By Archbishop Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
NATURAL Family Planning has paradoxically been described as the “second best kept secret” of the Catholic Church (after its Social Teachings). In contrast to government programs that offer a value-neutral approach to all methods of family planning, the Catholic Church has consistently articulated its moral principles in advocating for Responsible Parenthood and Natural Family Planning. Based on actual results, however, NFP has remained the untried option. According to the latest surveys, less than one percent of Filipino couples are adopting modern NFP methods!
On the other hand, the pastoral experience of many priests and family life workers indicate that a growing number of couples today have three felt needs: (1) They want to plan their families in terms of family size and spacing of births; (2) They prefer natural family planning, if they are given adequate information on fertility awareness and NFP methods; and (3) They want to choose among NFP methods according to their own circumstances and preference. It is in this light that church communities, as well as government entities, are challenged to promote all recognized natural family planning methods today.
Before discussing the various NFP methods, however it would be good to examine the core values that underpin the Church’s advocacy for natural family planning—values that touch on the sacredness of human life, marriage, and the family. Four pastoral guidelines for All-NFP provide the framework for the local church’s values formation and the parameters for critical engagement with government and other groups.
I. We are Pro-Life
We uphold the dignity of human life from the moment of conception. We condemn abortion which is also proscribed by the Philippine Constitution. All-NFP is a proactive program that helps prevent the tragedy of unwanted pregnancies and recourse to abortion. It also provides an alternative to contraceptive methods that are considered as abortifacients.
The dignity of human life is directly linked to the dignity of the human person.
1) The human person is created in the image of God. “God created man in his image, in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). The biblical perspective states that man and woman have the same dignity and are of equal value.
God’s creative act takes place from the moment of conception: “You created every part of me; you put me together in my mother’s womb. When my bones were being formed, when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was there – you saw me before I was born” (Psalm 139: 13,15,16).
2) The human person is created by God in unity of body and soul. The spiritual faculties of reason and free will are linked with all the bodily and sense faculties. The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a person.
Man is an embodied spirit. “It is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature” (CCC, 365).
3) The human person is open to transcendence: he is open to the infinite and to all created beings. Through his spiritual faculties of intellect and will, the human person reaches out to know the truth and to love and choose the good and the beautiful.
Despite his limitation in attaining his finite ends in this life, man tends towards total truth and the absolute good—i.e., union with God, or the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. What Christian philosophers call the Summum Bonum or the Beatific Vision is premised on the promise of the resurrection and eternal life. Pope John Paul II sums this up: “Human life is precious because it is a gift of God—and when God gives life, it is forever.”
4) The human person is endowed with a moral conscience that enables him to recognize the truth concerning good and evil. Man’s exercise of freedom and responsibility implies a reference to the natural moral law, of an objective and universal character, which is the foundation for all rights and duties. “Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person” (CCC, 1706).
The dignity of the moral conscience as man’s “most secret core and sanctuary” enables the person to acknowledge that inner law which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor (GS, 16). Love of neighbor, in the language of the modern world, can be interpreted in terms of promoting and defending human rights. Fig. 2 locates the context of human rights and duties, understood as access to the means that enable a person to attain his natural and supernatural ends. In this light, human rights can be understood as moral claims, and duties as moral responsibilities.
5) The human person is essentially a social and relational being.
He is a being—with others in the world. He is a person among other persons, among equals—in the family, in the small community or in the larger society.
He is also a being-through-others in the world. He is born from the union of parents and grows up within the widening circle of relatives, teachers, and friends. He too is a being-for-others in the world, available in service to others, capable of loving others and being loved in return. He is called to enter into communion with others, and to forge bonds of solidarity for the common good.
In the web of relationships that surround him, the person learns to interact “horizontally” with other persons and society at large. He also deepens his “vertical” relationships with God as his Creator and Father as well as with the world of nature.
In the process, he also relates to himself as a self-project with an immensity of possibilities. He remains a subject, an “I” capable of self-understanding and self-determination. In this sense, as a center of consciousness and freedom, he exists as a unique and unrepeatable being (CSDC, 131).
6) The Christian view of the human person balances the mystery of sin with the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ.
The tragedy of original sin as well as personal and social sin has brought about the consequences of alienation of man from God, from his true self, from other persons, and from the world around him.
Indeed, “Christian realism sees the abysses of sin, but in the light of hope, greater than any evil, given by Jesus Christ’s act of redemption, in which sin and death are destroyed” (CSDC, 121). In this light, man is a being-unto-death-and-beyond, ultimately a being-unto-God. Life becomes a pilgrimage and death a graduation to eternal life.
II. We are for Responsible Parenthood
This is our goal: to enable parents to be aware of their rights as well as their duties in the procreation and education of their children. Planning one’s family in order to adequately care for every child that comes into the world is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly by parents.
Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter on the regulation of birth, Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), describes responsible parenthood in terms of the parents’ deliberate decision in planning the size of the family:
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth (HV, 10).
The Second Plenary Council of the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines explicitates further this meaning of responsible parenthood:
Christian parents must exercise responsible parenthood. While nurturing a generous attitude towards bringing new human life into the world, they should strive to beget only those children whom they can raise up in a truly human and Christian way. Towards this end, they need to plan their families according to the moral norms taught by the Church (PCP II, 583).
Planning one’s family highlights the central value of the family in human society. In particular, we can reflect on the role of the Christian family in the modern world, in terms of four tasks elaborated in Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation:
1) Forming a community of persons. As an “intimate community of life and love” (GS, 48), the family reflects and is “a real sharing in God’s love for humanity” (FC, 17). It is based on the indissolubility of marriage and conjugal communion. It fosters the dignity and vocation of all the persons in the family – husband and wife, children, relatives. It underlines the equal dignity of women with men, the rights of children, as well as care for the elderly. Indeed, this communion of persons makes the family “a school of deeper humanity” (GS, 52).
2) Serving life. The fundamental task of the family is to serve life – i.e., “transmitting by procreation the divine image from person to person” (FC, 28). Fecundity is seen as the fruit and the sign of conjugal love. The Church stands for life and stresses that “love between husband and wife must be fully human, exclusive and open to new life” (HV, 11).
Educating children in the essential values of human life is an integral part of serving life. These values include a sense of true justice, of true love, and of service to others. Parents are “the first and foremost educators of their children,” while the family itself is “the first and fundamental school of social living” (FC, 36-37). Education for chastity as well as education in the religious faith of the parents, are other essential values that must be respected and supported by the state.
3) Participating in the development of society. As the “first and vital cell of society,” and the “first school of the social virtues,” the family is “by nature and vocation open to other families and to society” (FC, 42). Hence, the family also plays a social and political role. Its members in their various capacities are called to contribute to the development of the wider community. Christian families should strive to live out the values of truth, freedom, justice and love—the pillars for building peace on earth, envisioned in Pope John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris.
4) Sharing in the life and mission of the Church. The family is seen as the “domestic church” (FC, 49). In this light, it partakes in the threefold role of Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. The family is seen as (a) a believing and evangelizing community, (b) a community in dialogue with God, and (c) a community at the service of man (FC, 50).
Christian marriage itself is seen as a “profession of faith” and it is this journey of faith that continues throughout the life cycle of the family. The Christian family educates the children for life that enables them to discover the image of God in every brother and sister.
In sum, responsible parenthood gives birth to a Christian family that is a community of love and is at the threefold service of nurturing life, developing society, and continuing the mission of the Church.
III. We are for Natural Family Planning
If responsible parenthood is the goal for married couples, natural family planning is the means deemed morally acceptable by the Church. Pope John Paul II underlines “the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle” (FC, 32). It is in this light that we can discuss the nature of natural family planning and ten reasons for its adoption.
a) What is Natural Family Planning?
Natural family planning is an approach for regulating births by identifying the fertile and infertile periods of a woman’s cycle. As an educational process and a way of life, there are four elements:
It involves the observation of a naturally occurring body sign or signs
• in order to identify the woman’s fertile and infertile periods.
• It involves the timing of intercourse
• to avoid or achieve pregnancy.
In contrast to artificial contraceptives, NFP means No DIDO − i.e., no Drugs, Injections, Devices, or Operations at any time. It also means no withdrawal.
b) Why Natural Family Planning?
1. Normal intercourse is preserved. Couples can plan the size of their families and space births the natural way. They do not resort to artificial means.
2. NFP is morally acceptable to people of all religions and cultures. It does not separate the love-giving and life-giving dimensions of the marriage act. The unitive and procreative ends of marriage are kept whole.
3. There are no inherent health risks in NFP methods. No pills, drugs, injections, devices or operations are used. A healthy body does not need this kind of “medical” treatment.
4. Modern NFP methods are effective and reliable. They are based on scientific studies and are time-tested. Simplified methods are easy to learn. Some NFP methods may be combined to reinforce each other.
5. There is no cost involved once the method has been learned. Couples are empowered not to rely on health centers, donor agencies, or drugstores. NFP is pro-poor, and not for profit of outside companies.
6. NFP becomes sustainable from generation to generation. Mothers can readily pass on the practice of NFP to their daughters.
7. NFP involves a joint decision by the couple. Neither partner feels being used by the other. It is an ideal way of exercising shared parenthood. A “contraceptive mentality” is avoided.
8. NFP engenders sexual discipline for the spouses through periodic abstinence. The practice of NFP manifests a conscious familiarity with the natural rhythm of the human body, mutual caring between the spouses, and the development of self-control that is carried over in the upbringing of the children.
9. Couples who use NFP seldom or never resort to abortion. They manifest an innate respect for human life. They welcome every child as a gift from God – even in the eventuality of an unexpected pregnancy.
10. Couples who use NFP seldom or never end up in separation or divorce. NFP enhances communication between spouses and promotes a wholesome family life.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the nature and rationale of NFP:
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom (CCC, 2370).
IV. We are for enabling couples to make an Informed and Morally
Responsible Choice, according to the dictates of a Right Conscience “The education of an authentic freedom” constitutes our fourth pastoral guideline. Within the context of a pluralistic society, the government’s focus is to refrain from coercion and to provide information on all family planning methods that it deems necessary for couples to make an informed choice. On the other hand, the Church’s focus should be to provide information on all NFP methods and to help couples form a right conscience so that they are able to make not only an informed but also a morally responsible choice.
Three kinds of freedom are implied in this pastoral guideline. There is first the ontological freedom of every human person, endowed with reason and free will. Innate in his human dignity is the person’s freedom to choose good or evil—even to say “no” to his Creator, or to go against his very nature by doing what would be considered inhuman acts.
From the societal perspective, governments promote the civic and political freedoms of their citizens by safeguarding the exercise of their rights and duties within the bounds of public order. Thus the freedoms of speech, of assembly, of religion, of economic enterprise, of responsible parenthood itself, etc. are hallmarks of a democratic society. A dictatorial government, on the other hand, suppresses by superior force the basic freedoms of its citizens.
A third kind of freedom is what we call authentic freedom—i.e., the freedom to do what ought to be done. “Man’s dignity,” according to the Vatican II Council Fathers, “demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within…” (GS, 17). This inner prompting is what we mean by conscience which calls man to acknowledge the natural moral law given by God.
“For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God,” cite the Council Fathers. “His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged… By conscience in a wonderful way, that law is made known…” (GS, 16). Thus the individual assumes personal responsibility for all his human acts that are knowingly and willingly done, heeding the dictates of his conscience.
However, conscience itself needs to be formed and guided by the objective norms of moral conduct. Ignorance or sinful habits pose as obstacles to the formation of a right conscience. It is in this light that values formation is an integral part of our All-NFP program − to enable parents as well as their children to acquire “a truly responsible freedom” (FC, 21).
This includes providing information on all scientifically-based NFP methods as a pastoral imperative. Corollary to this would be presenting the positive motivations for NFP and its integral attractiveness, instead of simply attacking the agencies promoting contraceptives. “Proclamation is always more important than denunciation,” notes Pope John Paul II, “and the latter cannot ignore the former, which gives it true solidity and the force of higher motivation” (SRS, 41).
In summary, these four pastoral guidelines provide the core values for our All-NFP ministry. Couples, indeed, have to consider several crucial factors: the good of their children already born or yet to come, their own situation at the material and spiritual level, and the over-all good of their family, of society, and of the Church. “It is the married couple themselves,” note the Council Fathers, “who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God” (GS, 50).
For its part, the local church can carry out its servant role by reaching out to as many couples as possible with the good news of various natural family planning methods today that are proven to be safe, reliable, practicable and adaptable to the various circumstances of family life. Instead of resorting to condemnation or confrontation, we find that for concerned couples, authentic values can best be formed with charity, compassion, and the formation of conscience.
References:
CCC - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, 1994.
CSDC - Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Pontifical Council for
Justice and Peace, 2004.
FC - Familiaris Consortio (The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), Pope John Paul II, 1981.
GS - Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World),
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, 1965.
HV - Humanae Vitae (Of Human life), Pope Paul VI, 1968.
PCP II - Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, Catholic Bishops’ Conference
of the Philippines, 1991.
SRS - Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (The Social Concern of the Church), Pope John
Paul II, 1987.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Bishops’ Consensus on NFP and SDM
LAST January 21, 2009, at the end of the bishops’ seminar on peace- building at Pius XII Catholic Center in Manila, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, CBCP President, convened a dialogue meeting on Natural Family Planning and the Standard Days Method. The dialogue was opened to all the bishops. Twenty-nine bishops attended or roughly half of all those who had just finished the peace-building seminar. These included Archbishop Lagdameo and bishop members of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life. Bishop Gabriel Reyes of the Commission on the Laity facilitated the dialogue.
The dialogue group first listened to the impressions of bishops whose dioceses were already including SDM in their NFP program – i.e., Cagayan de Oro, Ipil, Isabela (Basilan), Jolo, Digos, and Cotabato. In general, the bishops did not find anything objectionable with SDM being included as an added option in the local church’s NFP program, except that there may be need for more training and monitoring.
The group then listened to objections and reservations brought up against SDM as an NFP method – e.g., that it was not natural and appeared too mechanical with the use of beads; that the information on the internet included the use of back-up contraceptives; that it was as ineffective as the old calendar rhythm method. The third part of the dialogue consisted of a general discussion and clarifications that led towards the formulation of the consensus statement.
At the CBCP Plenary Assembly three days later on Jan. 24, the consensus statement was included in the report of Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, ECFL Chairman. The consensus statement was drafted and read by Bishop Reyes. This was distributed to all the bishops. The full statement reads:
According to the Analytical Index of CBCP Pronouncements (87th Bishops’ Plenary Assembly, July 2003, page 25), “The Body gave an affirmative indication on the issue whether or not the Standard Days Method (SDM) without any of the contraceptive component and without collaboration with government could be used by a diocese in its program of Natural Family Planning.”
This decision or ruling has never been abrogated.
Basing themselves on this CBCP decision, the bishops during the above-mentioned dialogue, agreed on the following:
1) The Standard Days Method, provided it is not mixed with contraceptives, is a natural family planning method and is consistent with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The bishop should inform the priest or lay faithful who thinks otherwise and should stop him from spreading his error.
2) It belongs to the bishop to decide whether his diocese will promote or not the SDM, in accordance with his pastoral discernment.
3) The bishop may not prohibit any couple in his diocese from using SDM as their method of natural family planning.
The bishops strongly reminded themselves of the saying:
“In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.”
After some discussion on the floor of the plenary assembly, this consensus statement was affirmed and left unchanged by the body. This is now part of the minutes of the CBCP Plenary Assembly.
As I review the consensus statement, three salient points can be noted:
1) Recalling their earlier consensus vote in July 2003, the bishops merely
explicitated their view that SDM in itself, without mixing with contraceptives, is
consistent with the moral teaching of the Church.
2) The statement asserts the responsibility of each bishop to decide whether or
not to include SDM in his diocese’s pastoral program at the present time.
3) On the other hand, it also asserts the right of any couple to adopt SDM as an
NFP method in any diocese.
Pope John XXIII’s statement aptly describes the spirit of the bishops’ dialogue and consensus statement: “In whatever is necessary, unity; in whatever is doubtful, liberty; in everything, charity.”
The dialogue group first listened to the impressions of bishops whose dioceses were already including SDM in their NFP program – i.e., Cagayan de Oro, Ipil, Isabela (Basilan), Jolo, Digos, and Cotabato. In general, the bishops did not find anything objectionable with SDM being included as an added option in the local church’s NFP program, except that there may be need for more training and monitoring.
The group then listened to objections and reservations brought up against SDM as an NFP method – e.g., that it was not natural and appeared too mechanical with the use of beads; that the information on the internet included the use of back-up contraceptives; that it was as ineffective as the old calendar rhythm method. The third part of the dialogue consisted of a general discussion and clarifications that led towards the formulation of the consensus statement.
At the CBCP Plenary Assembly three days later on Jan. 24, the consensus statement was included in the report of Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, ECFL Chairman. The consensus statement was drafted and read by Bishop Reyes. This was distributed to all the bishops. The full statement reads:
According to the Analytical Index of CBCP Pronouncements (87th Bishops’ Plenary Assembly, July 2003, page 25), “The Body gave an affirmative indication on the issue whether or not the Standard Days Method (SDM) without any of the contraceptive component and without collaboration with government could be used by a diocese in its program of Natural Family Planning.”
This decision or ruling has never been abrogated.
Basing themselves on this CBCP decision, the bishops during the above-mentioned dialogue, agreed on the following:
1) The Standard Days Method, provided it is not mixed with contraceptives, is a natural family planning method and is consistent with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The bishop should inform the priest or lay faithful who thinks otherwise and should stop him from spreading his error.
2) It belongs to the bishop to decide whether his diocese will promote or not the SDM, in accordance with his pastoral discernment.
3) The bishop may not prohibit any couple in his diocese from using SDM as their method of natural family planning.
The bishops strongly reminded themselves of the saying:
“In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.”
After some discussion on the floor of the plenary assembly, this consensus statement was affirmed and left unchanged by the body. This is now part of the minutes of the CBCP Plenary Assembly.
As I review the consensus statement, three salient points can be noted:
1) Recalling their earlier consensus vote in July 2003, the bishops merely
explicitated their view that SDM in itself, without mixing with contraceptives, is
consistent with the moral teaching of the Church.
2) The statement asserts the responsibility of each bishop to decide whether or
not to include SDM in his diocese’s pastoral program at the present time.
3) On the other hand, it also asserts the right of any couple to adopt SDM as an
NFP method in any diocese.
Pope John XXIII’s statement aptly describes the spirit of the bishops’ dialogue and consensus statement: “In whatever is necessary, unity; in whatever is doubtful, liberty; in everything, charity.”
Bishops’ Consensus on NFP and SDM
LAST January 21, 2009, at the end of the bishops’ seminar on peace- building at Pius XII Catholic Center in Manila, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, CBCP President, convened a dialogue meeting on Natural Family Planning and the Standard Days Method. The dialogue was opened to all the bishops. Twenty-nine bishops attended or roughly half of all those who had just finished the peace-building seminar. These included Archbishop Lagdameo and bishop members of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life. Bishop Gabriel Reyes of the Commission on the Laity facilitated the dialogue.
The dialogue group first listened to the impressions of bishops whose dioceses were already including SDM in their NFP program – i.e., Cagayan de Oro, Ipil, Isabela (Basilan), Jolo, Digos, and Cotabato. In general, the bishops did not find anything objectionable with SDM being included as an added option in the local church’s NFP program, except that there may be need for more training and monitoring.
The group then listened to objections and reservations brought up against SDM as an NFP method – e.g., that it was not natural and appeared too mechanical with the use of beads; that the information on the internet included the use of back-up contraceptives; that it was as ineffective as the old calendar rhythm method. The third part of the dialogue consisted of a general discussion and clarifications that led towards the formulation of the consensus statement.
At the CBCP Plenary Assembly three days later on Jan. 24, the consensus statement was included in the report of Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, ECFL Chairman. The consensus statement was drafted and read by Bishop Reyes. This was distributed to all the bishops. The full statement reads:
According to the Analytical Index of CBCP Pronouncements (87th Bishops’ Plenary Assembly, July 2003, page 25), “The Body gave an affirmative indication on the issue whether or not the Standard Days Method (SDM) without any of the contraceptive component and without collaboration with government could be used by a diocese in its program of Natural Family Planning.”
This decision or ruling has never been abrogated.
Basing themselves on this CBCP decision, the bishops during the above-mentioned dialogue, agreed on the following:
1) The Standard Days Method, provided it is not mixed with contraceptives, is a natural family planning method and is consistent with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The bishop should inform the priest or lay faithful who thinks otherwise and should stop him from spreading his error.
2) It belongs to the bishop to decide whether his diocese will promote or not the SDM, in accordance with his pastoral discernment.
3) The bishop may not prohibit any couple in his diocese from using SDM as their method of natural family planning.
The bishops strongly reminded themselves of the saying:
“In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.”
After some discussion on the floor of the plenary assembly, this consensus statement was affirmed and left unchanged by the body. This is now part of the minutes of the CBCP Plenary Assembly.
As I review the consensus statement, three salient points can be noted:
1) Recalling their earlier consensus vote in July 2003, the bishops merely
explicitated their view that SDM in itself, without mixing with contraceptives, is
consistent with the moral teaching of the Church.
2) The statement asserts the responsibility of each bishop to decide whether or
not to include SDM in his diocese’s pastoral program at the present time.
3) On the other hand, it also asserts the right of any couple to adopt SDM as an
NFP method in any diocese.
Pope John XXIII’s statement aptly describes the spirit of the bishops’ dialogue and consensus statement: “In whatever is necessary, unity; in whatever is doubtful, liberty; in everything, charity.”
The dialogue group first listened to the impressions of bishops whose dioceses were already including SDM in their NFP program – i.e., Cagayan de Oro, Ipil, Isabela (Basilan), Jolo, Digos, and Cotabato. In general, the bishops did not find anything objectionable with SDM being included as an added option in the local church’s NFP program, except that there may be need for more training and monitoring.
The group then listened to objections and reservations brought up against SDM as an NFP method – e.g., that it was not natural and appeared too mechanical with the use of beads; that the information on the internet included the use of back-up contraceptives; that it was as ineffective as the old calendar rhythm method. The third part of the dialogue consisted of a general discussion and clarifications that led towards the formulation of the consensus statement.
At the CBCP Plenary Assembly three days later on Jan. 24, the consensus statement was included in the report of Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, ECFL Chairman. The consensus statement was drafted and read by Bishop Reyes. This was distributed to all the bishops. The full statement reads:
According to the Analytical Index of CBCP Pronouncements (87th Bishops’ Plenary Assembly, July 2003, page 25), “The Body gave an affirmative indication on the issue whether or not the Standard Days Method (SDM) without any of the contraceptive component and without collaboration with government could be used by a diocese in its program of Natural Family Planning.”
This decision or ruling has never been abrogated.
Basing themselves on this CBCP decision, the bishops during the above-mentioned dialogue, agreed on the following:
1) The Standard Days Method, provided it is not mixed with contraceptives, is a natural family planning method and is consistent with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The bishop should inform the priest or lay faithful who thinks otherwise and should stop him from spreading his error.
2) It belongs to the bishop to decide whether his diocese will promote or not the SDM, in accordance with his pastoral discernment.
3) The bishop may not prohibit any couple in his diocese from using SDM as their method of natural family planning.
The bishops strongly reminded themselves of the saying:
“In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.”
After some discussion on the floor of the plenary assembly, this consensus statement was affirmed and left unchanged by the body. This is now part of the minutes of the CBCP Plenary Assembly.
As I review the consensus statement, three salient points can be noted:
1) Recalling their earlier consensus vote in July 2003, the bishops merely
explicitated their view that SDM in itself, without mixing with contraceptives, is
consistent with the moral teaching of the Church.
2) The statement asserts the responsibility of each bishop to decide whether or
not to include SDM in his diocese’s pastoral program at the present time.
3) On the other hand, it also asserts the right of any couple to adopt SDM as an
NFP method in any diocese.
Pope John XXIII’s statement aptly describes the spirit of the bishops’ dialogue and consensus statement: “In whatever is necessary, unity; in whatever is doubtful, liberty; in everything, charity.”
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Catechetics and the NNCDP
DURING the clergy meeting on January 12 in Cagayan de Oro, we discussed the summary of the Catechetical Review and Strategic Planning started by a core group earlier. We then recommended that the process of reviewing and planning our catechetical program should be continued and brought down to the parish level.
In this regard, each priest/deacon received a copy of the New National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines 2007. We suggested that the district priests discuss the contents of this book during their monthly meeting over the next six months. They could discuss one chapter at a time—e.g., for one hour, like a BEC session. The priests could take turns in facilitating the discussion. A written summary would be presented at the next clergy meeting for consolidation with the other reports.
There were five reasons why we invited everyone to read and reflect on the NNCDP together.
1. This is a concrete follow-up of our Archdiocesan Pastoral Assembly held last December 12-13. The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (1991) considered catechesis as the most fundamental area of renewal. The National Pastoral Consultation on Church Renewal (2001) affirmed this by making “Integral Faith Formation”—through catechesis—as the first of its nine pastoral priorities.
2. The NNCDP incorporates and integrates all our ad intra ministries—i.e., Catechetics, BEC formation, Liturgy, Bible Apostolate, Family Life, Youth, etc. It also points out their intimate relationship with our ad extra ministries—i.e., the social apostolate and works of charity.
3. Parish priests are the primary “educators in the faith” and “the key source for the parish catechetical ministry” (NNCDP, nos. 441-442). Without the support of the parish priest, the catechetical program in the parish will be hobbled and may become moribund.
4. Concretely, the NNCDP gives us a comprehensive framework for evaluating our current catechetical program – as we approach the end of the school year, and prepare for the coming school year.
5. For the individual priest, the NNCDP can serve as a pastorally-oriented synthesis of our theology courses in the seminary. For instance, the threefold pattern of Christian Faith indicated in No. 213—in terms of Creed, Code, and Cult; or Jesus as the Truth, the Way, and the Life—can give us a manner of envisioning the interconnection among our various parish ministries.
To start off the discussions on Chapter One of the NNCDP at their next district meeting, three guide questions were proposed to the priests:
1. What are the expressions of religiosity (devotions) in your parish today?
2. What are the core values behind these expressions of religiosity (devotions)?
3. How do you include these core values in your catechesis?
They were of course free to focus on other matters of relevance to your local communities. In due time, members of the catechetical core group would be suggesting guide questions for the other chapters. We proposed that this collective effort at catechetical renewal would be our way of starting off the next 75 years of the archdiocese after our jubilee celebrations last year.
In this regard, each priest/deacon received a copy of the New National Catechetical Directory for the Philippines 2007. We suggested that the district priests discuss the contents of this book during their monthly meeting over the next six months. They could discuss one chapter at a time—e.g., for one hour, like a BEC session. The priests could take turns in facilitating the discussion. A written summary would be presented at the next clergy meeting for consolidation with the other reports.
There were five reasons why we invited everyone to read and reflect on the NNCDP together.
1. This is a concrete follow-up of our Archdiocesan Pastoral Assembly held last December 12-13. The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (1991) considered catechesis as the most fundamental area of renewal. The National Pastoral Consultation on Church Renewal (2001) affirmed this by making “Integral Faith Formation”—through catechesis—as the first of its nine pastoral priorities.
2. The NNCDP incorporates and integrates all our ad intra ministries—i.e., Catechetics, BEC formation, Liturgy, Bible Apostolate, Family Life, Youth, etc. It also points out their intimate relationship with our ad extra ministries—i.e., the social apostolate and works of charity.
3. Parish priests are the primary “educators in the faith” and “the key source for the parish catechetical ministry” (NNCDP, nos. 441-442). Without the support of the parish priest, the catechetical program in the parish will be hobbled and may become moribund.
4. Concretely, the NNCDP gives us a comprehensive framework for evaluating our current catechetical program – as we approach the end of the school year, and prepare for the coming school year.
5. For the individual priest, the NNCDP can serve as a pastorally-oriented synthesis of our theology courses in the seminary. For instance, the threefold pattern of Christian Faith indicated in No. 213—in terms of Creed, Code, and Cult; or Jesus as the Truth, the Way, and the Life—can give us a manner of envisioning the interconnection among our various parish ministries.
To start off the discussions on Chapter One of the NNCDP at their next district meeting, three guide questions were proposed to the priests:
1. What are the expressions of religiosity (devotions) in your parish today?
2. What are the core values behind these expressions of religiosity (devotions)?
3. How do you include these core values in your catechesis?
They were of course free to focus on other matters of relevance to your local communities. In due time, members of the catechetical core group would be suggesting guide questions for the other chapters. We proposed that this collective effort at catechetical renewal would be our way of starting off the next 75 years of the archdiocese after our jubilee celebrations last year.
Monday, January 19, 2009
A pastoral call for environmental protection
To our brothers and sisters in the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro:
During this period of calamity I would first like to express my solidarity and prayers for all those families who have been displaced by the sudden floods. These first occurred on January 3 with the swelling of the Cagayan de Oro river. Then on January 11 until now flash floods have taken place more extensively throughout various parts of the city and several municipalities in Misamis Oriental.
As of the latest reports more than 75,000 persons have been displaced and 44 barangays in the city have been affected.
In visiting some of the displaced families that have been forced to seek shelter in chapels or formation centers of the church or community centers in the barangays, I see the faces of children with their mothers waiting patiently for some assistance.
On the other hand, I am also heartened to see many parish communities mobilizing to distribute relief goods among those displaced communities.
Many individuals, companies and organizations have also sent their assistance in goods or in cash to the Bishop’s House or directly to the parishes affected by the floods. These are indeed signs of solidarity and brotherhood regardless of religious or cultural differences.
Even as we attend to the immediate needs of displaced families, we must not lose sight of the long term factors that have aggravated the effects of natural calamities. Among these man-made factors are:
• Continued logging operations in the upstream areas of the city; these include the more remote areas of the city and watershed areas in the ARMM region and Bukidnon
• Hydraulic flush mining that have caused the heavy siltation of Iponan river and its tributaries
• Small scale and large scale mining in other upland areas of the city
• Lack of solid waste management that has led to clogging of the city’s drainage canals
• Similarly housing developments that have obstructed the natural flow of water
These and many other factors have to be reviewed carefully by public officials with the participation of civil society groups. The church and other parish communities are ready to join and support all these efforts for a safer, cleaner and brighter Cagayan de Oro and surrounding areas.
During this period of calamity I would first like to express my solidarity and prayers for all those families who have been displaced by the sudden floods. These first occurred on January 3 with the swelling of the Cagayan de Oro river. Then on January 11 until now flash floods have taken place more extensively throughout various parts of the city and several municipalities in Misamis Oriental.
As of the latest reports more than 75,000 persons have been displaced and 44 barangays in the city have been affected.
In visiting some of the displaced families that have been forced to seek shelter in chapels or formation centers of the church or community centers in the barangays, I see the faces of children with their mothers waiting patiently for some assistance.
On the other hand, I am also heartened to see many parish communities mobilizing to distribute relief goods among those displaced communities.
Many individuals, companies and organizations have also sent their assistance in goods or in cash to the Bishop’s House or directly to the parishes affected by the floods. These are indeed signs of solidarity and brotherhood regardless of religious or cultural differences.
Even as we attend to the immediate needs of displaced families, we must not lose sight of the long term factors that have aggravated the effects of natural calamities. Among these man-made factors are:
• Continued logging operations in the upstream areas of the city; these include the more remote areas of the city and watershed areas in the ARMM region and Bukidnon
• Hydraulic flush mining that have caused the heavy siltation of Iponan river and its tributaries
• Small scale and large scale mining in other upland areas of the city
• Lack of solid waste management that has led to clogging of the city’s drainage canals
• Similarly housing developments that have obstructed the natural flow of water
These and many other factors have to be reviewed carefully by public officials with the participation of civil society groups. The church and other parish communities are ready to join and support all these efforts for a safer, cleaner and brighter Cagayan de Oro and surrounding areas.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Cagayan de Oro at 75
DURING the past year 2008, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the creation of the Diocese of Cagayan de Oro. In 1933, Cagayan de Oro became the second diocese in Mindanao (next to Zamboanga) and included the northern provinces of Surigao, Agusan, Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, Lanao, Misamis Occidental, and the island of Camiguin.
Today the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro is only one of the 21 ecclesiastical units in Mindanao, which include five archdioceses, 12 dioceses, three prelatures, and one apostolic vicariate. Its territory has been reduced to the two provinces of Misamis Oriental and Camiguin and one municipality in Bukidnon. Nonetheless, with its 50 parishes and 8 chaplaincies, two seminaries, and 115 diocesan priests, the archdiocese remains among the larger ecclesiastical units in Mindanao.
Most Rev. James Hayes, S.J., became the first bishop of Cagayan de Oro. The city street that now bears his name connects all the major institutions that he started—Lourdes College run by the RVM sisters, Ateneo de Cagayan (now Xavier University) under the Jesuits, Maria Reyna Hospital administered by the St. Paul of Chartres sisters, and on Seminary Hill San Jose de Mindanao Seminary and the Discalced Carmelite Sisters’ Convent.
When Cagayan de Oro was elevated as the first archdiocese of Mindanao in 1951, Archbishop Hayes continued to serve until his retirement in 1970—a span of 37 years that included his incarceration during the Japanese occupation and the painstaking period of reconstruction after the war.
He was succeeded by Archbishop Patrick Cronin, a Columban, who served from 1970-1988. During this period, the parishes administered earlier by American and Filipino Jesuits were for the most part turned over to the Irish Columban priests and some diocesan priests. This enabled the Jesuits in turn to take care of the newly–opened parishes in Bukidnon.
Archbishop Jesus Tuquib became the third archbishop of Cagayan de Oro in 1988-2006, duplicating his predecessor’s term of 18 years of service. During this period, the diocesan clergy increased notably in numbers and gradually took over the running of the parishes. Today only three parishes and a chaplaincy are run by priests of religious congregations.
Archbishop Tuquib was instrumental in the construction of the St. John Vianney Theological Seminary buildings on Seminary Hill. SJVTS had earlier been established by a consortium of bishops of the CABUSTAM (Cagayan, Butuan, Surigao, Tandag, Malaybalay) subregion to serve the growing needs of the Church in Mindanao for the formation of its clergy.
It is with this historical context that we celebrated the diamond jubilee of the archdiocese. The Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Edward Joseph Adams, was the main celebrant of our fiesta Mass in honor of St. Augustine on August 28th. Earlier he visited some of our older parishes like Sagay in Camiguin and Jasaan.
During the last quarter of this year, six district assemblies were held to follow up the archdiocese’s pastoral plan and get feedback from the lay delegates. This process culminated with an Archdiocesan Pastoral Assembly in mid-December attended by about 400 delegates from all the parishes. We reviewed our ad intra ministries focused on Catholics and ad extra ministries directed towards any one in need.
At the closing Mass, plaques of appreciation were given to three religious congregations—the Jesuits, Columbans, and RVM Sisters—for their collective contribution in building up the local church of Cagayan de Oro over the past 75 years. (We should not forget however that the Augustinian Recollects were the early evangelizers of Cagayan de Oro and surrounding areas from the 17th until the mid-19th century.)
Other highlights of this jubilee year were the creation of two shrines. The first shrine was dedicated on August 2nd to the Holy Eucharist in a city parish run by the Blessed Sacrament Fathers. The second shrine was dedicated to the Divine Mercy in Brgy. Ulaliman, El Salvador, on September 8th. With its imposing 50-foot statue overlooking Macajalar Bay and surrounding areas, the Divine Mercy Shrine has become a popular site for pilgrimages from all over Mindanao.
The most recent signs of the growth of our local church were the ordinations of four deacons and of a priest in the past two months. May the threefold blessing then of the yuletide season—Light, Love, and fullness of Life—be with the archdiocese throughout its next seventy-five years.
Today the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro is only one of the 21 ecclesiastical units in Mindanao, which include five archdioceses, 12 dioceses, three prelatures, and one apostolic vicariate. Its territory has been reduced to the two provinces of Misamis Oriental and Camiguin and one municipality in Bukidnon. Nonetheless, with its 50 parishes and 8 chaplaincies, two seminaries, and 115 diocesan priests, the archdiocese remains among the larger ecclesiastical units in Mindanao.
Most Rev. James Hayes, S.J., became the first bishop of Cagayan de Oro. The city street that now bears his name connects all the major institutions that he started—Lourdes College run by the RVM sisters, Ateneo de Cagayan (now Xavier University) under the Jesuits, Maria Reyna Hospital administered by the St. Paul of Chartres sisters, and on Seminary Hill San Jose de Mindanao Seminary and the Discalced Carmelite Sisters’ Convent.
When Cagayan de Oro was elevated as the first archdiocese of Mindanao in 1951, Archbishop Hayes continued to serve until his retirement in 1970—a span of 37 years that included his incarceration during the Japanese occupation and the painstaking period of reconstruction after the war.
He was succeeded by Archbishop Patrick Cronin, a Columban, who served from 1970-1988. During this period, the parishes administered earlier by American and Filipino Jesuits were for the most part turned over to the Irish Columban priests and some diocesan priests. This enabled the Jesuits in turn to take care of the newly–opened parishes in Bukidnon.
Archbishop Jesus Tuquib became the third archbishop of Cagayan de Oro in 1988-2006, duplicating his predecessor’s term of 18 years of service. During this period, the diocesan clergy increased notably in numbers and gradually took over the running of the parishes. Today only three parishes and a chaplaincy are run by priests of religious congregations.
Archbishop Tuquib was instrumental in the construction of the St. John Vianney Theological Seminary buildings on Seminary Hill. SJVTS had earlier been established by a consortium of bishops of the CABUSTAM (Cagayan, Butuan, Surigao, Tandag, Malaybalay) subregion to serve the growing needs of the Church in Mindanao for the formation of its clergy.
It is with this historical context that we celebrated the diamond jubilee of the archdiocese. The Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Edward Joseph Adams, was the main celebrant of our fiesta Mass in honor of St. Augustine on August 28th. Earlier he visited some of our older parishes like Sagay in Camiguin and Jasaan.
During the last quarter of this year, six district assemblies were held to follow up the archdiocese’s pastoral plan and get feedback from the lay delegates. This process culminated with an Archdiocesan Pastoral Assembly in mid-December attended by about 400 delegates from all the parishes. We reviewed our ad intra ministries focused on Catholics and ad extra ministries directed towards any one in need.
At the closing Mass, plaques of appreciation were given to three religious congregations—the Jesuits, Columbans, and RVM Sisters—for their collective contribution in building up the local church of Cagayan de Oro over the past 75 years. (We should not forget however that the Augustinian Recollects were the early evangelizers of Cagayan de Oro and surrounding areas from the 17th until the mid-19th century.)
Other highlights of this jubilee year were the creation of two shrines. The first shrine was dedicated on August 2nd to the Holy Eucharist in a city parish run by the Blessed Sacrament Fathers. The second shrine was dedicated to the Divine Mercy in Brgy. Ulaliman, El Salvador, on September 8th. With its imposing 50-foot statue overlooking Macajalar Bay and surrounding areas, the Divine Mercy Shrine has become a popular site for pilgrimages from all over Mindanao.
The most recent signs of the growth of our local church were the ordinations of four deacons and of a priest in the past two months. May the threefold blessing then of the yuletide season—Light, Love, and fullness of Life—be with the archdiocese throughout its next seventy-five years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
