SOLIDARITY MESSAGE FOR SUMILAO FARMERS

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees,to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people...”(Isaiah 10:1-2; NIV)

Reclaiming human dignity and abject poverty drives the 54 Sumilao farmers to pursue a historic “Walk for Sumilao Land, Walk for Justice”. Unlike the Israelites journey in Moses’ time, a ‘promised land flowing with milk and honey’ awaits them as Yahweh guaranteed. For the Sumilao farmers, however, there is nothing sweet or similar that they can look forward to when they reach Manila. Their long and arduous walk is a leap of faith with no assurance of any possible fulfillment of their claims. Unquestionably, the indomitable spirit they showed to the rest of the Filipino people in pursuing their struggle could only come from their strong faith and complete trust to God our Creator.

The Central Committee of the Second National Rural Congress (NRC-II) is one with you in spirit and in prayers in putting forward your pressing issues, in reclaiming the 144-hectare ancestral land that once belong to your people. As shepherds of God’s flock we extend our hands in in spiritual guidance, until your dignity as a people shall be restored and work with you in overcoming privation.

We urge our government officials at Malacanang and the Department of Agrarian Reform to sincerely listen to the Sumilao farmers’ aspirations. We don’t demand for special favor for our Sumilao brothers and sisters. We only pray that the social justice spirit of the law be given utmost regard. Let this be a positive signal to the government’s call of transforming agrarian reform beneficiaries as agribusiness men and women, of putting agrarian reform at the center of rural development.

The Sumilao farmers’ journey for land and justice is an inspiration to many people worth emulating – to the landless tenants in large haciendas and farmworkers in agribusiness plantations asserting their rights under the agrarian law, to our indigenous brothers and sisters claiming their ancestral lands and to agrarian reform advocates supporting the just cause of farmers, farmworkers and indigenous peoples.

Ang among panalangin sa atong Langitnong Amahan maga-uban kaninyo sa tibuok ninyong paglakaw ug ilayo kamo sa sakit o katalagman ug ampingan hangtud sa inyong malampusong pag-abot sa Maynila. Lakip niini ang among pangamuyo nga malamdagan ang atong mga opisyales sa gobyerno ug ipatuman kaninyo ang hustisya human sa lisud ug hatass nga biyahe ug pakigbisug. Kining tanan atong idangup kang Kristo Hesus lamang nga atong bugtong manluluwas uban sa giya sa Espiritu Santo, Amen!

In solidarity,

Signed:
+ ARCHBISHOP ANTONIO J. LEDESMA, S.J., D.D.
Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro
NRC II Executive Committee Chairperson
Second National Rural Congress

Populorum Progressio – 40 years Hence

ON November 22-24, 2007, in Rome the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace convened the Second World Congress of the Ecclesial Organizations Working for Justice and Peace. More than 250 delegates from the Church’s social action centers throughout the world came together to commemorate the “40th Anniversary of Populorum Progressio: the Development of the Whole Man and of All Men.”

Pope Paul VI issued his landmark letter on “The Development of Peoples” in 1967, just two years after the completion of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Many of the conference speakers pointed out the relevance and continuing challenges raised by the social encyclical.

There is first of all the challenge to be human—in a world where violations of human rights are still rampant, especially against women and children, tribal minorities, and the weaker sectors of society.

There is also the challenge of pluralism and different cultures, even as modern means of communication and transportation have brought the four corners of the world closer than ever before.

Finally, there is the challenge of globalization--which can be viewed either from the perspective of those countries that dominate the global market or from the perspective of the many more countries that remain underdeveloped.

It is in this light that Pope John Paul II pointed out the originality of Populorum Progressio in his commemorative encyclical, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, twenty years later.

First, Populorum Progressio emphasizes the ethical-moral and cultural character of development. “Development which is merely economic is incapable of setting man free,” notes Pope John Paul II.

Secondly, the social question has now acquired a worldwide dimension. The transfer of capital and technology has gone beyond national borders without much regulation. On the other hand, the mobility of labor has been restricted.

Thirdly, development is closely linked to justice and peace. “The new name for peace is development,” writes Paul VI, even as the earlier notion of peace includes justice as a pre-requisite.

During the second day of the conference, continental-wide reports were given on the challenges of development in Africa, Europe, America, Asia, and Oceania. Working groups by languages were then asked to discuss the interrelated themes of: conflicts, poverty and inequality, democracy, and environment.

In the midst of all these sharings on development issues today, perhaps the most striking was that of Cardinal Telesphore Toppo, Archbishop of Ranchi in India. Speaking in the first person as a tribal himself in his keynote address, he asserted: “What I am today and what my people of Chotanagpur are today, is almost entirely because of the Social Teaching of the Church.”

He went on to cite the evangelizing work of a pioneer missionary, Fr. Constant Lievens, a Belgian Jesuit, who came to India in the late 19th century. Noting the mass exploitation of the tribals and land usurpation by landlords, Fr. Lievens took up legal cases in defense of the tribals’ lands.

Because of this, Cardinal Toppo continued: “A great number of them accepted Christianity, as they came to understand that it enabled them to regain their human dignity. Within seven years there were eighty thousand Catholics. Today there are over a million Catholics from this tribal region… While Fr. Lievens is called the Apostle of Chotanagpur for bringing Christ to our people, he is also popularly known as Nyay Ka Masiha, i.e., ‘the Messiah of Justice’ for bringing justice to our people. Faith and Justice always go together. This happened to my people, and for this reason, I am here with you today.”

Update on the National Rural Congress

At the beginning of this year during our CBCP Plenary Assembly, we issued a pastoral statement on “The Dignity of the Rural Poor,” which called for a National Rural Congress to commemorate the first one held forty years ago in 1967.

In July 2007, the organizational structure and process for NRC II were approved by our Plenary Assembly. Two parallel secretariats were set up for local consultations at the diocesan and sub-regional levels. The Media and Research Offices were also activated to help the NRC Executive Committee.

To give more time for preparations, the timetable of the NRC phases has been moved. Phase One consisting of local consultations will take place mostly in January – March 2008. Phase Two which consists of the national-level congress (or congresses in four clusters) is being planned to take place some time in May or July 2008.

1) The ad intra secretariat (NASSA/BEC/ECIP) has already distributed a standard format for the diocesan consultations on the role of BECs in rural development. This will be further explained at the National Social Action General Assembly in Roxas City on Nov. 28-30.

2) The ad extra secretariat (PMP/AMRSP/RPS) has finalized its schedule of 13 sub-regional consultations on rural issues. The ZAMBASULI sub-region will have its consultation in mid-November while the rest will take place during the first quarter of 2008.

3) The CBCP Research Office has convened two meetings of research institutes on rural poverty issues. On Oct. 12th, four government agencies (DAR, DA, DENR, and NAPC) were also invited to share their research findings on agrarian reform and rural development.

4) A working group has met twice at the Loyola School of Theology to help prepare a summary of the Social Teachings of the Church for reference in the NRC consultations. Other groups have also taken the initiative of compiling a summary of CST principles.

5) The CBCP Media office has been working out plans for the wider dissemination of NRC proceedings. A website on the internet has recently been installed to share available research findings and NRC updates. The website is: www.cbcponline.net/nrc2

6) Ongoing efforts are being made to access funding for NRC activities.
However, in the spirit of self-reliance, the diocesan and sub-regional consultations will have to depend on local resources in case outside support is lacking.

7) In line with our consultations on agrarian reform and rural poverty, NRC Execom members (Bishop Pabillo and myself) have been following up with DAR and Malacañang current land issues raised by PARRDS, UNORKA, and the Sumilao farmers. (The Higaonon Sumilao farmers are currently on a long march from Impasug-ong, Bukidnon, to Manila to reclaim the land denied them more than a decade ago under a land conversion scheme that was never carried out.)

8) Members of the CBCP Permanent Council (incoming and outgoing) and all other bishops are invited to a special forum on “Agrarian Reform and the Church: A CARP Briefing and Reflections.” This will be held on Nov.28 at 1:00 – 7:00 p.m. at the Pius XII Center, U.N. Avenue, Manila.

Much interest has been generated in NRC II from church circles and the general public, including government agencies. We thank you for your continuing support. Any further inquiries can be coursed through any of the two NRC secretariats or the CBCP secretariat or the NRC II website.

PROMOTING A CULTURE OF PEACE

Mindanao, the southern island of the Philippines, is home to three general cultural groups – the indigenous people communities comprising 18 ethnic groups; Muslim communities from another 8 ethnic groupings; and the Christian population coming from at least 12 language regions of the country. It is this tri-people composition that has at times caused inter-cultured hostilities in several sub-regions of Mindanao. In particular, the protracted conflict between Muslims and Christians has erupted into periods of violence.

At the same time religious leaders have made repeated calls for promoting a culture of peace wherein warring parties can lay down their arms – and prejudices – to build a brighter future for their children. It is in this light that we can examine six social concerns in promoting a culture of peace, which also constitute the foundations of a Christian ethical framework.
The starting - point and core of these social concerns is Human Dignity – i.e., that every human being is a person endowed with reason and free will and made in the image of God. Thus, as the social teachings of the Catholic Church states, “far from being the object or passive element of social life,” the human person “is rather, and must always remain, its subject, foundation and goal”.

The first social concern is Personal and Family Integrity. Wholeness and fullness of life are goals for every individual as well as for every family. These can be more readily attained through value formation and a deepened spirituality – vis-à-vis the mass media values of materialism and consumerism.

A second social concern for forging a culture of peace is promoting Human Rights and Democracy. Human rights are moral claims to the means needed to protect and promote human dignity. These are concisely articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. For Pope John Paul II, this Declaration “remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time.” Some of the these major rights are enunciated in his encyclical, Centesimus Annus – such as the right to life; the right to live in a united family; the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking the truth; the right to work; and the right to live in the truth of one’s faith. Respecting these rights is a matter of justice.

A third social concern is Poverty Eradication. Peace in society is illusory if the basic needs of individuals and families are not met. A nation’s economy must be able to utilize its natural and man-made resources in order to create wealth and income for all its citizens. The virtue of compassion and sharing should be inculcated in all citizens.

Complementing personal and family integrity along the social continuum is Intercultural Understanding and Solidarity. In Mindanao, Christian and Muslim religious leaders have engaged in a quarterly bishops-ulama dialogue over the past decade to highlight this need for mutual acceptance and appreciation of cultures. Every November, the Bishops-Ulama Conference has been promoting a Mindanao Week of Peace wherein local communities are encouraged to organize common activities for peace-building – such as multi-cultural programs, peace marches, etc.

Disarmament and Cessation of Hostilities are immediate steps to take toward creating a culture of peace. As part of the political continuum, the ending of armed hostilities represents a shift from recourse to force to recourse to reason in a democratic society. As exemplified by Gandhi in India, Mandela in South Africa and the People Power Revolution of 1986 in the Philippines, active non-violence can be a more potent force than recourse to arms in building a culture of peace.

The sixth social concern and part of the economic continuum is Environmental Protection. In a rapidly modernizing and globalizing society, the irreversible destruction of the environment is not a remote possibility. Indeed many countries have learned lately to conserve and manage carefully their watershed areas, fishing preserves, and clean air domains. In Mindanao, local communities have raised outcries against irresponsible logging and mining operations that are usually undertaken by multinational corporations.

Stewardship is an operative value that has been stressed to highlight the responsibility of everyone for the common good and to remind us that we are only caretakers of God’s creation. Conservation of the environment is an imperative for sustainable development for our present and future generations.

These then are six social concerns revolving around the core value of Human Dignity – which are essential in promoting a culture of peace. Although arising from Christian ethical principles, one could also point out that this framework resonates with the human and spiritual values of other faith traditions as well as of secular governments that endeavor to work out a more comprehensive paradigm for human development. There is no peace without development; but neither can there be development without peace.

Remarks at the 125th KC Supreme Convention

BUILDING BRIDGES – FROM WAITANGI TO MINDANAO

“Building Bridges” was the theme of the Third Asia-Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue in Waitangi, New Zealand, on May 29-31, 2007. Fifteen countries from Southeast Asia and the Pacific sent delegates to this regional meeting, led by the four co-sponsoring countries of Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand.

Delivering one of the opening addresses, President Gloria M. Arroyo herself stated that “the Philippines looked forward to creating deeper interfaith ties within the region as together we work towards building bridges for a culture of peace.”

In their Plan of Action, the Waitangi delegates called for building bridges among religious leaders with governments, with civil society groups, and within one’s own faith community. The Waitangi Declaration also called for interfaith education in public as well as religious schools. It cited the key role of media in deepening inter-cultural and inter-religious understanding.

However, barely a week and a half after the Waitangi Dialogue, on June 10th, Fr. Giancarlo Bossi, PIME, an Italian missionary priest, was kidnapped while on his way to saying Sunday Mass in one of the village chapels of Payao, a coastal municipality of Zamboanga Sibugay province in southwestern Mindanao. Payao is one of the 19 parishes of the Prelature of Ipil.

As former bishop of the prelature in 1997-2006, I knew well Fr. Bossi and his PIME confreres who had been establishing several parishes in the former Jesuit mission district of the Archdiocese of Zamboanga. Indeed, Fr. Bossi constructed the first parish church and convento of Payao as it split off from its mother parish of Siay in 1987. With his carpentry skills, he undertook much of the manual work himself. Later on, he would also build the convento and enlarge the parish church of Bayog. As a soft-spoken, hard-working “gentle giant,” Fr. Bossi endeared himself to the parishioners of Siay, Payao, and Bayog, wherever he was assigned.

The Prelature of Ipil itself is no stranger to kidnappings and outbreaks of violence. In the mid-70’s, the district was a theatre of war between Christian and Muslim paramilitary groups, the Ilagas versus the Blackshirts and the Barracudas. In 1985, its first bishop, Msgr. Federico Escaler, S.J., was held hostage with other traveling companions for several days. In 1995, the town of Ipil itself was attacked by the Abu Sayyaf and other rebels, with its market place razed to the ground and more than 60 people killed.

In the following years, two other priests who had worked in the prelature were kidnapped—Fr. Luciano Benedetti, PIME, a confrere of Fr. Bossi; and Fr. Rhoel Gallardo, a Filipino Claretian, who was eventually killed in captivity on the island of Basilan in the Jubilee Year 2000.

Fr. Bossi was eventually released on July 19, after a 40-day ordeal and after losing 40 pounds. He returned briefly to Payao a week later amidst a joyous celebration to thank his parishioners for their fervent prayers for his safety. Yet, Fr. Bossi’s safe return was not exactly a happy ending. During the week before his release, 14 Philippine marines had been killed in Basilan while on a search expedition to find him. Ten of the dead soldiers’ bodies were beheaded and mutilated. With the build-up of military forces in Basilan to go after the perpetrators, war clouds are looming once more over Mindanao.

It is in this context that the Bishops-Ulama Conference, Catholic universities and other Civil Society peace advocates in Mindanao have all called for moderation and a thorough investigation before an escalation of hostilities breaks out. Indeed, the practicable alternative to a Basilan offensive is the resumption of peace talks between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

Echoing the Waitangi Declaration, “building bridges for a culture of peace” starts here in Mindanao—in the midst of a brewing war zone.

+Antonio J. Ledesma, SJ

Plans for the 2nd National Rural Congress

Land to the Tillers

Moral Principles behind CARP

Why Agrarian Reform? —Three Moral Principles

At the beginning of this year, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines issued a pastoral statement on “The Dignity of the Rural Poor—A Gospel Concern.” We expressed our concern over the “inequitable distribution of the nation’s wealth and the endemic social injustices that underpin that evil.

We further pointed out that most notable effort of government at alleviating rural poverty has been the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Today, we observe the 19th anniversary of CARP. Once more, we reiterate the call made in our pastoral statement:

“We ask that the CARP, defective as it is, be finally completed next year as it has been targeted. And if it is not sufficiently implemented by then, the program should be further extended and funded more seriously and generously. But we ask that the law itself must be reviewed and improved.”

The killings last week of two of the Mapalad farmer leaders on the land that had recently been given to them as agrarian reform beneficiaries after a protracted struggle of more than ten years highlight the many obstacles to the full implementation of CARP— e.g., the myriad legal loopholes encountered; repeated delays in implementation; adamant landlord opposition pitting small farmers against small farmers: lack of political will of government agencies; and inadequacies on the part of local government and law enforcement units to provide security for agrarian reform beneficiaries.

What is happening in Had. Velez-Malaga is only a microcosm of what has been taking place in several other conflict areas of agrarian reform, such as the Bondoc peninsula in Quezon, Negros Oriental and Occidental, Iloilo, Mindoro Occidental, Batangas, Davao del Norte, Masbate, and Had. Luista in Tarlac. In one report submitted by a consortium of NGOs, since 1998 when CARP was extended the first time up to the present, 387 cases of human rights violations victimizing 18, 872 farmers and rural organizers have been recorded (PARRDS, 2007). Human rights violations take the form of extra-judicial killings, frustrated murder, illegal arrests and detention, physical assault, destruction of private property, arson, violent dispersal, etc.

It is in this that we can ask ourselves: Why agrarian reform? The social teachings of the Church point out three moral principles.

First is the universal destination of goods. “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity.” (Vatican I, 1965, Gaudium et Spes, 69)

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (2004) explicitates this further: “Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable…. Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of gods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means. (177)

A second moral guideline is the principle of the common good. This is intimately linked to the dignity of every human person as being made in the image of God. The common god is described by the Second Vatican Council as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” (GS, 26)

“The demands of the common good,” states the Compendium, “are dependent on the social conditions of each historical period and are strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights.” (CSDC, 166)

The admonition of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno (1931), still rings true for the Philippine situation today: “the distribution of created goods, which… is labouring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common god, that is, social justice.” (197)

A third principle is the preferential option for the poor. Hence, the Compendium states: “The principle of the universal destination of gods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern. To this end, the preferential option for the por should be reaffirmed in all its force.” (CSDC, 182)

President Ramon Magsaysay, the first Philippine President to advocate for land reform (and whose 50th death anniversary we observe this year), expressed this insight more concisely: “Those who have less in life should have more in law.”

This year marks the 40th anniversary of a major social encyclical, Populorum Progressio, or “The Development of Peoples.” Only two years after the completion of Vatican I, Pope Paul VI recalled the traditional view of the Church that large landed estates that “impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused of poorly used, or because they bring hardships to people or are detrimental to the interests of the country” can be expropriated by authorities for the sake of the common good. (PP, 24)

This year, to, is the 40th anniversary of the National Rural Congress convened by the Catholic Church in 1967. Reviewing this period, the bishops have decided to convene a second national rural congress “to make us meet in true Gospel fidelity our present social concerns.”

We join hands with all our farming and rural poor communities, non-government and people’s organizations, as well as government agencies and the business sector. Starting with the convening of diocesan-level rural congresses, we are ready to listen to the various rural sectors and discern with them and to plan “how we must as a people come together to work for the common good of the country” and of all of us “as children of the same Father in heaven.”



For the Central Committee of
the Second National Rural Congress

+Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J., D.D.
Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro
Vice-President, CBCP
10 June 2007

The Church and Politics

Termination of MOA

2 February 2007

To: Parish Priests and Family Life workers in the Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro
From: Abp. Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J.
RE: Termination of MOA between CWL and DOH/POPCOM

At the CBCP general assembly last week, I had a dialogue meeting with bishop-members of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life. They expressed their concerns about the reported Memo of Agreement on Natural Family Planning between the archdiocesan chapter of the Catholic Women’s League and the regional offices of the Department of Health and the Commission on Population. Although ECFL members agreed with the objectives of the MOA, apprehensions were raised about the sincerity of government agencies in promoting solely an NFP program, based on their past record. There were also perceptions publicized in the media that the church was now for “population control” and condoned the use of contraceptives. Similar apprehensions were earlier raised by a number of Family and Life workers in Mindanao.

In order to allay these fears and for the sake of collegialitas affectiva, I have requested the archdiocesan chapter of CWL as well as the regional DOH and POPCOM offices to terminate their MOA by February 15th. In this manner, the archdiocese and church-related organizations will maintain their identity and keep a critical distance from government agencies on matters of family and life.

On the other hand, as was also mentioned during the CBCP deliberations, we should not be afraid to dialogue with government agencies – particularly with regard to their avowed program on responsible parenting and the promotion of only natural family planning. Related to this, I would like to point out three distinctions to clarify issues that were raised at the CBCP plenary assembly. For lack of time, these issues could not be properly discussed by the three resource persons who gave contrasting perspectives on the Standard Days Method as a simplified NFP method.

(1) Our All-NFP program in the archdiocese has the goal of promoting responsible parenthood, not population control. Regardless of how the population growth rate is interpreted, responsible parenthood through NFP is a desirable goal for all couples. This reiterates what the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines has stated:

“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)

(2) We should distinguish SDM as an NFP method in itself, and SDM as it may be presented by non-church groups. We include SDM in our All-NFP program, without combining it with contraceptives. Other programs by government entities or NGOs may suggest back-up contraceptives with SDM. This is not our program. Indeed, SDM-cum-contraceptives cannot be considered a natural method any more.

From our field experience, we find that many couples prefer a natural method all the way and can handle the twelve-day abstinence period of SDM (which is actually shorter than that of the average cycle in the Basal Body Temperature Method.)

(3) Finally, SDM has been characterized as being unreliable, not scientific, and a return to the old calendar rhythm method. The scientific basis for SDM in terms of computer simulation and the calculation of an average cycle through the science of statistics has to my mind been sufficiently explained by the available literature. But perhaps the most convincing evidence for our NFP promoters is the adoption of SDM by more than 1,300 couples in the Prelature of Ipil over the past five years. From their testimonies, SDM is an NFP method that is simple, reliable, and effective.

In this regard, we should distinguish between effectiveness and the acceptability of various NFP methods. Other NFP methods, when properly followed, may have a higher effectiveness rating than SDM – e.g. 98% vis-a-vis 95%. In terms of acceptability, however, SDM from our field experience is adopted by two-thirds of all NFP-users. Indeed, in terms of acceptability SDM does not have to be contrasted with other NFP methods. Rather we should see it in the larger context that NFP, due to the availability of simplified methods, has now become much more acceptable vis-à-vis artificial contraceptives.

This then is the opportunity and the challenge for all of us in our All-NFP program: to make available information on all modern NFP methods with the concomitant value formation and to reach out to all our kapilya communities through resident providers. With or without the help of government agencies, we shall continue to carry out our ministry and to pursue our goal of promoting responsible parenthood through All-NFP.

CHURCH AND GOVERNMENT IN ALL-NFP PROMOTION

Dear Bishops of Mindanao and FLA Coordinators,

In mid-December, I received a copy of a letter addressed to His Eminence Alfonso Cardinal Lopez Trujillo as Chairman of the Pontifical Commission on Family. The letter has four signatures and purportedly represents the Family and Life Apostolate diocesan representatives in Mindanao. It questions my advocacy for: (1) the Standard Days Method (SDM), and (2) collaboration of the Church with the Commission on Population (POPCOM) and the Department of Health (DOH).

We have indeed discussed a number of these points during our bishops’ recollection meeting in Davao on November 7. Despite the various questions raised, mostly on the scientific reliability of SDM, I was glad to see the openness of most of the bishops with regard to the All-Natural Family Planning program that we had started in Ipil Prelature over the past four years. Let me then make these clarifications as a response to the letter and a continuation of our dialogue for promoting responsible parenthood and natural family planning in Mindanao.

I. On the Standard Days Method

1) In July 2003, at the plenary assembly of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, all the bishops present, with Archbishop O. Quevedo presiding, had a lengthy discussion on SDM. We passed an affirmative consensus vote, with no objection, 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 “cafeteria” approach of promoting contraceptives. This guideline takes into consideration the words of caution expressed in Cardinal Trujillo’s communication of May 2003. This then is the standing guideline adopted by CBCP, which should be respected by our FLA workers in Mindanao.

2) It was with this guideline in mind that the Prelature of Ipil continued and expanded its program for natural family planning which included not only SDM but all modern, scientific NFP methods. We can summarize this program with the numbers 1-6.

We have one comprehensive All-NFP program to promote Responsible Parenthood through Natural Family Planning. This includes all recognized scientifically-based NFP methods today, and not only SDM. Indeed not all women are qualified to adopt SDM. In this sense, SDM is offered only as an added option. There are two general approaches of family planning that we differentiate – the natural vis-à-vis the artificial. We also point out that it is not a question between “modern contraceptives” and “traditional NFP methods,” but rather that there are modern, scientifically-based NFP methods as well which are equally if not even more effective than contraceptives.

We address the three felt needs of many young couples today – namely, (1) they want to plan their families; (2) they prefer natural family planning; and (3) they want to choose among available NFP methods. In the process we have articulated four pastoral guidelines – namely, (1) we are pro-life as our first principle; (2) we are for responsible parenthood as our goal; (3) we are for natural family planning as our means; and (4) we are for enabling couples to make an informed and responsible choice, based on the formation of a right conscience.

We are following a five-step approach in order to systematize and decentralize the program to reach every kapilya community or barangay. The first step is a parish-level orientation for all leaders. This is followed in step two by a providers’ training. Step three is a kapilya-level orientation followed by individual counseling at the household level (step four). The fifth step is quarterly monitoring at the parish and prelature levels. Finally, we provide information on six modern NFP methods, which include SDM and the Two-Day Method (TDM), another simplified method based on cervical mucus observation. For a fuller exposition of these 1-6 elements, I am attaching my updated article on “Mainstreaming NFP in Ipil Prelature.” (Annex A)

In general, we are heartened by the positive response of almost 1,500 couple-users of NFP in the prelature so far. Two-thirds of these are SDM-users while a fourth are practitioners of the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM). We find that making available information on all NFP methods is a win-win solution: we have gotten more BOM users today than in the past when BOM was presented alone. Indeed, couples learn to combine NFP methods or shift from one method to another depending on their preference.
Our FLA workers also report that three-fourths of NFP users in our tally have actually shifted from contraceptive use. Among the reasons often cited are: avoidance of side-effects to health; cost-free considerations; adherence to the Church’s moral guideline; and their preference for what to them is indeed natural.

3) Is SDM then reliable as an NFP method? When this was discussed at the CBCP assembly three years ago, SDM was still being piloted by some NGOs in limited settings. At this point, however, after extending our All-NFP program as a church ministry to the entire prelature and meeting couple-users of more than one to three years, I can attest that NFP, particularly SDM, is indeed a valid, viable, and vital option for a growing number of couples.

Along with almost 1,000 SDM users, our 250 NFP volunteer providers in Ipil Prelature would agree with this conclusion. They have made the following general observations: Despite initial difficulties, couples learn to handle the 12-day period of abstinence in SDM. They do not combine SDM with any contraceptive method (and our church workers have never counseled them to do so). Many prefer SDM because it is much simpler and easy to follow. Many say that the beads have helped them to communicate better with their spouses. Not a few couples have also remarked that for them the choice was not between SDM and BOM, but rather between SDM and contraceptives, or between SDM and no method at all.

In Cagayan de Oro Archdiocese, where I am now based, we have started the All-NFP program in five pilot parishes, after a series of orientation talks to our clergy, religious sisters, and family life workers. Another seven parishes have scheduled the step one orientation talk before they begin their providers’ training. I am particularly glad to see the active involvement of the Catholic Women’s League in the All-NFP program, in coordination with our Christian Family and Life Apostolate (CFLA).

4) The scientific bases for SDM are summarized in the briefing paper furnished by the Institute for Reproductive Health-Philippines (IRHP). (Annex B) Biological factors relative to a woman’s fertile period, variations within the average woman’s cycle defined as 26 days varying up to 32 days, and computer simulations of over 7,600 actual cycles provided the theoretical bases for standardizing the length of the fertile window. This was followed by pilot studies and clinical trials in three countries, including the Philippines. In short, the science of statistical probability was used to determine a standardized fertile period that could be applicable to a large segment of the target population – in this case, women whose menstrual cycles range from 26 to 32 days. It is estimated that three-fourths of all women are within this cycle range. From the clinical trials, SDM has scored a high effectiveness rate of 95.25%.

In this sense, the standardized days of SDM are quite different from the customized days of the calendar rhythm method which requires the individual woman to make repeated calculations based on her six previous cycle lengths. Even the allegation that SDM users may use condoms during the fertile period is an oblique admission that the calculation itself is accurate. The scientific study of SDM has been accepted by the World Health Organization; it is now recognized as a modern fertility awareness based (FAB) method of family planning.

In Ipil Prelature we have only 3-5 verified cases of method failure. Other cases of failure or drop-outs were attributable to the users not following strictly the rules for SDM adoption.

II. On Collaboration with Government

Last December 6 at the National Population Congress in Manila, the Commission on Population launched its Responsible Parenting Movement and new policy directions to promote only natural family planning. This was in response to a directive of President Gloria M. Arroyo who had made known her preference for NFP since the start of her administration. Prior to this launching on October 24, upon invitation of CBCP President Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, DOH Secretary Francisco Duque III and POPCOM Executive Director Tomas Osias came over to the CBCP office. They explained this new program and solicited the support of CBCP from the three bishops present, namely Archbishop Lagdameo, Archbishop Paciano Aniceto, Chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, and myself as CBCP Vice-President. At a follow-up meeting on November 10, members of the Permanent Council were also present. All the bishops expressed their appreciation for this new policy direction. However they deferred any decision and suggested that the proposal for church-government collaboration on NFP be discussed first at the next CBCP plenary assembly in January 2007.

It was at this point that I suggested that we already try out in pilot dioceses the joint promotion of NFP by government agencies and the local church. This would give us a more realistic frame of reference for the discussions in the coming CBCP plenary assembly. In addition to Cagayan de Oro, it was suggested that Jaro and San Fernando, Pampanga, could also be suitable sites for piloting.

Back in Cagayan de Oro, we then prepared a draft memorandum of agreement with the Region X DOH and POPCOM offices. This draft memo was discussed extensively with the clergy and family-oriented organizations. However, in deference to the precautions expressed from various quarters, I encouraged the Catholic Women’s League as a religious lay organization to be a signatory to the MOA instead of the archdiocese itself. (Three years ago, the Couples for Christ had entered into a similar agreement with the national DOH office to promote NFP.) This memo was signed by the CWL archdiocesan president and the regional heads of DOH and POPCOM on December 19, with myself as witness and consultant.

In our collective discernment among NFP promoters in CWL and in pilot parishes, there were four major reasons for entering into this agreement with regional government agencies.

(1) This is a new national policy that dovetails with the concerns of the Church with regard to responsible parenthood and natural family planning. It is articulated by the Chief Executive herself and translated into operational guidelines by the national and regional DOH and POPCOM offices. It also reflects a new sensitivity towards cultural and religious values among government offices – i.e., that population management can be attained through responsible parenthood, and that responsible parenthood in turn is practiced through natural family planning. (Among the present Commissioners of POPCOM are Mrs. Geraldine Padilla, Chair, Committee on Women, Couples for Christ, and wife of the CFC founder; and Dr. Jose Sandejas, Presidential Adviser on Family Matters and a close adviser too of Archbishop Aniceto.) Despite strong objections from pro-contraceptive legislators, the executive branch of the national government is pursuing this NFP-only approach – probably the only one of its kind among developing countries today. (See PDI news items in Annex C.)

Perhaps at no other time has the church and government agreed more fully on the goal of responsible parenthood and the means of natural family planning. The availability of modern simplified methods can also accelerate the promotion of NFP. If the church is serious in mainstreaming NFP as a pastoral program to reach many more couples beyond the less than one percent indicated in national surveys, the offer of working with the support of government resources should not be downplayed. This is similar to the situation of our Catholic schools availing themselves of public funds to carry on the mission of Christian education.

(2) The MOA includes adequate safeguards for the Church’s concerns. It has explicit provisions that “Natural Family Planning methods will not be combined in any way with artificial means of birth regulation”; that the NFP program will be delivered as a distinct and separate program; and that there will be “joint supervision and monitoring of the program.” Moreover, as consultant, the bishop or his representative is given a significant role in the design of the Regional NFP Program Plan. The MOA may also be modified by the parties and is effective for one year, subject to review.

(3) DOH and POPCOM have asked to use our training manuals and the services of some of our trainors. This is in line with the spirit of the MOA that provides for “the sharing of resources – financial, material, human and technical.” In this sense, the government would like to replicate our ongoing All-NFP program. In the joint trainings that have already been conducted, we are glad to see that a more wholistic view of NFP is being presented that is in consonance with Gospel values.

The limited funding for this program does not come from foreign governments, but from the national budget. In this partnership, CWL and the church side are taking the lead role and are actually contributing more to the common effort of NFP promotion rather than becoming dependent on government funding.

(4) A final consideration for us is the challenge of evangelization in the market place – i.e., engaging government agencies in the common objective of promoting responsible parenthood and NFP to address the felt needs of couples. Without a MOA, government agencies will continue to pursue NFP as its declared program at any rate – but without the guidance and value formation that only church-based groups could provide. Indeed in initial discussions and joint trainings with government members, we find much good will and openness for the involvement of church groups in NFP promotion. Many government workers are Catholics and mothers who prefer NFP to other methods. In the spirit of Vatican II, this would be a concrete way for the church to dialogue with the world. For religious lay organizations like CWL, signing the MOA would be seen as a form of principled collaboration – where moral principles are highlighted as a frame of reference.

Vis-à-vis the offer of collaboration with government in NFP promotion, the local church can focus on any of these three directions: (1) to continue to criticize and remain suspicious of government because of its earlier pro-contraceptive stance; (2) to work separately from government on NFP promotion; or (3) to critically collaborate with government in promoting NFP. We have actually tried the first two approaches – with minimal results as far as figures of actual NFP users are concerned. Trying out the third approach may incur some risk of failure and misuse; but perhaps the greater risk is not to try at all. In addressing the felt needs of couples today, are we driven more by the “fear of government” or by the “love of NFP”?

Natural family planning, I would submit, is the positive alternative and the most effective answer the Church can give to the stark realities of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and use of contraceptives in Philippine society today. A more inclusive approach – that includes simplified NFP methods and critical collaboration with government – can spell the difference between focusing on only one “saved” sheep or reaching out to the other 99% that are still “lost.”

III. An Invitation

Even as we enter into dialogue with government regarding NFP promotion, it would also be good to continue the dialogue among ourselves within church circles. Before making sweeping statements about the efficacy or mis-use of simplified NFP methods without much evidence on the ground, may I extend an invitation to other dioceses to send observers to Ipil Prelature to examine its ongoing All-NFP program. Interviewing actual NFP users and providers can give us a more realistic picture of the situation. When it comes to acceptability among various NFP methods, we cannot make the best the enemy of the good. Indeed, whatever is acceptable to a particular couple under their own circumstances can be said to be the best for them.

When I mentioned the Ipil experience in NFP promotion during my talk to the DOPIM bishops and clergy last November, there were inquiries and general interest about the program. Last May, a group of FLA workers from Digos did visit Ipil Prelature; now they have started a similar All-NFP program in five pilot parishes. Earlier this year, the archdioceses of Capiz and Jaro have had trainings on All-NFP and are starting their own programs. Likewise, the local churches in Basilan and Jolo have had their own trainings as well as some parishes in Malaybalay. Several other bishops in the Visayas and Luzon have also signified to me their intention to review their FLA-NFP programs and include modern simplified NFP methods.

Whether or not we wish to work with government on NFP promotion, it is imperative that the local church activate its own NFP program to address the felt needs of many couples today. Otherwise, we may reach the awkward situation where it is the government alone that strives to promote NFP while the church stays on the sidelines. There is no need for acrimonious debate or ascribing arcane designs on the efforts of other dioceses to promote All-NFP.

As a local ordinary, I am mindful of my responsibilities towards the Christian community, particularly with regard to family life issues. There is indeed need for pastoral prudence, but also some pastoral innovation (Duc in altum!) if we wish to be relevant and responsive to the needs of many couples today. Some may look at the risks involved; but I would rather look at the hope – of personalizing responsible parenthood by means of promoting a culture of natural family planning throughout the country.

For your ministry in the new year, may I invoke the threefold Christmas blessings of Light, Love, and Life – which also encapsulate the spirit of All-NFP promotion in Filipino homes today.


Sincerely,


+ Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J., D.D.
Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro

From Gaudium et Spes to the Compendiumof 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 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.

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

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