Question#1: Is the Vatican right in admonishing Gawad Kalinga..

Answer: On the issue if "admonishing" ..YES ( by all means) the vatican has every right to admonish anyone. It is his pastoral duty to do so. Whether the issue is proven true or not, the VATICAN can admonish Gawad Kalinga. Because to admonish, means to caution, to warn and not to pass judgement. I do not even consider it as a correction. I believe that the vatican is not fully aware of the true situation However, whether they are sure or not of the issue, as a teacher they have cautioned GK to avoid confusion in the future. This is not correction! This is a warning..a reminder, a caution, because...??? (please continue reading). 

 Question#2: for its (GK) "overemphasis on social work?

Answer: On the issue of "overemphasis on social work" this is debatable, subject to argument and needs further clarifications and reasoning.Why? Here is the question as to why?

FFL procalims: GK has overemphasized social over spiritual!

GK answers: There is NONE! We are just an unprofitable servants, we are just doing what we are ought to do!

What are the proofs that GK overemphasizes social over spiritual? I think the biggest proof that FFL could present was GK's acceptance of fund from pharmaceutical companies who manufacture contraceptives. Other proofs mentioned during the Aug24 dialogue with the bishop are too "CFCstique" in nature that only those in CFC can further discuss. (e.g. non-mentioning of CFC in GK activities)

Let me lay out my views on the issue concerning acceptance of donation from the company's who manufacture contraceptives.

                1. When funds was received, it was received on the spirit of partnership to build a dignified life for the poor. It was not in a context of solicitation or seeking donation. When GK calls for heroism, patriotism and many others to help the poor, these corporations (Pfizer and Wyeth) simply responded to that call like what other companies did.

                2. The partnership was not for the purpose of promoting contraceptives! But promoting genuine and everlasting love for the poor. Companies have their own Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program even before GK came into existence, but the unique approach of GK on "work with the poor" have convinced a lot of corporations to join GK's advocacy, adopting it as their own CSR, and even going beyond their usual outreach program. 

                3. Statistically speaking, this two pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer and Wyeth) does not even reach 1% of the more that 200 corporations, schools, local government units, mayors, congressmans, senators, the national government agencies,  religious movements, civic clubs, cause-oriented groups, rich individuals and many others to concule that GK "overemphasized the social over spiritual" by the mere acceptance of such fund from allegedly called "anti-life" companies. But when these 2 corporations desire to help, what should we do? Are we going to throw them out of our sight and prevent them from joining us?

                4. In fact, GK can refuse to accept funds from them. But my question is, if one kind-hearted person who happens to be a CEO/Managing Director or a EVP of a company, a position which made him/her becomes instrumental in bringing the company (where he/she is working) to help the poor, is it just and righteos to say, "I am sorry Mr._______, we cannot accept help, especially money from your company because your company produces contraceptives."? I think this is an unchristian virtue. I i believe, that everyone has the Christian right to do good to others especially the poor regardless of where company he came from. Tony Meloto, or the GK and CFC leaders simply responded in a Christian way to the response of this two corporation, by not being JUDGEMENTAL.

                5. There was a clear guideline on not to accept/solicit donations or fund from the so-called "anti-life" corporations. But there was no clear guidelines too on HOW WE  SHOULD RESPOND TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MANAGERS/CEO/PRESIDENT OF THESE CORPORATIONS WHO DESIRE TO HELP AND BE PART OF OUR CAUSE BUT THE BUSINESS ORGANIZATION WHERE THEY BELONG MANUFACTURES PRODUCTS CONTRARY TO THE ADVOCACY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Papano nga ba tayu makitungo sa kanila? How could we evangelize them if when they responds, we become judgemental. What if they won't give cash, but mobilize their employees to do volunteer labor? What if they decided to construct a livelihood training center, or build 100 houses? We won't accept cash and they won't give us cash either,but helping GK in anyway, can we still deprive them to do that?

                5. Is it not spiritual, when we have taught the corporations the genuine, concerete and sustainable ways of helping the poor. Corporations spend millions of pesos everyday to fund their advertisements, but we were able to convince them to spend millions for the poor too. Isn't it not evangelization?

                6. FFL says that GK has a lot of flaws, that GK is not evengelizing but merely doing a social work. Can u call it "social work", when our CFC volunteers teaches and prohibits our beneficiary from gambling, drinking alcohol, smoking, ***-fighting? Can we say it a "social work" when we taught our beneficiary to be self-less when we say "una sa serbisyo, huli sa benepisyo".? Is it a "social work", when we teach to them the value of "bayanihan" or working together for the common good and not for themselves." Can u call it a social when, we were able to the muslim and christian to live in love, peace and unity in the same GK sites? IS THIS NOT EVANGELIZATION?

                7. In fact, (without putting down the other Pillars) thru GK, CFC have evangelized much. Why? Because, GK have restored the dignity of the poor, GK have taught the poor to HOPE again, GK have made the poor realize that there is truly God thru the modern "samaritans". GK have evengelized much when the poor decided to make a new life because they have a new house. "Bagong Bahay, Bagong Buhay" concept. But who is behind all these works, it is CFC!

                8. The fact of the matter is, why FFL has concluded that GK overemphasize social over spiritual, because the have only seen the building of houses and some other activities, such as livelihood training, medical and dental services, education and etc. But they have not seen the values formation teachings, they have not seen the everyday sacrifices of the caretaker volunteers who go there regularly to ensure the continuity of the program. Colorful houses, BUILD, BAYANI Challenge thru construction of houses, and other VISIBLE and EYE-CATCHING scenario in the GK sites were the only one given focus by the media, by television, by the radio, by the nespaper. Maybe there was an overemphasis on social over spiritual, on the matter of promoting GK thru media. Why not this time, magnify what the GK Caretaker Teams teach to the beneficiary every Values Formation Trainings of GK Kapitbahayan?

 Again, is there any overemphasis?

FFL claims YES!

CFC declares NONE! We are just passionate in living out our Christian virtue!

Maybe FFL only knows build, donations, money and colorful houses when it comes to GK! But let me tell you this, for CFC who have been in GK work for so long and have put their heart in it, IT IS MORE THAN COLOREFUL HOMES, IT IS MORE THAN MONEY, IT MORE THAN DONATIONs, IT IS MORE THAN PARTNERS, IT IS MORE THAN OUTREACH, IT IS GIVING OUR LIFE SO THAT OTHERS MAY LIVE A DIGNIFIED LIFE! FFL calls these overemphasis, but we (CFC) call it GENUINE LOVE!

Bro. Mero

grabe ito. tsk. tsk. parang mga phariseo. check my blog: the left click.

my answer is a BIG NO, im sure its pure jealousy. the very same thing with what the pharisees felt at the time of jesus, why would there be an overemphasis when there was never an instance when something was done like what GK has been doing in the first place.  im sure many would disagree with me but personally, i believe our being catholics made us poor..hehe we have been listening to our priests for the past hundred of years but there was never a change in our sountry, because they did not do what christians were literally supposed to do, do the same thing what Christ had done...

my answer is a BIG NO, im sure its pure jealousy. the very same thing with what the pharisees felt at the time of jesus, why would there be an overemphasis when there was never an instance when something was done like what GK has been doing in the first place.  im sure many would disagree with me but personally, i believe our being catholics made us poor..hehe we have been listening to our priests for the past hundred of years but there was never a change in our country, because they did not do what christians were literally supposed to do, do the same thing what Christ had done...

Dear Brethren,

It is so sad after past happy days, happy years in a happy family, now we the brothers and sisters are the bitter foe to one another. We should not forget what we learned ''we are all brothers and sisters in the body of Christ'' (one body with different parts and with different function). We are all trying to share our part in building the kingdom. As it said, parts of our growth are these struggles in shine and in rain, and it is not correct to reprimand always the wrong.

We should not miss the point, the wisdom that given to me, ''it is permitted to happen (the split of the CFC) because of the birth of other works or mission''. It is very clear the main objective is to have more workers on the vineyard with various assignments. So let us stop finding fault and blame to one another but instead let us join or support which we favored and let we pray to guide us all in reaching the goal.

 

Your Brother in Christ,

T2 Bart

Itt seems to be a WRONGLY formulated question. The Vatican letter was meant to "COUNTERBALANCE  the over empahsis on social work". So strictly speaking the question shoudl be "Is the Vatican right in admonishing Gawad Kalinga to counterbalance its over emphasis on social work?"  Formulated that way, the answer would be a firm "YES!". For it is always prudent to remind us Christians, before, during or even after we have done something good to maintain balance in our Christian life.

Now, there is a follow-up question:   Is (was) the Vatican right in its assessement that there is in fact an over emphasis on social work of Gawad Kalinga? That's a totally different question. My personal opinion is that, within the context of the specfic work of building homes for the poor or less privileged, so that there can have decent place to live (I had once blessed a number of these homes in Nueva Ecija), one can not speak of "over emphais".

 My simple advice is: let's not stifle the work of the Holy Spirit. Heaven has heard the prayers of thousands of dedicated people in their desire to build God's Kingdom.. Let us be sensitive to where the Spirit leads us. Where He leads usually goes beyond even our original narrow (good) visions. We can not box the the workings of the Spirit, otherwise, we will not be in for His many surprises!

On the coming Feast of Pentecost, let us be led by the Spirit and not lead the Spirit.   

This is indeed a well-written and well thought-of response. I have reservations though with the idea that since the Vatican has spoken, there "is NO more questions that accepting such donations [from pharmaceuticals promoting contraceptives] is not alllowed". The truth is,  the MORAL QUESTION REMAINS: Is it moral or ethical to receive donations from donors whose source of income is derived from selling or promoting immoral or unethical products?  To give a categoral "NO" to the question is, to say the least, imprecise and misleading if not wrong. If one would pursue the logic of that thinking, then it is not only Mother Theresa who is wrong, even the poor people who receives such donations from Mother Theresa or her congregation, especially if these poor recipents know NOW that what they are getting in terms of food, medicine and clothing comes from immoral sources. If one would be casuistic about the issue, what if the amount donated is derived from selling of legitimate and moral products other than contraceptives, which obviously the said legitimate and moral products the pharmaceutical companies also do sell and promote?

I am still of the opinion that Mother Theresa's response is within the limits of very SOUND MORAL THEOLOGY: It is not the practice of the Church to ask donors  where their donations come from. Our duty is to make it sure that all donations go to the poorest of the poor.

Imagine the situation where a priest announces before a Sunday congregation, "Brothers and Sisters, henceforth, following the instruction of the Vatican, we will not be accepting donations today which comes from immoral sources and that includes, the money you should rather use for your family needs! The poor are, therefore exempted from giving donations." Imagine the consequences? 

Lastly, even the most authoritative instructions from a lawful authority, say the Vatican, has to ground his instructions from a sound moral CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE.

I think our Brothers and Sisters in CFC-IC have missed the point: the Vatican is not against GK, but the way GK has been handled especially accepting money from pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives.

How can CFC-IC claim to be pro-life on one hand and accepting money from pharma companies (manufacturing contraceptives) on the other hand.  What is more puzzling is: CFC-IC does not see what is wrong with accepting money from these pharma companies.  I think CFC-IC has lost touch on what is the right direction...

Further, I think the debate is over, the Vatican has spoken.  The verdict: correct the errors of CFC-IC.  It looks like this is something CFC-IC does not understand and/or refuse to accept...are they now going against the Vatican ? 

 

Michael One:

I think our Brothers and Sisters in CFC-IC have missed the point: the Vatican is not against GK, but the way GK has been handled especially accepting money from pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives.

How can CFC-IC claim to be pro-life on one hand and accepting money from pharma companies (manufacturing contraceptives) on the other hand.  What is more puzzling is: CFC-IC does not see what is wrong with accepting money from these pharma companies.  I think CFC-IC has lost touch on what is the right direction...

Further, I think the debate is over, the Vatican has spoken.  The verdict: correct the errors of CFC-IC.  It looks like this is something CFC-IC does not understand and/or refuse to accept...are they now going against the Vatican ? 

 

How about the pharm company that sells viagra but the same time sells cancer and hiv drugs, are they also part of the ban for giving donations to the catholic church?

---

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

Michael One:

I think our Brothers and Sisters in CFC-IC have missed the point: the Vatican is not against GK, but the way GK has been handled especially accepting money from pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives.

I think everyone of us would agree that the Vatican is definitely not against GK. Even Pope John Paul II had always reminded every Catholic to bring good tidings to the poor. I also think it is unfair to conclude that the International Council is missing the point by suggesting that they would think that the Vatican is against GK. I do respect your opinion and you certainly have the right to give your impression of the International Council.

Michael One:

How can CFC-IC claim to be pro-life on one hand and accepting money from pharma companies (manufacturing contraceptives) on the other hand.  What is more puzzling is: CFC-IC does not see what is wrong with accepting money from these pharma companies.  I think CFC-IC has lost touch on what is the right direction...

To be fair to the current International Council (IC), they've only be elected last year and the partnership with the pharmaceuticals goes back to Sept 2005 (the time when Frank Padilla was still the Executive Director of CFC and Board Chairman of GK and part of the IC). While it is absolutely valid of Frank Padilla and others to question those deals 2 yrs later, it is unfair to put the blame entirely on the current International Council (or those who were part of the previous or current IC). And although I think the IC sees the contradiction between accepting money from these pharma companies and being Pro-Life, I don't think it is puzzling if someone thinks there's nothing wrong with such. I am sure Cardinal Sin or Mother Theresa were also Pro-Life yet they've managed to think along the same lines as what the CFC might have thought before. I am not justifying Cardinal Sin or Mother Theresa or CFC but what I'm saying is that it's not puzzling to think that it's OK to accept, specially if your intention is pure. Besides, being Pro-Life does not only mean "conception of new life" but also mean maintaining life for those who are "already living". If you have a brother who is poor and is dying, and you have a drug company that is offering you a "life-preserving" medicine, would you refuse the offer and possibly risking the possibility that your brother will die just because you care so much about the children who are yet to live?

Personally, if I were in that situation, I would not think twice and I will accept the donation, if it's going to save my brother. Bahala na siguro kung mapunta ako sa impyerno, by doing so. Baka yung iba sa atin, ganun din ang gagawin. But I do understand that for a Catholic organization like CFC which is an extension of the Vatican by virtue of its recognition, it is indeed vital to stand for what is right (Pro-Life) and avoid anything that would make it more difficult to make that stand (the hypocrisy of the contradiction that you stated).

(On a side note, the contraceptive drug in question has valid medical applications for women suffering from endometriosis. This drug has also been discontinued by the local manufacturer. The manufacturer also took the effort to pull from the market left-over stocks of this contraceptive. However, in it's letter to CFC-IC, the Vatican is firm in its stand that even if local subsidiaries are clean but its parent company somewhere in the world is not, it's not OK to accept.)

Michael One:

Further, I think the debate is over, the Vatican has spoken.  The verdict: correct the errors of CFC-IC.  It looks like this is something CFC-IC does not understand and/or refuse to accept...are they now going against the Vatican ? 

Indeed, the Vatican has spoken and it's now very clear on the matter. I beg to disagree on your conclusion though that CFC-IC does not understand or refuse to accept, and that they are now against the Vatican.

This is what Joe Tale said in his interview on DZMM:

(commentator: asking about contraceptives and donation...)
I would like to say that the partnerships were entered into with a good faith, with a pure heart. Kasi yun namang tulong nila had nothing to do with contraceptives or what. I would like to assure the audience na wala pong GK sites na nag-di-distribute ng contraceptives. Yung pong tulong ng mga kumpanya ay doon sa ibang aspeto, capacitive building para dun mga beneficiaries to help them deal with health concerns. Pangalawa, gusto ko lang din linawin na in the process, this matter was brought into our attention and we did something about it. We did something about it. Naki-usap po kami dun sa mga tumutulong at napag-usapan na siguro mas maigi na hindi na natin i-tuloy... (commentator: hindi** nyo ho tumanggap pa kayo ng donasyon?).. Ang ano nga dun ay yung itigil po yung pakiki-pag-partner although masakit man yun sa amin dahil marami din pong naitulong etong mga companies na eto sa amin ngunit malinaw din na kami po ay isang Katolikong organisasyon at, at the end of the day, we follow. (commentator.. asking again about accepting donations from contraceptive producing companies..) Kami ay susunod sa guidelines ng simbahan. Kanya din nung nabanggit yung mga katanungan... Our identity as Catholic is clear, and we will abide by the guidelines of the Church. Pero dun po sa mga bagay-bagay na iyun, palagay ko meron pong space para mapag-usapan or mapaliwanag, ma-clarify ang ika nga mga gray areas. (commentator.. so gray area pa eto?) Sa ngayon po ay malinaw po yung direction ng Simbahan so kami po ay susunod. (Commentator again ask the same question the third time about accepting such donations...) Yun po ang guideline kaya kami po ay susunod... I see this with, ano po, with with sadness ngunit (also with faith) na sa atin pong pag-sunod ng ating Simbahan is something would trully really come out of it and will be a real blessing...

The CFC International Council also issued an apology:

"We sincerely apologize for any scandal that the Couples For Christ leadership, past or present, may have caused among the faithful with our previous partnerships. ... We will do our mission in full communion with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church...".

I think everyone deserves forgiveness, even the International Council. And I think we have to give them a chance to prove themselves that they can solve these problems instead of being too pessimistic and concluding right now that they are failure. Let us all pray for them.

And by the way, the letter to Joe Tale from Cardinal Rylko (available for download here at ABS-CBN which is the basis for this survey) could be A FORGERY.

May the Lord have mercy on those who forged the document (on the other hand, it might be an honest mistake).

Allow me to post an email I received about this...

-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008...
From: ....
Subject: RE : ...
To: ...

Just For Your Info...

Here are some interesting points about this Vatican letter cited in the ABS-CBN article:

• It is part of a series of 4 letters

• It is supposed to be a private letter to Joe Tale (CC'ed to Bishop Reyes) from the Vatican on March 11

• As early as April 13th, the 4 letters has been circulating within the FFL community (click here )

• On April 16, an article entitled "Vatican admonishes Couples for Christ over Gawad Kalinga" was published on ABS-CBN .
  

• Around that same time, the March 11 letter was made available for download on ABS-CBN web site (click here ). The other 3 letters were not published even if the article said "Four letters between two Vatican officials, Tale, and Bishop Gabriel Reyes on the issue were obtained by abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak"

• On April 18th, Bishop Reyes said thru the Inquirer "It is more of a guidance, a correction" (see here )

• In his April 30 email , Brother Frank Padilla maintained that "this did not come from us as we had no copy, but came from them as they tried to downplay the ABS-CBN news item" (though it already circulated within FFL at least 3 days  before the ABS-CBN article)
  

• The ABS-CBN copy of the letter had yellow highlights on phrases favorable to FFL's arguments (again, see here , or here  if ABS-CBN pulls it out)

• The copy of the letter circulating in FFL had no highlights but otherwise is the same as the ABS-CBN copy (see here or a zoomed out version here  showing Lachie Agana as one of recipients)

• The original letter from the CFC-GMFI Home Office looks very different (see here ):

• The CFC-GMFI copy contains a fax time of "08:58" at the top-left whereas the ABS-CBN and FFL don't have any at that area (this could be important but only if it's possible that the Vatican faxed the letter to the 2nd recipient a minute or more after the first)
• The ABS-CBN and FFL copy contains a shorter 2nd paragraph (words were maliciously omitted from sentences) (highlights here are mine):

"In describing the facts, you admitted that in this difficult period lived by the association Couples for Christ, there have been mistakes. It was also important that you have realized that much scandal to correct this. In this regard, it is important that you follow the recommendations that the ecclesiastical authorities have indicated."

• The CFC-GMFI copy contains the full 2nd paragraph (highlights here are mine):

"In describing the facts, you admitted that in this difficult period lived by the association Couples for Christ, there have been mistakes. It was also important that you have realized that much scandal and confusion is being provoked by the fact that Couples for Christ received funds from pharmaceutical firms producing contraceptives. We appreciated the explanation on your part and your sincere willingness to correct this. In this regard, it is important that you follow the recommendations that the ecclesiastical authorities have indicated."

• In that 2nd paragraph, the ABS-CBN and FFL copy made it appear that the scandal is caused in general by CFC-GMFI's mistakes. In the CFC-GMFI copy, the scandal "is being provoked" (only) by the receiving of funds from pharmas producing contraceptives. The ABS-CBN and FFL copy also removed the Vatican's appreciation of CFC's explanation and willingness to correct. The omissions of these words from the Cardinal changed the tone of the message (from a guidance to an admonition).
  

• That March 11 letter (that was tampered) was written by the Pontifical Council for the Laity of the Vatican. The Vatican itself is the overseer of the Church which Jesus described as "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". This incident is an unfortunate disregard for the authority of the Vatican and a twisting of the Truth. It is very sad that things have to get this low.
  
• There is an April 3 letter to Joe Tale from the Vatican that might be unfavorable to some as it says "your name 'Couples For Christ' cannot be used by any other association" (see here ). The CFC-GMFI International Council also issued an apology as was requested by the Vatican (a full-page ad in the April 7 issue of the Philippine Star, see here )
  
• Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

 

I strongly believe that Vatican will not issue such statement without basis. Bro. Joe Tale in his visit to the Vatican admitted they have committed mistakes.

CFC-GK always stress that they are Vatican recognized, and now that the Vatican is giving them directions on dealing with GK donors it seems it is very difficult for them to accept.

Then if they don't want to follow the Vatican then it is might as well that GK be weaned from CFC, since CFC is a lay organization with Vatican recognition..

If catholics like us will not follow what the magisterium from Vatican says then who are we going to follow?

Let us TRUST our bishops and church hierarchy. May they always be there to guide us in our journey here on earth.

 

Brother,

 In your comment with the statement:

There is an April 3 letter to Joe Tale from the Vatican that might be unfavorable to some as it says "your name 'Couples For Christ' cannot be used by any other association" (see here ).

 Only a portion of the letter is included.  Why did CFC-IC did not include the whole text of the letter ? Is CFC-IC hiding something ?  CFC-IC have misquoted the bishops' and cardinals' statements before.  Are they doing the same thing again?  So the letter will be toned in CFC-IC's favor ?

 

On Joe Tale's radio interview, he was not clear CFC-IC will stop receiving money from the pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives... he only indicated that "susunod " sila, but which among the many will they follow ?  Up until now, CFC-IC is justifying (you included) the acceptance of money from pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives.

 CFC-FFL is against receiving money from pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives.

Should CFC-IC decide to stop receiving money from these pharma companies, then CFC-IC is becoming more of CFC-FFL. 

God bless...

 

 

Anna One:

CFC-GK always stress that they are Vatican recognized, and now that the Vatican is giving them directions on dealing with GK donors it seems it is very difficult for them to accept.

May I ask you to cite specific directions on dealing with GK donors that the IC found difficult to accept? I reviewed the IC statements and I must have missed them as I didn't see anything that would make me arrive at the same conclusion. They did try to discuss to the Vatican their rationale and I don't see anything inherently wrong with pointing out what they think might be reasonable. In my humble opinion, I think it is perfectly valid of them to consult and ask the Vatican of difficult questions so none of these would happen again in the future.

Anna One:

If catholics like us will not follow what the magisterium from Vatican says then who are we going to follow?

Let us TRUST our bishops and church hierarchy. May they always be there to guide us in our journey here on earth.

I agree with you on this my dear sister, that us Catholics should follow what the Church says.

Anna One:

Brother,

In your comment with the statement:

There is an April 3 letter to Joe Tale from the Vatican that might be unfavorable to some as it says "your name 'Couples For Christ' cannot be used by any other association" (see here ).

 Only a portion of the letter is included.  Why did CFC-IC did not include the whole text of the letter ?

The letters are supposed to be private communique between the Vatican and Joe Tale. Unfortunately, it found it's way into FFL.

Although I am not in the know of how the CFC-IC thinks, here are some of my thoughts:

1. Maybe there was not enough space to publish the whole letter on a paid advertisement because the IC still has to write a few other text

2. Posting the whole letter would also require posting the other letters for it to be understood in its context. The point in the advertisement is to clarify the use of the CFC name (and not to bother the readers with the details of the other topics that are not relevant to that objective of clarifying the name, had there been a need to publish all those letters).

2. Maybe they actually respect the privacy of Cardinal Rylko. The letter containing that quote was dated April 3 and the Philippine Star advertisement referencing that letter was dated May 1. The letter clearly contains a quote very favorable to the IC yet they did not take advantage of it "right away". They published the quote only after the veil of privacy was removed when it made the rounds in the FFL emails. There might have been a difference in promptness had the situation been reversed and it was favorable to other groups.

Anna One:

Is CFC-IC hiding something ?  CFC-IC have misquoted the bishops' and cardinals' statements before.  Are they doing the same thing again?  So the letter will be toned in CFC-IC's favor ?

As far as I know, there is nothing to hide specially that the letters are widely available in the FFL emails. Can you cite specific instances where the CFC-IC misquoted bishops and cardinals?

In the spirit of fairness, there might already be a case or precedent where a letter was toned or tampered to favor an one side (I am referring to the possibility that someone forged that other letter from Cardinal Rylko's letter to Joe Tale).

Anna One:

On Joe Tale's radio interview, he was not clear CFC-IC will stop receiving money from the pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives... he only indicated that "susunod " sila, but which among the many will they follow ?  Up until now, CFC-IC is justifying (you included) the acceptance of money from pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives.

It was crystal clear to me, but I respect if you heard otherwise. Can you cite these other "which among the many" that you think would be difficult to follow?

We are not justifying our mistakes, we are simply trying to explain how we made the mistakes.  When these mistakes are being used to condemn us, one of the things we can do is to explain how we arrived at the mistake. We are not closed-minded and we are certainly open to brotherly correction (and we thank the Vatican for giving us specific things to do). We asked our brothers and sisters to pray for us that the Lord will give us the provisions and wisdom to rectify these problems. It is certainly not un-christian for us to pray for the success of others, to pray for the success of the CFC International Council in solving these problems.

The IC already made a public apology. They already re-iterated their position of being Pro-Life and being one with the Catholic Church. Let us not be too harsh on them.

By the way, if you've heard of Caritas Manila, this is what they say they are:

CARITAS MANILA is the lead Catholic agency for social services and development in the Archdiocese of Manila and a lead provider of technical assistance to social service and development ministries in the five other Metro Manila dioceses.

Check out two of their donors here (look for Pfizer and United Laboratories). Again, we are not justifying CFC's previous partnerships or asking for a Caritas apology, but we only ask to put things into perspective. This is not to cast a bad light on Caritas Manila as they are our fellow laborers in helping the least of our brethren. I apologize that I have to mention Caritas Manila here. I have very high regards for charitable organizations.

Anna One:

 

CFC-FFL is against receiving money from pharma companies manufacturing contraceptives.

When brother Frank Padilla was still the Executive Director of CFC, the Board Chairman of GK, and part of the IC, he was silent and he did not oppose these partnerships. I do honor him for having a change of heart 2 years later because being Pro-Life is certainly the right thing to do. I also honor the leadership of FFL for being very convicted on this matter of Pro-Life.

To also put things into perspective, FFL also accepted the donation of Manny and Cynthia Villar. Allow me to quote this from FFL's web site (cfcffl.org):

Also present was Congress-woman Cynthia Villar. It is through the generosity of Cynthia, and her husband Senator Manny Villar, that CFC-FFL has this Home Office.

For those who don't know, Cynthia Villar is one of the co-authors of the Reproductive Health Bill (see here, and also profile.org's stand on this here). This is an excerpt from this anti-life bill:

b. The full range of family planning methods both natural family planning and modern contraceptive methods (e.g., condoms, vaginal barrier methods, oral contraceptives, implants, intrauterine devices, male and female voluntary sterilization, and emergency contraception (EC).

I apologize for mentioning the Villars as I am sure they are very nice persons and that they are humble and dedicated public servants. I only mentioned them so that people would be forgiving to CFC about the mistakes it may have done.

Anna One:

Should CFC-IC decide to stop receiving money from these pharma companies, then CFC-IC is becoming more of CFC-FFL. 

They've already decided that these partnerships be ceased (althought I admit that I find it hard to explain in such a way that people would believe, without me going through my arguments over and over again).

I would humbly request that you refrain from using CFC in referring to your group, as per your conviction that we Catholics should follow what the magisterium from the Vatican says. On this matter, what the Vatican says to Joe Tale is clear: "your name 'Couples For Christ' cannot be used by any other association". I symphatize with the hurt and disappointment our brethrens in FFL must have felt upon news of this Vatican quote. Please be assured that we do not take joy in the pain of others. It is only our sincere belief that having distinct names will allow our two groups to heal and to move forward in the mission that the Lord had entrusted to each of our group.

May God bless all of us in CFC and FFL!!!