The year 2005 marked the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in Modern World” (or Gaudium et Spes). This document focuses on the Church’s relations ad extra—i.e., sharing “the joys and the hopes” of the world. It synthesizes in contemporary accents the Church’s social teachings from the first social encyclical of Pope Leo XIII in the late 19 th century to the encyclicals of Pope John XXIII in the 1960’s.
In its opening chapters, the document touches on recurrent theme such as the Church’s mission in the world, the dignity of human person, and the challenges of modern-day atheism. In its second part, Gaudium et Spes focuses on problems of special urgency such as: marriage and the family, culture, socio-economic life, the political community and world peace.
One concrete result of Gaudium et Spes was the creation of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace which was tasked by the Holy Father to carry on the Church’s dialogue with the world on the Social issues if the day and to help guide the Church’s pastoral action in society. It was with this mandate that the Pontifical Council convened in Rome in October 2004 the First World Congress of Ecclesial Organizations Working for Justice and Peace.
There were two interrelated reasons for the congress: first, to prepare for the commemoration of the 40 th anniversary of Gaudium et Spes; and secondly, to launch the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which had just been published by the PCJP presidency of the late Cardinal Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, the 525 page Compendium has finally come to light and offers “a concise but complete overview of the Church social teaching.”
In systematic fashion, the Compendium takes us once more the classical themes of Gaudium et Spes, this time expanded with citations from other ecclesial documents, particularly Pope John Paul II’s three social encyclicals and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994).
The Compendium contains three parts. Part One, comprising four chapters, discusses the presuppositions of the Church’s Social Doctrine: God’s plan of love for humanity; the Church’s mission and social doctrine; the human person and human rights; and the principle of the Church’s Social doctrine.
Part Two, composed of seven chapters, contains an up-to-date examination of the traditional themes of social doctrine: the family, human work, economic life, the political community, the international community, and the promotion of peace. A noteworthy addition is a chapter on the environment.
Part Three, in a single chapter, contains recommendations for pastoral action in the social field and dwells in particular on the commitment of the lay faithful. The Compendium concludes with an invitation to the men and women of our age to build a “civilization of love” – the over –arching motif of the entire document.
At the dawn of the third millennium, the Compendium is offered as a continuing work in progress not only for Catholics but also for brethren of other faiths as well as for “all people of good will who are committed to serving the common good.”
If Gaudium et Spes has been characterized by Cardinal Renato Martino, current PCJP President, as containing the “genetic code” for the Church’s social apostolate, the Compendium can well be viewed as the vademecum for today’s church worker in the social field – as bishop, priest, religious or, especially, as lay person. Comprising about a third of the Compendium is a valuable analytical index that provides cross references for the topical themes of the Church’s social teachings.
A papal audience for the delegates provided a high point for the world congress. In his brief message, the late Pope John Paul II forcefully remarked:
"The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has just been published as an instrument meant to help Christians in their daily commitment to make the world more just, from the perspective of a true solidary humanism. The social doctrine is an essential part of the Christian message (Centesimus Anus, 5) and must be better known, integrally spread and witnessed to by constant and coherent pastoral action.”
For the Church, there is no socio-pastoral action without a social doctrine; but neither there can be a social doctrine without pastoral action.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Monday, May 01, 2006
FROM SOLIDARITY TO HUMAN SECURITY
I - If one were asked to summarize the social teachings of the Church in one word, we could adopt Pope John Paul II’s favorite term, “Solidarity.” The dictionary defines “solidarity” as “agreement of all elements or individuals”; or as “unity of a group or class that is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards”; or as “mutual dependence.”
In the recently-published Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, we discover a more profound description of Solidarity from the tradition of the Church.
(1) Meaning and value. Four dimensions are highlighted in the concept of solidarity:
--a) the intrinsic social nature of the human person;
--b) the equality of all persons in dignity and rights;
c) the common path taken by individuals and peoples towards an even more committed unity; and
--d) the bond of interdependence between individuals
and peoples.
In this light, solidarity would be opposed to individualism, class conflict, imperialism, isolationism as well as any form of dictatorship. It is based on the dignity of every person and of all persons in human society.
(2) Solidarity as a social principle and a moral virtue. The relationships of interdependence, particularly in a globalized world, impel us towards genuine ethical-social solidarity. As one of the key principles for the social teachings of the church, solidarity becomes the starting-point for our conduct in society.
As a moral virtue, solidarity disposes us to determine the order of institutions – i.e., from “structures of sin” to structures of solidarity. In this regard, it is helpful to keep in mind how the Church defines virtue in the first place:
A virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions. (italics supplied)
It is in this light that Pope John Paul II defines solidarity as a “firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good. That is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.”
(3) Solidarity as a Christian virtue. Solidarity, as a recurring theme in the social teaching of the Church, has been expressed in various terms, such as “friendship” by Pope Leo XIII, “social charity” by Pope Pius XI, the process of “socialization” by Pope John XXIII, and “a civilization of love” by Pope Paul VI. It also refers to the “preferential option for the poor” which Pope John Paul II defines as a “special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity.” In the Compendium, solidarity takes on the lapidary phrase of “solidary humanism.”
Thus, solidarity is closely linked to charity with the distinctively Christian dimensions of “total gratuity, forgiveness and reconciliation.” It enables us to discern a new model of unity of the human race—towards “communion” which is the soul of the Church’s vocation to be a “sacrament.”
Some witnesses of solidarity among the saints, cited by Pope John Paul II, are St. Peter Claver, the apostle of the Negro slaves in Cartagena, and St. Maximilian Kolbe who offered his life in exchange for the life of a fellow prisoner in the concentration camp in Auschwitz. We can also mention Blessed Mother Teresa in her work of charity among the poorest of the poor in Calcutta. Their lives exemplify the meaning of solidarity among fellow human beings, as described by the late Holy Father:
Solidarity helps us to see the “other”—whether a person, people or nation—not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded when no longer useful, but as our “neighbor,” a “helper,” to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God.”
(4) Solidarity in the life and message of Jesus Christ. The perfect exemplar of solidarity is the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who reveals man to man, and “is one with humanity even to the point of ‘death on a cross.’ ” Jesus reveals the transcendent love of God-with-us (Emmanuel).
In his disdain for any form of social discrimination and his special attention to the outcasts of society, his acts of solidarity shine forth with the Christ-modeled charity of total generosity, forgiveness and reconciliation. Ultimately, Jesus’ life and death wrought redemption, restoring a broken world in his love—a sign of grace, life and hope for the countless poor, the lame, the blind, the homeless, and the unwanted in our society today, or what Mahatma Ghandi has once described as “the last, the least, and the lost.”
(5) Solidarity and the common growth of mankind. As a dynamic principle, there is an intimate connection between solidarity and the common good, between solidarity and the universal destination of goods, and between solidarity and peace. “The process of development and liberation takes concrete shape in the exercise of solidarity, that is to say in the love and service of neighbor, especially of the poorest,” notes Pope John Paul II.
Solidarity, on the one hand, recognizes the space given to human freedom for the exercise of social responsibility and what the CBCP statement calls, “heroic citizenship.” On the other hand, it reminds us that we are all debtors of society of which we have become part and that we all have a common obligation to continue humanity’s journey towards future generations—an allusion to promote human life and the integrity of creation.
It is in this context that Pope John Paul II states that “the solidarity which we propose is the path to peace and at the same time to development.” He concludes by transposing Pope Pius XII’s motto, Opus justitiae pax (peace as the work/fruit of justice) into his own saying, Opus solidaritatis pax (peace as the fruit of solidarity).
II - How then do we forge solidarity in our world today? In one sense, the globe has shrunk in terms of travel distance and real-time communication. In another sense, the world has become more diversified, fragmented, and endangered in terms of ecological degradation and, what some have called, a clash of cultures and civilizations. Wars within and beyond national borders, man-made and natural disasters, epidemics, and threats of terrorism characterize the beginning of the third millennium of the Christian era. The world has indeed become a better and safer place for many; but for many more, the experience has been the opposite—as millions continue to struggle with the stark realities of poverty, disease, war, and insecurity.
It is in this context that the framework of “Human Security” has been offered to complement the earlier paradigms of state security, promotion of human rights, and human development.
(1) From state security to human security. With the rise of nation-states in the 17th century, the concept of state security, based on national sovereignty, has been the prevalent framework in international relations. On the other hand, human security focuses on the protection of individuals, households and local communities.
In confronting menaces to peace and stability, state security is preoccupied with protecting territorial boundaries, or protecting the existing government from internal threats, such as coups or rebellions. On the other hand, human security confronts broader and border-less menaces, such as environmental pollution, the spread of infectious diseases, and threats of region-wide terrorism.
The protagonists for state security are usually politicians and the military; human security, on the other hand, involves a wider range of actors, such as civil society groups, non-government organizations, religious leaders, media, and international agencies.
Ultimately, the overriding goal for state security is to protect and preserve the state; human security, on the other hand, is people-centered and aims to protect and empower the people.
It would be instructive to relate these to current “threats” affecting the country—such as the Asian bird-flu epidemic, terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, and the reported coup attempt and Fort Bonifacio stand-off during the 20th anniversary of the EDSA I People Power revolution.
(2) Definition of human security. While acknowledging the location–specific concerns of particular countries and regions of the world, the Commission on Human Security offers a definition of human security—i.e., “to protect the vital core of human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment.”
It involves:
· protecting fundamental freedoms – that are the essence of life;
· protecting people from severe and widespread threats;
· using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations;
· creating systems (political, social, economic, cultural, environmental, etc.) that help people attain survival, livelihood and dignity;
· including excluded minorities in the development process;
· enabling individuals and communities to make informed choices and to act on their own behalf;
· encompassing: freedom from want,
freedom from fear,
freedom from discrimination, and
freedom of future generations to
inherit a healthy natural environment.
In summary, the Commission states: “Human security complements state security, enhances human rights and strengthens human development.” As pointed out by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it joins “the main agenda items of peace, security and development.”
(3) Basic freedoms for human security. In a landmark study of the Human Development Report 2000, the United Nations Development Programme explored the intimate linkage between “human rights and human development--for freedom and solidarity.”
Seven fundamental freedoms are outlined:
· Freedom from discrimination – by gender, race, ethnicity, national origin or religion;
· Freedom from want – to enjoy a decent standard of living;
· Freedom to develop and realize one’s human potential;
· Freedom from fear – of threats to personal security, from torture, arbitrary arrest and other violent acts;
· Freedom from injustice and violations of the rule of law;
· Freedom of thought and speech and to participate in decision-making and form associations; and
· Freedom for decent work – without exploitation.
We can place these freedoms under three general headings related to a Culture of Life and Development; a Culture of Human Rights and Democracy; and a Culture of Peace and Solidarity. These three headings also approximate the economic, political, and cultural dimensions of human freedoms.
Within a Human Security framework, these three “cultures” reinforce each other as nested paradigms, starting from the basic economic needs of human life itself and extending to political freedoms and ultimately to cultural and spiritual values. “People’s horizons,” notes the Commission on Human Security, “extend far beyond survival to matters of love, culture and faith.”
(4) Human security following violent conflict. The Human Security paradigm was originally conceived to address the inadequacy of the State Security framework during periods of violent conflict. Under a state security perspective, only the first cluster on public safety would be addressed by a military force bent on victory in the battlefield.
As was borne out in the aftermath of the armed conflicts in Central Mindanao in the years 2000 and 2003, the other clusters such as humanitarian relief, rehabilitation & reconstruction, and reconciliation & coexistence were left mostly to local NGOs and international relief agencies. Government’s role, as indicated at the left margin predominates under the cluster of public safety, but diminishes in proportion to the people’s own involvement in the subsequent stages, particularly in the clusters on reconciliation and governance & empowerment.
(5) Advancing human security in Mindanao. As an illustrative case, a human security agenda in Mindanao would involve these various components:
· Protecting people in violent conflict (refugees);
· Providing minimum living standards (work-based security; secure livelihoods; access to land, credit, training);
· Access to basic health care;
· Access to basic education for all;
· Articulating common goals, while developing multiple identities (inter-religious dialogue; culture of peace);
· Empowering communities for good governance (engaged citizenship; social auditing; meaningful elections);
· Forging alliances among civil society groups, including churches, government agencies, and local communities.
The work of Tabang Mindanaw for relief and rehabilitation in Central Mindano; of the BASULTA cluster of local NGOs and international agencies in the development of the Basilan-Sulu-Tawi-Tawi area; of the Bishops-Ulama Conference in interreligious dialogue; of numerous peace centers, particularly in the observance of the Mindanao Week of Peace—these are all ongoing efforts at building peace and human security on the island. The Commission notes:
Human security in its broadest sense embraces far more than the absence of violent conflict. It encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her potential.
Does the language of Human Security then resonate with our affirmation of Solidarity in the social teachings of the Church? In the Philippine context, it seems there can be no solidarity without human security. But neither can there be human security without that deepened sense of solidarity that the Church’s tradition offers us.
Bishop Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
(Keynote address, Second National Assembly of the Philippine-Misereor Partnership, SEARSOLIN, Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City, 16 March 2006.)
In the recently-published Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, we discover a more profound description of Solidarity from the tradition of the Church.
(1) Meaning and value. Four dimensions are highlighted in the concept of solidarity:
--a) the intrinsic social nature of the human person;
--b) the equality of all persons in dignity and rights;
c) the common path taken by individuals and peoples towards an even more committed unity; and
--d) the bond of interdependence between individuals
and peoples.
In this light, solidarity would be opposed to individualism, class conflict, imperialism, isolationism as well as any form of dictatorship. It is based on the dignity of every person and of all persons in human society.
(2) Solidarity as a social principle and a moral virtue. The relationships of interdependence, particularly in a globalized world, impel us towards genuine ethical-social solidarity. As one of the key principles for the social teachings of the church, solidarity becomes the starting-point for our conduct in society.
As a moral virtue, solidarity disposes us to determine the order of institutions – i.e., from “structures of sin” to structures of solidarity. In this regard, it is helpful to keep in mind how the Church defines virtue in the first place:
A virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions. (italics supplied)
It is in this light that Pope John Paul II defines solidarity as a “firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good. That is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.”
(3) Solidarity as a Christian virtue. Solidarity, as a recurring theme in the social teaching of the Church, has been expressed in various terms, such as “friendship” by Pope Leo XIII, “social charity” by Pope Pius XI, the process of “socialization” by Pope John XXIII, and “a civilization of love” by Pope Paul VI. It also refers to the “preferential option for the poor” which Pope John Paul II defines as a “special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity.” In the Compendium, solidarity takes on the lapidary phrase of “solidary humanism.”
Thus, solidarity is closely linked to charity with the distinctively Christian dimensions of “total gratuity, forgiveness and reconciliation.” It enables us to discern a new model of unity of the human race—towards “communion” which is the soul of the Church’s vocation to be a “sacrament.”
Some witnesses of solidarity among the saints, cited by Pope John Paul II, are St. Peter Claver, the apostle of the Negro slaves in Cartagena, and St. Maximilian Kolbe who offered his life in exchange for the life of a fellow prisoner in the concentration camp in Auschwitz. We can also mention Blessed Mother Teresa in her work of charity among the poorest of the poor in Calcutta. Their lives exemplify the meaning of solidarity among fellow human beings, as described by the late Holy Father:
Solidarity helps us to see the “other”—whether a person, people or nation—not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded when no longer useful, but as our “neighbor,” a “helper,” to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God.”
(4) Solidarity in the life and message of Jesus Christ. The perfect exemplar of solidarity is the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who reveals man to man, and “is one with humanity even to the point of ‘death on a cross.’ ” Jesus reveals the transcendent love of God-with-us (Emmanuel).
In his disdain for any form of social discrimination and his special attention to the outcasts of society, his acts of solidarity shine forth with the Christ-modeled charity of total generosity, forgiveness and reconciliation. Ultimately, Jesus’ life and death wrought redemption, restoring a broken world in his love—a sign of grace, life and hope for the countless poor, the lame, the blind, the homeless, and the unwanted in our society today, or what Mahatma Ghandi has once described as “the last, the least, and the lost.”
(5) Solidarity and the common growth of mankind. As a dynamic principle, there is an intimate connection between solidarity and the common good, between solidarity and the universal destination of goods, and between solidarity and peace. “The process of development and liberation takes concrete shape in the exercise of solidarity, that is to say in the love and service of neighbor, especially of the poorest,” notes Pope John Paul II.
Solidarity, on the one hand, recognizes the space given to human freedom for the exercise of social responsibility and what the CBCP statement calls, “heroic citizenship.” On the other hand, it reminds us that we are all debtors of society of which we have become part and that we all have a common obligation to continue humanity’s journey towards future generations—an allusion to promote human life and the integrity of creation.
It is in this context that Pope John Paul II states that “the solidarity which we propose is the path to peace and at the same time to development.” He concludes by transposing Pope Pius XII’s motto, Opus justitiae pax (peace as the work/fruit of justice) into his own saying, Opus solidaritatis pax (peace as the fruit of solidarity).
II - How then do we forge solidarity in our world today? In one sense, the globe has shrunk in terms of travel distance and real-time communication. In another sense, the world has become more diversified, fragmented, and endangered in terms of ecological degradation and, what some have called, a clash of cultures and civilizations. Wars within and beyond national borders, man-made and natural disasters, epidemics, and threats of terrorism characterize the beginning of the third millennium of the Christian era. The world has indeed become a better and safer place for many; but for many more, the experience has been the opposite—as millions continue to struggle with the stark realities of poverty, disease, war, and insecurity.
It is in this context that the framework of “Human Security” has been offered to complement the earlier paradigms of state security, promotion of human rights, and human development.
(1) From state security to human security. With the rise of nation-states in the 17th century, the concept of state security, based on national sovereignty, has been the prevalent framework in international relations. On the other hand, human security focuses on the protection of individuals, households and local communities.
In confronting menaces to peace and stability, state security is preoccupied with protecting territorial boundaries, or protecting the existing government from internal threats, such as coups or rebellions. On the other hand, human security confronts broader and border-less menaces, such as environmental pollution, the spread of infectious diseases, and threats of region-wide terrorism.
The protagonists for state security are usually politicians and the military; human security, on the other hand, involves a wider range of actors, such as civil society groups, non-government organizations, religious leaders, media, and international agencies.
Ultimately, the overriding goal for state security is to protect and preserve the state; human security, on the other hand, is people-centered and aims to protect and empower the people.
It would be instructive to relate these to current “threats” affecting the country—such as the Asian bird-flu epidemic, terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, and the reported coup attempt and Fort Bonifacio stand-off during the 20th anniversary of the EDSA I People Power revolution.
(2) Definition of human security. While acknowledging the location–specific concerns of particular countries and regions of the world, the Commission on Human Security offers a definition of human security—i.e., “to protect the vital core of human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment.”
It involves:
· protecting fundamental freedoms – that are the essence of life;
· protecting people from severe and widespread threats;
· using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations;
· creating systems (political, social, economic, cultural, environmental, etc.) that help people attain survival, livelihood and dignity;
· including excluded minorities in the development process;
· enabling individuals and communities to make informed choices and to act on their own behalf;
· encompassing: freedom from want,
freedom from fear,
freedom from discrimination, and
freedom of future generations to
inherit a healthy natural environment.
In summary, the Commission states: “Human security complements state security, enhances human rights and strengthens human development.” As pointed out by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it joins “the main agenda items of peace, security and development.”
(3) Basic freedoms for human security. In a landmark study of the Human Development Report 2000, the United Nations Development Programme explored the intimate linkage between “human rights and human development--for freedom and solidarity.”
Seven fundamental freedoms are outlined:
· Freedom from discrimination – by gender, race, ethnicity, national origin or religion;
· Freedom from want – to enjoy a decent standard of living;
· Freedom to develop and realize one’s human potential;
· Freedom from fear – of threats to personal security, from torture, arbitrary arrest and other violent acts;
· Freedom from injustice and violations of the rule of law;
· Freedom of thought and speech and to participate in decision-making and form associations; and
· Freedom for decent work – without exploitation.
We can place these freedoms under three general headings related to a Culture of Life and Development; a Culture of Human Rights and Democracy; and a Culture of Peace and Solidarity. These three headings also approximate the economic, political, and cultural dimensions of human freedoms.
Within a Human Security framework, these three “cultures” reinforce each other as nested paradigms, starting from the basic economic needs of human life itself and extending to political freedoms and ultimately to cultural and spiritual values. “People’s horizons,” notes the Commission on Human Security, “extend far beyond survival to matters of love, culture and faith.”
(4) Human security following violent conflict. The Human Security paradigm was originally conceived to address the inadequacy of the State Security framework during periods of violent conflict. Under a state security perspective, only the first cluster on public safety would be addressed by a military force bent on victory in the battlefield.
As was borne out in the aftermath of the armed conflicts in Central Mindanao in the years 2000 and 2003, the other clusters such as humanitarian relief, rehabilitation & reconstruction, and reconciliation & coexistence were left mostly to local NGOs and international relief agencies. Government’s role, as indicated at the left margin predominates under the cluster of public safety, but diminishes in proportion to the people’s own involvement in the subsequent stages, particularly in the clusters on reconciliation and governance & empowerment.
(5) Advancing human security in Mindanao. As an illustrative case, a human security agenda in Mindanao would involve these various components:
· Protecting people in violent conflict (refugees);
· Providing minimum living standards (work-based security; secure livelihoods; access to land, credit, training);
· Access to basic health care;
· Access to basic education for all;
· Articulating common goals, while developing multiple identities (inter-religious dialogue; culture of peace);
· Empowering communities for good governance (engaged citizenship; social auditing; meaningful elections);
· Forging alliances among civil society groups, including churches, government agencies, and local communities.
The work of Tabang Mindanaw for relief and rehabilitation in Central Mindano; of the BASULTA cluster of local NGOs and international agencies in the development of the Basilan-Sulu-Tawi-Tawi area; of the Bishops-Ulama Conference in interreligious dialogue; of numerous peace centers, particularly in the observance of the Mindanao Week of Peace—these are all ongoing efforts at building peace and human security on the island. The Commission notes:
Human security in its broadest sense embraces far more than the absence of violent conflict. It encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her potential.
Does the language of Human Security then resonate with our affirmation of Solidarity in the social teachings of the Church? In the Philippine context, it seems there can be no solidarity without human security. But neither can there be human security without that deepened sense of solidarity that the Church’s tradition offers us.
Bishop Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
(Keynote address, Second National Assembly of the Philippine-Misereor Partnership, SEARSOLIN, Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro City, 16 March 2006.)
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Letter to Cagayan de Oro and Ipil
PRELATURE OF IPIL
Bishop’s Residence
P.O. Box 7283
7001 Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay
Philippines
8 March 2006
To the people of God in Cagayan de Oro Archdiocese and Ipil Prelature,
Thank you for your felicitations on my appointment by the Holy Father as the Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro.
While acknowledging my limitations, I humbly accept this assignment. I realize that this will be a bigger responsibility than my present assignment as Bishop of the Prelature of Ipil.
Over the past 9½ years, I have come to know, respect and love the clergy, religious and lay leaders and workers of this prelature. It is with a heavy heart that I shall be leaving them in a few months’ time.
On the other hand, coming to Cagayan de Oro by the end of May will not be strange to me since this has been my earlier home for 16 years.
Hence, I shall strive to be available to all the Christian communities in the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro. This will be my new home, my local church, and the reference point for any activity that may involve my time and energy for the Church in the rest of Mindanao and the Philippines.
May Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother accompany all of us in this new leg of the journey towards his Kingdom. And may I humbly ask for your prayers and collaboration.
In Our Lord,
+ Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
Bishop, Prelature of Ipil
Bishop’s Residence
P.O. Box 7283
7001 Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay
Philippines
8 March 2006
To the people of God in Cagayan de Oro Archdiocese and Ipil Prelature,
Thank you for your felicitations on my appointment by the Holy Father as the Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro.
While acknowledging my limitations, I humbly accept this assignment. I realize that this will be a bigger responsibility than my present assignment as Bishop of the Prelature of Ipil.
Over the past 9½ years, I have come to know, respect and love the clergy, religious and lay leaders and workers of this prelature. It is with a heavy heart that I shall be leaving them in a few months’ time.
On the other hand, coming to Cagayan de Oro by the end of May will not be strange to me since this has been my earlier home for 16 years.
Hence, I shall strive to be available to all the Christian communities in the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro. This will be my new home, my local church, and the reference point for any activity that may involve my time and energy for the Church in the rest of Mindanao and the Philippines.
May Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother accompany all of us in this new leg of the journey towards his Kingdom. And may I humbly ask for your prayers and collaboration.
In Our Lord,
+ Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
Bishop, Prelature of Ipil
Friday, February 24, 2006
Letter to Muslim Brothers and Sisters
21 February 2006
To our Muslim brothers and sisters,
Assalamu alaikum. Peace be with you.
In the recent cartoons controversy that has affected Muslim communities in Europe and other parts of the world, including the Philippines, we would like to express our sentiments of solidarity with your sense of indignation and outrage.
While we do not condone any acts of violence against persons or properties, we reiterate some of the common principles that both Muslim and Christian religious leaders have been espousing in our interreligious dialogue – whether through daily living or periodic exchanges in our bishops–ulama forum and other engagements.
1) We value the spirit of dialogue, tolerance and respect for each other’s religious traditions in bridging cultural differences that have divided our communities in the past and at present. Religious freedom and the rights of minority communities to their own culture are key values to be promoted.
2) Instead of viewing religion as a source of conflict, we have all asserted that Christianity and Islam are religions of peace, and that we have to build on our religious traditions to forge a culture of peace.
3) We recognize that extremist groups on either side can easily destroy the peace. Hence, we have jointly issued statements condemning acts of violence, particularly against innocent third parties. Insulting words and caricatures may also be considered forms of violence.
4) We have noted that people in mass media have often exaggerated conflict stories between Christians and Muslims in Mindanao and other parts of the country – giving rise to a culture of violence and war. Media should strive, instead, to present the truth in a balanced way and practice the tenets of peace journalism.
It is in the light of these common perspectives that we join you in a common effort to promote mutual understanding and respect for our religious traditions and beliefs.
Sincerely,
Abp. Fernando R. Capalla, D.D.
Archdiocese of Davao
Vice Chairman, ECID
Bp. Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
Prelature of Ipil
Chairman, CBCP Episcopal Commission on Interreligious Dialogue
Bp. Martin S. Jumoad, D.D.
Prelature of Isabela, Basilan
Member, ECID
Bp. Edwin A. de la Peña, M.S.P., D.D.
Apostolic Vicariate of St. Mary’s of Marawi
Member, ECID
To our Muslim brothers and sisters,
Assalamu alaikum. Peace be with you.
In the recent cartoons controversy that has affected Muslim communities in Europe and other parts of the world, including the Philippines, we would like to express our sentiments of solidarity with your sense of indignation and outrage.
While we do not condone any acts of violence against persons or properties, we reiterate some of the common principles that both Muslim and Christian religious leaders have been espousing in our interreligious dialogue – whether through daily living or periodic exchanges in our bishops–ulama forum and other engagements.
1) We value the spirit of dialogue, tolerance and respect for each other’s religious traditions in bridging cultural differences that have divided our communities in the past and at present. Religious freedom and the rights of minority communities to their own culture are key values to be promoted.
2) Instead of viewing religion as a source of conflict, we have all asserted that Christianity and Islam are religions of peace, and that we have to build on our religious traditions to forge a culture of peace.
3) We recognize that extremist groups on either side can easily destroy the peace. Hence, we have jointly issued statements condemning acts of violence, particularly against innocent third parties. Insulting words and caricatures may also be considered forms of violence.
4) We have noted that people in mass media have often exaggerated conflict stories between Christians and Muslims in Mindanao and other parts of the country – giving rise to a culture of violence and war. Media should strive, instead, to present the truth in a balanced way and practice the tenets of peace journalism.
It is in the light of these common perspectives that we join you in a common effort to promote mutual understanding and respect for our religious traditions and beliefs.
Sincerely,
Abp. Fernando R. Capalla, D.D.
Archdiocese of Davao
Vice Chairman, ECID
Bp. Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
Prelature of Ipil
Chairman, CBCP Episcopal Commission on Interreligious Dialogue
Bp. Martin S. Jumoad, D.D.
Prelature of Isabela, Basilan
Member, ECID
Bp. Edwin A. de la Peña, M.S.P., D.D.
Apostolic Vicariate of St. Mary’s of Marawi
Member, ECID
BUILDING PEACE THROUGH A SPIRITUALITY
OF PUBLIC SERVICE
I
On this fifth anniversary of Zamboanga Sibugay, we have many blessings to be thankful for – a completed highway, more farm-to-market bridges, higher prices for rubber, and, despite some outbreaks of violence, relative calm and quiet throughout the province.
Yet, we cannot close our eyes to the shadows around us – the continuing poverty of many rural households, the lack of basic services, and the growing threat to our environment with the coming in of mining operations, whether large or small-scale. We should also not forget the killing of our Provincial Accountant, Mr. Venancio Ferrer, Jr., more than a year ago. This brazen crime remains unsolved up to this day.
In the latest Philippine Human Development Report of 2005, our new province, which is still included in the mother province of Zamboanga del Sur, is listed among the bottom ten “most inequitable provinces” (p. 111). Comparing measures for inequality from the years 2000 to 2003, Zamboanga del Sur (and Sibugay) ranks as the second least improved province, being outdone only by Lanao del Sur (p. 112). In sum, our province together with its mother province manifests extremes of wealth and poverty that accounts for the marked degree of inequality among residents.
It is in this light that we can soberly count our blessings along with the many more challenges that confront us – either as private citizens, or as public officials and civil servants for those of you who have been vested with some form of public authority.
The recent pastoral statement of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines calls for “renewing our public life through moral values.” It points out that the root of our crisis is the erosion of moral values. It invites public servants and citizens’ groups alike to promote “a spirituality of public service, integrity and stewardship.” “These forms of social spirituality,” the statement continues, “should counteract the persistent evils of gambling, drug-pushing, usury, destruction of our environment, and corruption in public office.”
The CBCP statement is addressed not only to one person or political party, but to all of us. How then do we develop a spirituality of public service – that builds lasting peace and development in our land?
II
In his Message for the World Day of Peace at the beginning of this year 2006, Pope Benedict XVI dwelt on “the truth of peace.” We invite all men and women of good will to reflect with us over the salient points in this papal message:
1) Peace cannot be equated simply with the absence of armed conflict, but should be viewed as “the fruit of an order which has been planted in human society by its divine Founder.” It is this fundamental truth about God and the “tranquillity of order” that he has established that drives us to express our own yearnings and hopes for peace in our land.
We reach out to all believers in one God – whom we acknowledge as Creator, Father, or Transcendent Being. Together we can help bring about the order in society that God has willed for all of us.
2) The truth about God enables us to know “the truth about man.” Despite our differences in creed, culture, and socio-economic class, we all share the same origin and destiny from God as well as the same nature as human beings. It is this realization of our common humanity that enables us to regard everyone as our brother and sister.
Every human person is endowed with intelligence and free will, and created in the image of God. From this basic human dignity flow our rights and corresponding duties to enable us to attain our natural and supernatural ends. These human rights and duties are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable.
3) How then do we build peace in our land? Pope Benedict XVI recalls the four pillars of peace outlined by his predecessor, Pope John XXIII, in his landmark encyclical, “Peace on Earth” (Pacem in Terris). These pillars are: truth, justice, freedom and love – principles and human values that are rooted in “the universal moral law written on human hearts.” This innate voice of conscience impels us to work for the integral development of the person and to promote the human rights of every person in society.
It impels us also to work for the common good which is the “the sum of social conditions that enable persons to achieve their full human potential.” Public officials, in particular, are expected to work for the common good, not their private good. Indeed, the common good is the reason that political authority exists in the first place (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 168).
4) As Christians, we proclaim the “Gospel of Peace.” We attest that “Jesus is the truth which gives us peace.” Jesus was averse to every form of falsehood; he was completely transparent in his dealings with others; and he opened the paths for forgiveness and reconciliation. Through his life of compassion and caring for the poor and the despised, we too are asked to serve everyone, but especially the least of our brethren.
5) Peace is ultimately a gift of God. Yet it is also a task and a responsibility for all of us. “When we hear the Gospel,” Pope Benedict reminds us, “we learn to build peace on the truth of a daily life inspired by the commandment of love.” Through the example of the Holy Family in Nazareth may we begin to build this peace first in our homes and communities and in our province. And may it be a peace that reaches out to all persons and to all warring groups in our land.
III
As we strive then to live out a spirituality of public service, we can make Solomon’s prayer for Wisdom our own (Wisdom 9:1-6, 9-11):
God of my fathers, Lord of mercy,
you who have made all things by your word
and in your wisdom have established man
to rule the creatures produced by you,
to govern the world in holiness and justice,
and to render judgment in integrity of heart:
Give me Wisdom, the attendant at your throne,
and reject me not from among your children;
for I am your servant, the son of your handmaid,
a man weak and short-lived
and lacking in comprehension of judgment and of laws.
Indeed, though one be perfect among the sons of men,
if Wisdom, who comes from you, be not with him,
he shall be held in no esteem.
Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works
and was present when you made the world;
who understands what is pleasing in your eyes
and what is conformable with your commands.
Send her forth from your holy heavens
and from your glorious throne dispatch her
that she may be with me and work with me,
that I may know what is your pleasure.
For she knows and understands all things,
and will guide me discreetly in my affairs
and safeguard me by her glory. Amen.
____________________________________________________
* Homily at Ecumenical Service, Opening Program, 5th Araw ng Zamboanga Sibugay,
Capitol Hills, 17 February 2006.
OF PUBLIC SERVICE
I
On this fifth anniversary of Zamboanga Sibugay, we have many blessings to be thankful for – a completed highway, more farm-to-market bridges, higher prices for rubber, and, despite some outbreaks of violence, relative calm and quiet throughout the province.
Yet, we cannot close our eyes to the shadows around us – the continuing poverty of many rural households, the lack of basic services, and the growing threat to our environment with the coming in of mining operations, whether large or small-scale. We should also not forget the killing of our Provincial Accountant, Mr. Venancio Ferrer, Jr., more than a year ago. This brazen crime remains unsolved up to this day.
In the latest Philippine Human Development Report of 2005, our new province, which is still included in the mother province of Zamboanga del Sur, is listed among the bottom ten “most inequitable provinces” (p. 111). Comparing measures for inequality from the years 2000 to 2003, Zamboanga del Sur (and Sibugay) ranks as the second least improved province, being outdone only by Lanao del Sur (p. 112). In sum, our province together with its mother province manifests extremes of wealth and poverty that accounts for the marked degree of inequality among residents.
It is in this light that we can soberly count our blessings along with the many more challenges that confront us – either as private citizens, or as public officials and civil servants for those of you who have been vested with some form of public authority.
The recent pastoral statement of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines calls for “renewing our public life through moral values.” It points out that the root of our crisis is the erosion of moral values. It invites public servants and citizens’ groups alike to promote “a spirituality of public service, integrity and stewardship.” “These forms of social spirituality,” the statement continues, “should counteract the persistent evils of gambling, drug-pushing, usury, destruction of our environment, and corruption in public office.”
The CBCP statement is addressed not only to one person or political party, but to all of us. How then do we develop a spirituality of public service – that builds lasting peace and development in our land?
II
In his Message for the World Day of Peace at the beginning of this year 2006, Pope Benedict XVI dwelt on “the truth of peace.” We invite all men and women of good will to reflect with us over the salient points in this papal message:
1) Peace cannot be equated simply with the absence of armed conflict, but should be viewed as “the fruit of an order which has been planted in human society by its divine Founder.” It is this fundamental truth about God and the “tranquillity of order” that he has established that drives us to express our own yearnings and hopes for peace in our land.
We reach out to all believers in one God – whom we acknowledge as Creator, Father, or Transcendent Being. Together we can help bring about the order in society that God has willed for all of us.
2) The truth about God enables us to know “the truth about man.” Despite our differences in creed, culture, and socio-economic class, we all share the same origin and destiny from God as well as the same nature as human beings. It is this realization of our common humanity that enables us to regard everyone as our brother and sister.
Every human person is endowed with intelligence and free will, and created in the image of God. From this basic human dignity flow our rights and corresponding duties to enable us to attain our natural and supernatural ends. These human rights and duties are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable.
3) How then do we build peace in our land? Pope Benedict XVI recalls the four pillars of peace outlined by his predecessor, Pope John XXIII, in his landmark encyclical, “Peace on Earth” (Pacem in Terris). These pillars are: truth, justice, freedom and love – principles and human values that are rooted in “the universal moral law written on human hearts.” This innate voice of conscience impels us to work for the integral development of the person and to promote the human rights of every person in society.
It impels us also to work for the common good which is the “the sum of social conditions that enable persons to achieve their full human potential.” Public officials, in particular, are expected to work for the common good, not their private good. Indeed, the common good is the reason that political authority exists in the first place (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, no. 168).
4) As Christians, we proclaim the “Gospel of Peace.” We attest that “Jesus is the truth which gives us peace.” Jesus was averse to every form of falsehood; he was completely transparent in his dealings with others; and he opened the paths for forgiveness and reconciliation. Through his life of compassion and caring for the poor and the despised, we too are asked to serve everyone, but especially the least of our brethren.
5) Peace is ultimately a gift of God. Yet it is also a task and a responsibility for all of us. “When we hear the Gospel,” Pope Benedict reminds us, “we learn to build peace on the truth of a daily life inspired by the commandment of love.” Through the example of the Holy Family in Nazareth may we begin to build this peace first in our homes and communities and in our province. And may it be a peace that reaches out to all persons and to all warring groups in our land.
III
As we strive then to live out a spirituality of public service, we can make Solomon’s prayer for Wisdom our own (Wisdom 9:1-6, 9-11):
God of my fathers, Lord of mercy,
you who have made all things by your word
and in your wisdom have established man
to rule the creatures produced by you,
to govern the world in holiness and justice,
and to render judgment in integrity of heart:
Give me Wisdom, the attendant at your throne,
and reject me not from among your children;
for I am your servant, the son of your handmaid,
a man weak and short-lived
and lacking in comprehension of judgment and of laws.
Indeed, though one be perfect among the sons of men,
if Wisdom, who comes from you, be not with him,
he shall be held in no esteem.
Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works
and was present when you made the world;
who understands what is pleasing in your eyes
and what is conformable with your commands.
Send her forth from your holy heavens
and from your glorious throne dispatch her
that she may be with me and work with me,
that I may know what is your pleasure.
For she knows and understands all things,
and will guide me discreetly in my affairs
and safeguard me by her glory. Amen.
____________________________________________________
* Homily at Ecumenical Service, Opening Program, 5th Araw ng Zamboanga Sibugay,
Capitol Hills, 17 February 2006.
Mainstreaming Natural Family Planning in Ipil Prelature
During the first weekend of February 2006, I joined a training seminar on natural family planning methods in Roxas City. This was sponsored by the Archdiocese of Capiz which was interested to know more about our All-NFP program for Responsible Parenthood in Ipil Prelature. Hence, three trainors from the prelature teamed up with two Manila-based trainors from the Institute for Reproductive Health to give the intensive 2½-day seminar on all NFP methods. In all, there were 62 participants representing 29 of the 33 parishes of the archdiocese.
Some participants had already been teaching the Billings Ovulation Method in pre-Cana seminars. Only a few, however, had heard about the Standard Days Method. And no parish at all had a monitoring system to follow up actual users. Everyone agreed that much more needed to be done to mainstream NFP and to reach out to as many couples as possible. It is in this light that the Capiz parishioners were interested to know more about our pastoral experience in Ipil Prelature in promoting an All-NFP program over the past 3½ years.
I. Pastoral Situation
From a national perspective, the latest Philippine demographic and health survey indicates that only 33% of currently married women are using modern contraceptives, 16% are using traditional methods, and less than one percent are adopting modern NFP methods. Conversely, 51% of all couples do not have any family planning method at all.
Despite more than three decades of government-sponsored promotion of practically free contraceptives, the question can then be raised why only one-third of all couples have accepted contraceptive use. Is it because the other two-thirds of Filipino couples are still looking for a family planning method that is safe, reliable — and natural?
On the other hand, a similar question can be raised why less than one percent of currently married women are adopting modern NFP methods. Has the government – as well as the church – failed to promote NFP? Or are the earlier NFP methods too difficult to adopt?
From our pastoral experience in Ipil, we realize that the majority of couples today have three felt needs:
They want family planning – i.e., to plan the size of their family and to space births;
They prefer natural family planning, if given adequate information on fertility awareness and NFP methods; and
They want to choose among NFP methods – to suit their own circumstances and preference.
Our biggest challenge then may not be to confront government or an international conspiracy but rather to address the felt needs of thousands of married couples in our rural and urban poor neighborhoods. For the most part, these are couples who are looking for and are ready to adopt any of the NFP methods that we can show them to be safe, reliable, inexpensive, and practicable.
II Vision and Pastoral Guidelines
This then is our vision: to mainstream NFP by reaching out to the majority of Filipino couples who are looking for a family planning method that is effective, suited to their own circumstances, and in consonance with the Church’s moral guidelines.
The objectives for our NFP program include the following:
To adopt a proactive pastoral approach to address the felt needs of couples for family planning;
To offer an All-NFP program by making available information on all modern, scientific NFP methods; and
To promote the value formation that is integral to our Family Life Apostolate and to enable couples to make an informed and responsible choice, based on the formation of a right conscience.
In the light of these vision and objectives, we have adopted four pastoral guidelines for our All-NFP program in the prelature (cf. Fig 2).
We are pro-life. This is our first principle. We are at the service of life from the moment of conception. Hence, we are against abortion, which is also proscribed by our Constitution.
We are for Responsible Parenthood. This is our goal – to help 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 the right and responsibility of Christian parents.
We are for Natural Family Planning. This is our recommended means in consonance with the moral teaching of the Church. NFP means the practice of periodic abstinence according to the natural fertility rhythm of the human body. Our promotion of NFP should include all modern, scientifically-tested NFP methods.
We are for enabling couples to make an Informed and Responsible Choice. Within the context of a secular and pluralistic society, the government’s focus is to refrain from coercion and to provide information on all family planning methods that it deems legally acceptable 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 responsible choice.
For the majority of couples who are not using any family planning method at all, the question can be raised whether or not these couples are forced by circumstances to make uninformed and irresponsible choices in a matter that is crucial to their family life. Ultimately, neither the government nor the church can make this choice for couples. It is their inherent right and duty as responsible parents and citizens to have this freedom of choice for themselves. This is the goal of Responsible Parenthood that both Church and State subscribe to.
III Towards an All-NFP Program
Since the mid-70’s, the Prelature of Ipil, which was then a Jesuit Mission District of the Archdiocese of Zamboanga, has been a pilot area for the earlier NFP methods – such as the Basal Body Temperature method (BBT) and the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM). However, with the dissociation of the church from the government’s family planning program and the end of outside funding by the mid-80’s, the NFP program reached a plateau and slowed down.
In October 2001, some of our prelature workers visited Impasugong, Bukidnon, where a new NFP method, called the Standard Days Method (SDM), was being piloted among small farmer couples. Because of its simplicity in teaching fertility awareness with the aid of a string of cycle beads, practically all the parishes agreed to include SDM in, what we now call, the All-NFP program for the prelature.
SDM is a new calendar-based method of family planning based on fertility awareness. It helps a woman know her fertile days by simply counting the days of her cycle, starting with the first day of menstruation. It identifies days 8-19 of the cycle as the fertile period when pregnancy may occur if there is intercourse. Days 1-7 and the rest of the days after day 19 are identified as non-fertile days.
SDM’s “fertile window” of days 8-19 has been standardized and is applicable only for women whose menstrual cycles range from 26 to 32 days. It is estimated that three-fourths of all women are within this cycle range. Hence, it is made clear from the outset that SDM is not applicable to all women. In this sense, despite its simplicity, SDM cannot be the exclusive NFP method for the local church to promote; but neither should it be the excluded method.
SDM was developed by the Institute for Reproductive Health (IRH) of Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic university in the United States. It is the result of an extensive research process spanning six years since the mid-90’s, involving pilot sites in Bolivia, Peru and the Philippines. It has been clinically tested with a high effectiveness rate of 95.25%.
To help women track the days of their menstrual cycle, IRH devised a necklace or cycle beads consisting of 32 colored beads, representing the day of menstruation (red), the fertile days (white), and the infertile days (brown). Hence, couples can easily know the days when they should abstain from intercourse if they wish to avoid pregnancy. Or they may also use the same beads to achieve pregnancy.
In July 2003, at the CBCP plenary assembly, the bishops passed a consensus vote recognizing SDM as a method that “could be used by a diocese in its program of Natural Family Planning,” provided it was not combined with contraceptives and it was not seen as part of the government’s total Family Planning Program for population control. [1] In effect, the bishops as a collective body gave their Nihil Obstat to SDM, but its Imprimatur was left to the local ordinary of each diocese.
IV A Five-Step Approach
Meanwhile in the prelature, All-NFP training seminars were conducted at the vicariate level and in some parishes. However, the approach was still haphazard, leaving the task of covering all the 19 parishes to a few prelature workers. After a series of consultations, by June 2004, the prelature designed a five-step program for each parish. This would systematize and decentralize the All-NFP program to reach every chapel community (kapilya) or barangay.
Fig. 3 delineates this step-wise progression from the parish to the kapilya and household levels. The five steps comprise: (1) an orientation talk on responsible parenthood and NFP for parish leaders and kapilya representatives; (2) a providers’ training on All-NFP methods for kapilya representatives; (3) an orientation talk on All-NFP for the kapilya community; (4) individual counseling of couples by the provider at the household level; and (5) periodic reporting from the kapilya to the parish up to the prelature levels.
In September 2004, our NFP parish coordinators underwent a four-day refresher course on all NFP methods, given by the staff of the Institute for Reproductive Health (Phil.), an affiliate of Georgetown University which had developed SDM and other simplified NFP methods. Starting with an overview of fertility awareness, the IRH staff went on to discuss the distinctive features of each method to enable the participants to have a comprehensive view of NFP. This has been the content of the providers’ training seminars being given at the parish level ever since. A total of 367 participants, including 68 couples, have taken the training so far. They are now servicing 182 kapilyas or 29% of the total number of 626 chapel communities.
V Progress reports
What then have been the results of our All-NFP program so far? Table 1 gives the breakdown of providers and continuing users in our 19 parishes. As of December 2005, there were 1,125 continuing users. Of these, 742 (or 66%) are SDM users, while 295 (or 26%) are BOM users. There are also 77 breastfeeding mothers, while eleven prefer the temperature method or its combination with the mucus method.
Although the number of NFP users is still a small percentage of the total number of couples, it is a promising figure for a program that has reached out so far to only about a third of the total number of chapel communities. Prelature and parish workers have also been advised not to fast-track the program – to make sure that seminar participants are properly trained to become service providers with values formation and that each couple receives adequate counseling.
Our All-NFP program has been greatly facilitated and sustained by our Basic Ecclesial Communities at the chapel and neighborhood cell levels. Indeed, our pastoral experience in Ipil Prelature indicates that natural family planning is a valid, viable, and vital option for a growing number of couples.
For more information, contact Sr. Ana Lea Pielago, FLA-NFP Coordinator:
Bishop’s Residence Tel.: (062) 333 2266
Prelature of Ipil Fax: (062) 333 2574
Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay E-mail: prelipil@zambo.ph.inter.net
Web: www.bishopledesma.blogspot.com
[1] CBCP, Selective Analytical Index, Plenary Assemblies 1945 – 2003, Manila, 2004, p. 62 & 131.
During the first weekend of February 2006, I joined a training seminar on natural family planning methods in Roxas City. This was sponsored by the Archdiocese of Capiz which was interested to know more about our All-NFP program for Responsible Parenthood in Ipil Prelature. Hence, three trainors from the prelature teamed up with two Manila-based trainors from the Institute for Reproductive Health to give the intensive 2½-day seminar on all NFP methods. In all, there were 62 participants representing 29 of the 33 parishes of the archdiocese.
Some participants had already been teaching the Billings Ovulation Method in pre-Cana seminars. Only a few, however, had heard about the Standard Days Method. And no parish at all had a monitoring system to follow up actual users. Everyone agreed that much more needed to be done to mainstream NFP and to reach out to as many couples as possible. It is in this light that the Capiz parishioners were interested to know more about our pastoral experience in Ipil Prelature in promoting an All-NFP program over the past 3½ years.
I. Pastoral Situation
From a national perspective, the latest Philippine demographic and health survey indicates that only 33% of currently married women are using modern contraceptives, 16% are using traditional methods, and less than one percent are adopting modern NFP methods. Conversely, 51% of all couples do not have any family planning method at all.
Despite more than three decades of government-sponsored promotion of practically free contraceptives, the question can then be raised why only one-third of all couples have accepted contraceptive use. Is it because the other two-thirds of Filipino couples are still looking for a family planning method that is safe, reliable — and natural?
On the other hand, a similar question can be raised why less than one percent of currently married women are adopting modern NFP methods. Has the government – as well as the church – failed to promote NFP? Or are the earlier NFP methods too difficult to adopt?
From our pastoral experience in Ipil, we realize that the majority of couples today have three felt needs:
They want family planning – i.e., to plan the size of their family and to space births;
They prefer natural family planning, if given adequate information on fertility awareness and NFP methods; and
They want to choose among NFP methods – to suit their own circumstances and preference.
Our biggest challenge then may not be to confront government or an international conspiracy but rather to address the felt needs of thousands of married couples in our rural and urban poor neighborhoods. For the most part, these are couples who are looking for and are ready to adopt any of the NFP methods that we can show them to be safe, reliable, inexpensive, and practicable.
II Vision and Pastoral Guidelines
This then is our vision: to mainstream NFP by reaching out to the majority of Filipino couples who are looking for a family planning method that is effective, suited to their own circumstances, and in consonance with the Church’s moral guidelines.
The objectives for our NFP program include the following:
To adopt a proactive pastoral approach to address the felt needs of couples for family planning;
To offer an All-NFP program by making available information on all modern, scientific NFP methods; and
To promote the value formation that is integral to our Family Life Apostolate and to enable couples to make an informed and responsible choice, based on the formation of a right conscience.
In the light of these vision and objectives, we have adopted four pastoral guidelines for our All-NFP program in the prelature (cf. Fig 2).
We are pro-life. This is our first principle. We are at the service of life from the moment of conception. Hence, we are against abortion, which is also proscribed by our Constitution.
We are for Responsible Parenthood. This is our goal – to help 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 the right and responsibility of Christian parents.
We are for Natural Family Planning. This is our recommended means in consonance with the moral teaching of the Church. NFP means the practice of periodic abstinence according to the natural fertility rhythm of the human body. Our promotion of NFP should include all modern, scientifically-tested NFP methods.
We are for enabling couples to make an Informed and Responsible Choice. Within the context of a secular and pluralistic society, the government’s focus is to refrain from coercion and to provide information on all family planning methods that it deems legally acceptable 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 responsible choice.
For the majority of couples who are not using any family planning method at all, the question can be raised whether or not these couples are forced by circumstances to make uninformed and irresponsible choices in a matter that is crucial to their family life. Ultimately, neither the government nor the church can make this choice for couples. It is their inherent right and duty as responsible parents and citizens to have this freedom of choice for themselves. This is the goal of Responsible Parenthood that both Church and State subscribe to.
III Towards an All-NFP Program
Since the mid-70’s, the Prelature of Ipil, which was then a Jesuit Mission District of the Archdiocese of Zamboanga, has been a pilot area for the earlier NFP methods – such as the Basal Body Temperature method (BBT) and the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM). However, with the dissociation of the church from the government’s family planning program and the end of outside funding by the mid-80’s, the NFP program reached a plateau and slowed down.
In October 2001, some of our prelature workers visited Impasugong, Bukidnon, where a new NFP method, called the Standard Days Method (SDM), was being piloted among small farmer couples. Because of its simplicity in teaching fertility awareness with the aid of a string of cycle beads, practically all the parishes agreed to include SDM in, what we now call, the All-NFP program for the prelature.
SDM is a new calendar-based method of family planning based on fertility awareness. It helps a woman know her fertile days by simply counting the days of her cycle, starting with the first day of menstruation. It identifies days 8-19 of the cycle as the fertile period when pregnancy may occur if there is intercourse. Days 1-7 and the rest of the days after day 19 are identified as non-fertile days.
SDM’s “fertile window” of days 8-19 has been standardized and is applicable only for women whose menstrual cycles range from 26 to 32 days. It is estimated that three-fourths of all women are within this cycle range. Hence, it is made clear from the outset that SDM is not applicable to all women. In this sense, despite its simplicity, SDM cannot be the exclusive NFP method for the local church to promote; but neither should it be the excluded method.
SDM was developed by the Institute for Reproductive Health (IRH) of Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic university in the United States. It is the result of an extensive research process spanning six years since the mid-90’s, involving pilot sites in Bolivia, Peru and the Philippines. It has been clinically tested with a high effectiveness rate of 95.25%.
To help women track the days of their menstrual cycle, IRH devised a necklace or cycle beads consisting of 32 colored beads, representing the day of menstruation (red), the fertile days (white), and the infertile days (brown). Hence, couples can easily know the days when they should abstain from intercourse if they wish to avoid pregnancy. Or they may also use the same beads to achieve pregnancy.
In July 2003, at the CBCP plenary assembly, the bishops passed a consensus vote recognizing SDM as a method that “could be used by a diocese in its program of Natural Family Planning,” provided it was not combined with contraceptives and it was not seen as part of the government’s total Family Planning Program for population control. [1] In effect, the bishops as a collective body gave their Nihil Obstat to SDM, but its Imprimatur was left to the local ordinary of each diocese.
IV A Five-Step Approach
Meanwhile in the prelature, All-NFP training seminars were conducted at the vicariate level and in some parishes. However, the approach was still haphazard, leaving the task of covering all the 19 parishes to a few prelature workers. After a series of consultations, by June 2004, the prelature designed a five-step program for each parish. This would systematize and decentralize the All-NFP program to reach every chapel community (kapilya) or barangay.
Fig. 3 delineates this step-wise progression from the parish to the kapilya and household levels. The five steps comprise: (1) an orientation talk on responsible parenthood and NFP for parish leaders and kapilya representatives; (2) a providers’ training on All-NFP methods for kapilya representatives; (3) an orientation talk on All-NFP for the kapilya community; (4) individual counseling of couples by the provider at the household level; and (5) periodic reporting from the kapilya to the parish up to the prelature levels.
In September 2004, our NFP parish coordinators underwent a four-day refresher course on all NFP methods, given by the staff of the Institute for Reproductive Health (Phil.), an affiliate of Georgetown University which had developed SDM and other simplified NFP methods. Starting with an overview of fertility awareness, the IRH staff went on to discuss the distinctive features of each method to enable the participants to have a comprehensive view of NFP. This has been the content of the providers’ training seminars being given at the parish level ever since. A total of 367 participants, including 68 couples, have taken the training so far. They are now servicing 182 kapilyas or 29% of the total number of 626 chapel communities.
V Progress reports
What then have been the results of our All-NFP program so far? Table 1 gives the breakdown of providers and continuing users in our 19 parishes. As of December 2005, there were 1,125 continuing users. Of these, 742 (or 66%) are SDM users, while 295 (or 26%) are BOM users. There are also 77 breastfeeding mothers, while eleven prefer the temperature method or its combination with the mucus method.
Although the number of NFP users is still a small percentage of the total number of couples, it is a promising figure for a program that has reached out so far to only about a third of the total number of chapel communities. Prelature and parish workers have also been advised not to fast-track the program – to make sure that seminar participants are properly trained to become service providers with values formation and that each couple receives adequate counseling.
Our All-NFP program has been greatly facilitated and sustained by our Basic Ecclesial Communities at the chapel and neighborhood cell levels. Indeed, our pastoral experience in Ipil Prelature indicates that natural family planning is a valid, viable, and vital option for a growing number of couples.
For more information, contact Sr. Ana Lea Pielago, FLA-NFP Coordinator:
Bishop’s Residence Tel.: (062) 333 2266
Prelature of Ipil Fax: (062) 333 2574
Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay E-mail: prelipil@zambo.ph.inter.net
Web: www.bishopledesma.blogspot.com
[1] CBCP, Selective Analytical Index, Plenary Assemblies 1945 – 2003, Manila, 2004, p. 62 & 131.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Solidary Humanism
(From Gaudium et Spes to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)
The year 2005 marked the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” (or Gaudium et Spes). This document focuses on the Church’s relations ad extra –– i.e., sharing “the joys and the hopes” of the world. It synthesizes in contemporary accents the Church’s social teachings from the first social encyclical of Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century to the encyclicals of Pope John XXIII in the 1960’s.
In its opening chapters, the document touches on recurrent themes such as the Church’s mission in the world, the dignity of the human person, and the challenges of modern-day atheism. In its second part, Gaudium et Spes focuses on problems of special urgency such as: marriage and the family, culture, socio-economic life, the political community, and world peace.
One concrete result of Gaudium et Spes was the creation of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace which was tasked by the Holy Father to carry on the Church’s dialogue with the world on the social issues of the day and to help guide the Church’s pastoral action in society. It was with this mandate that the Pontifical Council convened in Rome in October 2004 the First World Congress of Ecclesial Organizations Working for Justice and Peace.
There were two interrelated reasons for the congress: first, to prepare for the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Gaudium et Spes; and secondly, to launch the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which had just been published by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. After five years of preparation that started under the PCJP presidency of the late Cardinal Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, the 525-page Compendium has finally come to light and offers “a concise but complete overview of the Church’s social teaching.”
In systematic fashion, the Compendium takes up once more the classical themes of Gaudium et Spes, this time expanded with citations from other ecclesial documents, particularly Pope John Paul II’s three social encyclicals and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994).
The Compendium contains three parts. Part One, comprising four chapters, discusses the presuppositions of the Church’s Social Doctrine: God’s plan of love for humanity; the Church’s mission and social doctrine; the human person and human rights; and the principles of the Church’s social doctrine.
Part Two, composed of seven chapters, contains an up-to-date examination of the traditional themes of social doctrine: the family, human work, economic life, the political community, the international community, and the promotion of peace. A noteworthy addition is a chapter on the environment.
Part Three, in a single chapter, contains recommendations for pastoral action in the social field and dwells in particular on the commitment of the lay faithful. The Compendium concludes with an invitation to the men and women of our age to build a “civilization of love” –– the over-arching motif of the entire document.
At the dawn of the third millennium, the Compendium is offered as a continuing work in progress not only for Catholics but also for brethren of other faiths as well as for “all people of good will who are committed to serving the common good.”
If Gaudium et Spes has been characterized by Cardinal Renato Martino, current PCJP President, as containing the “genetic code” for the Church’s social apostolate, the Compendium can well be viewed as the vademecum for today’s church worker in the social field – as bishop, priest, religious or, especially, as lay person. Comprising about a third of the Compendium is a valuable analytical index that provides cross references for the topical themes of the Church’s social teachings.
A papal audience for the delegates provided a high point for the world congress. In his brief message, the late Pope John Paul II forcefully remarked:
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has just been published as an instrument meant to help Christians in their daily commitment to make the world more just, from the perspective of a true solidary humanism. The social doctrine is ‘an essential part of the Christian message’ (Centesimus Annus, 5) and must be better known, integrally spread and witnessed to by constant and coherent pastoral action.
For the Church, there is no socio-pastoral action without a social doctrine; but neither can there be a social doctrine without pastoral action.
Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
Bishop, Prelature of Ipil
Member, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Natural Family Planning – the Untried Option?
Ligtas Buntis, with its double meaning of “safe pregnancy” and “safe from pregnancy,” has been launched since February 2005 by the Department of Health as a nationwide campaign to “provide adequate and factual information on fertility and various medically safe and legally acceptable family planning services.”[1] At about the same time, Congress has been deliberating on House Bill No. 3773, which declares a national policy on “responsible parenthood, effective population management and sustainable human development.”[2] Consistent with their earlier stand, spokespersons for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines have registered strong opposition to both the reproductive health campaign and the proposed bill.[3]But, even as the debate continues, both sides are agreed that natural family planning methods should be promoted as an option for couples. Indeed, DOH Sec. Manuel Dayrit has pointed out that health workers under Ligtas Buntis are first enjoined to discuss fertility awareness to enlighten couples that they are capable of practicing NFP even before discussing various methods of family planning. In effect, according to him, the campaign is “the greatest opportunity the country has ever enjoyed to promote Natural Family Planning.”[4] It is in this light, that our pastoral experience in the Prelature of Ipil over the past three years may offer some on-the-ground perspectives.
I. From BBT and BOM to All-NFP
Since the mid-70’s, the Prelature of Ipil, which was then a Jesuit Mission District of the Archdiocese of Zamboanga, has been a pilot area for the earlier NFP methods – such as the Basal Body Temperature method (BBT) and the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM). However, with the dissociation of the church from the government’s family planning program at that time and the end of outside funding by the mid-80’s, the NFP program reached a plateau and slowed down.
In October 2001, however, some of our prelature workers visited Impasugong, Bukidnon, where a new NFP method, called the Standard Days Method (SDM), was being piloted among small farmer couples. The prelature followed this up with a seminar in February 2002 on Family Life and Responsible Parenthood for all our parish priests, religious sisters and selected lay workers.
Because of its simplicity in teaching fertility awareness with the aid of a string of cycle beads, practically all the parishes agreed to include SDM in, what we now call, the All-NFP program for the prelature. A team translated the training manuals provided by the Institute of Reproductive Health (IRH) of Georgetown University which had been developing SDM since the mid-90’s. These manuals were also complemented by our value formation modules for our family life apostolate.
In February 2003, during the prelature’s Family Day, held as an echo of the Fourth World Meeting of Families in Manila held the previous month, the prelature formally launched its NFP-SDM program. In July of the same year, at the CBCP plenary assembly, the bishops passed a consensus vote recognizing SDM as an NFP method, provided it was not combined with contraceptives.[5]
Training seminars were conducted at the vicariate level and in some parishes. However, the approach was still haphazard, leaving the task of covering all the 19 parishes to a few prelature workers. After a series of consultations, by June 2004, the prelature designed a five-step program for each parish. This would systematize and decentralize the All-NFP program to reach every chapel community (kapilya) or barangay.
Fig. 1 delineates this step-wise progression from the parish to the kapilya and household levels. The five steps comprise: (1) an orientation talk on responsible parenthood and NFP for parish leaders and kapilya representatives; (2) a providers’ training on All-NFP methods for kapilya representatives; (3) an orientation talk on All-NFP for the kapilya community; (4) individual counseling of couples by the kapilya-based provider; and (5) periodic reporting from the kapilya to the parish up to the prelature levels.
In September 2004, our NFP parish coordinators underwent a four-day refresher course on all NFP methods, given by the IRH staff. Starting with an overview of fertility awareness, the IRH staff went on to discuss the distinctive features of each method to enable the participants to have a comprehensive view of NFP. This has since been the content of the providers’ training seminars being given at the parish level.
Table 1 gives a six-month progress report on the service providers’ training in 13 of the 19 parishes. A total of 218 participants, including 53 couples, have taken the training so far. They represent 113 kapilyas or 18% of the total number of 626 chapel communities. A kapilya is usually coterminous with a barangay, although some large barangays may have two or three kapilyas. Not all the kapilyas were represented in the initial seminars either due to distance or lack of volunteers. A second round of seminars for clusters of parishes is being planned to reach out to the rest of the kapilyas.
What then have been the results of our All-NFP program so far? Table 2 gives the breakdown of starting and continuing users, including those who have dropped out. As of March 2005, there were 627 continuing users. Of these, 434 (or 69%) are SDM users, while 164 (or 26%) are BOM users. There are also 25 breastfeeding mothers, while four prefer the temperature method or its combination with the mucus method. The lack of thermometers, however, has been a problem for BBT users.
From the parish coordinators’ reports, 59 NFP users have dropped out for various reasons – e.g., wrong use of the method, lack of interest, pregnancy, etc. It is instructive to note, however, that only one or two users have ascribed their pregnancy due to a failure of the method itself. Two parishes were not able to provide their reports due to reorganizational difficulties.
Although the number of NFP users is still a fraction of the total number of couples, it is a promising figure for a program that has reached out so far to only a fifth of the total number of chapel communities. Prelature and parish workers have also been advised not to fast-track the program – to make sure that seminar participants are properly trained to become service providers and that each couple receives adequate counseling.
II. Objectives and Pastoral Guidelines
What are our vision and objectives for the All-NFP program in the prelature? These are based on the current situation we find in the prelature as well as perhaps in the rest of the country.
First, couples themselves have expressed a desire and felt need for family planning. This is verified by the parish priests’ interviews of couples preparing to get married. Invariably, couples want to limit the number of their children or space their births.
Secondly, many couples have expressed a growing awareness of the health risks of contraceptives such as pills or intrauterine devices. Indeed, many of our NFP users have shifted from the earlier use of contraceptives due to these health reasons. Husbands have also signified their concern over their wives’ health in this regard.
A third reason is economic: government health centers are no longer supplying free contraceptives. In contrast, NFP methods are practically cost-free or incur a one-time cost for purchasing a thermometer or a set of cycle beads. In the long run, NFP for rural households is more sustainable.
From a national perspective, the latest Philippine demographic and health survey indicates that only 33% of currently married women are using modern contraceptives, 16% are using traditional methods, and less than one percent are adopting modern NFP methods. Conversely, 51% of all couples do not have any family planning method at all (Table 3).
Despite more than three decades of government-sponsored promotion of practically free contraceptives, the question can then seriously be raised why only one third of all couples have accepted contraceptive use. Is it because the other two-thirds of Filipino couples are still looking for a family planning method that is safe, reliable — and natural?
On the other hand, a similar question can be raised why less than one percent of currently married women are adopting modern NFP methods. Has the government – as well as the church – failed to promote NFP? Or are the earlier NFP methods too difficult to adopt?
This then is our vision: to mainstream NFP by reaching out to the majority of Filipino couples who are looking for a family planning method that is safe, reliable, practicable, suited to their own circumstances, and in consonance with the Church’s moral guidelines.
The objectives for our NFP program include the following:
1. To adopt a proactive pastoral approach to address the felt needs of couples for family planning;
2. To offer an All-NFP program by making available information on all modern, scientific NFP methods – i.e., Basal Body Temperature (BBT); Billings Ovulation Method (BOM); Sympto-Thermal Method (STM); Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM); and Standard Days Method (SDM).[6]
3. To promote the value formation that is integral to our Family Life Apostolate and to enable couples to make an informed and responsible choice, based on the formation of a right conscience.
In the light of these vision and objectives, we have adopted four pastoral guidelines for our All-NFP program in the prelature (cf. Fig 2).
We are pro-life. This is our first principle. We are at the service of life from the moment of conception. Hence, we are against abortion, which is also proscribed by our Constitution.
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 the right and duty of Christian parents.[7]
We are for Natural Family Planning. This is our recommended means in consonance with the moral teaching of the Church. NFP means the practice of periodic abstinence according to the natural fertility rhythm of the human body. Our promotion of NFP should include all modern, scientifically-tested NFP methods.[8]
We are for enabling couples to make an Informed and Responsible Choice. Within the context of a secular and pluralistic society, the government’s focus is to refrain from coercion and to provide information on all family planning methods that it deems necessary and legally acceptable for couples to make an informed choice. This should eventually redound to the common good of society.[9]
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 responsible choice. For the majority of couples who are not using any family planning method at all, the question can be raised whether or not these couples are forced by circumstances to make uninformed and irresponsible choices in a matter that is crucial to their family life.
Ultimately, neither the government nor the church can make this choice for couples. It is their inherent right and duty as responsible parents and citizens to have this freedom of choice for themselves. This is the goal of Responsible Parenthood that both Church and State subscribe to.
III. Looking Ahead
What have been our learnings so far over the past three years in promoting a revitalized NFP program in the prelature?
First, natural family planning is not only a question of methods but more so of a way of life. Hence, the church’s value formation, starting with our understanding of the human person, is essential to motivate couples and to help them appreciate the integral soundness of NFP for their family life. Indeed, our NFP program is viewed as a ministry and part of our Family Life Apostolate.
Secondly, NFP methods require more time and patience to teach. This includes a basic understanding of the fertility rhythm of the human body, as well as the observation of the various natural signs related to ovulation. In this regard, NFP service providers have to be properly trained to provide adequate counseling for individual couples. This is in contrast to the “quick fix” mentality often associated with dispensers of artificial contraceptives.
Thirdly, there is a whole range of modern scientifically-tested NFP methods and approaches that are available today. Couples interested in NFP appreciate being given an overview of all the methods to enable them to choose a particular method suited to their own circumstances. Even as we take exception to the government’s “cafeteria” approach in presenting all methods, it is a pastoral imperative on our part to make available information on all modern NFP methods that could help couples make an informed and responsible choice.
Fourthly, among these various methods, our NFP promoters have found the Standard Days Method the most widely acceptable because of its simplicity. On the other hand, we have also noted that not a few NFP users have learned to combine NFP methods or have moved from one method to another (e.g., from SDM to BOM, or vice versa). Moreover, couples using a traditional rhythm method with their home-made formula of fertile and infertile days can readily shift to SDM without much difficulty.
It is for these reasons that we enjoin other dioceses as well as government agencies to recognize SDM as a modern NFP method that can more readily be taught to interested couples. There should be no mixing with contraceptives, and only women whose cycles fall within the cycle range of SDM should be counseled to adopt this method. Leaving out SDM from the “generic” family of NFP methods would likely exclude 70% of potential NFP users, based on our records.
Fifthly, much of our NFP promotion in Ipil Prelature has been done by resident volunteers – women, men, and couples – who view NFP as an integral dimension of their own family life. Except for the prelature and parish coordinators who receive minimal allowances, the day-to-day services and counseling are done by ordinary housewives and husbands without a fee. Along these lines, the NFP program has been greatly facilitated by our Basic Ecclesial Community structures at the chapel and neighborhood cell levels.
Volunteerism in this regard can be seen as both an asset and a liability – an asset because it highlights the sense of Christian altruism of many workers, but also a liability because there are few full-time workers, and logistical support for trainings, transportation, etc. is limited.
Sixth, if government is sincere in pushing for a responsible parenthood program that is sensitive to the religious sentiments of the majority of Filipinos, it should consider a two-track system for providing information and services for family planning. It could set aside public funds separately for local church communities or non-government organizations that promote an inclusive NFP program, which should not be seen as connected with contraceptive use at all.
In the prelature, we have noted that when barangay health workers of the government present all family planning methods together, there is a tendency for them to focus on “instant” contraceptives, or to adulterate NFP methods by suggesting contraceptives as a back-up method.
Finally, the advocacy of many church groups against the government’s agenda for reproductive health and population management could be reinforced and gain more credibility if it were matched by a concrete program for natural family planning at the local levels.
Indeed, at the 8th Plenary Assembly of the Federation of Asian Bishops in Korea in August 2004, with its theme, “The Asian Family Toward a Culture of Integral Life,” the Philippine delegates strongly recommended that “responsible parenthood and natural family planning be given particular importance in all dioceses and parishes.”[10]
Notwithstanding the oftentimes acrimonious debates that are heard over family and life issues, much can be gained if church and government can enter into a working relationship to promote a comprehensive NFP program that no one is against – but apparently no one else has tried out either. Indeed, our All-NFP pastoral experience in Ipil Prelature indicates that NFP is a valid, viable, and vital option for a growing number of couples.
Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
Bishop, Prelature of Ipil
[1] “Ligtas Buntis 2005 campaign” information flyer.
[2] Summarized by Congresswoman Josefina Joson, Chair, Committee on Women, House of Representatives, at the Breakfast Dialogue on “Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005,” sponsored by the Bishops-Businessmen’s Conference for Human Development, Makati, 16 March 2005.
[3] Atty. Jo Imbong, Executive Secretary, CBCP Legal Office, “Reckless and Irresponsible, The Legal Implications of Population Control,” 25 January 2005; and Archbishop Fernando Capalla, CBCP President, “Hold on to Your Precious Gift,” Manila, 18 February 2005.
[4] Manuel Dayrit, Secretary of Health, Letter to Brothers and Sisters in Christ, 28 January 2005.
[5] CBCP, Selective Analytical Index, Plenary Assemblies 1945 – 2003, Manila, 2004, p. 62 & 131.
[6] Another NFP method that may be disseminated soon by IRH – Georgetown, after several years of testing, is the Two Days Method.
[7] “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.” (Acts and Decrees of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, CBCP, Manila, 1991, no. 583.)
[8] “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, are 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.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican City, 1994, no. 2370.)
[9] “The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.” (CCC, no. 2372)
[10] Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, Chairman, Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, Report to the CBCP Plenary Assembly, 23 January 2005.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Natural Family Planning and SDM in the Local Church
At the plenary assembly of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in July 2003, two consensus votes were taken with regard to family planning. The first vote was a no to collaboration with the government’s total family planning program. The second vote, however, was a yes to the diocese’s use of the Standard Days Method (SDM) in its own program of natural family planning (NFP) — without any contraceptive component and without collaboration with government.The first vote maintained the Church’s critical stance against the government’s population program, which was still perceived to be dictated by a contraceptive mentality. This apprehension among bishops persisted even if the present administration of President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, a devout Catholic, had earlier indicated its preference for natural family planning methods.
Indeed, this preference for the NFP methods by government was heightened by the introduction of a new and simpler NFP method, called the Standard Days Method. Ironically, however, objections to SDM came not from government quarters but from several church-related groups, particularly those who were promoting the earlier-recognized NFP methods such as the Basal Body Temperature method (BBT), the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM), and the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM).
For them, SDM was suspect because it was being promoted by government, presumably with some back-up contraceptive methods; the research for SDM was funded by USAID; the method was not yet fully tested; and it was nothing more than the old calendar-rhythm method that had already been discredited as unreliable. Moreover, SDM could not be considered as NFP because it did not involve the daily examination of bodily signs and symptoms.
This then is the significance of the second vote at the CBCP assembly. Notwithstanding these objections, the bishops as a body recognized SDM in itself as a natural family planning method. Provided it is not mixed with contraceptives, is not seen as a government program with its cafeteria approach, and is accompanied with the proper value formation to avoid a contraceptive mentality, the bishops did not voice any objections to the inclusion of SDM in the local church’s program for natural family planning. Indeed, since the CBCP has distanced itself from the government’s NFP program, all the more should the local church promote its own comprehensive NFP program that includes SDM.
What is the Standard Days Method in the first place? SDM is a new calendar-based method of family planning based on fertility awareness. It helps a woman know her fertile days by simply counting the days of her cycle, starting with the first day of menstruation. It identifies days 8-19 of the cycle as the fertile period when pregnancy may occur if there is intercourse. Days 1-7 and the rest of the days after day 19 are identified as non-fertile days.
SDM’s “fertile window” of days 8-19 has been standardized and is applicable only for women whose menstrual cycles range from 26 to 32 days. It is made clear from the outset that SDM is not applicable to all women. In this sense, despite its simplicity, SDM cannot be the exclusive NFP method for the local church to promote; but neither should it be the excluded method.
SDM was developed by the Institute for Reproductive Health (IRH) of Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic university in the United States. It is the result of an extensive research process spanning sic years since the mid-90s, involving pilot sites in Bolivia, Peru and the Philippines. The concept of SDM was first validated through computer simulation of over 7, 600 cycles provided by the World Health Organization from its ovulation method trials. It has since then been clinically tested with a high effectiveness rate of 95.25% in the three countries where almost 500 women were followed up for 13 cycles.
To help women track the days of their menstrual cycle, IRH devised a necklace of cycle beads consisting of 32 colored beads, representing the day of menstruation (red), the fertile days (white), and the infertile days (brown). Hence, couples can easily know the days when they should abstain from intercourse if they wish to avoid pregnancy. Or they may also use the same beads to achieve pregnancy.
Currently, SDM is being introduced in 14 countries, including India, Turkey, and Egypt, and several smaller countries in Africa and Latin America. In the U.S. as well as in other parts of the world, the cycle beads for SDM are being sold over the internet. Following its mandate, IRH-Georgetown continues to test and develop other simplified NFP methods. Earlier, it had developed the Lactational Amennorhea Method (LAM), which is now widely promoted by both government and church agencies. It also continues to streamline teaching aids for BOM and STM promoters.
In October 2003, a training workshop for NFP-SDM providers was hosted by Malaybay Diocese and opened to other dioceses in Mindanao. Five dioceses sent participants. The majority came from seven pilot parishes in Bukidnon, including the parish of Phillips. Spanning three decades since the mid-70’s, Camp Phillips had hosted the interdiocesan training program on the earlier-known NFP methods. This was sponsored periodically by the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life.
In their sharing, the participants saw the usefulness and need for a simplified method like SDM to be included in the church’s NFP program—particularly for those who found it difficult to keep daily records of body temperature or mucus characteristics. This assessment of SDM was reinforced during their field visits to two pilot barangays where SDM had been introduced over the past two years with the help of a non-government organization.
In one site, SDM was found to be widely acceptable not only among Catholics but also among couples of other religious affiliations. A notable number of couples had chosen to shift from the use of contraceptives to SDM. In the other site, a mother described how SDM was now being passed on to the next generation: her own 16-year old daughter was the one reminding her to move the cycle beads everyday.
Moreover, in other parts of Mindanao, Muslim couples have also expressed their interest in SDM as an NFP method. During the first quarter of 2004, two more training workshops for NFP-SDM providers were hosted by the local churches of Basilan and Sulu for their family life workers, including several Muslim women. The participants were enthusiastic about SDM as a practicable method that could easily be taught to both Christian and Muslim communities.
It is in this light that all these participants were perhaps simply reflecting the sentiments of Fr. Vicente San Juan, S.J., former ECFL executive secretary, and prime mover for many years of the NFP training course in Phillips. Although now in semi-retirement, Fr. San Juan had no qualms in endorsing SDM as a new NFP method, remarking that the principal criterion should be “what a method does to a couple’s life.”
In the Prelature of Ipil, we have included SDM as an added option in our natural family planning program under our family life apostolate. Even as we continue to promote the earlier-known methods, we note that the couples themselves have found SDM a much easier method to learn. “Why did you not teach this to us earlier?” has been a common reaction. We have also devised a less expensive string of “vertical beads” to help couples track the days of the menstrual cycle.
However, because the practice of NFP entails a way of life, our family life workers have made sure to include formation life values in the promotion of NFP-SDM. Part of this value formation is to enable couples to choose NFP as a truly human and Christian option, without combining it with other artificial contraceptives. The rule-of-thumb criterion for NFP is made clear: “no DIDO,” i.e. “no drugs, injections, devices, or operations.” Compared to the earlier NFP methods that our family life workers have been teaching over the past two decades, we find that the rate of acceptance of SDM in our pilot parishes over the past two years has increased markedly.
Indeed, couples themselves who have shifted from contraceptives to SDM tell us that the main reason they did so was SDM is natural. In this light, the prelature has included SDM in the array of modern NFP methods that we are making known to couples—first, as an added option for couples in their desire to follow the moral guidelines of the church; and secondly, as a pastoral imperative for the local church, to enable couples to make an informed and responsible choice with regard to family planning. Over all, in our 19 parishes, as of June 2004, our family life workers have tallied 366 current users of natural family planning methods: 261 with SDM, 102 with BOM, and one each with BBT, STM, and LAM.
“The future of humanity,” points of Pope John Paul II, “passes by way of the family.” The same thing can be said of the population issue confronting developing countries like the Philippines today. Population management cannot be done by government alone; ultimately it rests on countless couples exercising responsible parenthood through family planning. For Catholic couples, this means natural family planning. And the more NFP options we can make available to them, the more we can empower them to exercise responsible parenthood.
In commemorating last year the 40th anniversary of the encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John Paul II reminds us his predecessor’s teaching that every human right involves a correspondingly duty. The same reminder can be made with regard to the whole area of family life. Couples should exercise their rights as well as their responsibilities of parenthood.
Going beyond structures to reach out people, the Holy Father invites us to engage in “gestures of peace” in our present-day world. Couples adopting NFP methods, including SDM, are hopefully among those who manifest these gestures of peace—and development—for the good of their families and the common good of their nation.
Natural Family Planning--Dream or Reality?
Last September 2005 at the BEC National Assembly in Cebu, I shared with the participants “A Formation Program on Natural Family Planning for BECs in Ipil Prelature.” A number of delegates expressed their interest to adopt a similar NFP program in their areas.To date, our Responsible Parenthood—NFP program has tabulated an encouraging total of 1,025 NFP users throughout the prelature. So far, we have covered a fourth of our 626 kapilya communities. A distinctive aspect of our program is that we provide information on all modern NFP methods, including the Standard Days Method. This is what we now call our All-NFP program.
CLARIFICATIONS
Unfortunately, there continue to be some apprehensions about SDM as an NFP method. At the Mindanao regional meeting of Family & Life coordinators in Malaybalay in mid-September, these apprehensions were raised once more. Allow me then to clarify some issues based on our pastoral experience in Ipil.
1. On SDM as a natural family planning method:
In our consensus vote at the CBCP plenary assembly in July 2003, we all agreed that SDM in itself was a natural method and could be included in the diocese’s own NFP program, provided it was not mixed with contraceptives and was not seen as part of a government program that promotes contraceptives. Archbishop P. Aniceto reiterated this CBCP stand at the Malaybalay meeting.
In the prelature, we have included SDM in our All-NFP program, even before government workers became aware of this new method. Integrated in the program is our value formation which advocates for abstinence and precludes any use of back-up contraceptive methods during the fertile period. As a rule of thumb, we stress to couples that NFP means no DIDO—i.e., no drugs, injections, devices, or operations. We have also adapted and translated our own NFP training manual, which includes modules on value formation.
2. On the effectivity of SDM:
Among our 675 SDM users, we have had only a handful of complaints regarding the failure of the method itself. This is expected since no method is perfect. Among starting users of any of the NFP methods that we advocate, there have indeed been some drop-outs, but these have been due mostly to the wrong use of the method, lack of interest, or planned pregnancy, and not principally due to the failure of the method itself.
On the whole, SDM users in the prelature have been adopting the method for one to three years now because they have found it to be simple, effective, and practicable.
3. On SDM as a “recycled rhythm method”:
The earlier calendar rhythm method was a customized method, based on the individual woman’s calculation of her shortest and longest cycles from six previous recorded cycles. This then involved some cumbersome computations to determine the first and the last fertile days of the next cycle.
SDM on the other hand, is a standardized method, based on computer simulations of statistical probabilities which make it applicable to a large segment of the population—in this case, women with average regular cycles of 26 up to 32 days. Starting from the first day of menstruation, days 8-19 are identified as the fertile period. The effectivity rate of 95.25% has been validated through clinical field trials in three countries where almost 500 women were followed up for 13 cycles.
It is good to keep in mind that the original calendar rhythm method developed from the pioneering work of Ogino and Knaus is still recognized by the Church as a morally valid method. Pastorally, however, its reliability has been questioned because of the meticulous calculations involved on the one hand and the inaccurate popularizations of the method on the other.
It is this same principle of using a calendar that has been simplified in a scientific way in SDM to make it practicable and reliable for a wider number of women. In the prelature, we find that about two-thirds of NFP users prefer this standardized method because of its simplicity and ease of learning.
4. On SDM as a method that is “bound to fail and promote the use of contraceptives”:
One reason for our All-NFP program is to give couples the widest latitude in choosing the NFP method that for them is suitable, reliable and not “bound to fail.” Indeed, many couples tell us that they choose SDM because they themselves want to move away from contraceptives.
Several couples told us that the 12-day period of abstinence in SDM did create difficulties for them for the first few months. But they have eventually learned to cope with this. Not the least of the factors behind this is their understanding of sacrifice in a truly Christian marriage. What is also equally important for them is that now they are surer in determining the fertile and infertile periods. A number of “traditional rhythm” practitioners, using their own homemade formula of fertile and infertile days, have shifted to SDM without much difficulty. Moreover, in addition to SDM, almost a third of our NFP users are adopting the Billings Ovulation Method.
5. On the Billings method as the only NFP method to be taught:
For over three decades we have been teaching the Billings Ovulation Method, and continue to do so. However, our family life workers have found the acceptability rate of BOM to be limited, due to the requirements of daily charting and follow-up by a trainor for three to six months. Some women can hardly read or write. Others have expressed their cultural aversion to minute examination of the cervical mucus. We note that the more educated women, like public school teachers, are the ones more likely to stay with BOM. We also find that for many couples the choice is not so much between BOM and SDM, but rather between SDM and artificial contraceptives.
In this light, we find that an inclusive NFP program promoting all modern NFP methods is more acceptable to couples and can reach more households even in the most remote areas. Paradoxically, we have more BOM users today in our All-NFP program than during the time when BOM was being taught alone. It is left ultimately for the couple to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each method, with the help of individual counseling. Some couples also learn to combine methods, or shift from one method to another. This, we believe, is a more mature aspect of their value formation in responsible parenthood.
6. On the use of SDM cycle beads:
The cycle beads have variously been described as a necklace, a new kind of “rosary” or even as a “satanic” device. Simply put, the cycle beads are only an aid to measuring and identifying the days of the menstrual cycle; they are not the method itself. In the prelature, we have devised a less expensive string of “vertical beads” that serve the same purpose. Couples also tell us that the beads have helped them to communicate better with each other on a matter that is often left unspoken.
7. On the prelature’s promotion of SDM because of outside funding:
Ever since we started our revitalized NFP program three years ago, the Prelature of Ipil has depended mostly on its own limited resources. We have not received any funding from Philippine or foreign governments for our activities. We simply consider these activities part of our Family Life Apostolate to promote responsible parenthood through natural family planning.
We have received some assistance from private donors who believe in NFP to subsidize our training seminars. But we depend mostly on the volunteer services of hundreds of NFP providers in our kapilya communities to sustain and expand the program. This is why we feel optimistic that our experience could easily be replicated by other interested dioceses, particularly through our Basic Ecclesial Community structures.
OUR COMMON CHALLENGE
Whither then, NFP? Is there an urgent need to set up a concrete program for natural family planning in every diocese? From our pastoral experience in Ipil, we realize that the majority of couples today have three felt needs:
1) They want family planning – i.e., to plan the size of their family and to space births;
2) They prefer natural family planning, if given adequate information on fertility awareness and NFP methods; and
3) They want to choose among NFP methods – to suit their own circumstances and preference.
It is in this light that I would plead for openness and dialogue in our discussions and common concern over natural family planning methods. Let us come together to encourage, not disparage, each other’s pastoral program. There is no need for acrimonious debates when we should all be confronting the more urgent pastoral needs of couples. Let us not be afraid to innovate and take risks if we want to address the pastoral needs of a greater number of households.
Regardless of which NFP methods we wish to promote, at the very least, we should be ready to show the actual numbers of NFP users in our localities. For a program without numbers is not a pastoral reality; at best, it remains an advocacy dream.
In my own talks to CEAP educators and religious organizations lately, many have expressed their readiness to work closely with bishops in promoting a concrete NFP program in their localities. Catholic doctors, midwives, and even public health workers have also expressed their readiness to work with the local church in promoting NFP. Perhaps it is time to go beyond just saying “No!” to government programs and to say “Yes!” to our own NFP program.
Our biggest challenge today may not be to confront government or an international conspiracy but rather to address the felt needs of thousands of married couples in our rural and urban poor neighborhoods. For the most part, these are couples who are looking for and are ready to adopt any of the NFP methods that we can show them to be safe, reliable, inexpensive, and practicable.
On the part of the Prelature of Ipil, despite our limitations, may I extend an open invitation for any observers to visit our NFP pilot sites. We also have a training team on all NFP methods that is ready to give seminars upon invitation and to share our NFP pastoral experience in the prelature.
Hoping that you share this vision and this letter with your Family Life coordinators, and with my best wishes and prayers for a dynamic NFP ministry throughout the country.
welcome
This is the new blog of Bishop Antonio J. Ledesma, SJ. Talks, reflections and articles will be posted soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
