We welcome with joy and gratitude the release of the missionary, Fr. Giancarlo Bossi, by his abductors. For many weeks, in behalf of his relatives and community, many people prayed and appealed for mercy and compassion for Fr. Bossi.
Foreign missionaries are giving a great service to the people in far-flung corners of the country especially in Mindanao, at great sacrifice and even dangers. We hope that what happened to Fr. Bossi will not happen again.
Prior to the release of Fr. Bossi, there was the barbaric and bloody ambush of Philippine Marines at which 14 (?) lost their lives. We condemn such heinous act, and join the appeal for justice in the restoration of peace. Let the same not happen again in our society of already precarious peace.
We express appreciation to all who facilitated his release.
We recognize in the incidence, the elements of peace-making and peace-giving, from which we can try to move on.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 20, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Towards a Second National Rural Congress
FORTY years ago, the Church in the Philippines convened a National Rural Congress highlighting the call that “the Church must go to the barrios.” The involvement of the Church in rural issues was concretized in the formation of diocesan social action centers, rural cooperatives, advocacy groups for agrarian reform, and others.
To commemorate that event held in 1967, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines issued early this year the pastoral statement, “The Dignity of the Rural Poor – A Gospel Concern”. We made a call for a Second National Rural Congress (NRC II) to review the continuing issues confronting the majority of our people living in rural areas. “But this time,” we said, “our farmers must do the speaking by themselves, the discerning, the proposing of their own ideas, the planning of how we must as a people come together to work for the common good of the country…”
In this light, we are adopting a SEE-JUDGE-ACT methodology in convening this Second National Rural Congress. There are five objectives:
1. To describe the current situation of various sectors of the rural poor—e.g., small farmers, landless workers, indigenous people, small fishermen, rural women and youth, etc.;
2. To describe the role of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs) and church-based programs in rural development;
3. To review the impact of key social legislation and to engage government agencies in the implementation of ongoing social reform programs under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA), etc.;
4. To apply the Social Teachings of the Church to the concrete problems of Philippine rural society and to arrive at recommendations and action plans; and
5. To collate and disseminate research findings through media channels, and to promote continuing dialogue among local churches, NGOs and academe in the social transformation of rural—as well as urban poor—communities.
The timetable comprises two phases
Phase I: (July-November 2007) in two parallel tracks:
A. Diocesan consultations on BECs in rural development (to be conducted by the National Secretarial for Social Action (NASSA), and the Offices for BECs and Indigenous People);
B. Sub-regional consultations on rural poor sectors and rural issues (to be conducted by the Philippine-Misereor Partnership (PMP), the Association of Major Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), and the Rural Poor Solidarity (RPS) coalition of non-government and people’s organizations.
Phase II: (First Quarter of 2008) – convening of NRC II to discuss the collated inputs from the diocesan and sub-regional consultations. The Congress itself may take two-to-three days.
Overseeing the entire process under the CBCP Plenary Assembly is the NRC Central Committee with Archbishop Antonio Ledesma (Executive Chairman), Bishop Broderick Pabillo (Vice Chairman), Bishop Socrates Villegas, Bishop Sergio Utleg and Sr. Rosanne Mallillin, SPC (members).
The Central Committee is to be assisted by the Episcopal Advisory Council, which is composed of Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales (Luzon), Ricardo Cardinal Vidal (Visayas), Archbishop Orlando Quevedo (Mindanao), and Archbishop Angel Lagdameo (CBCP).
The ad intra secretariat for the diocesan consultations on BECs includes: Sr. Rosanne Mallilin of CBCP-NASSA (Coordinator), Msgr. Elmer Abacahin of the CBCP-BEC Office, and a representative of the Episcoal Commission on Indigenous Peoples. The ad extra secretariat for Sub-regional consultations on rural issues includes: Ms. Lourdes Cipriano of PMP (Coordinator), Bro. Hansel Mapayo of AMRSP, and Ms. Belinda Formanes of RPS.
An auxiliary arm of the NRC Central Committee will be composed of the CBCP Offices of Research (under Abp. Antonio Ledesma), Media (under Msgr. Pedro Quitorio), and Secretariat (under Msgr. Juanito Figura).
Moreover, from time to time, there will be periodic consultations of notable lay advisers, research centers, and other Episcopal commissions. (cf. the organizational flow of NRC II in the Appendix.)
It is in this light that we make an appeal to all our diocesan social action centers, schools, and research centers as well as farmers’ organizations, NGOs, and government agencies to participate actively in a spirit of solidarity in the various activities outlined for the NRC II process.
The expected outcome of this NRC process, including Phases I and II, are:
1. SEE: a fuller description, both quantitative and qualitative, of the rural poverty situation;
2. JUDGE: a deeper analysis of the situation in the light of the Social Teachings of the Church; and
3. ACT: concrete proposals for action addressed to the rural sectors, local churches, government agencies, NGOs, and others.
Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of Truth, Justice, and Love—and through the intercession of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, may we carry out these proposed activities in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the countryside.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines;
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
President, CBCP
16 July 2007
To commemorate that event held in 1967, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines issued early this year the pastoral statement, “The Dignity of the Rural Poor – A Gospel Concern”. We made a call for a Second National Rural Congress (NRC II) to review the continuing issues confronting the majority of our people living in rural areas. “But this time,” we said, “our farmers must do the speaking by themselves, the discerning, the proposing of their own ideas, the planning of how we must as a people come together to work for the common good of the country…”
In this light, we are adopting a SEE-JUDGE-ACT methodology in convening this Second National Rural Congress. There are five objectives:
1. To describe the current situation of various sectors of the rural poor—e.g., small farmers, landless workers, indigenous people, small fishermen, rural women and youth, etc.;
2. To describe the role of Basic Ecclesial Communities (BECs) and church-based programs in rural development;
3. To review the impact of key social legislation and to engage government agencies in the implementation of ongoing social reform programs under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA), etc.;
4. To apply the Social Teachings of the Church to the concrete problems of Philippine rural society and to arrive at recommendations and action plans; and
5. To collate and disseminate research findings through media channels, and to promote continuing dialogue among local churches, NGOs and academe in the social transformation of rural—as well as urban poor—communities.
The timetable comprises two phases
Phase I: (July-November 2007) in two parallel tracks:
A. Diocesan consultations on BECs in rural development (to be conducted by the National Secretarial for Social Action (NASSA), and the Offices for BECs and Indigenous People);
B. Sub-regional consultations on rural poor sectors and rural issues (to be conducted by the Philippine-Misereor Partnership (PMP), the Association of Major Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP), and the Rural Poor Solidarity (RPS) coalition of non-government and people’s organizations.
Phase II: (First Quarter of 2008) – convening of NRC II to discuss the collated inputs from the diocesan and sub-regional consultations. The Congress itself may take two-to-three days.
Overseeing the entire process under the CBCP Plenary Assembly is the NRC Central Committee with Archbishop Antonio Ledesma (Executive Chairman), Bishop Broderick Pabillo (Vice Chairman), Bishop Socrates Villegas, Bishop Sergio Utleg and Sr. Rosanne Mallillin, SPC (members).
The Central Committee is to be assisted by the Episcopal Advisory Council, which is composed of Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales (Luzon), Ricardo Cardinal Vidal (Visayas), Archbishop Orlando Quevedo (Mindanao), and Archbishop Angel Lagdameo (CBCP).
The ad intra secretariat for the diocesan consultations on BECs includes: Sr. Rosanne Mallilin of CBCP-NASSA (Coordinator), Msgr. Elmer Abacahin of the CBCP-BEC Office, and a representative of the Episcoal Commission on Indigenous Peoples. The ad extra secretariat for Sub-regional consultations on rural issues includes: Ms. Lourdes Cipriano of PMP (Coordinator), Bro. Hansel Mapayo of AMRSP, and Ms. Belinda Formanes of RPS.
An auxiliary arm of the NRC Central Committee will be composed of the CBCP Offices of Research (under Abp. Antonio Ledesma), Media (under Msgr. Pedro Quitorio), and Secretariat (under Msgr. Juanito Figura).
Moreover, from time to time, there will be periodic consultations of notable lay advisers, research centers, and other Episcopal commissions. (cf. the organizational flow of NRC II in the Appendix.)
It is in this light that we make an appeal to all our diocesan social action centers, schools, and research centers as well as farmers’ organizations, NGOs, and government agencies to participate actively in a spirit of solidarity in the various activities outlined for the NRC II process.
The expected outcome of this NRC process, including Phases I and II, are:
1. SEE: a fuller description, both quantitative and qualitative, of the rural poverty situation;
2. JUDGE: a deeper analysis of the situation in the light of the Social Teachings of the Church; and
3. ACT: concrete proposals for action addressed to the rural sectors, local churches, government agencies, NGOs, and others.
Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of Truth, Justice, and Love—and through the intercession of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, may we carry out these proposed activities in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the countryside.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines;
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
President, CBCP
16 July 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Press Statement on the “Tridentine” Mass
WE fully welcome with respect and appreciation the recent Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XVI on the “Tridentine” Mass. It clarifies for us the status of the Tridentine Mass in the Latin Language.
In accordance with the Apostolic Letter (“Motu proprio”) entitled “Summorum Pontificum” of Pope Benedict XVI, the celebration of the so-called Tridentine Mass, which is in the Latin language, as approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962 continues to be fully permissible as an extraordinary form of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass was never forbidden or abrogated.
The so-called “New Mass” which was introduced after the Second Vatican Council and approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 has become more popular among the people because it allowed the use of some approved adaptations, including the use of the popular languages and dialects. It became the ordinary form of the Mass, widely celebrated in the parish churches.
When may the Tridentine (Latin) Mass be celebrated? According to the letter of Pope Benedict XVI, it may be celebrated by catholic priests of the Latin Rite: a) in private masses, b) in conventual or community mass in accordance with the specific statutes of the Congregation, c) in parishes upon request of the faithful and under the guidance of the bishop (in accordance with Canon 392). In such Masses, however, the readings may be given in the vernacular.
This permission given by Pope Benedict XVI means that the Mass in Latin and in accordance with the formula of the Council of Trent, hence Tridentine, with the celebrant’s back to the faithful may be celebrated, as it was never forbidden or abrogated. For new priests, this will require formation in the Latin Mass.
Now, we are instructed that in the liturgy of the Mass, there is the ordinary form which is that approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 after the Vatican II; and there is the extraordinary form—the Tridentine (Latin) Mass which is that approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962. The two forms will have their way of leading the faithful to the true worship of God in prayer and liturgy; and may even be a factor for unity in the Church.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 9, 2007
In accordance with the Apostolic Letter (“Motu proprio”) entitled “Summorum Pontificum” of Pope Benedict XVI, the celebration of the so-called Tridentine Mass, which is in the Latin language, as approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962 continues to be fully permissible as an extraordinary form of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass was never forbidden or abrogated.
The so-called “New Mass” which was introduced after the Second Vatican Council and approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 has become more popular among the people because it allowed the use of some approved adaptations, including the use of the popular languages and dialects. It became the ordinary form of the Mass, widely celebrated in the parish churches.
When may the Tridentine (Latin) Mass be celebrated? According to the letter of Pope Benedict XVI, it may be celebrated by catholic priests of the Latin Rite: a) in private masses, b) in conventual or community mass in accordance with the specific statutes of the Congregation, c) in parishes upon request of the faithful and under the guidance of the bishop (in accordance with Canon 392). In such Masses, however, the readings may be given in the vernacular.
This permission given by Pope Benedict XVI means that the Mass in Latin and in accordance with the formula of the Council of Trent, hence Tridentine, with the celebrant’s back to the faithful may be celebrated, as it was never forbidden or abrogated. For new priests, this will require formation in the Latin Mass.
Now, we are instructed that in the liturgy of the Mass, there is the ordinary form which is that approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 after the Vatican II; and there is the extraordinary form—the Tridentine (Latin) Mass which is that approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962. The two forms will have their way of leading the faithful to the true worship of God in prayer and liturgy; and may even be a factor for unity in the Church.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 9, 2007
Monday, July 09, 2007
CBCP Pastoral Statement on the 2007 National Elections
We are grateful to the many people who worked hard for honest and clean elections last May 2007. In a special way we commend the lay groups under the leadership of the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), the National Movement for Free Election (NAMFREL), the National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA), the Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan, the Catholic Media Network, and the newly organized Legal Network for a Truthful Elections (LENTE). Their efforts undoubtedly contributed to the emergence of a new political consciousness among the electorate. In many cases, the voters were not naively allured by popular personalities or by those who gave away much money. We thank the thousands who, in various capacities, devoted themselves to achieving Clean, Honest, Accurate, Meaningful and Peaceful Elections (CHAMP).
Nevertheless, we are mindful of the many evils that continue to plague our electoral exercise. As we have done in the past, we condemn the dirty conduct of elections in some provinces. The buying, padding and selling of votes have embarrassingly become systemic and threaten to become a cultural element of our elections. It has been reported that some voters went to the precincts only when first paid by some candidates. We also express our disapproval of candidates coming from the same family or clan, thus keeping power and influence within the family. We hope and pray that implementing norms be approved to arrest the spread of this malaise.
Likewise we protest against the injustice done to people as their right to choose their leaders was desecrated. We are horrified by the violence inflicted on innocent people during the campaign and election periods. But we are equally edified by the heroism of those who defended the sanctity of the ballot, even to the point of death.
It was an achievement in itself that elections were held on May 14, 2007. But given a climate of social distress and hopelessness, the challenge was how to restore credibility to the electoral process as a core democratic institution for resolving political conflict, and how to get the citizenry, especially the youth, to become politically engaged. On the whole, despite the deep flaws in the process and its administration, the last election maybe said to have been a qualified success with the results generally reflecting the popular will (e.g. only 5 percent of the contested positions are being questioned).
Vigilance, Volunteerism and Coordinated Action.
For the first time since 1992, the Church-based groups, PPCRV, NAMFREL, NASSA worked closely together and were better prepared and organized to make a qualitative impact on the elections, even in Muslim Mindanao. A new group called LENTE (Legal Network for Truthful Elections) was organized on the initiative of One Voice with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as co-convenor— the first time that lawyers, paralegal volunteers were mobilized for electoral work. LENTE focused on the weakest link in the electoral process—the canvassing of votes at the municipal and provincial levels. These groups agreed to coordinate their work through a grouping called VforCE (One Million Volunteers for Clean Elections). The doggedness of these groups, despite the limited time to organize and coordinate, contributed to the deterring large-scale fraud. VforCE offered a framework for coordinated election. The May 2007 elections indeed led to a manifestation of volunteerism and vigilance, underscoring the critical importance of collaboration and partnerships, and providing concrete opportunities for citizen engagement in various aspects of electoral process.
There also were signs of increased maturity among the electorate as the election results demonstrated that sheer popularity/celebrity status and huge media expenditures do not necessarily translate to election victory. These results may also be an indicator of some success in the voters’ education efforts. The citizen groups, including Church-based organizations, have worked on this for years.
But the last elections also showed the continuing dominance in the Philippines of a few political families, and revealed the persistence of vote-buying as a serious problem (including pay-offs not to vote) in a social context of widespread poverty and gross inequality, even if there were a few positive stories of reversals of these old trends. Much remains to be done in the area of political recruitment and financing of alternative candidates, and thus in the development of genuine political party system in the Philippines. That is why the flawed party list law and its problematic implementation is real cause for concern. There were also signs of alienation from the electoral process among the citizenry: a lower-than-usual voter turnout (60-65 percent of registered voters), including a very low level of participation from overseas absentee voters (14 percent).
Agenda for Electoral Reforms and Continuing Political Involvement
Both the positive and negative experiences of the last elections point to a number of important electoral reforms that needed to be pursued:
1. A full revamp of the Comelec, beginning with the appointment of a new chair and commissioners with unquestioned integrity and competence, especially in systems and management. These appointments are going to be in the hands of the President and the Commission on Appointments of the Philippine Congress, and it is our collective responsibility to monitor closely the process of selection, appointment and confirmation. There should also be serious efforts to de-politicize and professionalize the bureaucracy.
2. Holding those responsible for anomalies in past elections and the recently concluded ones accountable to the people. Good career people in the Comelec can be the catalyst for the renewal of the institution.
3. Modernization of the electoral system in time for the 2010 presidential election. There should be broad-based and transparent discussions on what type of poll automation is appropriate and how it is to be piloted and implemented.
4. Particular attention should be given to ARMM and the problem of warlordism, because it is of the scale that can affect the national elections. We also owe it to the voters in those areas who are effectively disenfranchised when elections are not meaningful, truthful and free. Historically, those in power have found it useful to rely on the brazen exercise of power through intimidation, violence and fraud.
5. A review of laws affecting the electoral system. Among the most urgent are the reform of the party system, party-list law, overseas absentee voting, political dynasties, the “legal” entry of nuisance candidates, and the formulation of an agenda for institutional reform.
6. The development of mechanisms for deepening the political education of voters (e.g. Pinoy Voter’s Academy and Gabay Halalan), fostering public accountability of politicians to the electorate (e.g. Bantay Pangako) and sustaining coordinated political engagement especially among the youth, the citizens’ groups, and Church-based organizations (e.g. VforCE).
7. Cleansing and publication of the voters’ list long before the day of election.
As we appreciate and thank the men and women of good will and courage who influenced our last election, so do we thank the Lord for continuing to guide the journey of the Filipino people.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+ ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 8, 2007
Nevertheless, we are mindful of the many evils that continue to plague our electoral exercise. As we have done in the past, we condemn the dirty conduct of elections in some provinces. The buying, padding and selling of votes have embarrassingly become systemic and threaten to become a cultural element of our elections. It has been reported that some voters went to the precincts only when first paid by some candidates. We also express our disapproval of candidates coming from the same family or clan, thus keeping power and influence within the family. We hope and pray that implementing norms be approved to arrest the spread of this malaise.
Likewise we protest against the injustice done to people as their right to choose their leaders was desecrated. We are horrified by the violence inflicted on innocent people during the campaign and election periods. But we are equally edified by the heroism of those who defended the sanctity of the ballot, even to the point of death.
It was an achievement in itself that elections were held on May 14, 2007. But given a climate of social distress and hopelessness, the challenge was how to restore credibility to the electoral process as a core democratic institution for resolving political conflict, and how to get the citizenry, especially the youth, to become politically engaged. On the whole, despite the deep flaws in the process and its administration, the last election maybe said to have been a qualified success with the results generally reflecting the popular will (e.g. only 5 percent of the contested positions are being questioned).
Vigilance, Volunteerism and Coordinated Action.
For the first time since 1992, the Church-based groups, PPCRV, NAMFREL, NASSA worked closely together and were better prepared and organized to make a qualitative impact on the elections, even in Muslim Mindanao. A new group called LENTE (Legal Network for Truthful Elections) was organized on the initiative of One Voice with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as co-convenor— the first time that lawyers, paralegal volunteers were mobilized for electoral work. LENTE focused on the weakest link in the electoral process—the canvassing of votes at the municipal and provincial levels. These groups agreed to coordinate their work through a grouping called VforCE (One Million Volunteers for Clean Elections). The doggedness of these groups, despite the limited time to organize and coordinate, contributed to the deterring large-scale fraud. VforCE offered a framework for coordinated election. The May 2007 elections indeed led to a manifestation of volunteerism and vigilance, underscoring the critical importance of collaboration and partnerships, and providing concrete opportunities for citizen engagement in various aspects of electoral process.
There also were signs of increased maturity among the electorate as the election results demonstrated that sheer popularity/celebrity status and huge media expenditures do not necessarily translate to election victory. These results may also be an indicator of some success in the voters’ education efforts. The citizen groups, including Church-based organizations, have worked on this for years.
But the last elections also showed the continuing dominance in the Philippines of a few political families, and revealed the persistence of vote-buying as a serious problem (including pay-offs not to vote) in a social context of widespread poverty and gross inequality, even if there were a few positive stories of reversals of these old trends. Much remains to be done in the area of political recruitment and financing of alternative candidates, and thus in the development of genuine political party system in the Philippines. That is why the flawed party list law and its problematic implementation is real cause for concern. There were also signs of alienation from the electoral process among the citizenry: a lower-than-usual voter turnout (60-65 percent of registered voters), including a very low level of participation from overseas absentee voters (14 percent).
Agenda for Electoral Reforms and Continuing Political Involvement
Both the positive and negative experiences of the last elections point to a number of important electoral reforms that needed to be pursued:
1. A full revamp of the Comelec, beginning with the appointment of a new chair and commissioners with unquestioned integrity and competence, especially in systems and management. These appointments are going to be in the hands of the President and the Commission on Appointments of the Philippine Congress, and it is our collective responsibility to monitor closely the process of selection, appointment and confirmation. There should also be serious efforts to de-politicize and professionalize the bureaucracy.
2. Holding those responsible for anomalies in past elections and the recently concluded ones accountable to the people. Good career people in the Comelec can be the catalyst for the renewal of the institution.
3. Modernization of the electoral system in time for the 2010 presidential election. There should be broad-based and transparent discussions on what type of poll automation is appropriate and how it is to be piloted and implemented.
4. Particular attention should be given to ARMM and the problem of warlordism, because it is of the scale that can affect the national elections. We also owe it to the voters in those areas who are effectively disenfranchised when elections are not meaningful, truthful and free. Historically, those in power have found it useful to rely on the brazen exercise of power through intimidation, violence and fraud.
5. A review of laws affecting the electoral system. Among the most urgent are the reform of the party system, party-list law, overseas absentee voting, political dynasties, the “legal” entry of nuisance candidates, and the formulation of an agenda for institutional reform.
6. The development of mechanisms for deepening the political education of voters (e.g. Pinoy Voter’s Academy and Gabay Halalan), fostering public accountability of politicians to the electorate (e.g. Bantay Pangako) and sustaining coordinated political engagement especially among the youth, the citizens’ groups, and Church-based organizations (e.g. VforCE).
7. Cleansing and publication of the voters’ list long before the day of election.
As we appreciate and thank the men and women of good will and courage who influenced our last election, so do we thank the Lord for continuing to guide the journey of the Filipino people.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+ ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 8, 2007
On The Human Security Act
We are all for the pursuit of peace and we condemn terrorism as a glaring obstacle to peace.
Republic Act No. 9372, dubbed as Human Security Act of 2007, signed into a law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on March 6, 2007, is to take effect two months after the elections of May 14.
Many voices are apprehensive about this law on the basis of constitutionality and provisions that may legalize objectionable methods of fighting and quelling opposition to the obtaining government. Hence there are calls for bringing the Human Security Act to the Supreme Court for review and for studying and discussing further this law in its contents and repercussions. Some sections have caused lawyers and others to question the effectiveness of this law such as:
· The definition of terrorism in Section 3 is broad and dangerous. It may serve and create a condition of widespread panic.
· Section 26 allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others.
· Provision for seizure of assets in Section 39 and surveillance or wiretapping of suspects in Section 7, investigation of bank deposits and other assets in Section 28 – raise up many eyebrows of lawyers and others.
Since we as pastors have to look more into the morality of this law and make a pronouncement in that level, we feel that the atmosphere created by this law and its impending implementations calls on us to appeal to those concerned to review this law so that in consultation and dialogue we may have a law that is truly relevant in promoting the security of the nation and in the pursuit of authentic peace.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
President, CBCP
July 8, 2007
Republic Act No. 9372, dubbed as Human Security Act of 2007, signed into a law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on March 6, 2007, is to take effect two months after the elections of May 14.
Many voices are apprehensive about this law on the basis of constitutionality and provisions that may legalize objectionable methods of fighting and quelling opposition to the obtaining government. Hence there are calls for bringing the Human Security Act to the Supreme Court for review and for studying and discussing further this law in its contents and repercussions. Some sections have caused lawyers and others to question the effectiveness of this law such as:
· The definition of terrorism in Section 3 is broad and dangerous. It may serve and create a condition of widespread panic.
· Section 26 allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others.
· Provision for seizure of assets in Section 39 and surveillance or wiretapping of suspects in Section 7, investigation of bank deposits and other assets in Section 28 – raise up many eyebrows of lawyers and others.
Since we as pastors have to look more into the morality of this law and make a pronouncement in that level, we feel that the atmosphere created by this law and its impending implementations calls on us to appeal to those concerned to review this law so that in consultation and dialogue we may have a law that is truly relevant in promoting the security of the nation and in the pursuit of authentic peace.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
President, CBCP
July 8, 2007
Statement on the "Tridentiane"
We fully welcome with respect and appreciation the recent Apostolic Letter of Pope Benedict XVI on the “Tridentine” Mass. It clarifies for us the status of the Tridentine Mass in the Latin Language.
In accordance with the Apostolic Letter (“Motu proprio”) entitled “Summorum Pontificum” of Pope Benedict XVI, the celebration of the so-called Tridentine Mass, which is in the Latin language, as approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962 continues to be fully permissible as an extraordinary form of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass was never forbidden or abrogated.
The so-called “New Mass” which was introduced after the Second Vatican Council and approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 has become more popular among the people because it allowed the use of some approved adaptations, including the use of the popular languages and dialects. It became the ordinary form of the Mass, widely celebrated in the parish churches.
When may the Tridentine (Latin) Mass be celebrated? According to the letter of Pope Benedict XVI, it may be celebrated by catholic priests of the Latin Rite: a) in private masses, b) in conventual or community mass in accordance with the specific statutes of the Congregation, c) in parishes upon request of the faithful and under the guidance of the bishop (in accordance with Canon 392). In such Masses, however, the readings may be given in the vernacular.
This permission given by Pope Benedict XVI means that the Mass in Latin and in accordance with the formula of the Council of Trent, hence Tridentine, with the celebrant’s back to the faithful may be celebrated, as it was never forbidden or abrogated. For new priests, this will require formation in the Latin Mass.
Now, we are instructed that in the liturgy of the Mass, there is the ordinary form which is that approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 after the Vatican II; and there is the extraordinary form—the Tridentine (Latin) Mass which is that approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962. The two forms will have their way of leading the faithful to the true worship of God in prayer and liturgy; and may even be a factor for unity in the Church.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
In accordance with the Apostolic Letter (“Motu proprio”) entitled “Summorum Pontificum” of Pope Benedict XVI, the celebration of the so-called Tridentine Mass, which is in the Latin language, as approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962 continues to be fully permissible as an extraordinary form of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass was never forbidden or abrogated.
The so-called “New Mass” which was introduced after the Second Vatican Council and approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 has become more popular among the people because it allowed the use of some approved adaptations, including the use of the popular languages and dialects. It became the ordinary form of the Mass, widely celebrated in the parish churches.
When may the Tridentine (Latin) Mass be celebrated? According to the letter of Pope Benedict XVI, it may be celebrated by catholic priests of the Latin Rite: a) in private masses, b) in conventual or community mass in accordance with the specific statutes of the Congregation, c) in parishes upon request of the faithful and under the guidance of the bishop (in accordance with Canon 392). In such Masses, however, the readings may be given in the vernacular.
This permission given by Pope Benedict XVI means that the Mass in Latin and in accordance with the formula of the Council of Trent, hence Tridentine, with the celebrant’s back to the faithful may be celebrated, as it was never forbidden or abrogated. For new priests, this will require formation in the Latin Mass.
Now, we are instructed that in the liturgy of the Mass, there is the ordinary form which is that approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970 after the Vatican II; and there is the extraordinary form—the Tridentine (Latin) Mass which is that approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962. The two forms will have their way of leading the faithful to the true worship of God in prayer and liturgy; and may even be a factor for unity in the Church.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
