Action. In
the same year, it organized the National Congress on Rural Development
(Feb 4-11) to promote a genuine awareness of the socio-economic
problems. “The Church Goes To The Barrio” was the popular slogan at this time. The congress was followed up by a pastoral letter on social awareness (May 1, 1968). In
its statement on bishops and moral leadership on July 5, 1969, it
affirmed that the mission of the Church included the concern for man’s
bodily and temporal welfare, though” her mission is a work of mercy and
love.” Acting on the suggestion of the Pontifical Commission on Justice
and Peace, it decided in 1967 to adopt the Commission on Social Action as its counterpart of the pontifical commission. Priests were trained to head the Social Action Centers in different dioceses. The
following year (May 1), it issued a pastoral letter on social action in
which it affirmed the role of the Church in creating a more just social
order. It appears, then, that
in the late 1960s the CBCP saw non-conflictual development (cooperative,
credit unions, self-help projects) as its new and relevant form of
social involvement. It is
probably from this perspective that one is to interpret the CBCP’s
response to the statement of the Divine Word Junior Clergy Conference
(May 16, 1969), calling on the Hierarchy to respond to the critical
social situation. Obviously, the development model was a step forward from that of social charity.
It is within the familiar framework that the Conference addressed political and government-related issues and problems. By
1970, student and peasant demonstrations became more frequent, and the
CBCP was at first concerned with the demonstration themselves and the
analysis of their tactics. It saw in them the dangers of Communism, and defended the Church against the accusation that it was rich. It
proposed dialogue between teachers and the youth, establishment of
recreation and training programs for the youth, even recommending the
holding of a congress for the purpose. When
the issues raised in these rallies and demonstrations led to an urgent
call for a Constitutional Convention, the CBCP, on Jan 25, 1970,
appealed to Congress for a non-partisan convention. In
preparation for this convention, the CBCP agreed to deliver talks and
sermons about this political exercise, cooperate with other groups for
honest and free elections, hold convention priests on the subject, and
allow clerics to run as candidates. It
may be noted that the Conference exerted much effort and worked hard so
that provisions on religious instruction and tax exemption of Church
properties be included in the proposed Constitution. Six
months later, as the violence in the country escalated, it issued a
letter on civic responsibility, denouncing what it perceived as the
evils of society, and asking citizens to participate conscientiously in
the political life of the nation. Admittedly,
however, there were progressive members of the CBCP who perceived that
more than social charity and development were needed to restructure the
Philippine society and thus solve the social ferment. Though
these were minority, this nonetheless indicated that the CBCP was being
caught in the difficult transition from the old to the new
ecclesiological paradigm.
But
to what extent the paradigm shift in Church’s understanding of itself
and its mission after the Second Vatican Council affected the collective
ecclesiological outlook of the CBCP is probably nowhere shown more
clearly than during the years of Marcosian regime from 1972 to 1986. Ostensibly
declared on Sept. 21, 1972 to save the Republic and reform the society,
martial law eventually showed its true colors: with
the democratic institutions dismantled, Marcos acquired almost
unlimited powers clothed with a veneer of legality by the 1973
Constitution, curtailed the freedoms of the media, revoked the writ of habeas corpus, forbade assembly, strike and mass action, legalized arbitrary arrest and detention. In the process, thousands of opposition leaders and suspected “subversives” were jailed. With US support, he beefed up the military to more than 150,000 in 6 years, and to more than 275,000 in 8 years, flung open wide the country to world market. The economy deteriorated, and foreign debt ballooned to around $28 B later. The poor became poorer, and violation of human rights was almost pandemic. In
the face of these realities that affected the Philippine Church, the
CBCP met head on with a new challenge which almost eclipsed many side
but grave issues.
In
general, it may be said that the responses of the CBCP to the
challenges under the new dispensation underwent development, and were
not always homogenous. Five
days after the declaration of martial law, its Administrative Council
issued a letter recognizing the right and duty of civil authorities to
take appropriate steps to protect the sovereignty and assure peace and
security of the nation, and asking martial law implementers to exercise
prudence and restraint and respect human dignity, and the people to be
calm and law abiding under the new political realities (Sept. 26). But
despite the uneasiness of a number of bishops, and despite such
important issues affecting the nation as the approval of the 1972
Constitution, the abolition of Congress, the Referendum of 1973 through
National Assemblies, and despite the grim realities spawned by the new
order, the CBCP was generally silent in the first five months, nay, in
the first three years of the martial law regime (1972-1975). Of
course, in its first plenary meeting in 1973, the bishops agreed to
organize a CBCP liaison group with the government, but then the issues
were intra-Church: radio stations closed, Catholic schools, Chinese
priests’ integration with Philippine society, and cases of priests
having difficulties with martial law. This concern for the interest of the institutional Church is reflected in its various decisions. In
the same year, it made a stand of contraception vis-a-vis the
government policy, and condemned sterilization which a decree of Marcos’
made officially acceptable. Late
in the year, a Church-Military Liason Committee (CMLC), which, among
other tasks, monitored arrests, detentions, and subversive activities,
was established, with Citizen’s Committee on Justice and Peace at the
local level and urged citizens to vote in the referendum as a moral
obligation, and which was thought to be in contradiction to “A
Declaration for Human Dignity at the Polls” signed by 14 bishops. The latter called the referendum “a vicious farce.” The right of the Administrative Council to issue the statement was questioned by 12 bishops on October 6, 1976. (The
dissent, it may be conjectured, was not lost to Marcos who, after the
massive boycott in the Oct. 16, referendum, retaliated against the
Church by deportation, raid, closure of radio stations and publications,
as well as arrest and detention of lay workers.) Chiefly
for this reason, the Jan. 1977 meeting of the CBCP was preceded by a
colloquium which brought to conclusion the bishops’ thinking on the
Church’s involvement under the martial law regime.
From
1977 to 1982, the CBCP became more united and its collective approach
to the challenge of martial law is best described by Cardinal Jaime
Sin’s policy, namely, “critical collaboration,” although, in the light
of the bishops’ letters and statements, it was largely more critical
than collaborative. Even though
at this point in time, it did not yet question to legitimacy of the
regime, the CBCP, no doubt, was in touch with the concrete historical
experience and the aspiration of the people. At
the same time, it became obvious that in its understanding of the role
of the church in the socio-economic and political order, it was not only
development but, more accurately, it was liberation, and the CBCP
became more committed to it. Its
statement of its mission in the Jan. 1977 pastoral letter, “The Bond of
Love in Proclaiming the Gospel,” deserved to be quoted: “This is EVANGELIZATION: the proclamation, above all, of SALVATION from sin; the LIBERATION from everything oppressive to man: the DEVELOPMENT of man in all his dimensions, personal and communitarian: and,
ultimately, the RENEWAL OF SOCIETY in all its strata through the
interplay of the GOSPEL TRUTHS and man’s concrete TOTAL LIFE (Pope Paul
VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, n. 9, 29). THIS IS OUR TASK. THIS
IS OUR MISSION.” This shift to the liberationist understanding of
ecclesiastical mission can be noted even in the themes of Alay Kapwa in the early 1980s: Communal
Action Toward Human Liberation” (1980), “Beyond Poverty into Total
Liberation” (1981), and “People’s Participation, a Way to Total Human
Liberation” (!982).
These constitute an advance from the cooperative and development thrust in the late 1960s. But
in this Jan. 1977 pastoral letter, the CBCP sharply criticized the
government population program, the treatment of national minorities, the
handling of the Mindanao situation, the harassment of basic ecclesial
communities (BECs) was viewed as springing from the mandate of the
Church’s mission, the lay workers being essential in the implementation
of that mission. This teaching marks a change from the pre-conciliar one in which lay apostolate was understood to spring from the mandata of the Hierarchy. Clearly, as a body, the CBCP awakened to its mission of liberation and assumed the role of “a prophet to the nation.” The year 1977 may then be considered a turning point in the CBCP history. Henceforth, the Conference no longer engaged in the pronouncement of principles, as it did in 1969. Instead, it courageously made moral judgment, denouncing the excesses of the regime. As
the socio-economic and political situation deteriorated, and as
militarization and repression intensified, the CBCP came out with a
pastoral letter, “Exhortation Against Violence,” on Oct. 7, 1979 to
stress that the escalating violence in the country has its roots in the
unjust structure of society, and that it can be stopped by putting peace
with justice to the same structure. Marcos
lifted martial law in 1981, but this was merely a cosmetic (it was most
likely timed for Pope John Paul II’s pastoral visit to the country Feb.
17-22), for the dictatorial effects were well in place. In fact, the following year was a bad one for the Church, for it saw what amounted to Church persecution: arrests
and detention of priests, lay workers, and activists; raids of
institutions; attempts at infiltration; accusation of communist
infiltration in the Church; trial by publicity in the media, etc.
By
1983, the year in which many Filipinos, as a result of the tarmac
incident, were mobilized in the struggle for freedom and justice, the
CBCP understandably became even more prophetic and critical of the
martial law regime. And it may
be conjectured that the Pope’s socio-political messages during his visit
two years ago could have emboldened the bishops in their concern for
the construction of an alternative vision of society. In fact, the CBCP’s posture, as it finally turned out in 1986, was on collision course with that of the dictatorship. The Conference was not only, as it were marching with the people; it was leading them on the march, and it did so credibly. The Church--and probably no other--was looked up to as the bastion of hope. No
doubt, the collective ecclesiological outlook of the CBCP was
liberationist, and the understanding of its role in the socio-economic
and political order was not hazy. Indeed, it called for the transformation not only of individuals but also of societal structures as part of integral liberation. In
the final result, what was under criticism was not simply the
individual acts of martial law; the whole structure of dictatorship
itself stood under severe criticism. It
is not insignificant that from 1983 through 1986, all its joint
pastoral letters and statements, except for its statements on biblical
apostolate (Feb. 1985) and on the Marian Year (February 1 and August 6,
1985), had direct reference to martial law and the major problems it
engendered. Not surprisingly, then, the CBCP-Government relationship became increasingly strained.
Thus,
on February 20, 1983, it made the first of its strongest indictments
against the dictatorial regime in the pastoral letter, “Dialogue for
Peace,” even though it was meant as a call to restructure society in
accordance with God’s plan. It
amounted to an expose of problems (arrest and detention, disregard for
due process, torture, etc.) which have roots in poverty, anti-people
economic program, economic corruption, and unjust laws. It took a clear preferential option for the poor, supporting them in their assertion of dignity and defense of rights. The
letter was followed up by the CBCP’s “Pastoral Guidelines for Priests,
Religious and Lay Workers in the Task of Social Justice.” As a result of the pastoral letter, Marcos asked the bishops made it known that reform of structure was what was in their mind. In
the same year, the CBCP withdraw its membership from the
Church-Military Liaison Committee because of an apparent pattern of
government pressure on Church people and activities. With
his authority slipping off, Marcos instituted the PCO (Presidential
Commitment Order) by means of a decree, which enabled the military to
arrest arbitrarily and detain indefinitely. The
CBCP, in its message to the people on the exercise of PCO, passed a
moral judgment on the presidential decree, calling it, along with its
implementation, immoral. The
second half of 1983 was marked by a worsening of political, economic and
social conditions, precipitated by the assassination of Sen. Benigno
Aquino Jr. With the country on
the brink of chaos and anarchy, the CBCP issued a statement of
reconciliation on Nov. 27, calling for a social
transformation--transformation of unjust structures and
individuals--required by authentic reconciliation with God and with one
another as an alternative to the continuance of present injustice and
violence.
Late
in the year, the CBCP Administrative Council (Dec. 28) decided to issue
a statement on the coming plebiscite and Batasan elections in May 1984. Published
on Jan 8, 1984, it did not fail to mention, among others, the right not
to participate in political exercise which citizens consider contrary
to their conscience. Meanwhile, the national situation continued to turn for the worst: people
were being “salvaged” both by the Left and by the Right” the foreign
debt ballooned to $24 billion; the peso depreciated very much and the
economy was almost bankrupt: Marcos
revived the “secret marshals” who were virtually licensed to kill; and
he continued to exercise martial law powers through the notorious
Amendment 6. It is against this background that on July 11, the sacredness of human life and its defense: “Let there Be Life.” It
called for a revamp of the entire economic and political structure and,
in particular, severely criticized the institution of secret marshals
(which Marcos later disbanded), the Amendment 6 whose repeal it
demanded, and the economy, whose crisis, according to the bishops, could
be solved it, in the first place, confidence in the government is
restored.
The
following year, the CBCP did not issue any pastoral letter or statement
which had direct bearing on politics, except the one on terrorism (July
8). In this letter, the CBCP
denounced the murder of those dedicated to the service of others, the
execution of civilians suspected of collaboration with the Left, the use
of cultists in counter-insurgency campaign, and urged the
reorganization, if not the dismantlement, of the CHDF. Early
in the year, it released a joint pastoral letter on biblical apostolate
(Feb.) and two on the occasion of the observance of the Marian Year
(Feb. and Aug. 6). But the worsening situation was not far from their minds. In their January meeting, they held a brainstorming on the national issues and searched for positive action regarding them. They
discussed such issues as the question of Communism (faith and
ideology), violence and non-violence, and such specific questions as US
bases, nuclear plant, social justice and social development. The CBCP committed itself to a free, clean and honest election and to support Namfrel in its work to achieve the goal.
The climax of the CBCP’s involvement and commitment during the Marcosian years came in 1986. When
Marcos called for a snap election in late 1985, the CBCP took up the
issue in their January meeting and on Jan. 26 issued the joint pastoral
letter, “We Must Obey God Rather Than Men.” Having
stated that elections can become a great scandal and an offense against
God, it said that the forces of evil bent on frustrating the people’s
will should not make them succumb to cynicism, and in the conflict of
interest and loyalties, it reminded them to let God’s will prevail. It assured them that the bishops stand with them. Elections were held on Feb. 7, and as the bishops feared, the fraud and deception were systematic and of incredible proportion. The
Namfrel tally showed Aquino leading by a large margin, but the Comelec
tabulation had Marcos coming ahead. Eventually, the Comelec computer
operators walked out to protest the discrepancy between the input and
the Comelec count. On Feb. 12, the KBL-dominated Batasang Pambansa declared Marcos winner. The following day, the Bishops drafted a post-election statement and issued it to the public on Feb. 15. The
statement labeled the elections as unparalleled in fraudulence, and
virtually accused Marcos of criminally using power to thwart the
people’s sovereign will. In its strongest condemnation of the Marcos power through fraudulent means had no moral basis.” It called for a peaceful, non-violent and systematic struggle to correct the wrong. The pastoral statement proved to be historic. In a few days, the EDSA Revolution was born, and Marcos was dislodged. Clearly,
the CBCP stood as a moral leader of the people, showing itself as
champion of democratic principles, and its statement became a catalyst
of non-violent revolution.
With
Marcos gone, the CBCP assumed the role, it may be said, of a moral and
spiritual leader and guide in the direction which efforts at social
transformation must take. No
doubt, its ecclesiological outlook remained one of integral liberation,
and though it continued its policy of critical collaboration with the
Aquino government, this time the emphasis was on collaboration. On the
whole, it would seem that the CBCP was supportive of the Aquino
Administration, probably because it had high hopes that it would be
instrumental in the renewal of the social order and in the establishment
of a more lasting peace. Of course, there is little doubt that the bishops had some influence on President Aquino. She appointed to the Constitutional Commission four people easily identified with the Church. Such
provisions in the Constitution as the primacy of family, the
prohibition of abortion and divorce, and religious instruction in public
schools were indicative of the moral influence of the CBCP. Understandably,
with its pro-life, pro-poor and pro-Filipino provisions which are
consonant with authentic human values, it was not surprising that the
CBCP, after much discussion in a meeting to which some members of the
Constitutional Commission were invited to speak, opted in its letter
“Covenant Toward Peace” on Nov. 21, 1986, for the ratification of the
proposed constitution.
The Period of Renewal of Vision for the Church and Society (1987-1995)
This period was one of hope and expectations. (The
archbishops who served the CBCP as President during this period were
Cardinal Ricardo Vidal, whose term ended in 1987, Leonardo Legaspi
[1987-1991] and Carmelo Morelos [1991-1995].) As
the socio-political situation has changed, it appeared to the bishops
that an opportune time had come to renew the local Church. As
already noted, a paradigm shift in ecclesiology took place in the
Second Vatican Council, and while its effects influenced the collective
thinking of the bishops, there was a need to exteriorize the
implications of the shift in terms of the theological thinking and
aspiration of the people and the pastoral programs of the local Church,
which had become even more complex and problematic. While
the CBCP understood the Church as the People of God, and its mission as
integral liberation, yet the implications of this understanding had yet
to be enshrined in a vision and made concrete in a comprehensive
program for the Philippine Church. Thus, in January 1988, the CBCP approved to hold a plenary council. Preparations,
immediately began, and the Second Plenary Council was finally
celebrated from Jan. 20 to Feb. 1991, participated in by a total of 479
participants (96 bishops, 181 priests, 21 major religious superiors, 12
presidents or rectors of Catholic universalities, 24 rectors or deans of
seminaries and 146 lay faithful). The decrees of the PCP-II were given recognitio
by the Holy See on April 25, 1992, and promulgated at the
Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Manila on July 22,
1992. Without exaggeration, the council may be recognized as the greatest ecclesial event in the CBCP’s 50 years of existence.
Basically, what the Council did was to define what the Philippine Church ought to be. In
its final document, the Council envisioned a Church which is a
community of disciples, in which there is unity in diversity, equality
in dignity and participation; a Church which is at the same time a
community-in-mission: a Church of the poor expressed in basic ecclesial communities. Its
mission is integral evangelization, which implies the salvation of the
total human person and the liberation and transformation of society. Clearly,
this is far removed from the institutional understanding of the Church
(presupposed in the first years of the CWO/CBCP) whose mission is the
salvation of the soul by means of grace, word and sacrament. This vision of the Church needed to be actualized. Hence, the CBCP resolved to implement the Council’s mandate for a National Pastoral Plan. On July 11, 1993, it gave its official approval to the plan. The
present challenge to the Conference is to see to it that the plan is
implemented through a pastoral management and administrative system that
will operate from the top down to the smallest ecclesial community in
the parishes.
Though
the council was the most significant event in this period, yet the
CBCP’s vision for renewal not only for the Church but also for society
can also be seen in its ad-extra statements and activities. By 1987, the different branches of the democratic government have been restored. But
despite the hope that a new political society would emerged from the
EDSA Revolution, it became clear that the old society was back. Thus,
precisely because the socio-economic ills did not disappear at the
February Revolution, the CBCP, conscious of its mission in the
socio-political order, was critical of the post-EDSA administrations. For
example, the realization that corruption still remained, involving even
high government officials, occasioned the pastoral letter, “Thou Shalt
Not Steal,” on July 11, 1989. The letter considered graft and corruption a sin that is hateful because it steals money from the poor. It
suggested the formation of multi-sectoral anti-graft council across the
country to monitor the use of public funds and muster public opinion in
the hope that a massive, persistent campaign would discourage the
practice. On July 24, 1992, it
opposed the Ramos Administration’s move at restoring the death penalty
and, instead, proposed that the President does something to the ground
which breeds criminality (poverty, defects in the enforcement, justice
and penal systems, presence of scalawags in uniform). In
its pastoral statement on kidnapping (Jan. 25, 1993), it appealed to
the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Military to cleanse their
ranks of kidnapper accomplices or masterminds. Of
no less importance, it called for a thorough review of the Republic Act
7716 in a statement on taxation and expanded value-added tax,
questioning whether the law merely strengthens the tax structure’s bias
against the poor (July 10, 1994).
Of
course, it appeared to the bishops that the transformation of society
requires more than a change of leadership; it is a work of justice in
which the community participates and cooperates. Hence,
on Jan. 26, 1987, it addressed the issue of peace process, and stressed
that only non-violence is consistent with Gospel values. It
called for land reform, denounced political extremists, condemned
atheistic communism and liberal capitalism, and encouraged dialogue. In
its efforts to help transform society, the bishops reiterated its call
for a comprehensive land reform in its exhortation on July 14,
“Thirsting for Justice.” It is
the landless, the exploited, the disadvantaged and the powerless who
have the single most urgent claim on the conscience of the nation, the
bishops said. When the
putchists attempted a coup d’etat on August 28, 1989, which dealt a
serious blow to the government stability, 17 bishops, headed by
Cardinals Ricardo Vidal and Jaime Sin, issued a statement of support to
the Aquino government the following day. And
on Jan. 31, 1990, in the pastoral letter “Seek Peace, Pursue It,” it
likewise condemned the attempted Dec. 1989 coup d’etat, the bloodiest,
costliest and most serious one, as immoral and unjust usurpation of
power.
To
be sure, the transformation of society does not only require the reform
of those in the government, the participation of the governed in the
peace process, and in the cooperation of the Rightists. Of
no less importance, it cannot dispense with the support of the Left,
specifically with the effort to put an end to their two-decade struggle. Dialogue with the CPP-NDF was essential. In fact, in 1992, President Fidel Ramos organized the National Unification Commission (NUC) to make contacts with the group. The
CBCP supported the move, and in Jan. 25, 1993, it issued a pastoral
letter on peace to participate in the peace process, directly or
indirectly. This was followed by another letter, “Peace in Our Times,” in which the Conference expounded the meaning of real place. Indeed,
as early as Jan. 1992, the CBCP acceded to the request of the National
Peace Conference (NPC) to head a delegation which would meet with the
CPP-NDF representatives, either in Hongkong or in Switzerland, to
discuss proposals for a dialogue. But despite its effort to enlist them
to the peace process, the CBCP never recoiled from criticizing the Left
(even as its criticism applies to the military as well) on various
occasions, as in its statement on the manipulative use of human rights
violations on July 11, 1989.
If
the CBCP lodged criticisms such as these, it was a part of its effort
at helping the people (including the administration, and the
oppositionists) in the renewal of the social order. It
is for the sake of this renewal that it gave much importance to the
holding of truly democratic, peaceful and clean elections in which
citizens must be truly involved. In
its “Pastoral Letter on Preparing for the 1992 Elections” on July 22,
1991, it pointed to the wastage of the nation’s resources and the
perversion of democratic principle in the disservice done by
individual’s unworthy of the office, and hence the need for education of
voters. Thus, in its desire to
strengthen the democratic ethos, widen the horizons of peace and unity
among the people, it issued “Renewing the Political Order” on Nov. 28,
1991--a pastoral guideline on choosing candidates for the May 11, 1992
elections. It is noteworthy that among the desirable qualifications of candidates that the letter enumerates are maka-diyos, spirit
of service, vigorous defender and promoter of justice and an enduring
and preferential option for the poor-qualifications which are consonant
with integral liberation. And on Jan. 31, 1992, it issued another letter, “Decision at the Crossroads,” appealing to the people to set priorities aright: honor and dignity before money, service before power, common good before self-interest, the nation before utang na loob. The following year, it decided to recognize and encourage the PPCRV. In all this, the CBCP asked the people to take seriously their participation in the political process by various means. It reiterated this point in its statement “Election 1995--A Challenge to the Young” (Jan. 16, 1995). The
CBCP, was active in the elections through NASSA’s votecare (Voter’s
Organization--Training and Education for Clean, Authentic and
Responsible Elections) program in all the 79 dioceses, with more than
250,000 volunteers.
Equally
important, the integral-liberation ecclesiological outlook helps
explain why in the post-Edsa situation, the CBCP addressed itself to
various issues of national importance: devastation of nature, overseas
contract workers, foreign debt, oil prices etc. For
instance, having observe the devastation of natural resources, which
has to do with the inequality of the social structure, it issued the
letter, “What is Happening To
Our Beautiful Land?” on Jan. 29, 1988--probably the first one issued by
an episcopal conference in world history. In
protest of the inhumanity, abuse and exploitation of overseas workers,
whose migration is rooted in the poverty of the people, it asked the
government to take effective measure to safeguard the rights of Filipino
expatriates, and appealed to all for economic recovery so Filipinos
would not be forced to leave the country. In
1990, it recommended that a desk for pastoral care of migrants and
their families be set up in the diocesan social action centers. On
the occasion of Flor Contemplacion’s funeral a few weeks before the
1995 elections, it repeated its appeal to the government to provide the
overseas workers protection, which should take precedence over potential
economic gains. Even its rather long pastoral letter on the the Eucharist, “To Live in Memory of Him: One Body, One People” (Mar. 21, 1988), does not fail to allude to integral human liberation: “we
desire to become eucharistic communities active in the defense and
promotion of the downtrodden, ready and willing to give ourselves
eucharistically to others, struggling in the building of a just,
peaceful and loving society.” The
same may be said of foreign debt which weighed heavily on the people
and which constituted a humongous obstacle to economic recovery. Of
course, the CBCP, through the permanent council, offered no solution in
its statement on Sept. 10, 1990, but it asked the government to
consider the debt crisis within the context of the ethics of survival. And
of no less significance, in 1994, it registered a strong protest
against the price increase of petroleum products authorized by the
Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). It
saw no objective justification for the increase, and regarded the
increase prior to the holding of hearing a lack of concern for the
common good.
It may be said that the 50th year of CBCP existence ended with a historic note. In
1995, John Paul II made his second pastoral visit to the Philippines on
the occasion of the 10th World Youth Day, the theme of which was: “As
the Father sent me, so I am sending You” (John 20:21). The
purpose of his coming was for the youth who, as the third Christian
millennium approaches, “are entrusted in a special way with the task of
becoming communicators of hope and workers for peace in a world that is
in ever greater need of credible witnesses and messengers consistent
with [Christ’s] message.” At the same time, it saw the quadricentennial celebrations of the Archdiocese of Manila, Cebu, Nueva Segovia, and Nueva Caceres. But for the CBCP itself, this period (1987-1995) witnessed other important events and activities: the
canonization of Blessed Lorenzo Ruiz (1987), the publication of the
final draft of the Catholic Faith Catechism (CFC) by the Episcopal
Commission on Catechesis and Catholic Education, and the Catechism of
the Catholic Church (CCC), the Statement on Fundamentalist Groups (Jan.
27, 1989), and the Guidelines for the Eucharist (1990), the birth of the
Program for the Rehabilitation of Mt. Pinatubo Victims, and the holding
of the National Retreat for Priests (1992, 1993 and 1994).
III
Conclusion
That,
in brief, is the history of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the
Philippines--a body that leads and builds up, engages, commits, prays,
and serves. Its 50-year history
sketched out above may be succinctly described, however, in terms of
transformation: from a CWO that was defensive to a CBCP that was
involved in the liberation of society: from a silent body to a prophetic one in the face of social injustice: from a CWO that saw the Church as a social institution to a CBCP that regards the Church as the People of God: from a CWO that had answers to human problems to a CBCP that listened to the “signs of the times”: from
a CWO that tended to focus morality to problems of sex, birth control
and smutty films to a CBCP that questioned and protested against
violation of human rights, social injustices and violence to the poor: from
a CWO that saw involvement in the social order as a part of
pre-evangelization to a CBCP that considered transformation of the
social order as a part and parcel of its mission; from a CWO that looked
at the work of the laity as part of the apostolate of the Hierarchy to a
CBCP that viewed the laity as ecclesia discens (the learning Church) to a CBCP that respected them as partners in the task of integral evangelization: from
a CWO that was tried to renew the social order from the top to a CWO
that was engaged in social charity to a CBCP that was involved in total
development and liberation. Undoubtedly, this description is a generalization, if not oversimplification, but the truth may not be far removed from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment