Pastor Faces Ecclesial Movements

Some months ago roving catechists of the Neo-Catechumenal Way were knocking at my door, requesting me that they be given that opportunity to serve the Church of Tagbilaran through its charism. May they be allowed to proclaim the Kerygma to the faithful, form communities, and thereby establish the presence of the Catechumenal communities here in Bohol?

I personally know the Neo-Catechumenal Way. Through the years of its existence it has realized more and more that it is a genuine charism within the Body of Christ. It therefore is not just a movement for itself or for its members. It has a purpose and a mission in the universal Church and the particular Churches. It is there to serve and to help build up the Body of Christ. Its reason for existing is to live for and in unity of the Church.

Founded in 1964 in Madrid, the Holy Father himself has been aware of its existence and its contribution to the building up of the particular Churches where they have inserted themselves. Its catechesis founded heavily on the tripod ‘Word of God-Liturgy-Community’ has through the forty (40) years of its existence formed people into communities and led its members to mature faith. John Paul II on many occasions and in different ways, observed closely and spoke highly of the fruits of the missionary drive and the evangelical radicalism of the Catechumenal Way, and expressly stated that it is “an itinerary of Catholic formation, valid for our society and for our times” (AAS 82, 1990). For his part, Benedit XVI, who have been following intently the evolution of the Way, made this remark to the members of the Catechumenal Way: “Your apostolic action intends to take place in the heart of the Church, in total harmony with her directives and in communion with the particular Churches in which you are going to work, making the most of the richness of the charisms that the Lord has awakened through the Initiators of the Way” (Teaching of Benedict XVI II, 1, 2006). Due to the orthodoxy of doctrine and the precious contributions that the Way has consistently manifested in the ecclesial work of the new evangelization, the Pontifical Council of the Laity officially approved the Statute of the Neo-Catechumenal Way on 11th May 2008.

Vis-a-vis this unselfish offer for the opening of the New Evangelization, the priests of the Diocese of Tagbilaran made a momentary pause. They needed time to reflect. Is the new movement not a threat to the organizational set-up decreed by the Diocesan Synod? Does it not do havoc to the parish organizations, programs and activities that have been assiduously put into place and for so many years have served well the community? Will it not create a parallel Church, a group of people, that is, that would follow more the dictates of the Way than the provision of the Diocesan Statute?. Or, in time of conflict, do leaders of the group insist more on following the catechumenal mode of doing things than abiding with the policies laid down by the universal Church? In the midst of the diocesan thrust for the building up of the Basic Ecclesial Communities and the clusters, for deepening the faith of members, and awakening them more and more to the realities of their given rights and obligations as people of God, does the Catechumenal Way help or obstruct it? What will be its role? Uneasiness, apprehension, fear... feelings all that, in a nutshell, are expressed in this query: shall we accept the offer or not?

As the Bishop of the Diocese, I came in to allay these feelings of unease. After all, when we come into it, there is actually no conflict between the institutional and the charismatic aspects of the Church. What is needed is the right attitude. On the one hand the bishop and the parish priests must have a deep paternal attitude towards such new movements. On the other hand, these charismatic movements must have that readiness for discernment.

To establish this right relationship, basic principles have to be invoked. The section of the Code that specifically treats on private associations (Canons 312-329) recognizes and guarantees the continued existence of these faith movements in the Church. They have a right to exist in accordance with their particular charisms. As such the whole Church, pastors and the rest of the faithful, should respect this right. On the other hand, these movements have “grave obligation to let themselves be known as they are in daily life. To offer a partial vision implies to falsify their identity and impede the ecclesiastical authorities from being able make a declaration according to the truth of the ecclesiaslity of the reality”(cf. Luis Navarro, ROME, NOV. 13, 2008 Zenit.org).

In his address to the German bishops in 2006, Benedict XVI said: “Approach with great love the movements and new communities . . . in order to gain an adequate understanding of their reality, without superficial impressions or reductionist judgments... The ecclesial movements and the new communities are not a problem or an extra risk, added to our already weighty responsibilities. No! They are a gift from the Lord, a precious resource to enrich with their charism as the entire Christian community . . . Difficulties or misunderstandings on particular issues do not bring the right of isolation” (AsiaNews.It, Vatican City, 05/17/2008 15:47).

He further stated: “What might be feared is a journey along parallel lines, each for himself, the bishops on one side, the movements on the other. This would mean an impoverishing of both.” Thus Benedict XVI exhorts the pastors to "a service of discernment" and to "correction" of the values of the movements, and at the same time to resist "the temptation of making uniform what the Holy Spirit wants to be multiform, to contribute to the building and growth of the one Body of Christ, which the Spirit himself makes firm in unity". (cf. Ibid.).

With that, I came out with the decision to welcome the offer of the Neo-Catechumenal Community to the Diocese of Tagbilaran, with the provision, however, that the catechists, before starting any activity towards evangelization, must first approach the parish priests and discuss the charisms with them. In any activity after all there is no substitute to a wholesome meeting of minds.

Canon Law and the Filipino Migrants

It is tragic to note that we are no longer shocked with the fast growing number of Filipinos exiting our country. It bespeaks of an attitude that has become accustomed, if not calloused, to the alarming reality that the phenomenon does not cause us anymore unease. In the midst of this seeming indifference, we are presented with some eight to nine million migrants. The last count up was just seven million some two or three years ago. Now it is nine million, Filipinos all. They are not mere faceless individuals, but warm bodies with human feelings and Filipino needs that constantly call our attention. They are living persons who need food and the basic necessities of life to keep themselves in one piece; rational beings who can foresee the need to provide for the uncertainties of the future, responsible family men and women who in search for a better future for their children, they set out of this country that they love, and settle in a foreign land which they surmise could give them a better tomorrow; human persons who are endowed with rights and obligations, particularly the right to a decent environment that guarantees the protection of their human dignity. In brief, they have to be cared for bodily, psychologically, and spiritually.

The Church in the Philippines has not been remiss in its obligation to extend its Pastoral Care to Filipino Migrants. It is aware of its task to look into the temporal and spiritual needs of its faithful. It is after all wary to the rights of the migrants as well as to all the faithful which the Code enunciated, to wit: “Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the Sacraments” (Canon 213). This right is based on the constitutional right of each individual faithful by virtue of baptism. Canon 208 expresses well this basic right in these words: “Flowing from their rebirth in Christ, there is a genuine equality of dignity and action among all of Christ’s faithful. Because of this equality they all contribute, each according to his or her own condition and office, to the building up of the Body of Christ.” Hence, the obligation hangs on the Church in the Philippines to look after the spiritual and moral needs of these Filipino migrants. They may be far from its reach, but the obligation remains in its conscience. Foremost in its mind is what is demanded in the Salvation History – God provided laws and guidelines regarding refugees. When God commanded the Chosen People to be hospitable to foreigners and strangers, as stated in Leviticus 19: 34, God reminded them of the reason for the legal provision, that is, “because you yourselves were foreigners in strange land.” CBCP sees this text as a framework for its pastoral care for Filipino migrants, that is, our people are strangers in foreign lands. It has to look after their pastoral needs, their well-being, peace of mind, growth in spiritual life, and their appreciation of their dignity as human beings and as children of God. The Church in the Philippines has the task to constantly remind them and support them that no matter how menial their kind of work is, they remain children of God and bearers of human dignity. It is for this heavy responsibility that CBCP has to found the Commission for the Pastoral Care for Migrants, and to demand from it a regular report and evaluation of its mission. But nine million Filipino migrants is a number so staggering that the Commission is in a quandary on how to effectively and efficiently meet the demands and expectations of the Bishops Conference of the Philippines.


One of the greatest pains of our migrant workers is the loss of the sense of self-pride. They pine to get it back, but no amount of money that they receive can buy it back. The Church understands the depth of man’s pain when he is deprived of such self-worth. Hence, in its work for Christian justice and charity, its priority is to assist the concerned individual migrants get back their dignity. Hence, the words of John XXIII echoed: “Individual human beings are the foundation, the cause and the end of every social l institution” (Pacem in Terris, 31). Then he added: “Every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services” (ibid, 32). For, every person is precious, people are more important than things, and the value of every institution is whether or not it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person. Pope Benedict XVI in his recent Encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” reminds everyone of the precedence of dignity of man over other concerns of development. He said: “I would like to remind everyone, especially governments engaged in boosting the world’s economic and social assets, that the primary capital to be safeguard and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity: ‘Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life’” (n.25; cf. LG 63).

Our migrant workers, nine million of them, have dignity to uphold, human pride to protect, better quality of lives to pine for, meaning of life to keep intact, spirituality to hang on to, so that they can live as human persons and as children of God in foreign places.

Who would articulate and protect their deep human longing? The Canon Lawyers of the Philippines (CLSP) with courage faced up to this problem sometime on April 2009, in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, during their annual meeting in that place. They are aware that they as canon lawyers are called to give their share in the pastoral care of Filipino migrants. Theirs is to look closely into the provisions of law, the social doctrine of the Church, as expounded by Vatican II, the living Magisterium of the Church, the provisions of PCP II and the subsequent acts of the Bishops Conference of the Philippines. These will give them the necessary framework to provide our Church leaders with legal guides to better meet the needs of our migrant workers. This is the task that lies ahead of them.

The People of God, the Liturgy and the Religious Artists

It was on May 29, 2008 that the bilateral Agreement between the Vatican and the Republic of Philippines to preserve and protect heritage Catholic Churches spread throughout the island was finalized. Ironically, in spite of its weight and significance, it was done in a simple ceremony, one that did not catch the attention of our people.

Signed by no less than Pope Benedict XVI and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, it was considered to be a landmark treaty, for it set into writing the commitment to a mutual cooperation for the proper care of old Churches. As the Nuncio to the Philippines, Archbishop Edward Joseph Adams, aptly puts it: “It is a fact that what constitutes the cultural patrimony of this nation takes its origin from the Church and was contributed by her agents.” For his part, DFA Secretary Alberto Romulo commented: “Heritage Churches are more than just worldly possessions. They are concrete expressions and enduring representations of profound faith.” Hence, the bilateral pact has deep repercussions in the years to come in the field of religious arts, culture and catecheses.

The Diocese of Tagbilaran looks at this agreement with anticipation. For years the people of God in this local Church has been growing in its awareness at the value of the religious patrimony of their parish Churches. The work of art that they have meticulously conserved in their Churches have given them the sure footing of orthodoxy, one that ever reminds them of the Catholic faith that has been handed down to them. This has shaped their way of reaching out to the God they know and their mode of praying to this Transcendent One. The mode of their prayer, guided by the artistic lines, hues and symbols, painted all over the ceiling and walls of the Church, is within the traditional doctrine of the Catholic faith. Yet, with the passing of time the influx of fresh religious ideas and reflections, new expressions of faith, new ways of identifying oneself with the transcendental reality, has entered into the consciousness of our people. Slowly, new ecclesiastical art and architecture has crept in, influencing at its wake the temptation to break from all past Catholic artistic and architectural traditions.

Not long ago, there came out in the Internet an interesting article regarding the influence of the new theological ideas to our liturgy, visual arts and symbols (cf. H. Reed Armstrong, “Art and Liturgy: Splendor of Faith,” CRISIS, 1814/2N Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, mail@crisismagazine.com). It put forward the idea that man does not need a transcendent God. This he will experience if he just care to take the effort to look intently at his own nature, contemplate on its beauty and goodness, appreciate its innate power and its limitless potentials, reach out for what it is worth for without the intervention and aid of divine grace and the sacraments. In this position, grace is somehow held as intrinsic to nature. A certain professor, a representative of this new theology, once made this statement: "There is now a radical capacity in nature itself, and not superadded to nature, by which we are ordained to the knowledge of God. Thus all dualism between nature and grace is eliminated. Human nature is already graced existence” (ibid.).

Armstrong then concluded: “The effects of this new "lex credendi" have been seen for some time in art and architecture. If man already lives an "engraced" existence naturally, and the sacramental union with Christ is ontologically superfluous, a mere symbol of entrance into a "faith community," then the altar rail (iconostasis, the rood screen) that separates the natural world of the faithful and the supernatural world of the Divine mysteries must go. As Christ is already present in the community, the sacramental presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle is now superfluous and can therefore be removed from the sanctuary precinct. With the traditional concept of the Mystical Body obscured, the images of saints and holy mysteries, a tradition going back to the catacombs, are removed in favor of a single figure of the "Risen Lord" (ibid.).

It is fortunate that our lay faithful and our priests have not succumbed to these strange and alien teachings. They still see themselves as sinners badly needing the redemption promised to them from above, and therefore, weak individuals who are not ashamed in reaching expectantly outward to the Transcendent One who has become one of them, the “Immanuel,” uttering that simple but powerful prayer: MARANATHA – “Come, Lord Jesus, Come.”

As the true faith keeps on feeding the heart and mind of our people with the revealed divine realities, ever moving them to deeper contemplation of God, their prayer life becomes more vigorous and potent. To express these experiences and to help them to get them back to God, they need relevant liturgy and sensitive artists.

With the exchange of instruments that marked the forging of the bilateral Agreement of the Vatican and the Republic of the Philippines to protect the religious and cultural heritage of our people, it is our hope that arts in our Churches will be properly cared for and revered. It is also our hope that with this renewed interest for religious arts and the subsequent effort to promote and protect them, we may see the emergence of new artists with fresh visions coming out to revitalize our symbols of prayer, divine longing, and our liturgy. As Fr. Reed Armstrong concluded in his article in the Internet: “Even today, in this age of iron or, let us say, white metal, the Temple of Solomon and the Cathedral of Chartres have not exhausted all the possibilities of getting back to God. There is still something to be garnered from those people with plaster in their hair and fingers full of paint”(cf. ibid.).

The Pastor and His Assistant

Who is this priest next door? He is young, idealistic, talented, full of energy. He is erratic, though, in his decisions, not so conscious with his time, immature in his ways. Yet, the kids and the teens hang around him, the old adore him, the members of the Parish Pastoral Council drink and laugh with him, the ecclesial communities and new movements love his homilies and short talks. Who is he? He is the parochial vicar, an appointee from the Diocese to help the parish priest in all his ministerial works. He is not necessarily a threat to the person and influence of the parish priest, but with him in the parish is there enough room for both of them? How would his authority stand beside the popularity and adulation of this young upstart? How should he deal with him?

In the eyes of the administration of the diocese, a certain parish is just too big for one parish priest to meet the pastoral demands. He himself has asked time and again for a help, for an assistant who could help him in all activities in the community. And one day his dream comes true. Here comes the parochial vicar assigned to him by the Curia, a priest to his heart desire. But the question in his heart hounds him: can I handle him?

In response to the vague apprehensions of the parish priest on how to deal with his assistant, the present Code of Canon Law has identified and specified the roles and functions of the parish priest and the parochial vicars in the parish. Yet, much has also been left to the discretion of the particular laws and eventually to the working agreement between the pastor and his parochial vicar. Oftentimes, the intertwining of these roles result in misunderstanding and conflicts. Thus, it will be of help to identify the possible flashpoints in their working relationship in order to find a workable solution to it, namely, a) the extent and limits of the authority of the pastor vis-à-vis the parochial vicar; closely related to this, b) their individual rights and obligations; and the most common source of conflict, c) financial arrangement in the parish.

First of all, it has to be established that the parish priest is the proper pastor of the parish. It is to him that the care of the souls of the community is entrusted to be exercised under the authority of the diocesan bishop. He has the ordinary proper power to teach, sanctify and govern those entrusted to his care. The cooperation of other priests and deacons in the care of the souls are desired and most welcome. In fact even the lay faithful, by virtue of their baptism are also invited to partake in this task (cf. Cans. 757, 758, 759, 776 & 778). In a nutshell, the parish priest is the sole head of the parish.

He likewise acts in the person of the parish in all juridical matters and he is to ensure that the parish goods are administered like a good steward who takes good care of the property of his master while the master is away (cf. Cans. 1281-1288).

The parish priest should enjoy a certain measure of stability in the parish thus ideally his to be appointed for an indefinite time. However, the conference of bishops may decide otherwise and set a specific tenure of office of the parish priest in any given parish.

He is entitled to a vacation time of one month annually either continuous or cumulative. Not included from this is the time for retreat which is usually done outside the parish.

On the other hand, the obligations of the pastor could be classified under the following headings:
· Proclamation of the Word of God and Catechesis;
· Administration of the Sacraments and the Liturgy;
· Maintain personal contact with his parishioners;
· Promote the lay apostolate;
· Residence in the parish;
· Offering of the mass ‘Pro Populo’;
· Maintenance and proper care of the parochial books;
· Care of the parish seal and parish archives;
· Informing the diocesan bishop in case of absence from the for more than one week.

On the other hand, he assistant parish priest is also endowed with obligations and rights. Aside from the rights and obligations assigned to all clerics by universal law(cf. Cans. 273-289), the obligations and rights of the assistant parish priest are clearly expressed in canon 548. Paragraph 1 states the sources from which spring the obligations and rights of the assistant parish priest, namely: a) the Code of Canon Law, b) the particular law of the diocese, c) the letter of appointment, and d) the directives or mandate of the parish priest. We can add here that, by analogy, whatever the code establishes in terms of right and duties with regard to the parish priest may also be applied to the assistant parish priest except to those that belong in the strict sense to the office of the parish priest as the juridical person representing the parish. Nonetheless, it is considered more prudent, for the proper exercise of rights and duties and to avoid possible conflicts, to express in the letter of appointment and in the diocesan statutes the correlation between the functions of the parish priest and the assistant parish priest.

The ministry of the assistant parish priest encompasses all aspects of the parish life unless specific work as been given to him either stated in the letter of appointment or upon direction by the parish priest (Can. 545, ¶2). He is not, however, duty bound to celebrate the mass pro populo which is a personal obligation that belongs to the parish priest nor is he obliged to inform the diocesan bishop in case of absence from the parish for a period of more than one week. However, unlike the parish priest, the parochial vicar does not enjoy a more stable stay in the parish since he may be removed by the competent authority from his assignment for a just cause.

However, despite effort to clarify and delineate the respective functions of the stakeholders in the parish ministry, instances of disagreements and conflicts between the parish priest and the assistant do still occur. This could be minimized if not totally avoided if clerics call to mind the exhortations of Vatican II (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 8) which is echoed in Canon 275 par. 1 which states: ‘Since all clerics are working for the same purpose, namely, the building up of the body of Christ, they are to be united with one another in the bond of brotherhood and prayer. They are to seek to cooperate with one another, in accordance with the provisions of particular law.’

The cooperation and joint pastoral action of the parish priest and the assistant is regulated by the obligation incumbent upon the assistant to report to the parish priest regularly on all pastoral initiatives both planned and already undertaken in the parish. In this way they can truly work together, by common counsel and effort for the good of the flock entrusted to their care. In many parishes the laudable practice has been established whereby the parish priest and the assistant meet together on a regular basis to discuss the pastoral concerns of the parish.

Although the assistant may not act independently, he should be encouraged to keep up to his zest for pastoral initiatives. As it is, the pastor should be solicitous of the inputs and contribution of his assistant in the parish ministry and make him a participant in the pastoral activities in the parish.

The most common cause of conflict between pastors and the parochial vicar is the question of finances be it a question of handling of parish funds, or, the equitable remuneration of the cleric Much of these problems, I believe can be traced back to the antiquated mentality of considering the parish as a benefice.

As regards the first issue, much of the possible conflicts can be avoided if the parish has a finance council as mandated by can. 537. Although the parish priest is the administrator of the goods of the parish, the finance council could give invaluable insight and advise on financial matters. It does not detract from his authority. Rather, it will be a great relief for the pastor if he would be helped in the economic administration of the parish. This will remove the cloud of doubt regarding the use of the parish funds and is in fact a big step towards transparency in the financial affairs in the parish.

As to the question on remuneration, canon 281 ¶1 is quite emphatic in expressing that since clerics dedicate themselves to the ecclesiastical ministry, they deserve the remuneration that befits their condition. I think the basic question that confronts us is how much is the remuneration that befits the condition of the cleric. One of the basic and primary considerations to take here is that such remuneration should be viewed in the light of the special vocation of the priesthood- a sacred ministry which cannot be reduced to something of a purely economic nature. Besides, the canon establishes the general parameter on this regard namely: the nature of his office and the circumstances of time and place.

This problem can be lessened if the diocese will establish a standardized remuneration scheme for clerics as already practiced in some dioceses. It would even be better if the diocese makes provisions for the social welfare of the clergy such as illness, medical needs and old age. These are the main reason why most clerics, especially the diocesan clergy can at times be overly concerned with money matters.

The Locus of Punishments in the Life of the Church

An institution that spouses communion as its nature, forgiveness and love as necessary expressions of its essence, would seem short changed to find within itself a system that pursues crime and punishment. This is precisely the quandary of some members of the Church who feel that penal system runs counter to the essence of the Church as a Communio. As one Prelate told me: “Laws are strait-jacketed norms of behavior, restrictive in posture, coercive for the children of God who are supposed to be free. What I do is to tell my priests to always pursue the good and avoid by all means into falling into grave lapses that could get them in trouble with law and penalty.”

I am a Canon Lawyer of the 1917 Code - an oldie in any standard. The Church was then conceptualized as a perfect society of law and order; an independent and proud institution where rights and obligations of each member are meticulously defined and respected, defended when impugned, vindicated when violated. Clearly, the aim of the law is to establish and sustain a Church that is just, a visible society that seriously looks after the harmonious and orderly development of the life both of the ecclesial society and of the individual members; a society that is proud to preserve right order. In sum, it looks into the promotion and protection of the common good of the Church. For this kind of society to survive it calls for a legal system that must be objective, that is, the competence and the exercise of its ecclesiastical power must give due emphasis to the external forum. Hence, in the Church a system was established to delineate the internal and external forum, out of which the principle like this come out: “De internis Ecclesia non judicat.” For the law to be objective, the rule of law must be observed, out of which maxims come out like this: “The reason of the law, is not the law”; or, “dura lex sed lex.” Within the nature of this concept, the system moves toward the protection, and in any case, toward the restoration of the social order that may be harmed by the offense. From this point of view, it can be understood why the system has to be strict and objective. Also, it can be observed that the preoccupation of the law and its application by the administration was on judging the pastoral activities from the point of view of right or wrong, validity or invalidity of an act; the offense and restoration of just order. It is along this concept also that penal system is required and needed to be instituted. In fact, this is inherent to any legal system that has for its purpose the proper protection of a perfect society.

However, this kind of legal system suffers a flaw: it gave emphasis on peace and order to the Church, on the rights and obligation of the constituents, on the defense and vindication of justice, that it had somehow veered its focus away from the concept of the Church as communion whose main attention is the salus animarum, the sanctification of souls, the development of the members of the Church as a community based on faith, grace, charisms and charity.

The revision of the Code was inspired by the theology of Vatican II. Here, the Church is immediately presented as a great Mystery, a reality that has temporal, measurable qualities, yet transcends the dimension of the temporal order, straddling that it is on the temporal and the spiritual. As such it is a Sacrament of unity for the world, a sign that effects the communion of all men. In this concept the Church is still a society, an association of men and women with rights and obligations. But the focus is no longer on the external discipline that would guide the proper ordering and the harmonious interplay of individuals or group of individuals as they exercise their subjective rights, but shifts more to the internal life of the People of God who are called to holiness and are living as a community.. Of course, Vatican II still talks about this Church as hierarchical, that is, it is set up as an institution with a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. With a sacred power invested on them, the holders of these offices are dedicated to promote the interest of their brethren, and with free and well-ordered efforts bringing them to a common goal which is salvation. They have to look intently into the internal life of the Church, building up the body of Christ through the law of love.

No wonder that in the revision of the 1917 Code, there were quarters, many of them, would like to remove the penal system of the Code, for it seems to run counter to the image of a spiritual Church, that is built on the strength of faith and love. Granted the weaknesses of human nature, they are ready to concede the introduction of a disciplinary system, but one that adheres less to the rigid concepts of crime and punishment, and more along the lines of a sanctioning administrative system. They appeal to the spirit of Vatican Council II, that gives emphasis to the concept of communion which seems not to jibe with a penal system that is by nature coercive, that defines with strict interpretation the alleged offense vis-à-vis the “allata et probata”, and that inflicts just and proportionate punishments. Perhaps disciplinary regulation of some sort with a touch of some undefined sanctions would do.

But, communion is not an ambiguous feeling nor an imprecise sentiment. Communion is an organic reality that requires juridical form. The community of free individuals, to exist as a real communion, is essentially organic and requires a juridical form. The law does not create a community; the community itself, requiring a juridical form consistent to its nature, enacts the law. Through the years the Church has shaped a juridical form that incorporates the penal system for it serves to protect the dignity of its constituents and defend the dignity of the community and the subjective rights of each individual member.

The Church as a communion has to be protected. Penal sanctions do that service. With this concept, penal law can be considered as a necessary instrument in the service of the salus animarum. Salvation may not be its direct and proper objective, but it offers a ready environment for it to flourish and take effect. The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Constitution “Sacrae Disciplinae Leges” underlined the importance of the Code in the life of the Church as a social and visible unit in these words: “… It is sufficiently clear that the purpose of the Code is not in any way to replace faith, grace, charisms and above all charity in the life of the Church or of Christ’s faithful. On the contrary, the Code rather looks towards the achievement of order in the ecclesial society, such that while attributing a primacy to love, grace and the charisms, it facilitates at the same time orderly development in the life both of the ecclesial society and of the individual persons who belong to it.”

EASTER MESSAGE 2008

As the light of the Paschal Candle pierces through the murky night of Holy Saturday, ushering on its break the lilting mood of the Easter Vigil that exudes in the song of the “Exsultet”, the people of faith plunges once again into the deep darkness of the Liturgy of the Word to carefully listen to the words of promise and of hope. It is in this holy darkness that the word of God starts again dispelling the chilling fear of death that has for so long terrorized the heart of man, slowly filling it up in an ever increasing intensity with the message of ‘God cares’ and ‘God saves His people’, that soon would blare into the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus, bursting into songs of jubilation and “alleluia”. For Christ is Risen! Christ is truly risen!

HAPPY EASTER.

But back to reality. Is it really possible to celebrate a happy Easter in the midst of all these social turmoil and political mess? At times we begin to wonder if it remains reasonable to be optimistic about this country. The fact is that many of us have become cynical, refusing to believe that change can still take place, refusing to hold that a better life is still possible. In fact, some people have long given up – they chose to look for greener pasture elsewhere. Can the citizens of a morally shaken country such as ours capable of genuinely greeting each other with greetings of “Alleluias” and “Rejoice, for Christ is risen”?

The answer is why not? After all the Church sincerely believes that the answer to our sad plight goes beyond socio-economic analysis and political maneuverings. For the start our Church believes that this deep Easter experience of the risen Christ would give us the stubborn hope that blossoms best in moments of darkness and ambiguity; that it would give us the needed courage to pick up again the communal problem of searching for the truth that we have temporarily left off; that we can readily face up to the moral problems, political ambiguities, and social illusions, that have through these years tightly gripped the soul of our country. The experience of Easter could give us the hope to extricate ourselves from the sad situation that we are in, the time when work is scarce, when families are so poor they can no longer live with dignity and little pride, when the greed of those in the corridors of power has drowned away all their shame and decency, when corruption has become “our greatest shame as a people” (CBCP, “Reform Yourselves and Believe in the Gospel”).

This hope is dynamic, alive, vigorous. It pushes us to action. It is alien for people of hope to say that the event of our times is inevitable. A Filipino Christian, whose spirit is soaked with the Easter experience, plunges himself into action, for he knows that at the heart of this topsy-turvy nation of ours rests the love of God. Easter has taught him that God has overcome the world. As Jesus said: “In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world” (Jn 16:33).

By action here is meant concrete involvement in the unfolding of our history. Christians who possess the seed of hope in their hearts cannot be passive or indifferent bystanders in the drama which we call “everyday life”. “We can open ourselves and the world and allow God to enter: we can open ourselves to truth, to love, to what is good” (Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 35). “Even when we are fully aware that Heaven far exceeds what we can merit”, the Pope says, “it will always be true that our behavior is not indifferent before God and therefore is not indifferent for the unfolding of history” (35). Even when we seem powerless before the enemy, “our actions engender hope for us and for others…” (35).

In other words, the more we engage actively and constructively in the efforts to improve society, the more we make alive the hope that is in us. Conversely, the more indifferent we are, the more cynicism destroys our capacity to dream for a better, renewed life.

And when we act, when we actively involve ourselves in the unfolding of history, the element of suffering becomes all the more unavoidable. Being a consequence of our finitude, suffering is already inevitable, but it can swell into horrifying levels when we labor for truth and justice. We can perhaps minimize it by leading a life of utter indifference. We can close our eyes from falsehood and tyranny, and spare ourselves from hostility.

But is this the Christian option? The Holy Father says, “It is not by sidestepping or fleeing from suffering that we are healed, but rather by our capacity for accepting it, maturing through it and finding meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love” (37). And with a rather stunning emphasis, he repeats at least three (3) times in the encyclical that the capacity to suffer for truth and justice is an essential criterion, the very measure, of humanity (cf. 38 and 39). To abandon this capacity would destroy man himself. “Truth and justice must stand above my comfort and physical well-being, or else my life itself becomes a lie” (38).

HAPPY EASTER!

Marriage Tribunal, the Judge, and the Cross

Lodged in the center of the Church matrimonial court is the judge. Off hand one may portray him as a cold individual, withdrawn, stern, detached, unyielding. For after all he is sworn to ferret the truth out of conflicting issues and to hand down objective judgment among the contending parties. So, he must be a serious individual, forbidding in stature. But that is an unfair picture of the most important person in the ecclesiastical court of justice. For if it is true to aver that the judge must be impartial and fair, it is as well true to say that any good judge worth his salt must be humane, possessing that sensitivity of a person who understands well what it is to be human and therefore has a good grasp of how fallen human nature expresses itself in its behavior.

Deciding what justice, mercy and compassion demand is the primary work of the judge. It is no easy task, rarely pleasant, to have to pass judgment on issues wherein the interests of one must give way to the rights of another. And yet that is the burden placed on the shoulder of those who exercise judicial power in the Church. It is a burden that should be felt no less in marriage cases than in other judicial or extra-judicial matters a tribunal is asked to address. Indeed, in marriage cases the burden should be felt even more intensely, as here people’s lives and their faith are affected in powerful ways. The judge cannot set aside his responsibility to judge, to choose, to balance, solely because he is afraid that his decisions might adversely affect the lives of those who come to the Church tribunal for answers.

In law, the judge has to be faithful to the canonical procedures. This is a modus operandi demanded from one who exercises the judicial power, a series of activities that is to be carried out by the judge in accordance with the procedures laid down by the legislator. They are not arbitrary rulings or mere formalisms, but the fruit of proven experience that will shield him from subjective acts or decisions prejudicial to the parties involved.

On the other hand, in his struggle to reach a fair judgment in concrete cases as he faithfully observes the rigor and demands of procedural law, he is at the same time asked to dig deep into his core, touching base with his wisdom born from continuous study of the law and his vast experience. After all he is dealing with the complexity of human persons who are breathing realities with feelings and all. For that he should ever be aware that each concrete case demands a treatment that goes beyond the mere interpretation of the law or its rigid application. Process presupposes a judge who meticulously weighs all circumstances of the case and reaches a decision that is just in the concrete case. It is a mental act, subjective in essence, but in the assessment of the concrete case it takes equity foremost in the mind. This truly is an act of a wise man.

The judge is therefore placed in a delicate task of mediating between the canonical system and the persons submitted to its action; between the majesty of the law and the messy reality of flesh-and-blood individuals who are fighting tooth and nail for their God-given rights; between the matrimonial bond that is defined by law as indissoluble and the spouses who contest that from the start there was no such bond. A grave task it is for any judge. But Mother Church steps in for help. She proposes that he should consider well the personalist objective as presented by John Paul II in his Address to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, 27 January 1997 . Here, the Holy Father observed that the Second Vatican Council’s vision of marriage and family contains personalist aspects. As this view of marriage has entered in the codification of 1983 Code of Canon Law, the Holy Father has been asking what would be the juridical consequences that would necessarily flow from these personalist aspects of marriage and family. His answer is to place the persons at the center of the civility of love. For him this approach will not exclude the law. In fact “it demands it, leading to a rediscovery of law as an interpersonal reality and to a vision of juridical institutions that highlights their constitutive link with persons themselves, which is so essential in the case of marriage and the family” (Address of John Paul II, 27 January 1997, 3). It means that correct interpretation of the law and its application can only happen when the person involved is considered in all his/her reality and duly appreciated. Law is an interpersonal reality; juridical institutions demand the constitutive link with persons themselves. Hence, there is no conflict between law and the interpersonal aspects of marriage. Take for instance the “relations between the spouses, in fact, like those between parents and children, are constitutively relations of justice, and for that reason have in themselves juridical significance. Married and parent-child love is not merely an instinctive inclination, nor an arbitrary and reversible choice, but is rather a love that is due” (op. cit.).

In the same breath the judge, assuming a personalist approach in handling matrimonial cases, should also be aware that making decisions about other people’s lives is to take up a heavy cross. We cannot avoid this burden by removing from the judicial processes those parts which are particularly difficult and those instances where our decisions are likely to be unpopular or unpleasant to the parties in question. To lay down this cross, that is, to attempt to avoid the pain that attends the decision making process is to remove from our deliberations, from the workings of our tribunals, the very thing that makes all that we do human and holy. It is to remove the very thing that connects us with the people we are serving.

On the other hand, to bear this cross must lead to some suffering on the part of the judge who helps in making decisions about people’s lives. But this cross also leads to a recapturing of the life and excitement that comes from the working with the law and the facts, and with the human experience grounding those facts. This cross illuminates the dignity in the judge’s work.