I could not believe, but the phenomenon is true that Filipino OFWs or migrants compose 10% or 8 million out of a total 80 million. This “diasporic community” of Filipino migrants are in 193 countries out of the 224 UN-registered countries in the world. We can almost say that there is no country on the face of the earth in which there is no Filipino; if there is, probably the Filipino in that country has not yet been registered of has no travel document.
To cite some statistics of diasporic Filipinos: 85,000 Filipinos yearly migrate to the United States to be added to the more than 4 million who are already there with documents. Two million Filipinos have already made the Middle East their home. Would you believe that 30% of the entire population of Malaysia, that is 900,000 are Filipinos? Of the 140,000 in Hong Kong, majority are Pinay domestic helpers. In Italy, only one half of the more than 1 million Filipinos are listed; the same is said of the 1 million in Japan. These few examples are only a portion of the migrant Filipinos we find present from America to Asia, from Africa to Oceania, from Russia to Australia and also from Jordan to Saipan.
Add to this phenomenon of global migration of Filipinos is the quality of the new OFWs. We are exporting not only housekeepers and domestic helpers but also, contributing to the phenomenon of brain drain, skilled workers, doctors, accountants, nurses, engineers, etc. This phenomenon is not without problems both for the migrants and the families they temporarily leave behind. They become part of our social concern. How many of them are made to suffer because they are deprived of employment rights, their salaries and/or travel documents unjustly withheld? How many of them, mostly women, are abused, assaulted or sexually harassed by employers? How many of them suffer the pain of isolation, alienation and discrimination? And need we talk about the innumerable cases of broken families and conjugal infidelities? These are far from being considered problems of the State which is simply bent on sending them as “super domestic helpers” because they bring in to our country between 10 to 12 billion dollars to help our local economy. And so we say these are problems of the Church, the sending Church. These are one aspect or the challenges of the Filipino diaspora. (I hope you have discovered some answers to these concerns and at least discussed how to address them).
But I would like to draw your attention to a positive aspect of the global migration of Filipinos. I am not referring to the 10 – 12 billion dollars they send to our country, inspite of which we are still considered among the poorest countries. Are we really? More than contributing to the work-force in 193 countries, our diasporic Filipinos have something else, more important, to offer to the world. Along with our smiling faces, we are offering to the receiving countries or Churches, our Christian Faith lived in the context of different cultures and religions. According to one study “The Filipino diaspora has put one out of every five Filipinos in a more multi-ethnic and multi-religious milieu.” This positive aspect is likewise the new challenge of the Filipino diaspora. It is both a challenge and a concern.
Our Filipino migrants go to other countries in search of work and livelihood to support themselves and their families back home. Before we were sending missionary priests and religious sisters expressly to be in mission, to evangelize; but their number has started to dwindle. And what a providential coincidence! Coming from a predominantly Catholic Christian country, these migrant Filipino workers in search of livelihood could be equipped with the disposition and skills of lay missionaries, who will not necessarily preach, but live the Gospel of Jesus in the context of cultural and religious pluralism. They are Filipinos in dialogue with other cultures and religions, which for them would be a new way of being Church and a new way of being in mission, beyond adding to the number of church-goers in the receiving Churches which have fallen victims of materialism and secularism.
The new situation of our compatriots in diaspora is an opportunity to redefine our notion of becoming migrants and our understanding of being church and in mission. What we said in the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines find some practical application here: “In the Church, nobody is so poor as to have nothing to give, and nobody is so rich as to have nothing to receive.” (no. 98). This offers the Filipino Catholic Christian migrant a new focus, a new vision.
For both the sending poor country and the receiving wealth country, there is something to give and to receive. What is received and given may be different in quality and quantity, but that is not to be measured. Work and livelihood on the one hand, faith and the new way of being church and of being in mission on the other: how do we compare them? It is just they are both given and received by one and the other. A new focus and vision for both the giver and receiver.
(Homily of Archbishop Angel N. Lagdameo at the closing Eucharistic Celebration on the occasion of the Fifth International Consultation on Filipino Ministry Worldwide
held in Tagaytay City on September 11-15, 2006)
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Thursday, September 14, 2006
ON CHARTER CHANGE AND THE COMMON GOOD
(A Pastoral Exhortation)
From the moral standpoint, we, your Bishops, continue to express our concern over the kind of democracy that we are practicing, whether this leads us to attain the common good. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:
“The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of the citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.” (Centessimus Annus, #46)
Charter Change, changing our Constitution, is such a serious matter for the entire country, because it will determine the future of our people. Thus we must make the widest consultation on it for adequate information, discussion and education. That is why we disagree with the so-called “people’s initiative” which appeared only as a “signature campaign” without focus on the real intention. The CBCP subscribes to the allegation that the “people’s initiative” is an initiative of the ruling power, and not genuinely of the people. From the moral standpoint, it is clothed with suspicion. And so we ask: is it really for the people and the common good? We leave to our well-informed lawyers the legal arguments.
Holding a Constitutional Convention will be very expensive, as it will cost several billion pesos. But it is worth spending that much for something that is good for the greatest number. A Constitutional Convention will be a better political exercise than convening congressmen as a Constituent Assembly which is something that can easily become self-serving. The government has spent enormously to cheating and graft and corruption
We maybe spending or losing much much more than that through government overspending and cheating and graft and corruption, which are very difficult to assess and account. If it is worth several billion pesos, it is worth spending in an honest way. A Constitutional Convention will be a better political exercise than the present powers-that-be, our Congress, making themselves a Constituent Assembly that can easily become self-serving.
It is said that the presidential form of government is a source of corruption among other things. We should ask a different question: Is it the presidential form that is the source of corruption, or the people in authority who corrupt and abuse the system? Any form of government will have its positive and negative characteristics; but the people who run the government are very crucial; they can either corrupt it or make it serve the common good. Any system or form of government in the hands of honest, just and incorruptible people will be a source of good for the governed. Will the parliamentary- unicameral form of government not be corrupted by the people who will create it?
It is in this light that we have made our position clear on Charter Change from the
moral standpoint, and we reiterate it:
“Changing the Constitution, involving major shifts in the form of government, requires widespread participation, total transparency and relative serenity that allows for rational discussion and debate. This is best done through a Constitutional Convention.” (CBCP, January 2006)
Heeding the exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est that the Church “is called to contribute to the purification of reason” (# 29), we would like to ask these and similar questions to guide the discussion, discernment and debate on the charter change. Are you convinced that the Charter Change as presently presented by our governing politicians is really for the common good? Are you convinced that the “people’s initiative” is genuinely the people’s activity, and has its real source in the people? Do you want our legislators to convert themselves into a Constituent Assembly where they alone will rewrite our Constitution, and have it only approved by us in a plebiscite? Is it enough to say YES to Charter Change?
We are in a democracy. Should not then the citizenry be made to participate by electing their delegates to a Constitutional Convention?
These are the questions we would like our people in our dioceses and parishes to participate in answering regarding so serious a matter as Charter Change.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
President, CBCP
September 14, 2006
(A Pastoral Exhortation)
From the moral standpoint, we, your Bishops, continue to express our concern over the kind of democracy that we are practicing, whether this leads us to attain the common good. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:
“The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of the citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.” (Centessimus Annus, #46)
Charter Change, changing our Constitution, is such a serious matter for the entire country, because it will determine the future of our people. Thus we must make the widest consultation on it for adequate information, discussion and education. That is why we disagree with the so-called “people’s initiative” which appeared only as a “signature campaign” without focus on the real intention. The CBCP subscribes to the allegation that the “people’s initiative” is an initiative of the ruling power, and not genuinely of the people. From the moral standpoint, it is clothed with suspicion. And so we ask: is it really for the people and the common good? We leave to our well-informed lawyers the legal arguments.
Holding a Constitutional Convention will be very expensive, as it will cost several billion pesos. But it is worth spending that much for something that is good for the greatest number. A Constitutional Convention will be a better political exercise than convening congressmen as a Constituent Assembly which is something that can easily become self-serving. The government has spent enormously to cheating and graft and corruption
We maybe spending or losing much much more than that through government overspending and cheating and graft and corruption, which are very difficult to assess and account. If it is worth several billion pesos, it is worth spending in an honest way. A Constitutional Convention will be a better political exercise than the present powers-that-be, our Congress, making themselves a Constituent Assembly that can easily become self-serving.
It is said that the presidential form of government is a source of corruption among other things. We should ask a different question: Is it the presidential form that is the source of corruption, or the people in authority who corrupt and abuse the system? Any form of government will have its positive and negative characteristics; but the people who run the government are very crucial; they can either corrupt it or make it serve the common good. Any system or form of government in the hands of honest, just and incorruptible people will be a source of good for the governed. Will the parliamentary- unicameral form of government not be corrupted by the people who will create it?
It is in this light that we have made our position clear on Charter Change from the
moral standpoint, and we reiterate it:
“Changing the Constitution, involving major shifts in the form of government, requires widespread participation, total transparency and relative serenity that allows for rational discussion and debate. This is best done through a Constitutional Convention.” (CBCP, January 2006)
Heeding the exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est that the Church “is called to contribute to the purification of reason” (# 29), we would like to ask these and similar questions to guide the discussion, discernment and debate on the charter change. Are you convinced that the Charter Change as presently presented by our governing politicians is really for the common good? Are you convinced that the “people’s initiative” is genuinely the people’s activity, and has its real source in the people? Do you want our legislators to convert themselves into a Constituent Assembly where they alone will rewrite our Constitution, and have it only approved by us in a plebiscite? Is it enough to say YES to Charter Change?
We are in a democracy. Should not then the citizenry be made to participate by electing their delegates to a Constitutional Convention?
These are the questions we would like our people in our dioceses and parishes to participate in answering regarding so serious a matter as Charter Change.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, D.D.
Archbishop of Jaro
President, CBCP
September 14, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Oil Spill
Circular No. 163/15/2006
Protocol No. 5624/2006
August 28, 2006
To: The Clergy of the Archdiocese and the Parish Pastoral Councils
Re: THE BUNKER OIL SPILL IN NUEVA VALENCIA, GUIMARAS
Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, is the center of social concern not only of Iloilo Province but also of the entire Philippines, because of the sinking of Solar I ship that was carrying more than 500,000 gallons (2,720,000 liters) of bunker oil of Petron. It has sank to some 600 (?) meters deep under the ocean, several kilometers off Nueva Valencia. More than 200,000 liters have been poured into the sea causing almost unimaginable damage to environment and fisherfolks.
So far, as of August 20, 2006 the affected barangays are the following:
LIST OF BARANGAYS AFFECTED OF OIL SPILL
Barangays Affected Registered Fisherfolks Additional as of 20-Aug, 2006 TOTAL
1. La Paz 298 2 300
2. San Roque 79 121 200
3. Dolores 62 27 89
4. Tando 104 136 240
5. Lucmayan 41 180 221
6. Cabalagnan 41 41 82
7. Panobolon 116 37 153
8. Canhawan 46 41 87
9. Igdarapdap (Lanipe) 73 32 105
10. San Antonio (Calaya) 85 5 90
11. Guiwanon 96 47 143
The most heavily damaged is barangay La Paz. Fr. Maloney Gotera, V.F., some priests of the Vicariate of St. Bartholomew and I saw some of the affected areas. Fisher folks were scraping the shore of oily sand and putting them in sacks. Hundreds of sacks of oily sand have been piled. Sand, stones, wood, seaweeds and mangroves have been irretrievably blackened by the tanker oil. They need truckloads of palay stalks or “uhot” to help absorb the oil.
The causes of this tragedy need to be fully and honestly investigated in order that justice may be served.
Various individuals, groups and institutions have started to generously respond to this grave social and environmental destruction which may take years to rehabilitate.
For our part in the Archdiocese of Jaro, let the response coming from our parishes be coordinated by our Diocesan Social Action Center (JASAC) and our Jaro Archdiocesan Pastoral Secretariat (JAPS). As one “Body of Christ,” the tragedy suffered by one part is felt too by the entire body. Please, coordinate your help with JASAC and JAPS. – We cannot be responsible for the refloating of Solar I or for the siphoning of the oil from the sunken Solar I; but we can reach out immediately to the families of the affected barangays in terms of material help, because they have lost their livelihood in the sea. Let us be in solidarity with them through whatever organized help we can extend to them.
Sincerely yours,
+ ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
Protocol No. 5624/2006
August 28, 2006
To: The Clergy of the Archdiocese and the Parish Pastoral Councils
Re: THE BUNKER OIL SPILL IN NUEVA VALENCIA, GUIMARAS
Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, is the center of social concern not only of Iloilo Province but also of the entire Philippines, because of the sinking of Solar I ship that was carrying more than 500,000 gallons (2,720,000 liters) of bunker oil of Petron. It has sank to some 600 (?) meters deep under the ocean, several kilometers off Nueva Valencia. More than 200,000 liters have been poured into the sea causing almost unimaginable damage to environment and fisherfolks.
So far, as of August 20, 2006 the affected barangays are the following:
LIST OF BARANGAYS AFFECTED OF OIL SPILL
Barangays Affected Registered Fisherfolks Additional as of 20-Aug, 2006 TOTAL
1. La Paz 298 2 300
2. San Roque 79 121 200
3. Dolores 62 27 89
4. Tando 104 136 240
5. Lucmayan 41 180 221
6. Cabalagnan 41 41 82
7. Panobolon 116 37 153
8. Canhawan 46 41 87
9. Igdarapdap (Lanipe) 73 32 105
10. San Antonio (Calaya) 85 5 90
11. Guiwanon 96 47 143
The most heavily damaged is barangay La Paz. Fr. Maloney Gotera, V.F., some priests of the Vicariate of St. Bartholomew and I saw some of the affected areas. Fisher folks were scraping the shore of oily sand and putting them in sacks. Hundreds of sacks of oily sand have been piled. Sand, stones, wood, seaweeds and mangroves have been irretrievably blackened by the tanker oil. They need truckloads of palay stalks or “uhot” to help absorb the oil.
The causes of this tragedy need to be fully and honestly investigated in order that justice may be served.
Various individuals, groups and institutions have started to generously respond to this grave social and environmental destruction which may take years to rehabilitate.
For our part in the Archdiocese of Jaro, let the response coming from our parishes be coordinated by our Diocesan Social Action Center (JASAC) and our Jaro Archdiocesan Pastoral Secretariat (JAPS). As one “Body of Christ,” the tragedy suffered by one part is felt too by the entire body. Please, coordinate your help with JASAC and JAPS. – We cannot be responsible for the refloating of Solar I or for the siphoning of the oil from the sunken Solar I; but we can reach out immediately to the families of the affected barangays in terms of material help, because they have lost their livelihood in the sea. Let us be in solidarity with them through whatever organized help we can extend to them.
Sincerely yours,
+ ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
