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
Monday, August 28, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
In the Interest of the Common Good
I respect the personal decision of Bishop Antonio Tobias in helping some members of the Magdalo group. As explained by him, it was in the interest of both the Magdalo group and the government in order that there may be a non-violent resolution of their differences.
Contrary to allegations, the 6 bishops in the news report did not have any meeting together with any group—including any member of the Magdalo group—in order to bring down the PGMA administration unconstitutionally and in a violent manner. It is very possible that an accusation is being leveled against the credibility of the Bishops, because of our stand on issues which are not pleasant to certain groups. As Bishops we always promote peaceful, non-violent and constitutional means of reform in government.
If I, or any of the Bishops, have spoken against or criticized the conduct of anyone or any group—in favor or against the government—it was for the interest of the common welfare. Because people look at issues from different perspectives and with different values, we Bishops accept that our statements—individually or corporately—may not be agreeable to everybody.
We feel sad that the stories related to the report of overthrowing of government are being fabricated without proof as to their veracity. I appeal that the sources of such stories will clarify themselves for the sake of the common good. I invite them to prove their statements involving us, six bishops.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, DD
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 19, 2006
Contrary to allegations, the 6 bishops in the news report did not have any meeting together with any group—including any member of the Magdalo group—in order to bring down the PGMA administration unconstitutionally and in a violent manner. It is very possible that an accusation is being leveled against the credibility of the Bishops, because of our stand on issues which are not pleasant to certain groups. As Bishops we always promote peaceful, non-violent and constitutional means of reform in government.
If I, or any of the Bishops, have spoken against or criticized the conduct of anyone or any group—in favor or against the government—it was for the interest of the common welfare. Because people look at issues from different perspectives and with different values, we Bishops accept that our statements—individually or corporately—may not be agreeable to everybody.
We feel sad that the stories related to the report of overthrowing of government are being fabricated without proof as to their veracity. I appeal that the sources of such stories will clarify themselves for the sake of the common good. I invite them to prove their statements involving us, six bishops.
+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO, DD
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 19, 2006
Friday, July 14, 2006
press statement
“On the Burning Issues”
When the CBCP gathered in conference to discuss their Pastoral Letter, especially on the “burning issues,” the hottest of which was about the impeachment, the bishops knew that their guidance would not sit well with all sectors. But they must proclaim the message “whether favorable or unfavorable…to itching ears” (2Tim. 4, 2-3). The Pastoral Letter needs to be read in its entirety especially the paragraphs on the hottest issue. When we were discussing the issue of the impeachment, the bishops were concerned with proclaiming a message which would serve the country best according to the light of their discernment, prayer and discussion.
Tough problems can be solved neither by force nor by the force of number nor by offering just one solution as if that were the only solution. Tough problems are a challenge for all parties—pro, con, and center—to think, talk and act together, to see new realities and create meaningful change. Each party or sector holds in part the solution to tough problems.
The Pastoral Letter “Shepherding and Prophesying in Hope” is meant to give some guidance to the lay faithful on the subject of social issues and on the burning issues. How this guidance is to be followed or put into effect is beyond the intention of the Letter. Whatever each individual or group decides to do, by God, do it well and don’t sacrifice the common good.
On the question of envelopes or gifts allegedly being distributed and of dinners offered by Malacañang to some bishops, since these were privately done, there was no consensus among the bishops whether to accept or not, whether to go for the dinner or not. Each bishop was completely free.
Truth to tell, the bishops did not have any knowledge of the alleged plan of Malacañang to use these gifts or envelops for political ends. It was only later that they realized the implication of the offer. Some, we know, returned their envelopes.
The bishops were told that the envelopes were for the poor. But how must the poor be help institutionally? On the one hand, bishops with the limited resources of their dioceses are already trying to respond to the needs of the poor, v.g., through their social action programs. On the other hand, must not the government use better its powerful institutions to help the poor? If the powerful institutions are not effective and efficient in the work of poverty alleviation, the question that must be asked is “WHY?” But must it be channeled to the bishops at this time?
+Angel N. Lagdameo
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 14, 2006
When the CBCP gathered in conference to discuss their Pastoral Letter, especially on the “burning issues,” the hottest of which was about the impeachment, the bishops knew that their guidance would not sit well with all sectors. But they must proclaim the message “whether favorable or unfavorable…to itching ears” (2Tim. 4, 2-3). The Pastoral Letter needs to be read in its entirety especially the paragraphs on the hottest issue. When we were discussing the issue of the impeachment, the bishops were concerned with proclaiming a message which would serve the country best according to the light of their discernment, prayer and discussion.
Tough problems can be solved neither by force nor by the force of number nor by offering just one solution as if that were the only solution. Tough problems are a challenge for all parties—pro, con, and center—to think, talk and act together, to see new realities and create meaningful change. Each party or sector holds in part the solution to tough problems.
The Pastoral Letter “Shepherding and Prophesying in Hope” is meant to give some guidance to the lay faithful on the subject of social issues and on the burning issues. How this guidance is to be followed or put into effect is beyond the intention of the Letter. Whatever each individual or group decides to do, by God, do it well and don’t sacrifice the common good.
On the question of envelopes or gifts allegedly being distributed and of dinners offered by Malacañang to some bishops, since these were privately done, there was no consensus among the bishops whether to accept or not, whether to go for the dinner or not. Each bishop was completely free.
Truth to tell, the bishops did not have any knowledge of the alleged plan of Malacañang to use these gifts or envelops for political ends. It was only later that they realized the implication of the offer. Some, we know, returned their envelopes.
The bishops were told that the envelopes were for the poor. But how must the poor be help institutionally? On the one hand, bishops with the limited resources of their dioceses are already trying to respond to the needs of the poor, v.g., through their social action programs. On the other hand, must not the government use better its powerful institutions to help the poor? If the powerful institutions are not effective and efficient in the work of poverty alleviation, the question that must be asked is “WHY?” But must it be channeled to the bishops at this time?
+Angel N. Lagdameo
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President
July 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
