Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas

Item

Title: Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas
Description: Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas Official Interdiocesan Organ is published monthly by the University of Santo Tomas and is printed at U.S.T. Press, Manila, Philippines.
Issue Date: Volume XLVI (Issue No. 517) August 1972
Publisher: University of Santo Tomas
Year: 1972
Language: Spanish; English
Subject: Catholic Church--Philippines--Periodicals.; Philippines -- Religion -- Periodicals.
Rights
Place of publication: Manila
extracted text: Boletin ECLESIASTICD DE ■piLIPINAS V»l. XLVI *517 August 1972 MOST REV. ALEJANDRO OLALIA, D.D. First Archbishop, Archdiocese of Lipa BOLETIN Eclesiasticode piLIPINAS THE OFFICIAL INTERDIOCESAN ORGAN EDITOR FR. JAIME BOQUIREN, OP. EDITORIAL CONSULTANTS FR. FRANCISCO DEL RIO, O P. FR. QUINTIN M. GARCIA. O.P. FR. JESUS MERINO. O.P. FR. FIDEL VILLARROEL. O.P. FR. LEONARDO LEGASPI. O.P. FR. EFREN RIVERA. O.P. BUSINESS MANAGER FR. FLORENC IO TESTERA. O.P. BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS, Official Interdiocesan Organ, is published monthly by the University of Santo Tomas and is printed at U.S.T. Press, Manila, Philippines. Entered as Second Class Mail Matter at the Manila, Post Office on June 21, 1946. Subscription Rates Yearly subscription in the Philippines. P20.00; Two Years. P36.00; Three Years. P54.00. Abroad. $6.00 a year. Price per copy. P2.00. Subscriptions are paid in advance Communications of an editorial nature concerning articles, cases and reviews should be addressed to the Editor. Advertising and subscription enquiries should be addressed to the Business Manager. Orders for renewals or changes of address should include both old and new address, and will go into effect fifteen days after notification. Address all communications to. BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS Fathers' Residence University of Santo Tomas Manila D 403 Philippines Vol. XLVI • 517 August 1972 Table of Contents For Every Right A Duty ........................................................... 500 The Saints of August ............................................................... 501 Pope's Letter to Cardinal Garrone ......................................... 503 Pope's Letter to Cardinal Wright ......................................... 505 Erection of Lipa Archdiocese .................................................. 507 Admission of Other Christians to Catholic Communion ......................................................... 508 Doctrinal Reasons for the Instruction ..................................... 516 Significance of Pastoral Norms on Penance 520 Pastoral Letter of Rufino Cardinal Santos 523 "Till Death Do Us Part" .......................... 528 Divorce in Philippine Constitution 550 Role of Bishops in Liturgy ...................................................... 556 Priests and Bahala-Na System ................. 564 History of the Church in the Philippines, ch. 26 ... . 571 EDITORIALS FOR EVERY RIGHT A DUTY This might be attributed to fallen human nature, but we notice in our society the propensity to demand and clamor for ones rights and privileges but little or no mention of ones du ties and obligations. In the family there are husbands who are ready to lay down their lives in defense of their right to the wife’s fidelity and loyalty. But look how they fulfil their duty of fidelity and loyalty to the wife. There are children who raise hell over their right to parental care and support but they do not care about 4th Commandm'ent: “Honor they father and thy mother." And there are parents who gnash their teeth over the refusal of the offspring to give them the respect due to them. But look how they care foi' their own parents. In the school there are those who demand the best facilities, the best professors. But note how they cling to their tuition pennies, how they abuse the facilities like the use of electricity, how negligent they are in their studies. And vice versa there are school owners who collect the tuition and other fees due them but do not bother about the welfare of their teachers and students. In the nation there are those citizens who know by memory them rights to police protection, to health services, to good roads and means of transportation, etc. etc. but are deaf and dumb and blind about taxes, and other civic duties and obligations. And vice versa, we have also government officials who are so strict in collecting their salaries and allowances yet so remiss in the performance of their duties. In the Church, God’s kingdom on earth, there are those who want to enjoy the use of a clean, well lighted, well decorated EDITORIALS 501 house of prayer; who want all the lights on and all the bells ringing for their weddings and baptisms; who want the best service from their clergy because they are entitled to it; but note how much they give at the Colecta. And vice versa, there are those priests who collect their fees to the last centavo but do not sing the right notes in their sung Masses or Responso. Note further how some priests demand from their Bishops their rights to be heard, to be given due process, to be treated charitably and justly. See how these same priests deny freedom of speech to their fellow priests at their own meetings, how they refuse due process among themselves, how uncharitable and unjust they are among themselves and to their Bishops. And note also how a Bishop pines for the love and effection of his priests and seminarians when he is so aloof and unap proachable. May the good Lord forgive us for such a perversity. It may be attributed to human frailty. Why, we may not even be aware of such a defect. Perhaps there is a need for a meditation, perhaps a monthly meditation, on these words: "FOR EVERY RIGHT THERE 'IS A DUTY: FOR EVERY PRIVILEGE THERE IS A.V OBLIGATION:’ THE SAINTS OF AUGUST Saints are given us by Holy Mother Church for our emula tion! The month of August is specially full of models for us priests. August 1st has St. Alfonso de Lifjiiori, the hero of the Con fession Box. August 4th has St. John Vianney, Patron of Pa rish Priests, whose mediocrity in human intelligence was sup plemented by piety and divine wisdom. August 8th has St. Dominic of Guzman, chief propagator of the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the one responsible for extending the power to preach, then reserved to Bishops, to the priests. August 10th has St. Lorenzo, Martyr, who could 502 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS manage to joke his tormentors while being roasted at the grill. August 20th has St. Bernard, the Troubador1 of Our Lady. Au gust 21 has St. Puis X, the Pope of frequent Communion and the Patron of Catholic Action. August 28th has St. Augustine, priests’ model in continuous studies and the preacher on the Most Holy Trinity and other not very popular topics. Finally, August 29th has St. John the Baptist, the model of apostolic free dom who had the courage to face Herod with the words “Non Licet”. All Ye, Saints and holy priests in heaven, pray for us, the poor, weak and struggling priests on earth! MOST REV. ALEJANDRO OLALIA. D.D. Archbishop of Lipa On the occasion of the erection of the new Archdiocese of Lipa, with the Dioceses of Lucena, Infanta and Calapan as suffragans, and the elevation of His Excellency Most Rev. Alejandro Olalia to the rank of Archbishop, on August 15, 1972, the Boletin Eclesiastico extends its prayerful greetings and congratulations. LETTER FROM POPE PAUL VI TO OUR VENERABLE BROTHER GABRIEL MARY CARDINAL GARRONE PREFECT OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION The graces which God, the giver of every good gift, pours out upon us, remind us continually to thank Him with a sincere and humble heart. However there are certain times and occasions in human life which inspires us to fullfil this duty of gratitude with greater care and zeal and earnestness. This is surely the way you will feel, when in the very near future you celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of your episcopal consec ration. We certainly do not want this anniversary of yours to pass by without congratulating you sincerely and expressing the love and goodwill which We have for you. Christ Jesus loved you first and called you that you might partake in His saving mission as a priest, and subsequently might attend to a larger flock as a “steward of the grace of the high priesthood” (Vat. II, Lumen Gentium, 26). ZEAL IN PASTORAL MINISTRY It is a consolation to recall that soon after you were pro moted by right of succession to the See of Toulouse, you had missions take place throughout the entire archdiocese, you organized a diocesan Synod, you restructured and streamlined the entire framework of the Church in the territory of your jurisdiction, and you built new churches. We are not ignorant of the fact that you worked hard for the Catholic Action group and for the association called Worker’s Mission, because it had • L’Osservatore Romano July 13, 1972. 504 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS as its scope the evangelization of the working classes, and finally that you strove to further the teaching of the catechism. In this way you endeavoured to present an image of the pastor who was driven by “the love of the truth” and “the urgency of love” (cf. St. Augustine The City of God. XIX. 11; PL XLI, 647). After you were appointed a member of the College of Cardinals and put in charge of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, your activity spread out into a wider field and now closely cooperates with our own ministry, which must look to the good of the entire Church. We have indeed placed a heavy burden and task on your shoulders; for you have to devote much care and concern to seminarians, in order that they may be trained through soundness of teaching and holiness of life to enter upon the priesthood. If, accord ing to the principle of the Second Vatican Council, “the hope of the Church has been entrusted” to the Directors and teachers in seminaries (Optatwi tot.iiis, 22) this pertains ways protect you. BLESSINGS AND PROTECTION Therefore We pray God that He may graciously assist you in carrying out such important duties, and that the Virgin Mother of God, the Mother of the Eternal High Priest and Mother of the Church may always protect you. These then are the thoughts which We desired to share with you together with Our esteem. The best wishes which We extend are accompanied by Our Apostolic Blessing which We most willingly impart to you. From the Vatican, 10 June 1972. in the ninth year of our Pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI LETTER FROM POPE PAUL VI TO OUR VENERABLE BROTHER JOHN JOSEPH CARDINAL WRIGHT PREFECT OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY Toward the end of this month of June the happy memory of a blessed event in your life, Venerable Brother, will present itself once again to mind: for a full twenty-five years will have passed from the time you received your episcopal ordination and thereby were numbered among the first-rank leaders of the pilgrim people of God on earth. The loving regard which We have for your person inspires Us to undertake this gratifying duty of kindness and to hasten to make this anniversary, which is about to dawn, all the hap pier through Our good wishes and congratulations. Certainly as We reflect upon the many and various func tions which you have carried out in the Church up to the pre sent, We are convinced that you above all deserve to be the object of those encouraging words in the Bible: “Possess Wis dom, because it is better than gold, acquire prudence, because it is more precious than silver. . . The heart of the wise man will instruct his lips, and will add chArm to the words of his mouth’’ (Prov. 16, 16, 23). OUTSTANDING IN GOODNESS For especially as the bishop Worcester and for ten years as the pastor of the flock in Pitssburgh you did an outstanding amount of good to assure the growth of Catholicism; you me rited for yourself a good name and left on example of those qualities which are a great help to bishops in exercising their important ministry: namely, vigilant concern for Catholic unity, * L’Osservatore Romano July 13, 1972. 506 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS careful guidance and care for seminarians, active works of mercy toward the needy, agreeable mannerisms and that which is the epitome and queen of all the other virtues, goodness. Now that you have been called to Rome to preside over the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, you are working intelligently and prudently to preserve the Catholic faith intact, to teach that faith and to reinforce the training of the clergy. For if a pure and clear concept of God is maintained, it imme diately opens the way to an increase in the spiritual life as well as to interior and exterior dignity and peace, while on the other hand ignorance of these truths brings with it every pos sible error and final anarchy in any society. INVOKING ENLIGHTENMENT As you are engaged in such difficult tasks, may Jesus Christ himself, the Word of the Father who is "light of light, the font of light, the day * illuminating every day” (St. Ambrose, Morning Song) enlighten your mind and assist you in under takings in order that through your prudence, piety and zeal you may lay up for yourself rich treasures in heaven, and that by harmonizing your works with your words in an exemplary way your speech may be that of the Lord — instructive, pure and clear, like silver cleansed in fire and purified seven times (Ps. 11, 7). May this hope then which is supported by fervent prayers, become a complete reality through the intercession of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, the guide along every straight path and the Star of the Sea. We sincerely wish that this may all come about and for that reason We impart to you our Apostolic Blessing. From the Vatican, 3 June 1972, in the ninth year of our Pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI PAULUS EPISCOPUS SERVUS SERVORUM DEI AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM. Qui summi uuminis providentia in beatissimi Petri locum successimus, apostolorum principis, sic ut ille populorum agmina gubernaturi eaque ad immortalia caelorum litora ducturi, nihil sane agendum omittimus, sive id sit magnum quid, sive parvum, modo intclicgamus fidci nostrae Christiquc religioni propagandae aut intenlendeudae conferre posse. Quam ob rem, cum ceotus Episcoporum, seu conferentia episcopalis In sularum Philippinarum, post auditos sive Arcbiepiscopum Manilenscm sive eius suffraganeos, proposuerit ut detracta parte de provincia ecclesiastica Manilensi nova provincia constitueretur, Nos, ncgotio bene reputato, consilioquc petito a venerabilibus fratribus Nostris S. R. E. Cardinalibus Sacrac Congrcgationis pro Episcopis, itemque vencrabili fratrc Carmelo Rocco sentcntiam rogato, Arcbiepiscopo titulo Justinianopolitano in Gala tia et in cadem nationis apostolico Nuntio, haec dcccrnimus. /I iurc metropolitanac Ecclcsiac Maniicnsis eximiinus turn cathcdrales Ecclesias Lipenscm atquc Luccncnscin, turn Praelaturam Infantcnsem atquc Vicariatum apostolicuin Calapancnsem. Ex quibus Ecclcsiis novain provinciam ecclcsiasticam crcamus, Lipenscm appellandam, cuius provinciae hacc cadem Sedes crit caput, dignitatc metropolitanac Ecclcsiac. Iluic nempc iura omnia facimus, privilegia concedimus, quae ceteris ciusdcm ordinis Scdibus fieri consuevcrunt; eique rcliquas Ecclcsiac ciusdcm provinciae, scilicet Luccnensis, Infantcnsis et Calapensis erunt suffraganeac. ad normani iuris. Censcmus, praetcrea, ut vcncrabiiis fratcr ALEXANDER GLAI.IA, adhuc Episcopus Lipensis, a iurisdictionc nietropolitana quidem Archiepiscopi Maniicnsis exemptus, ad dignitatem archicpiscopalcm Me tropolitarum propria in evehatur, atquc facultatem habeat Crucem ct Pallium defcrcndi, postquam tamcn in Consistorio hoc rite impclraverit. Cctcruin quae iussiinus vcncrabiiis fratcr Carmclus Rocco ad cxitum perducct, factis potestatibus. Potcrit autcni hie quemlibet viruin in Ecclcsiastica dignitatc constitutum legare, si visum fucrit, cum cadem potestate. Rc vero acta, documenta cxarcntur, quorum sinccra cxcmpla ad Sacram Congregationem pro Episcopis mittantur. Dane vero constitutioncm nunc et in postcrum efficacem esse ct fore volumus; ita quidem ut quae per earn decreta sunt all iis quorum res cst religiose serventur, atquc, igitur vim suam obtincant. Cuius Constitutionis cfficacitati nulla, cuiusvis gene ris, contraria praescripta officcrc potcrunt, cum per earn iisdem dcrogemus omnibus. Ncmini praetcrea hacc voluntatis "Nostrae documenta vcl scindcre vcl corrumpcre liceat; quin inimo huius Constitutionis excmplis ct locis, sive t.vpis impressis sive nianu exaratis. quae sigilium viri praeicrant in ecclesiastica dignitatc constituli simulque ab aliquo publico labelhone sint subscripta, cadem omnino habenda crit tides, quae hie habcretur, si ostendcrctur. Datum Romae, apud S. Petrum, die vicesimo niensis iunii. anno Domini millcsimo nongentesimo septuagesimo sccundo, Ponti ficatus Nostri nono. — TR.— ’+ AI.OISIUS CARD. TRAGLIA 4- CAROLL’S CARD. CONFALONIERI S.R.E. Cancellarius S. Congr. pro Eprscopis Praefectus FRANCISCVS TINELLO JOANNES CALLETI, Port. Apost Apostolicam Caneellariam Rcgens J0ANNES C0PPAi Port ap s n Expedit a die VIII Julii a Pontif. IX M. Orsini, Plumbator In Cane. Ap. tab., vol. CXLI n. 66 INSTRUCTION CONCERNING CASES WHEN OTHER CHRISTIANS MAY BE ADMITTED TO EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH * L’Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1972. 1 The Decree on Ecumenism “Unitas Redinlegratio”, n. 8. "Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. There arc two main principles upon which the practice of such common worship depends: first, that of the unity of the Church which ought to be ex pressed; and second, that of the sharing in means of grace. The ex pression of unity very generally forbids common worship. Grace to be obtained sometimes commend it. The concrete course to be adopted, when due regard has been given to all the circumstances of time, place and persons, is left to the prudent decision of the local episcopal au thority, unless the Bishop’s Conference according to its own statutes cr the Holyy See, has determined otherwise. Cf. also Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), n. 27. _ Directorium ad ea quae a Concilio Vaticano de re oecumenica promulgata sunt exsequenda (Directorium oecumenicum, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 59 (1967) pp. 574-592). 1) Sharing in Liturgical Worship with our Separated Eastern Brothers. “Besides cases of necessity there would be reasonable ground for en couraging sacramental sharing if special circumstances make it materially or morally impossible over a long period for one of the faithful to receive the sacraments in his own Church, so that in effect he would be deprived without legitimate reason, of the spiritual fruit of the sacraments (n. 44) 1. THE QUESTION We are often asked the question in what circumstances and on what conditions can members of other Churches and ecclesial communities be admitted to eucharistic communion in the Catholic Church? The question is not a new one. The Second Vatican Coun cil (in the decree on Ecumenism IJnitatis Redinte<jrati<>) and the Directorium Oecumenicum dealt with it.1 The pastoral guidance offered here is not intended to change the existing rules but to explain them, bringing out the doctrinal principles on which rules rest and so making their application easier. * 1 EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 509 2. THE EUCHARIST AND THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH There is a close link between the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the Eucharist. a) The Eucharist really contains what is the very founda tion of the being and unity of the Church: the Body of Christ, offered in sacrifice and given to the faithful as the bread of eternal life. The sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, given to the Church so as to constitute the Church, of its nature carries with it: — the ministerial power which Christ gave to his apostles and to their successors, the bishops, along with the priests, to make effective sacramentally His own priestly act — that act by which once and forever He offered Himself to the Father in the Holy Spirit, and gave Himself to His faithful that they might be one in Him; — the unity of the ministry, which is to be exercised in the name of Christ, Head of the Church, and hence in the hierarchical communion of ministers; — the faith of the Church, which is expressed in the eucharistic action itself — the faith by which she responds to Christ’s gift in its true meaning. 2) Sharing in Liturgical Worship with Other Separated Brethren “Celebration of the sacraments is an action of the celebrating Com niunity, carried out within the Community, signifying the oneness in faith, worship and life of the Community. Where this unity of sacramental faith is deficient, the participation of the separated brethen with Catholics especially in the sacraments of the Eucharist, penance and anointing of the sick, is forbidden. Nevertheless, since'the sacraments are both signs of unity and sources of grace (cf. Decree on Ecumenism, n. 8), the Church can for adequate reasons allow access to those sacraments to a separated brother. This may be permitted in danger of death or in urgent need (during persecution, in prisons) if the separated brother has no access to a minister of his own Communion, and spontaneously asks a Catholic priest for the sacraments — so long as he declares a faith in these sacra ments in harmony with that of the Church, and is rightly disposed. In other cases the judge of this urgent necessity must be the diocesan bishop or the Episcopal Conference. A Catholic in similar circumstances may not ask for these sacraments except from a minister who has been validly ordained” (n. 55). — Cf also na dichiarazione del Segretario per 1’unione dei cnstinai. La posizione della Chiesa cattolica in materia di Eucarlstia comune tra cnstiani di diverse confessioni, in L’Osservatore Bomano of 12-13 January 1970 <in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 62 (1970) pp. 184-188). 510 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The Sacrament of the Eucharist, understood in its entirety with these elements, signifies and existing unity brought about by Him, the unity of the visible Church of Christ which cannot be lost.2 - Cf. Lumen Gentium, 3; Unitatis Redintegratio, 4. 3 Instructio generalis missalis romani, chap. I, n. 1. * Ci. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 4. 5 Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quas primas 28 Deaember 1925: A.A.S. 17 (1925), p. 598; Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, 5; Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2, 6. b) “The celebration of Mass, the action of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically ordered is the centre of the whole Christian life for the universal Church as for the local Church and for each Christian.”3 * 5 Celebrating the mystery of Christ in the Mass, the Church celebrates her own mystery and manifests concretely her unity. The faithful assembled at the altar offer the sacrifice through the hands of the priest acting in the name of Christ, and they represent the community of the people of God united in the profession of one faith. Thus they constitute a sign and a kind of delegation of a wider assembly. The celebration of Mass is of itself a profession of faith in which the whole Church recognizes and expresses itself. If we consider the marvellorft meaning of the eucharistic prayers as well as the riches contained in the other parts of the Mass, whether they are fixed or vary with the liturgical cycle; if at the same time we bepr in mind that the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy make up a single act of worship/ then we can see here a striking illustration of the principle lex ora-vdi lex credendi.6 Thus the Mass has a catechetical power which the the recent liturgical renewal has emphasized. Again, the Church has in the course of history been careful to intro duce into liturgical celebration the main themes of the common faith, the chief fruits of the experience of that faith. This she has done either by means of new texts or by creating new feasts. c) The relation between local celebration of the Eucharist and universal ecclesial communion is stressed also by the special mention in the eucharistic prayers of the pope, the local bishop and the other members of the episcopal college. What has been said here of the Eucharist as centre and summit of the Christian life holds for the whole Church and EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 511 for each of its members, but particularly for those who receive the Body of Christ. Communion during Mass is indeed the most perfect way of participating in the Eucharist, for it fulfills the Lord’s command, “take and eat”.0 3. THE EUCHARIST AS SPIRITUAL FOOD The effect of the Eucharist is also to nourish spiritually those who receive it as what the faith of the Church says it truly is — the body and blood of the Lord given as the food of eternal life (cf. John VI, 54-58). For the baptised, the Eucharist is spiritual food, a means by which they are brought to live the life of Christ himself, are incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of his saving mystery. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in men and I in him” (John VI, 56). a) As the sacrament of full union with Christ7 and of the perfection of spiritual life, the Eucharist is necessary to every Christian: in our Lord’s words, “. ... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John VI, 53). Those who live intensely the life of grace feel a compelling need for this spiritual sustenance, and the Church herself encourage daily communion. b) Yet though it is a spiritual food whose effect is to unite the Christian man to Jesus Christ, the Eucharist is far from being simply a means of satisfying exclusively personal aspira tions, however lofty these may be. The union of the faithful with Christ, the head of the mystical body, brings about the union of the faithful themselves with each other. It is on their sharing of the Eucharistic bread that St. Paul bases the union <; “Perfeclior Missac participatio” (Const, de Sacra Liturgia: Sacrosanclutn Consilium, n. 55 ). Cf. Instructio de cultu mysterii euchirastici: Eucbaristicum mystcrium, of 25 May 1967, n. 12 (A.A.S. 59 (1967), p. 549). The fact of having received the same baptism does not of itself afford a title of admission to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing expresses an integral profession of faith and full insertion in the Church towards which baptism leads. This sacrament "constitute the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn. But a point of departure, for it is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ. Baptism is thus ordained toward a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation into the system of salvation such as Christ Himself willed it to be, and finally, toward a complete integration into eucharistic com inunion.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 22). ' Cf Presbyterorum Ordinis, 5. 512 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS of all the faithful, “Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the same loaf” (1 Cor. X, 17). By this sacrament “man is incorporated in Christ and united with His members.”8 By frequently receiving the Eu charist the faithful are incorporated more and more in the body of Christ and share increasingly in the mystery of the Church. c) Spiritual need of the Eucharist is not therefore merely a matter of personal spiritual growth: simultaneously, and in separably, it concerns our entering more deeply into Christ’s Church “which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph. I, 23). ■1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO COMMUNION Where members of the Catholic Church are concerned, there is a perfect parallel between regarding the Eucharist as the celebration of the entire ecclesial community united in one faith and regarding it a^jsustenance, as a response to the spirit ual needs, personal and ecclesial, of each member. It will be the same when, in the Lord’s good time, all the followers of Christ are reunited in one and the same Church. But what are we to say today, when Christians are divided? Any bap tized person has a spiritual need for the Eucharist. Those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church have recourse to the ministers of their own communities, as their conscience dictates. But what about those who cannot do this, and who for that or other reasons come and ask for communion from a Catholic priests? The Directorium Oecumenicum has already shown how we must safeguard simultaneously the integrity of ecclesial com munion and the good of souls. Behind the Directorium lie two main govering ideas: a) The strict relationship between the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the Eucharist can never be altered, whatever pastoral measures we may be led to take in given s Concilium Florentinum, Decretum pro Armenis, DB 698; DS 1322). — In the work of St. Thomas Aquinas we often come across the ex pression sacramentum ecclesiasticae unitatis (e.i.: Summa Teol., p. 73, a. 2. sed c.). The Eucharist effects the unity of the Church, or more strictly it effects the mystical body because it contains the real body of Christ. EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 513 cases. Of its very nature celebration of the Eucharist signi fies the fullness of profession of faith and the fullness of eccle sial communion. This principle must not be obscured and must remain our guide in this field. b) The principle will not be obscured if admission to Catholic eucharistic communion is confined to particular cases of those Christians who have a faith in the sacrament in con formity with that of the Church, who experience a serious spiritual need for the eucharistic sustenance, who for a pro longed period arc unable to have recourse to a minister of their own community and who ask for the sacrament of their own accord; all this provided that they have proper dispositions and lead lives worthy of a Christian. This spiritual need should be understood in the sense defined above (No. 3, b and c) ; a need for an increase in spiritual life and a need for a deeper involvement in the mystery of the Church and of its unity. Further, even if those conditions are fulfilled, it will be a pastoral responsibility to see that the admission of these other Christians to communion does not endanger or disturb the faith of Catholics.1* 11 Cf. Orientalium Ecelcsiarum, 26. 10 Cf. Directorium, nn 44 and 55. 11 Here arc two important passages from the Directorium derived from Council documents: 39) "Although these (Eastern) Churches are separated from us. yet they possess true sacraments above all — by apostolic succession — the priest hood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest in timacy. Therefore some sharing in liturgical worship (communicatio in sacris) given suitable circumstances and approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged (Decree on Ecumenism, n. 15; cf also the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, nn. 24-29). 5. DIFFERENCES, IN VIEW OF THESE PRINCIPLES, BE TWEEN MEMBERS OF THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES AND OTHER CHRISTIANS The Directorium Oecumenicum* 10 11 gives different directions for the admission to holy communion of separated Eastern Christians, and of others. The reason is that the Eastern Churches, though separated from us, have true sacraments, above all, because of the apostolic succession, the priesthood and the eucharist, which unite them to us by close ties, so that the risk of obscuring the relation between eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion is somewhat reduced.11 Recently the 514 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS Holy Father recalled that “between our Church and the vene rable Orthodox Churches there exists already an almost total communion, though it is not yet perfect: it results from our join participation in the mystery of Christ and of His Church.“,;! With Christians who belong to communities whose eucha ristic faith differs from that of the Church and which do not have the sacrament of Orders, admitting them to the Eucha rist entails the risk of obscuring the essential relation between eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion. This is why the Directorium treats their case differently from that of the Eastern Christians and envisages admission only in exceptional cases of “urgent necessity.” In cases of this kind the person concerned is asked to manifest a faith in the Eucharist in con formity with that of the Church, i.e. in the Eucharist as Christ instituted it and as as the Catholic Chruch hands it on. This is not asked of an Orthodox person because he belongs to a Church whose faith in the Eucharist is conformable to our own. Which Authority decides'particular cases? The meaning of No. 55 of the Directorium Oecumenicum. No. 55 of the Directorium allows fairly wide discretionary power to the episcopal authority in judging whether the neces sary conditions are present for these exceptional cases. If cases of the same pattern recur often in a given region, episcopal conferences can give general directions. More often however it falls to the bishop of the diocese to make a decision. He alone will know all the circumstances of particular cases. Apart from danger of death the Directorium mentions two examples, people in prison and those suffering persecution, but it then speaks of “other cases of such urgent necessity”. Such 40) "Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches separated from us there is still a very close communion in matters of faithfcf.Decree on Ecumenism, n. 14); moreover, through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature’ and ‘although separated from us yet these Churches posses true sacraments, above all — i- Letter to Patriarch Athenagoras, 8 February 1971. French text in La Documentation catholique of 21 March 1971, p. 255. This letter was published in L’Osservatore Romano of 7 March 1971. It had been given to Metropolite Meliton of Chalcedon during his visit to the Holy Father on 8 February 1971. EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 515 cases are not confined to situations of suffering and danger. Christians may find themselves in grave spiritual necessity and with no chance of recourse to their own community. For exam ple, in our time, which is one of large-scale movements of popu lation, it can happen much more often than before that non Catholic Christians' are scattered in Catholic regions. They are often deprived of the help of their own communion and unable to get in touch with it except at great trouble and ex pense. If the conditions set out in the Directorium are verified, they can be admitted to eucharistic communion but it will be for the bishop to consider each case. Hanc inslructioncm pasloralcm Summus Pontifcx PAULUS VI, cum littcris Emmi. Cardinalis a Secretis Status die 25 mensis maii 1972 inIrascripto Secretariatus Card. Pracsidi missis, approbavit et publici juris fieri iussit. Datum Romae, ex aedibus Secretariatus ad Christianorum Unitatem fovendain, die 1 mensis Junii 1972. I II. HIERONYMUS HAMER, O.P. a Sccreiis IOANNES CARD. WILLEBRANDS Praeses CONDITIONS FOR INTER-COMMUNION In particular cases the conditions are: 1) Recipients must have the same faith in the Eucharist as is professed by Catholics; 1> they must have a deep spiritual need for the Eucharist; 3) they must have been unable, over a prolonged period, to communicate in their own Church; ■I) of their own accord they must request the sacrament of Communion. DOCTRINAL REASONS FOR THE INSTRUCTION * • L’Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1972. The Instruction just published propose to explain the doctrinal reasons for the regulation of the Church as outlined in the Conciliar Decree Unitatis Redin teg ratio and in the first part of the Ecumenical Directory which was published on 14 May 1967. It is intended as a help to the bishops in the con crete decisions they have to make in regard to admitting to eucharistic communion Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church. The doctrinal reasons for the regulation made by the Church are to be founcbbriefly expressed in the two documents mentioned above. It seemed useful, however, to give a more ample exposition of these reasons in order to facilitate the application of a regulation which touches on certain basic points of our faith. On the one hand there is a close bond between the mystery of the Eucharist and the mystery of the Church, and on the other hand the Eucharist is a spiritual nourishment whose effect is to join the Christian in person with Jesus Christ and to bring him yet more deeply into Christ’s Church. Those two statements are of equal importance and have both to be safeguarded, whatever may be the pastoral decisions which pastors are called upon to make in particular circumstan ces. As it is. generally speaking, on the second statement that those who ask for “eucharistic hospitality” in the Church base their request, the Instruction aims to remind those concerned what may not be done at the expense of the first statement in which the indestructible bond between the Eucharist and the Church is underlined. The regulation itself in regard to this matter, however, changes with the times. That brought in by Vatican Council DOCTRINAL REASONS FOR THE INSTRUCTION 517 II offers somewhat more of a welcome than the one in force previously. But the profound doctrinal reasons remain un changed, because these are bound up with the very nature of our eucharistic belief. Less stringent for Eastern Churches The Instruction does not simply take its stand on a general question of principle. It shows how the two statements can be safeguarded at the same time, and are in fact safeguarded, in the actual regulation laid down by the Church. Those called upon to express their views on this matter must constantly be concerned not to sacrifice the one statement in favour of the other. We have no intention of repeating here what can be found explicitly stated in the Instruction. We wish simply to under line one point which this document puts very clearly. To ask a Catholic priest for the Eucharist, a member of another Chris tian community must feel “a serious spiritual need of nourish ment from the Eucharist” (cf. 4b and 6). That sets the problem on a high level, that namely of profound spiritual needs. The regulations laid down for admission to eucharistic communion are less stringent in the case of those belonging to the Eastern Churches, not in full communion with us, than they are in the case of other Christians. Why this discriminaton? The reason is to be found in the first of the two statements mentioned above. On a question of profession of faith, of the Sacraments and of ecclesiastical structure, the Eastern Church es are very close to us, and so the risks of obscuring the essential bonds between the Church and the Eucharist are notably less. The Instruction recalls the Holy Father’s recent declaration as to the “communion almost total, though not yet perfect” bet ween the Orthodox Church and our own. Referring to the Directory On the particular point of belief in the Holy Eucharist these Eastern Churches hold a faith conformable to ours in virtue of the profession faith made by the same Churches. On the occasion of being admitted to Holy Communion, therefore, their members will not be asked for a personal profession of faith in this Sacrament “as instituted by Christ and in accord ance with the tradition of the Catholic Church.” 518 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The Instruction ends with a brief comment from n, 55 of the Ecumenical Directory. It recalls first of all the extent accorded by the Directory itself to the authority of the bishops in applying the general criteria to particular cases. It then makes it clear that the two cases mentioned as examples in n. 55, namely deprivation of freedom and conditions of perse cution, are not the only ones in which there is to be discerned a great spiritual need for the reception of the Holy Eucharist. It is clear that a need of this kind can be felt even apart from situations of suffering and danger. The case given of the diaspora (groups of non-Catholics settled in a Catholic country) is illuminating on this point. The Instruction is, then, an expansion of certain points of the 1967 Directory, which itself still remains in force. We may recall that this Directory was the work of a “plenary meeting” of the Secretariat for the Union of Christians (this “Plenary” is the annual session on the part of the members of the Secre tariat, composed of 7 Cardinals and 24 Bishops), to meet a need already made manifest in the Council. It was produced with the active collaboration of experts from different countries, of Episcopal Conferences throughout the world, and of various organisations pertaining to the Roman Curia, such as the Sacred Congregations for the Eastern Churches, for the Evan gelization of the Peoples and for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Directory was approved by the Holy Father during an audience granted to the “Plenary” of the Secretariat on 28 April 1969. A more or less similar procedure was adopted and followed in the case of the present Instruction. — In February 1968 a mixed commission was set up, chosen from the Secretariat for the Union of Christians and from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to study the interpretation to be given to certain norms laid down in the Conciliar Decree Unitatis redintegratio and in the Ecumenical Directory on the question of “communicatio in sacris”. — In November 1969, the “Plenary” of the Secretariat was informed as to the conclusions arrived at by the commission, and then discussed the whole problem on the basis of a docu ment prepared by a committee of its own Consultors. The “Plenary” requested the Cardinal President to set up a com mission limited to three bishops to pursue the study of the whole matter. DOCTRINAL REASONS FOR THE INSTRUCTION 519 — As a practical result of this resolution there was a meet ing of the three bishops concerned from May 30 to June 2, 1970, in which the question was studied, use being made of nine considered opinions given by as many specialists (biblical scholars, historico - patrologists, theologians). This commission produced a report which was submitted to the “Plenary” of 1970. — In 1971, a new mixed commission, chosen from the Secretariat for the Union of Christians and the Sacred Congre gation for the Doctrine of the Faith, determined the line to be followed in the production of a new Pastoral Instruction. This commission worked on two basic documents: the conclusions of the first commission (1968-69) and the report from the meeting of the three bishops (May-June, 1970). — Along the lines determined upon, a sample Instruction was worked out. which the Cardinal President of the Secreta riat for the Union of Christians submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with a view to agreement and possible observations. A definitive reply was given by this Congregation on 8 February 1972. — On being submitted to the Holy Father, the present Instruction was approved on 25 May 1972. With this approval of the Holy Father the present Instruc tion is now offered to all those who have need to formulate exactly the motives for the practice adopted by the Church, whether it be in pastoral directives, or in preaching, or in teach ing. or in catechetics. Both the faithful of the Catholic Church and also the other Christian brethren who read it can judge how clearly our mode of action in this matter flows from our most profound religious convictions. We feel sure that this text will be studied by all with the same anxious desire for truth, for understanding, and for fraternal charity, as that which has inspired all those who have contributed to its pro duction. Jerome Hammer, O.P. SIGNIFICANCE OF PASTORAL NORMS ON PENANCE * * L’Osservatore Romano July 27, 1972. During the general audience at Castel Gandolfo on lit July, the Holy Father explained to the faithful the importance of the recent document of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on general sacramental absolution, The text of Paul VPs address is as follows. You will certainly know of the promulgation of some “Pastoral Norms on General Sacramental Absolution” issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 16 June 1972. If you Jiave not yet heard of them, you had bet ter inquire about them, for these norms concern the discipline of the sacrament of penance, and regard one of the fundamen tal points of Christian life. That is the reconciliation of the sinner both with- God by means of the re-establishment (or restoration) of the state of grace, the supernatural life, in one who has lost (or weakened) it. and with the Church by means of readmission to her communion, if, unhappily, the sin com mitted should entail complete or partial exclusion from living participation in the mystical body of Christ, which the Church is. As you see, we are touching upon an essential and vital point of our personal relationship with the system of our sal vation. COLLECTIVE ABSOLUTION? And what is it? It is the sacrament of Penance, which, by a rule deriving from Christ, from the Tradition of the Church, from the ecumenical Councils of Lateran IV (year 1215) and Trent (sess. XIV, c. 8), involves Confession. Con fession requires a minister, the priest authorized to hear it. and then to give absolution. And where there are no priests? Where there are so few of them, or they come so rarely (as PASTORAL NORMS ON PENANCE 521 in mission territory), that there is no way, or time, for the normal exercise of this ministry? Can it not be replaced by collective absolution, without individual confession? Moreover, has not a so-called community confession already been intro duced in certain places, that is, a penitential rite of a gathering of faithful, to whom sacramental absolution is given collectively, without individual and auricular confession? The answer given by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after much study and consultation, after a thorough attempt to interpret the duty deriving from Christ’s merciful will, and after considering with a sense of responsibi lity and pastoral insight the real advantage of the Church and of the individual faithful, as well as the duty and importance of the priestly ministry, is the following. First, the norm of the Council of Trent remains in force, in fact both priests and faithful (including the priests themselves) are called upon to observe it with exactitude: to have absolution of mortal sins, personal accusation is necessary, as hitherto. The law remains, second, as already established, in certain cases of imminent danger of death (for example, fire, shipwreck, war...), when there is no time to hear individual confessions, ‘‘any priest has the power to impart absolution to several persons together”. Necessity and urgency prevail over the usual norm. Third, and this is the new feature: “Apart from the cases of danger of death, it is lawful to give sacramental absolution col lectively to a number of faithful who have confessed only generically but have been suitably exhorted to repent, provided that there is serious necessity: namely, when in view of the number of penitents there are not enough confessors at hand to hear properly the confessions of each within an appropriate time, with the results that the penitents through no fault of their own would be forced to do without sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time. This can happen especially in mission lands but in places also and within groups where it is clear that this need exists. This is not lawful however, when confessors are able to be at hand, merely because of a great concourse of penitents such as can for example occur on a great feast or pilgrimage . . . The celebration of this rite is to be kept quite distinct from the celebration of Holy Mass”. Other prescriptions, which it will be well to know and which will certainly be clearly expounded, complete this new discipline, which anyone with a sense of real Catholic pastoral life will greet with a twofold sentiment in his heart. Of adBOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS miration and of joy at the charity of Mother Church, anxious to dispense the treasurers of grace as widely as possible; and of appreciation and hope at the reminder of the prime impor tance of the unfortunate drama of sin in man’s life, a drama which modern laxism tends to soft-pedal, and at the authorita tive and stimulating confirmation given to the People of God about the ministry of penance exercised by means of Confession. For our times, so much in need of the restoration of a clear and solid moral sensibility, so eager for liberation from what imprisons man most deeply and gravely, this reminder of the importance of the sacramental grace of penance today is certainly a providental fact. If sin is slavery, it is death, the recovery of the awareness of sin and recourse to the divine remedy of the remission of sin, is a thing that should be re considered and extolled with the interest and enthusiasm we reserve for the most important events of life and history. We say to you. confreres in the priesthood, called to be the doctors of souls, the confidents, the teachers, the “psychiatrists” of grace, in the extremely fruitful, though so delicate and respon sible, exercise of the ministry of Confession. And we say so to all of you. faithful sons of the Church, whether you have the happy experience of it, or whether you are held back by deeply rooted pride or unjustified timidly. Let all of you have admir ation. reverence, gratitude, desire for that "ministry of recon ciliation” (2 Cor. 5. 18). which is really paschal iov of resur rection. With our Apostolic Blessing. PASTORAL LETTER ON VIGILANCE AGAINST CONTEMPORARY ERRORS CONCERNING THE MYSTERIES OF THE INCARNATION AND THE MOST HOLY TRINITY Rufino J. Cardinal Santos Archbishop of Manila To Their Excellencies, Our Auxiliary-Bishops and Vicar General, Our Archdiocesan Senate of Priests and Pastoral Council Our Vicars-Forane and Parish Priests and their Assistants, The Religious Congregations and Secular Institutes The Officers and Members of the Apostolate of the Laitv (ALAM), and The Faithful in the Archdiocese of Manila GREETINGS AND PEACE! We address this Pastoral Letter to you impelled by the solicitude proper of Our Office for the purity and integrity of the Deposit of the Faith, which is foremost among the sacred obligations of bishops under the guidance of the Pope, the Supreme Pastor. As Vatican II has it, only by “holding fast to this deposit the entire people united with their bishops remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers”. (Dei Verbum, 10) ERRORS AGAINST THE FAITH Our 20th century is witnessing the unfortunate revival of the Arian error about Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of many others that follow upon the heels of this capital error. Among the latter we wish to single out those that concern the Divine Persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit, errors that enveigh against the very nature of the Godhead and the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. (This PASTORAL LETTER was publicly read by His Eminence, Rufino J. Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, at the Pontifical High Mass at the Metropolitan Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila, on June 30, 1972, on the occassion of POPE’S DAY.) 524 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS This revival is called by some neo-Arianism and by others, perhaps with more accuracy, neo-Modernism. Not without irony, these errors have reappeared after sixteen centuries, during which the pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils and a universally accepted Liturgy had exorcised them from the Church. The irony is sharpened by the fact that these errors are spreading at a time when the bishops of the whole world, gathered solemnly in the Second Vatican Council together with the Holy Father as their Head, had reaffirmed the profession of the Faith in its integral wholeness and had left it inscribed on each and every page of the Council’s Decrees and Constitu tions. GRAVITY OF THE CONTEMPORARY ERRORS The central error of this neo-Modernism — let us call it by this name — lies in that it denies that Jesus Christ is God, the Only-Begotten Son of God, and truly a Divine Person. The Partisans of this revived error indeed attribute to Our Blessed Lord and Master Jesus Christ all conceivable human perfec tions. They profess that Christ is the man sent by God to redeem men. and that Christ fulfilled this mission by His life and His death upon the cross. Nonetheless, they deny the eter nal pre-existence of Jesus and His Divine Sonship. Thereby, notwithstanding the accumulation of all conceivable human per fections in Him, these Neo-Modernists acknowledge Christ to be nothing more than a mere man and a son of God only by adoption just as we all are. Now, the Divinity of Jesus Christ is the ground upon which the whole of Christian revelation rests. Therefore, to deny that Christ is truly a Divine Person is to eliminate the very foundation of our Christian mysteries. It is enough to recite the Apostles’ Creed or the Symbol of the Mass to grow aware that to deny that Christ is truly God and equal in nature to the Father is to deny in the same breath the existence in God of the Person of the Father, and likewise to deny the Person of the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This neo-Modernism, therefore, eliminates from our religion the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, and the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. The negation of the other mysteries of our faith flows logically from these fundamental errors. The redeeming values of Our Blessed Lord’s Life and Passion is rooted in the fact PASTORAL LETTER ON VIGILANCE 525 that the Lord Jesus is truly a Divine Person. This fact endows all His acts — even the most minimal — with an infinite worth. This is the reason why the merits of Christ were — and are — sufficient to redeem all men from all their sins. But if Christ is not truly God, as these neo-Modernists pretend, His Life and Passion could neither have infinite value nor could they ever suffice to redeem one man even one single sin, because no matter how small we suppose the sin to be, it will always re main an offense to the infinite God. It is thus clear that this fundamental neo-Modernist error entails the complete denial of the whole mystery of our Re demption from the Incarnation of Our Lord up to His Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God, co-equal in glory with His Father. This basic error further implies the denial that Jesus Christ could ever have the power to send from above the Per son of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles; nay, the very existence of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person proceeding from both the Father and the Son is negated. Consequently, all the fundamental dogmas of our Creed are eliminated. TOTAL EXCLUSION OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP AND OF THE SACRAMENTS St. Paul declares: “He who is just lives by faith.” (Rom. 1:17). The denial of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarna tion of the Word of God subverts at its base the whole edifice of the Christian life since the later, consists of faith and the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and lives and works through charity. We receive this life of faith and grace by way of the sacraments, while prayer and worship nurture it to perfection. It is implanted in us in Baptism, which purifies us from sin and inserts us into Christ; in Penance it is restored by the forgiveness of our actual sins; in the Eucharist it is nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ the Only-Begotten of God. And so on tiil the day of our bodily resurrection. The neo-Modernist error negates the Most Holy Trinity in Whose name we are baptised and from Whose power all the sacra ments draw their efficaciousness. It inevitably follows that there is neither validity in our baptism, nor truth in the forgiveness 526 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS of sins, nor Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, nor any worth in our Liturgy and prayer. Hence the whole of Catholic cult is deprived of all meaning and worth, not only where it con cerns the Mass and the sacraments, but also where it concerns the worship due to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the veneration owed to the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God and to the Saints as our elder brethren who from the glory of heaven are capable of helping us only because of the infinite merits of Christ, “the first born among many brethren.” (Rom. 8, 29). THE GRIEVOUS DUTY OF PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS All the preceding is but the briefest summary of the lethal effects and sonsequences that logically follow from the Arian erros being spread in these days of theological neo-Modernism. Upon us all weighs the obligation to defend and preserve the treasure of our faith in all its purity and integrity. We, there fore, expect that our priests and the religious in our Archdiocese, both men and women, wilt get themselves efficaciously involved in teaching our Catholic Faith purely and integrally. Upon it depends both the faithful discharge of our mission within the Church and, above all, the salvation of the souls of men. As we exhort our priests and our religious men and women zealously to preserve pure and integral the Faith, We also wish to caution them not only against the tendency to introduce doubts and uncertainties, but also against propensity to employ equivocal or ambiguous expressions in matters of faith where by her definition Holy Mother Church has fixed the authentic meaning of our dogmas together with the formulae whereby that meaning is expressed. No less than the Holy Father himself has sounded the alert against the danger involved in this practice, the effects of which are corrosive and readily sow doubt in the people of God. Said the Holy Father in his Ex hortation to the Bishops, mincing no words: “At this very moment many of the faithful are troubled in their faith by an accumulation of ambiguities, uncertainties and doubts about its essentials. Such are the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas the mystery of the Eucharist and the Real Presence, the Church as the institution of salvation, the priestly ministry in the minds of the people of God, the value of prayer and the sacraments, and the moral requirements concerning, for instance, the indis solubility of marriage or respect for life. Even the divine PASTORAL LETTER ON VIGILANCE 527 authority of the Scripture is not left unquestioned by a radical demythologization.” (Cf. A.A.S. 1971, pg. 99). For, indeed, faith — if it be a true faith — receives the revealed deposit as the very word of God. Hence, faith is as certain and as infallible as God Himself. Wherefore, the slight est doubt, uncertainty, ambiguity, destroys the infallible certainty of faith and thus kills faith itself. The vital importance of the subject We have sketched above places upon all priests engaged in the ministry of preaching, and upon all religious and lay men and women engaged in reli gious education, especially catechist, the bounden duty of being alert to, and of keeping themselves free from, these errors of our times. Obviously, a much graver obligation weighs upon the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff. In pursuance of this obligation, the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued the Declaration which We here with offer to the priests and religious men and women in our Archdiocese. This Declaration specifies in concise terms the aforementioned errors and indicates the dogmatic conciliar from which we must all receive the doctrine concerning these mys teries together with the genuine sense in which the Church has always held them. The Declaration admirably embodies the sense of the Church, and the Holy Father has of course ordered its publication. Nothing less than the most unfathomable mysteries of God is at stake here: the intimate life of God in the Trinity of Persons, the Divine Sonship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the infinite worth of His revelation and salvific work. All of this superexceeds human understanding. Faith alone enables us to enter into, and participate in, these mysterious realities by hum bly believing and confessing them. Hence. We exhort each and every one cordially to receive this priceless Declaration and to confirm to it our preaching, teaching, and Catechism. Trustfully We call on our Vicars General, our parish priests and clergy, and the religious Superiors in our Archdiocese to aid Our solicitude for the integrity and purity of the Faith with their zeal and vigilance in so vital a matter. Given in the City of Manila, Philippines, on the 30th day of June 1972, in commemoration of the 9th anniversary of the Coro nation of llis Holiness, Pope Paul VI. "Till Death Do Us Part" by Dr. Antonio T. Pinon An Appraisal of the Arguments for Divorce The widespread climate of permissiveness, specially in matters of sex, has occasioned a spate of attacks and cam paigns against all those institutions that would impose some curbs on sexual activity. To cite but the most significant, there was first the spirited, and still ongoing, campaign for birth control to “liberate” sex from children. Today we witness the start of movement for the legalization of divorce to “libe rate” sex from the indissoluble ties of marriage. One needs no gift of prophecy to foretell where all this is bound to end— the scrapping of marriage in the name of the complete “libe ration” of sex, which is but the deodourized term for free wheeling absolute promiscuity. This permissiveness has so permeated all levels and strata of society that not even the Church has succeeded in escaping its influence altogether. While Vatican II was still in session there were priests, bishops, and even cardinals, who openly ad vocated the licitude of contraceptive practices and were telling everybody that the Church was on the verge of changing her uncompromising stand against contraception until Paul VI showed them up as false prophets with his forthright encyclical Humn»ne Vitae. So now we also see in print statements attributed to priests like the following: “Fr. Healy told the convention delegates that discussion on divorce was in progress in the Church and that one insight gaining ground was the theory that while Christ was against divorce. ‘He was holding it un as an ideal and not as a precept.’” (Panorama. 13 Feb. 1972) Although the reporter does not make it clear, I presume that what Christ was holding up as an ideal was not divorce, but indfcsohib’e marriage. “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 529 To get our bearings straight on this matter a distinction must be made and clearly understood between these three things: declaration of nullity, legal separation, and divorce. DECLARATION OF NULLITY It is not uncommon to meet people, even well-educated ones, who misconstrue a declaration of nullity granted by the Holy See as a decree of divorce. One often hears it said that moneyed couples can bring their cases to Rome and obtain an ecclesiastical sentence allowing them to separate and remarry. And if this is not divorce, then what is it? The answer is that what these couples get is not divorce but a declaration of nullity, which is an altogether different thing. Marriage, it is true, is much more than a contract. It is a state of life. It is an interpersonal relationship. But it is no less true that the gateway of this interpersonal relationship and state of life is the marriage contract. By this contract a man and a woman acquire the right to the sort of interpersonal relationship that is the woof and warp of the married state of life. Now, as in all contracts, certain conditions are re quired by law for the marriage contract to be valid or binding. Where any of the requisites for the validity of the contract is wanting, then the contract is mill and void from the very beginning. In plain terms, there never was anly contract at all. A declaration of nullity should never be confused with an annulment. Annulment is the voiding of a contract that was valid and binding up to the moment of its annulment. When a marriage is annulled there was a valid hiarriage and the couple were truly man and wife up to the time when the sentence of annulment was passed. On the other hand, in a declaration of nullity there never was a valid and binding contract. When a marriage is declared null and void there is no unmaking of what was made and existed before. There is only an official finding that there never was a marriage, that the couple were never truly man and wife because some essential requisite(s) for validity were wanting at the time the marriage contract was solemnized. What happened in this case is that the couple mistakenly thought they had contracted a valid marriage whereas no valid marriage had taken place in reality, and they never were man 530 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS and wife. When the error is detected, the couple either con tracts a valid marriage, that is, makes good the defective con tract in any of the ways provided for by law, or else they are bound to separate. If they choose the latter alternative since they never were married, it is obvious that both are free to marry someone else. It must always be borne in mind that a declaration of nullity does hot dissolve a marriage simply because there is no mar riage to dissolve. On the other hand, divorce always implies or presupposes a valid marriage contract which binds the couple to each other. LEGAL SEPARATION A valid marriage contract produces two effects. In the first place, each party gives to the other the exclusive right to his or her body for the performance of the marital act. In the second place, and as a natural corollary of the right to the marital act, the contract effects a certian unity of life whereby the man and the womSn share the same roof, board, and bed. When ? married couple break the complementary unity of life, when they no longer sleep together, nor live in the same house, we have an Imperfect or relative divorce, more commonly known by the term legal separation. DIVORCE It should be obvious that what binds two people together in the state of matrimony is not the physical or geographical togetherness. It is the marital rights and duties exchanged by the marriage contract. So long as these rights and duties sub sist, the man is bound to the woman and the woman is bound to the man even if they should no longer live together. And so long as the bond subsists, the marriage subsists. When the man and the wife agree not merely to sleep in different rooms, or to live in different houses, but take the further step of revoking the exclusive rights they mutually granted each other, then the marriage bond itself is broken the marriage dissolved, and the divorce is called perfect or absolute. To prevent misunderstanding, I shall employ the term of divorce always in its perfect or absolute sense. Proponents of divorce are fundamentally interested in the right to remarry. “TILL DEATH DO US PART’’ 531 This right to remarry is absent in mere legal separation where, d&pite the physical separation, the parties remain bound and married to each other. It is precisely the dissolution of the married bond, which absolute divorce presumes to effect, that leaves the divorced parties free to many again. The Church admits both the declaration of nullity and the legal separation, the latter usually on broader grounds than the civil codes. For instance, the Philippine Civil Code provides for only three causes for legal separation, to wit, adultery on the wife’s part, concubinage on the husband’s part, and attempt on the life of either of the spouses. Besides these, Canon Law allows legal separation for other causes, e.g. criminal and igno minious life, spiritual danger to either spouse, cruelty. Legal separation is ordinarily effected by order of the competent au thority, but Canon Law allows the innocent party to leave the guilty one on his/her authority if there be danger in delay. A similar proviso is wanting in the Philippine Civil Code. ANNULMENT OF NON-CONSUMMATED MARRIAGE Likewise Canon Law admits the annulment of marriage. This is granted for cause, usually in the case of a validly con tracted but uot consummated marriage. When a valid contract is voided the contracting parties are returned to the status they had prior to the contract, as if the contract had not taken place. In the case of marriage this is possible before the con summation of the marriage, but it is obviously impossible once the marriage is consummated. Still more, marriage is not a run-of-the-mill contract. It is an exceptionally exceptional contraot in that its subject mat ter is the very persons of the contracting parties and it has the most profound repercussions in their intimate individual lives. Marriage is a total giving of the self to another. Therefore if liberty is an essential ingredient of any contract, utmost liberty ought to be available and guaranteeable for this exceptionally exceptional contract. The point of no return where freedom must make its choice is the definitive ratification of the mar riage contract represented by the actual possessing of each other’s person in the marital act which consummates the mar riage. Conversely, this is the last rampart and defense of the individual’s liberty. Often a man or a woman are compelled 532 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS to go through a shotgun marriage. Is the wedding ceremony the moment of truth? No. After the ceremony is ended and the documents are duly signed and witnessed, after the recep tion is through and the guests have gone home, the moment of truth comes in the privacy of the nuptial chamber and bed. A shotgun marriage can be performed under well camouflaged duress, but in the sanctuary of the nuptial chamber consum mation does not take place without the free volition of both parties. This is the moment of truth. Consummation is strong evidence that the parties have changed their minds and now under no compulsion freely ratify the contract and take each other as man and wife in the marital act. On the contrary, a persistent refusal of consummation is strong proof of a con tinuing repudiation of the marriage celebrated under duress. Thus consummation or non-consummation' is the clearest indi cator of free consent or lack of it to the marriage contract. The contention thus boils down to divorce, i.e. to the dis solution of the marriage bond and the consequent freedom to remarry in the case of a validly and consummated marriage. But the issue still needs ** to be nailed down more accurately. THREE QUESTIONS When anything is proposed to be done three questions can be raised about it: (1) Can it be done? (2) Should it be done? (3) How is it to be done? Likewise three questions can be raised about divorce: (I) Can divorce be legalized? In other words, is it within the authority of the state or of the Church validly to legalize di vorce? (2) Should the state or the Church legalize divorce? (3) How is divorce to be legalized? That is. what kind of pro visions are to be included in a divorce law? Now, these three questions cannot be raised in any order as you please. They must be raised in precisely the order stated because the first question is presupposed by the second, and the second question is presupposed by the third. THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT AT ISSUE In plain language, the fundamental question is whether the state — or the Church — possesses the competent authority validly to legalize divorce. This is the fundamental point at “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 533 issue, and it must be settled prior to any other. If it is not, all other issues are left without a proper foundation. To illustrate crudely. Suppose a Constitutional Conven tion delegate were to propose the inclusion in the fundamental charter of the land of a provision to the effect that typhoons and earthquakes shall be banned by the state. There is any number of good reasons why they should be banned from the country: to spare the lives of the people, to insure their pro perties, to protect the crops to safeguard the economy, etc. There is but one fly in the soup — the fact that, as natural phenomena, typhoons and earthquakes obey the laws of nature, they are beyond the purview of the state’s power and authority. BEGGING TIIE QUESTION The proponents of divorce muster what looks like a for midable array or arguments in defense of their position. On closer inspection, however, one finds that they all boil down to two. First, the state should legalize divorce in order to do away with all the illicit relationships that fester in our midst. Secondly, divorce should be legalized in order to provide a remedy for so much unhappiness in the spouses and in the children. People should not be condemned to suffer because of one mistake; on the contrary, the humane thing to do is to allow them a chance to make good their mistake. These arc emotionaly loaded arguments. “Illicit relation ships,” “unhappiness,” “condemned to suffer” — these key words all aim straight for, and score a bull’s-eye on, the heart. Nothing wrong with that, provided, of course, that the heart is not allowed to play a trick on the intellect by obscuring the fact that, as arguments, they all suffer from one fatal defect. They all miss the fundamental issue. The debate got off on the wrong foot because it got off on question no. 2, viz. should divorce be legalized? By starting off with that question, the first and fundamental question — has the state the authority validly to legalize divorce? — was completely overlooked and bypassed. The effect of overlooking this fundamental question is that the power or authority of the senate to legalize divorce is assumed or taken for granted. Since that is precisely the fundamental point at issue, to take it for granted is unwittingly to fall into the fallacy of beqqina the question. 534 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS I shall, therefore, take the liberty to challenge the funda mental assumption and to nail the debate down to the basic issue: does the state have the power or authority validly to dissolve the marriage bond? ARE ALL MISTAKES CORRIGIBLE? To argue that divorce should be legalized so that people may have the chance to correct their mistakes is, to begin with, to assume that marriage is dissoluble, which ’ is to beg the question. In the second place, the argument also assumes that all mistakes are corrigible, which is patently false. There are mistakes that can be corrected, and there are mistakes beyond correction. This is crystal clear to common;sense. Suppose you decide to end your life by slashing your wrist. A moment later, as you see blood spurting ojyt, you decide that it was a mistake, that you want to go on living after all. This is the kind of mistake * that can be made good. You have a servant apply a tourniquet and call for a doctor. On the other hand, suppose you decide to go by stepping off the window of youi- apartment which happens to be on the 12th storey. A split second later, as you clutch at emptiness, you feel that it was all a mistake. We can only accompany you in being sorry for yourself. Your mistake is irretrievable. This argument is also often presented in the following form: What you do freely, you can freely undo. A man enters into mar riage freely; he ought to be able to get out of it freely. People who argue this way forget that the act is one thing, and the consequences of th® act are quite another thing. To place or not to place the act lies within the scope of your freedom. But once you place the act, its consequences may lie completely be yond your freedom. You are absolutely free to jump or not to jump off the window of your apartment on the 12th storey. But once you have jumped, you are not free to fall or not to fall. The natural law of gravity takes over and smashes you on the pave^ment below. THE RIGHT TO HAPPINESS? The argument that divorce should be legalized because people have a right to happiness is wobbly on a number of counts. “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 535 In the first place, speaking strictly within the context of law whether statutory or constitutional, the right to happiness is not a fit subject for legislation. The reason is quite simple. When a right is made the subject of legislation, the object or subject matter of that right is guaranteed by law. Now, is it possible for the law to guarantee happiness to any man? Ob viously no. Therefore the right to happiness cannot be guaran teed or enforced by the law. Therefore it is not a fit subject legislation. What is guaranteeable and enforceable by law is the right to the pursuit of happiness. That is to say, the state can by law see to it that a man is not hindered in his search for hap piness and that the state of affairs is so organized and ordered that man shall have some means to achieve happiness. But whether he will be happy or not, that is beyond the power of the state to guarantee or enforce. However, the pursuit of happiness is not, and cannot be. an unrestricted right. There is no right to pursue happiness in any manner and by whatever means one chooses. Otherwise, a rapist could justify his crime by claiming that he was merely exercising his right to pursue happiness. A man has the rig''/ to pursue happiness only by licit ways and means. But would legalizing divorce not make it a licit way o pursuing happiness? To answer in the affirmative without producing proof is simply to beg the question. People who an swer yes, if they were consistent, should have no qualms about legalizing rape, theft, murder so that the lustful, the thieving, and the violent may have a licit way of pursuing and achieving their happiness. And why go to all the bother and expense of suing for divorce? Would it not be muph simpler, less expensive, less troublesome more convenient to legalize adultery? LEGAL DISCRIMINATION In the second place, just what is meant by domestic hap piness or domestic unhappiness? Can anybody come up with a satisfactory legal definition of these terms? The obvious impossibility of defining them for legal purposes is the reason why divorce statutes prefer to concern themselves with the causes of marital unhappiness, e.g. adultery, concubinage, at tempt on the life of either spouse, etc. These are things that can be objectively assessed and described with sufficient accuracy for legal purposes. 536 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS In which case what does legalizing divorce really amount to? Simply this: if you are unhappy because pL adultery, or concubinage, or an attempt on your life . . . rejoice: The law grants you a second chance at happiness. But should you be miserable for any other cause, then wallow and sink deeper in your misery; you cannot have another chance at happiness. In plain language, the law says that some unhappy people have the right to be happy with another partner, but some other unhappy people must stay put in their unhappiness. If the right to pursue happiness is a fundamental right, then it belongs to each and every one. And if divorce is justi fied on the basis of this fundamental right, then any divorce law which would specify certain causes for divorce and rule out other causes is inconsistent and discriminatory. THE INTERNAL LOGIC OF DIVORCE This is precisely the reason why, once it has gained a legal foothold, no matter how slight, divorce cannot be con tained or restricted only.to a few serious cases, as its proponents would lead us to believe. Water is impelled by a built-in ten dency to spread itself out. So, too, legalized divorce is propelled by an internal logic to an ever increasing relaxation of stand ards, to more and' more permissiveness, to a greater facility in dissolving marriages. The evidence lies before our eyes, not merely in the expe rience of other countries, but in the very draft of the divorce proposal. Up to now there was only legal separation, which could not be obtained save on the following serious grounds: adultery on the part of the wife, concubinage on the part of the husband, attempt on the life of either spouse. Then came the proposal to legalize divorce on the self-same grounds. The proponents tell us with a straight face, “See? We haven’t liberalized anything; now. have we? The grounds or causes are still the same.” Are they so naive as not to be aware that the mere jump from legal separation to divorce is in itself an enormous relaxa tion of marital morals? Besides, does not the draft itself provide a convenient door to further relaxation by empowering Congress to specify other grounds or causes for divorce? To come to the heart of the matter, when the law itself in effect starts making distinctions and setting up different “TILL DEATH DO US PART’’ 537 classes among married couples, favouring some with the right to sue for divorce while denying the same right to others, can anyone seriously believe that the unfavoured ones will not clamour and agitate for a change in the law that will allow them the same access to divorce? How can the law credibly tell me to stay unhappily put with my partner when it allows my neighbour to divorce his? A CURE FOR UNHAPPINESS. In the third place, the most distressing fact about this whole business is that those who hold up divorce as a second chance at happiness miss the mark by a wide mile. To tout divorce as a cure for unhappiness is to foist, unwittingly per haps, a deception on unsuspecting people. Divorce is not, and cannot be a cure for marital unhap piness. To convince oneself of this truth it is enough honestly to consider the grounds for which divorce is granted. Examine any one of them — adultery, concubinage, attempt on the life of either spouse, and any other cause that may be subsequently specified by law — and you cannot but admit to yourself that it is not marriage but a personal fault, defect, or shortcoming, that is the true cause of marital disharmony and unhappiness. If the wife is a flirtatious butterfly that got herself singed in the flames of passion, if the husband all but strangled his wife to death in a fit of jealously, will divorce magically cure the wife of her flirtatious nature or the husband of his cankerous jealously? Obviously not. And if divorce is but the prelude to another marriage — since that is precisely the reason why, people are not satisfied with legal separation and demand divorce — then the personal faults and shortcomings, that are the true causes of marital unhappiness, are carried over like bad debts, liabilities and encumbrances, to the next marriage to wreak havoc on it. Which is why divorces and divorcees keep changing hands like bad money, and experience supports the truth of the state ment that nothing succeeds in breeding more divorces than divorce. ILLICIT RELATIONSHIPS Divorce, it is argued, is “better than tolerating illicit rela tionships which have now become rampant in our midst.” (Panorama, 13 Feb. 1972) 538 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The fatal weakness of this argument lies in the assump tion that the only reason why the relationship is illicit is the fact that it is not countenanced by the law. The present statutes do not allow a married couple to separate and remarry: hence, the affairs entered into by either spouse with other persons are illicit. However, if the present statutes were amended to allow divorce and remarriage, illicit relationships will cease to exist. Obviously, the contention that legalizing divorce will do away with illicit relationships holds water only in the supposi tion that the state possesses the authority validly to legalize divorce. But that is precisely the fundamental point at issue. To make this clear, let us probe deeper into the argument. Illicit relationships have become rampant in our midst. There fore let us eliminate them by legalizing divorce. Suppose we argue in the same vein: the crimes of theft and murder have become rampant in our midst. Therefore let us eliminate them by legalizing theft and murder. Imagine the advantages of such a move: at ohe .stroke police blotters would be purged of criminal entries; our jails, at present bursting at the seams due to over congestion, would be emptied of more than 50% of their population; the crime rate would drop miraculously; we could save by cutting our police force by more than half; jailbirds would be rehabilitated and turned overnight into law-abiding citizens. What would the man in the street, with two cents’ worth of common sense, say to this? He would state flatly that it cannot be done, that it is beyond the authority and power of the state to legalize the killing of innocent people or the arbit rary dispossession of rightfully acquired property. That if the state should persist in legalizing theft and murder it would then be guilty of the most atrocious and heinous tyranny co such an extent that it would become incumbent on every decent man to resist and overthrow it. This insight of common sense is significant in that it ac knowledges limits to the state’s power or authority in making laws, limits that are set by fundamental human rights which are not of the state’s making but prior to the state itself. These fundamental rights are rooted neither in Congress nor even in the Constitution. They are inherent in the very nature of things — of man, in this case — or in the explicit will of God. “TILL DEATH DO US PART" 539 As a natural bodily oryanism, man is subjected to and ruled by natural physico-chemico-bilogical laws which define what is good or bad for his life and health. As a natural person, man is governed by natural moral laws which define what is good or bad for him as a rational, free, and responsible agent. On either level the natural law and order is antecedent to and independent of the state. When it legislates on matters of health the state cannot act independently of, but must take into account the natural physico-chemico-biological laws which determine what is good or bad for the health of the citizens. Likewise, when it legis lates on matters of free and responsible behaviour the state cannot proceed independently of, but must keep in mind the natural moral laws which define the good and evil use of human freedom. SENSES OF THE TERM SOCIAL At this point the challenge is raised that all this has pretty little to do with marriage. Even if it is granted that man is himself prior to the state, what has that to do with marriage? Isn’t it true that marriage is a social institution? If social, then it is a creation of, and dependent on, the society or state. The weakness of this challenge lies in its ambiguous use of the term social. A thing can be called social in many dif ferent senses: 1. Because it is a creation of the society or state itself. In this sense the banking and credit system is a social institu tion, and so are trade-unions, cooperatives, business corpora tions. forms of government. 2. Because it exists and develops itself within the society or state, with or without the latter’s acceptance, protection, and guarantee. In this sense graft and corruption, usury, private armies have become social institutions in this country. 3. Because it associates or brings people together. In this sense birthday celebrations, concerts and operas, weddings, parties, balls, graduations, inaugurations are called social af fairs or events. 4. Because it lies at the basis, foundation, or origin of society. It is in this sense that Rousseau employed the term Social Contract. 540 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS When therefore it is argued that marriage depends on the society because it is a social institution, in what sense is the term social used? In the first of the enumerated senses? In that case we would be back at the fundamental fallacy of beg ging the question. Marriage is social in the second sense — it exists and develops itself in the society with society’s blessing and pro tection. However, this does not prove that marriage is purely and simply society’s creation any more than the fact that man is born, grows, and develops himself in the society and is de fended by society proves that man is purely and simply a creature of society. Marriage is social also in the third sense—it associates a man and a woman in the common task of begetting and bringing up children. But if this proves anything, it proves that of itself marriage belongs to the natural order and, con sequently, is prior to the state. The preservation and con tinuation of the species is not a goal set by convention or human agreement, or by government statute, it is a goal of nature itself. The institution oi- association whose specific goal and objective is determined by nature is itself properly a natural institution, a natural association. This is to say that marriage is, as a natural institution, ruled by natural laws, i.e. laws that are prior to, and indepen dent of, the state; therefore, laws which it is not in the state’s power or authority to abrogate or dispense with; laws that maintain their vigour and validity despite contrary acts by the state. INSIGHTS FROM THE TASADAYS One approach to ascertain the natural characteristics of marriage begins by assuming the position of the proponents of divorce, finding its necessary implications and then verifying whether the facts support the implications or contradict them. Actually this is an application of the well-known and tested rule of logic: if p then q; but not q therefore not p. Let us therefore assume that, marriage is purely and simply a creation of the state. In this supposition it would follow that no form of marriage existed prior to the state. This implies that the marriage institution has evolved out of a primitive condition characterized by the absence of any form of marriage, ‘TILL DEATH DO US PART” 541 that is to say, a state of utter and absolute promiscuity. Out of this primeval promiscuity would have evolved the first forms of marriage characterized naturally by residues of promiscuity, viz. group marriage whether polygynous or polyandrous. Out of these polygamous forms of marriage would have ultimately evolved our present monogamous marriage for life. Thus these theorists would have us believe that as we trace back the history of marriage, its present well-defined struc ture of lifelong pairing of one with one would first blur into the hazy and indistinct lines of polygyny, polyandry and group marriage, and as we continue pushing farther and farther back into earlier ages and more primitive groups, even these hazy lines would finally dissolve into utter promiscuity, which is the absolute denial of the marriage institution itself. Do the facts square with the theory? A very recent find in our own backyard in the mountains of South Cotabato set the anthropological world agog. Anthro pologists were understandably excited by the discovery of the Tasadays. The significance of the Tasadays lies in the fact that they are still living in the paleolithic age, that is, in the early part of the stone age, when men had just begun to fashion tools and implements out of stone. Here then was a living sample of one of the earliest types of human existence — a matchless chance to confront theory with fact, to glean answers to nagging questions about human behaviour and its standards or norms. The Sunday Times of 16 April 1972 published a report signed by E.P. Patanhe with the title Tasaday Group Confirms Ethnological Insights. Among the insights are: — That monogamy, rather than polygyny or poly andry, has an ancient sanction in the primitive social order . . . — That in the most simple of human organiza tions, a form of marriage was observed. The comic strip notion of the caveman dragging a mate by the hair is thus farcical . . . Early theories about the origins and history of marriage forms which conceived of a primitive state of promiscuity have thoroughly been demolished from the Tasaday data. 542 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The anthropologists Beals and Hoijer have, howeever, stated: "No evidence of a state of promiscuity has ever been recorded, whether among primitives or others. Every human society known has rigid rides of marriage, similar in kind and complexity . . . And group marriage (polygyny or polyandry), while it is so rare as to be notable, and like polygamy is not confined to primitives.” (Loe. cit., pg. 12; underscor ing mine) In plain language, according to the report the structure of marriage does not become hazy nor does it dissolve into utter promiscuity as we trace it back to earlier and earlier ages. Indeed the opposite appears to be the case: the earlier the age, the more prehistoric the group, the more stripped it is of the veneer and accretions of civilization, the closer it is to a state of nature as it were, monogamous marriage is clearly seen as the norm. On the other hand, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage are seen with equal clarity as notable rarities, or deviations from the iform. One further observation and insight deserve our special attention to wit: — That cave-dwelling — and an extended family rather than just a nuclear family — appear to be the oldest form of human organization. (Ibid.: under scoring mine) To say that the extended family appears to be the oldest form of human organization is equivalent to saying that the larger civil or political society grew as an extension of the family. But the family is itself an augmentation or extension of the marital society of husband and wife. Thus the data confirm that marriage is prior to the civil and/or political society. A second implication is that not marriage but divorce is a product or result of human invention. For if the oldest form of human organization appears to be the extended family, it follows that divorce is either non-existent, or if it exists,’ is another notable rarity or deviation from the norm. Divorce strikes at the very roots of marriage. Divorce dissolves mar riage and, consequently, dissolves the home and the family. “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 543 Therefore where divorce is socially acceptable as part of nor mal living, an extended family is both a psychological and a social impossibility. In short, the earliest anthropological data available clearly point to the fact that marriage is prior to the state. Conse quently, marriage is governed by laws prior to state laws. Add to this that the specific goal of marriage and the task correla tive to it are set by nature, and you have that the basic structure and laws of marriage are likewise set by nature. Consider now that in the oldest form of human organiza tion divorce appears to be either non-existent or a notable rarity, i.e. a deviation from the norm, and you have that in the earliest form of marriage the norm appears to be a pairing of one for life. When you say “earliest form of marriage,” you say that form of structure which is the least adulterated, which most closely hews to the purity, as it were, of the state of nature. When you say “pairing of one,” you say monogamous. And when you say “for life,” you say indissoluble save by death. Therefore when you say that from all available data the earliest form of marriage appears to be a pairing of one with one for life, you are simply saying that the available data con firm the fact that monogamy and indissolubility are seen as characteristics of the structure of marriage that is closest to what may be described as the state of nature. THE EXPLICIT LAW OF GOD From whom can we more clearly learn the characteristics and laws inherent in the very nature' of the institution of mar riage than from God. the author and designer of marriage? The Catholic Church’s uncompromising and unalterable opposi tion to divorce does not really stem from the findings of human sciences nor from arguments. She stands four-square on what God Himself has revealed about marriage as He, its Author, designed and willed it to be. The Holy Scripture describes the first meeting of man and woman in these terms: “These now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh . . . Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh.” (Gen. 2. 22-24) Many centuries later the Pha risees tempted Christ with the question. “Is it lawful for a 544 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS man to put away his wife for any cause?’’ Our Lord prefaced his reply with a reference to the institution of marriage. “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Math. 19, 3-5). It is interesting to note that in Genesis it is Adam who speaks those words, whereas Our Lord puts them not in Adam’s mouth but in the mouth of the Creator Himself. Obviously, then, we have Christ’s testimony that Adam spoke under the inspiration and motion of God, it was God speaking through Adam. But what exactly did the Creator mean by these words? Christ, the Son of God, makes their meaning crystal clear by adding immediately. “Therefore now they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Matt. 19, 6). The Pharisees immediately understood Christ’s meaning, for they at once objected. “Why then did Moses command to give a written notice .of dismissal and to put her away?” The answer of Our Lord is illuminating. “Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wives: but it was not from the bepinning." (Matt. 19, 7-8). Two things stand out in this short and pithy reply. First, “it was not so from the beginning.” )jAt its very institution marriage was indissoluble, divorce had no place in it. Secondly, God subsequently, through Moses, permitted divorce (cf. Deut. 24, 1-4) “by reason of the hardness of your heart.” It comes like a thunderbolt to realize that while we press for divorce on grounds of humanitarianism, in the eyes of God all such reasons are reduced to one: hardness of heart. This stark analysis from the mouth of wisdom Incarnate should give us pause and make us see through all the humane pretenses that gift-wrap divorce proposals. Verily “My thoughts are not your thoughts; not your ways my ways, saith the Lord” (Is. 55, 8). “Man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart” (I Kings 16, 17), for “all the ways of a man are open to his eyes; the Lord is the weigher of spirits.” (Prov. 16. 2). “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 545 PRECEPT, NOT COUNSEL I mentioned at the outset the opinion being bandied about, even by priests, that the words, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” should be taken to mean that Christ Himself was personally against divorce; nonetheless, Our Lord did not intend thereby categorically to forbid divorce. In other words, indissoluble marriage is not imposed by way of precept, but only held up or counseled as an ideal. This supposed “insight” is, to speak bluntly, nothing but a distortion of the biblical text. For we read in Luke: "Every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adul tery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16, 18) Mark is no less explicit: “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if the wife puts away her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10, 11) And Mathew also explicitly concurs: “Who ever puts away his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.” (Matt. 19, 9) Note that all the three Synoptics agree in that Christ de fines remarriage after marital separation as adultery. Now. the Jews, to whom Christ was speaking, understood to a man the very serious nature of adultery. It was a capital crime punishable by stoning to death. The "insight” that would have us believe that an injunction the violation of which is sanctioned by capital punishment is merely counseled as an ideal is utterly ridiculous on the face of it. What is. qualified or defined in terms of a capital offense can be nothing but an extremely serious, strict, and rigorous precept or commandment. NO EXCEPTION The text of Matthew just quoted appears to supply am munition to the proponent of divorce. They gleefully point out that Christ Himself makes an exception: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery ...” (Italics added). Therefore, by Christ’s own words, in case of inmorality or infidelity divorce is justi fied and licit. 546 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS To understand this passage correctly several things must be taken into consideration. To begin with, the clause, "except for immorality,” is clearly an exceptive clause; thus, a qualify ing clause. What does it qualify? If we look'at the text, we find that it can qualify either “whoever puts away his wife,” or “and marries another.” In the second place, Christ uttered those words in reply to a question. Therefore, to interpret His meaning correctly, His reply must be referred to the question which it is meant to answer. There are two possible questions here. One, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Two, is it lawful for him to marry another? In the third place, what was the actual question put to Our Lord? Matt. 19, 3, records the question in the following words: “And there came to him some Pharisees, testing him, and saying, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?’ ” (Underscoring supplied). That was the actual question placed before Christ, to which the answer is negative, except for immorality.” Therefore the genuine interpretation of the passage is this: it is not lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause; only in the case of ’ immorality will it be lawful for a man to put away his wife. Thus the exceptive clause, “except for immorality,” is a qualifier of “whoever puts away his wife.” But once this question is settled, a second question logically crops up. Suppose a man has put away his wife because of immorality. It. is lawful for him to do that. Now, then, is it also lawful for him to marry anothei- woman? And is it lawful for the woman to marry another man? This second question is touched upon by the Pharisees when they called attention to the law of Moses in Deut. 24, 1-4. There it is explicitly allowed that the divorced wife could marry another man. Bear ing this in mind, we can fully appreciate how loaded was the retort of the Pharisees: “Why then did Moses command to give a written notice of dismissal and to put her away?” (Matt. 19, 7) The Pharisees must have been gloating inwardly. They thought that they had finally caught Our Lord in an airtight trap. They fully understood what Jesus had meant by saying: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asun der.” What did He mean to do? Overrule Moses the Lawgiver? “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 547 But the wisdom of men is foolishness before God (I Cor. 1, 20 and 25). To this loaded question Christ replies by remin ding his tempters of two things: one, the reason behind the permission granted by God through Moses, viz. “the hardness of your heart”; two, God’s original intention and design: “but it was not so from the beginning.” Then, having laid down this foundation, He proceeds to answer the question directly. He assumes the full role, power, and authority of the Son of God Who had come to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5, 17) : “And I say to you” — note that Jesus here employs the first person singular, the same form of authoritative address that He had previously employed in the Sermon on the Mount when “the crowds were astonished at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one havinff authority, and not as their Scribes and Pharisees” (Matt. 7, 28-29) — “1 say to you, that whoever puts away his wife [even if it be for immorality], and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.” (Matt. 19, 9). TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT That this is the authentic interpreation of Christ’s answer is shown by the unbelieving and shocked reaction of His own disciples. Mark recalls that alter the encounter with the Phari sees Jesus retired to a house and there “his disciples again asked Him concerning this.” Concerning what? Concerning the lawfulness of a man putting away his wife because of im morality? No. Jesus had already agreed to that; and, besides, that was the accepted custom. Concerning the lawfulness of marrying another after a separation on grounds of immorality? If Jesus had also agreed to this, there would be no reasoning for reopening the question, since it was also the accepted ethic. The reason why the disciples reopened the problem and began plying the Lord with questions all over again was be cause, in His debate with the Pharisees, Jesus had clearly and definitely repealed the permission given through Moses to marry again. To the impertunations of his own disciples, Christ merely reiterated what He had said to the Pharisees. He did not at tempt to soften, attentuate, water down in any manner the revocation of the exception given through Moses. “And He said to them, ‘Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if the wife puts away her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10. 10-12). 548 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS In Matthew we read the final, dazed reaction that this uncompromising, flat, definitive reply of Jesus caused in His disciples. “His disciples said to Him, ‘If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to many.’ ” In modern language: if a man marries and finds out it was a mistake but is not allowed to correct his mistake, if he is condemned to unhappiness for as long as he lives, then it is much better not to marry ever. To which Jesus answers: “Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can.” (Matt. 19, 10-12). In plain language: Christ does not disagree with the assess ment made by the disciples. Yes, it is better not to marry pro vided you do it foi- the sake of God and not simply to be able to indulge your lusts with more freedom and no responsibilities. The man who puts away his wife because of immorality must thereafter live as a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Of course this is not an easy teaching, and many will dispute it. Take it or leave it. ST. PAUL’S TEACHING If further confirmation is needed, we have the testimony of the Apostle St. Paul. His testimony is particularly significant since, as he himself point out, his doctrine and teaching were revealed to him directly by Christ. (Gal. I, 11-12). In Rom. 7, 2-3, Paul teaches that “the married woman is bound by the Law while her husband is alive; but if her husband dies, she is set free from the law of the husband. Therefore while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress if she be with another man; but if her husband dies, she is set free from the law of the husband, so that she is not an adul teress if she has been with another man.” What does Paul mean by “the law of the husband?” In I Cor. 7, 4, he explains that “the wife has not authority over her body, but the husband; the husband likewise has not author ity over his body, but the wife.” The authority, ox- right, ac quired by the husband ovei- the wife through marriage is what Paul calls “the law of the husband.” It is this which binds the wife to the husband, even if she be legally separated from “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 549 him, for as long as he lives. She is set free from this law or bond only by the husband’s death. Obviously, since the husband has no right over his body but his wife, the husband is also bound by what we might similarly call “the law of the wife” for as long as she lives; only her death can set him free from this bond. Thus, if the wife is an adulteress if she be with another man while her husband lives, so is the husband an adulterer if he be with another woman while his wife lives. Consequently Paul admonishes: “To those who are married, not I, but the Lord commands” — note that the apostle does not say advises, or counsels, but commands; mark, too, that he is careful to say that the command is not his (Paul’s) but the Iiord’s — “that a wife is not to depart from her husband, and if she departs, that she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.” (I Cor. 7, 10-11; underscoring supplied). Obviously, the same command applies equally to the husband. ULTRA VIRES Marriage is a natural social institution. Its structure, fun damental laws and properties are determined by the Author of nature, God. When He instituted marriage God designed it for the replication and perpetuation of the race and made it both monogamous and indissoluble. These three things are inherent in the very nature of mar riage. They can be dispensd from only by divine authority. They cannot be voided by any human power or authority. On the contrary, being grounded on the absolutely supreme and unappealable authority of God, they nullify and void any con trary human enactment, be it in the form of a congressional statute, or of a constitutional provision, or even purely eccle siastical legislation. Not even the Church can, on her own au thority, authorize divorce. Any such enactment is an act that jurists describe by the term ultra vires, that is to say, beyond the power of any human agency. No human authority can validly legislate against the natural law or against the explicit command of God. Natural and divine laws retain their inherent vigour and validity despite contrary acts by any human power. The first and basic question was: Does the state have the power or authorty validly to legalize divorce? The answer to that is a clear and round NO. This negative reply renders all further questions nugatory. DIVORCE IN PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION PROBLEM: Divorce has become a hot topic these days in the Ultreyas and study clubs of my parish, because of the publicity given it by the Constitutional Convention. Sometimes even delegates to the Con-Con attend these forums. My questions are: 1) What would you say if divorce were introduced into the new Philippine Constitution? 2) Would you point some objections or disastrous conse quences of it, if any? A Parish Priest ANSWER: Few topics can be more important for the well-being cf both State and Church in the Philippines than the subject of divorce. Foi- once divorce is admitted as part of our legisla tion a series of fatal consequences will be set in motion against the very foundations of our homes, against the lives of the spouses themselves and. still more ominously against the moral life of children, the nation’s children. Nay against the Chris tian life of the members of the Church and against the Church herself, the destructive effects of such law would defy all cal culations. In order to be clear in such vital matters we will take the points of the Parish Priest in the order he listed them. WHAT ABOUT A LAW ADMITTING DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES? 1. DEFINITION We speak of divorce in the very sense that it is understood by our Delegates to the Convention, i.e. a divorce that dissolves the marriage bond which consists in the very essence of the matrimonial contract. Once the bond is pronounced broken by such a law, the parties would be allowed by the same law to marry again. This is how divorce is understood by nations ad mitting divorce in their legislation. DIVORCE 551 Divorce, by definition, has nothing to do with the bodily separation of the spouses which is called ‘legal separation’. In deed, in ‘legal separation’ the marriage bond is kept intact, and no way is open to any further marriage as long as the other party lives. The Church acknowledges this bodily separation in certain cases, adultery of one of the parties rightly being the more pertinent case. But in ‘legal separation’ the bond stands firm and no right to another marriage is given at all. 2. A MATTLR OF FAITH THAT EXCLUDES OPINIONS’ Happily for Catholics, the outright immorality of a di vorce decreed by human legislation is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of faith defined as such by the Church, as all priests know. This doctrine has been endlessly repeated for centuries and was proclaimed again by the Second Vatican Coun cil. And, after the Council, by Pope Paul VI in his strong pro test to the Italian government. The fact, however, remains that in our ever more secularized society the laws of the Church are scorned by her own children, while the very natural law de creed by God from the beginning has become almost obliterated in many a conscience. Still, for our comfort, such is the una nimity in the Church about divorce, that no Catholic theologian directly impugns this dogma of faith, notwithstanding the coarse voices of the more unruly representatives of the nco-modemistic heresy and its ‘new theology’. 3. A LAW ESSENTIALLY WRONG AND IMMORAL The following is not an opinion but a part of our faith: if a law admitting divorce is introduced into the Philippine Cons titution or Code, it could happen only through sacrilegious usur pation by our Delegates of a matter utterly outside of their field of competence. In a matter that God has reserved to Him self alone no man may arrogate competence. Evidently a De legate can enjoy no more power than that given him by his electors. No man may delegate a right he does not possess. And no man has a right against God. And no Christian has a right against Christ. Logically, then, no Delegate may with out sacrilegious usurpation vote for a divorce law. Thus, if a law should be passed by our Delegates in favor of divorce such a law would be intrinsically wrong, as theologians say, namely, an immoral law which absolutely under no cir 552 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS cumstances can be considered valid. Such a law would amount to a grave abuse of legislative power, and no Filipino citizen could be bound to accept it. On the contrary, every honest citi zen from those in government positions to the humble voter should reject it. As St. Peter and St. John replied to the un just legislators of old,“You must judge whether in God’s eyeB it is right to listen to you and not to God” (Acts, 4:19). We of fer some considerations that may convince the impartial reader of the rationale of our position. a. Essential incompetence of civil authority — That any law admitting divorce is a usurpation of divine right reserved to God Himself alone is clear from Gen. 2:23-24 as it was de clared by the Lord Jesus: “It was not like this from the begin ning”. And “what God has united, man must not divide” (Matth., 19: 8 & 6). This applies, by the very words of the Lord Jesus, to all marriages in all parts of the world regardless of religion, custom or legislation by any government. So, it is evident that not without sacrilegious offence of God may any legislator vote the law of divorce anywhere in the world. b. The law of divorce is a sacrilegious usurpation of Church’s right — Indeed, only to His Church did the Lord Jesus commit His authority over His sacraments. For this reason it is a part of the Catholic faith that for all Christians, Catholics and others, all matrimonial causes belong to the Church alone (cfr. Denz. 982, 1559). And here in the Philippines, it is a fact that the great majority of Filipinos, Catholic or not, are indeed Christians On this score a new dimension will be added to the guilt of the Delegate who would vote for divorce, in a such a flagrant act of usurpation of the right of the only One Church of Christ. 3. OTHER EVIL EFFECTS The innumerable disastrous effects that would follow from divorce should be enough to deter a conscientious Delegate to vote in favor of divorce. No one can ennumerate the evils that would flood the nation with the introduction of this bill. Not only for the parties themselves and for their children, but also for the family and society at large, especially with regard to the education of divorcees’ children, heredity, legitimacy and a host of other evils. However the most lethal effect of all will be the pollution of public attitude towards the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage. Once the immoral law enters into DIVORCE 553 the ordinary practice of our courts, our citizens will take for granted that marriage could be treated just as any other con tract and that it would be the normal right of government of ficials to pass judgment on matrimonial causes. Actually, to de-christianize the Philippines and to desecrate our society few devices possess the effectivity that divorce, by its own nature, truly possesses. We hope that these considerations will help the discussants in the Ultreyas and study clubs of the Parish Priest. OTHER OBJECTIONS AND FURTHER IMPLICATIONS 1. THE MORAL SENSE OF OUR PEOPLE With a provision for divorce all the blessings enjoyed for decades of no-divorce laws will be jeopardized and will gradually disappear from our society. The desecration of marriage will foment pagan secularism and rampant eroticism which charac terize the countries where divorce has been at the disposal of petitioners. Soon we will have the scandals we witness among so many prominent people, and our movie stars will start to swap partners as easily as they change dresses. Read the two examples below among the hundreds that fill the international press: Divorced: George C. Scott, 44, talented non-conformist of show business, the actor who turned down his Oscar for “Patton” last year by Colleen Dewhurst, 47, statuesque stage and screen actress; for the second time in Santo Domingo, Dominican Repub lic, Feb. 2. Colleen married Scott in 1960, divorced him in 1965 and remarried him in 1967. The setllement gives her custody of their two sons, a house in South Salem, N.Y., and about $100,000 a year. “It was a mistake to remarry,” she told columnist Earl Wilson. “You can’t go back to that first ecstatic glow.” (News week, Feb. 14, 1972) Divorced: Lana Turner, 51, former Hollywood sweater girl, whose marriages have exhibited all the shedding quality of angora, from Ronald Dante, 51 nightclub hypnotist; in Santa Monica, Calif., Jan. 26. Married in May 1969, they separated six months later. Lana has now been divorced from seven husbands, begin ning with bandleader Artie Shaw. No. 6 was Robert Eaton, author of a disputed Howard Hughes memoir. (Newsweek. Feb. 7. 1972) 554 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS With such examples, our young will start to move in these waters and will plan accordingly when approaching marriage, the most vital problems of their lives with an eye to future pos sibilities instead of the unbreakable union of undying love. 2. SINFUL COOPERATION WITH CRIMES OF OTHERS BY ALL WHO IMPLEMENT THE IMMORAL LAW. This consideration suffices for a Catholic Delegate to op pose the bill of divorce. Indeed, the passing of such law will implicate their own conscience in a dreadful responsibility to God, but it will also have further repercussions on the consci ence of all government officials whose business it will be to implement the law. From the incontroversible fact that the law of divorce is sacrilegious and intrinsically wrong, all per sons who may cooperate in its passage and its implementation shall be seriously guilty of culpable cooperation with the im moral acts of the citizens who will ask or demand the ‘benefit’ of such ‘law’. Thus, the following persons shall be involved in serious sinful cooperation: a. The Delegate who votes in favor of divorce. b. The partner — singly or both — who seeks divorce. c. The judge who pronounces the divorce’s sentence. d. The advocate, i.e. the lawyer who defends a client, even if he happily loses his case. e. All other cooperators in the case, such as advisers, those who help with expenses, etc., each one of these according to the measure of his participation in the case. Evidently, the most responsible are the Delegates. They are the fathers of the pernicious law and their influence will continue for as long as the law is not repealed or amended. Then the judges who pass sentence against a formal decree of God, of Christ and of their own Church. Lastly, the lawyers who defend the clients. Apart from the offences against God — this is what really matters most — Catholic judges and lawyers who treasure their faith and hope for a life of immortality may feel obliged in conscience to leave their posts of responsibility rather than betray a conscience they have nurtured with their faith and the teaching of their Church, with the dreadful conse quences that our courts will be taken over by unscrupulous judges who have no regard for the honor of God and the norms of the Church of Christ. DIVORCE ;job 3. A WORD OF HOPE The foregoing are just the salient points of the innumerable consequences involved in the creation of divorce law. The dis cussants of the Parish Priest may contribute with deeper and fresher arguments from their own research and experiences. But we believe that if we, priests, and more so bishops, only be true to our duty of explaining these points of faith and morality to our Catholic Delegates, given the majority of Catholics among them, our country will be delivered from the threatening scourge of divorce, it would be ironic that we, Catholics, would intro duce the destructive law in the Philippines through the instru mentality of our own Catholic votes. It is true that no one is supposed to impose his opinion or his beliefs on anyone else. It is also true that our separated brethren and other non-Catholics Delegates may. in conscience, feel themselves obliged to take a position contrary to ours. No one wishes to force them to vote against divorce. But we speak of Catholics and of their duties and rights as Catholics. With no malice towards anyone, the Catholic Delegate has the right to vote what his conscience proposes to him as good for the people, for Christian family and society, and together with his right he is in possession of a most sacred duty to vote according to his well informed conscience. We do frankly believe in the personal integrity of our Dele gates and their fidelity to God to His Church and to the people who elected them. But it is not easy for all to master the biblical, canonical, theological sciences. Our Delegates have the strict right to demand from us, their priests, and especially from our and their bishops, the proper guidance so that the rights of God and society will be preserved. If We only do our duty in pro pounding clearly the faith and the Church’s doctrine, our Dele gates, no doubt, will follow their right conscience and use their sacred right to vote against divorce in our nation. • QUINTIN MA. GARCIA, O.P. The Role of Bishops in the Liturgy Aiiscar J. Chupungco, O.S.B. “The bishop,” says Vatican 11, “is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.” (SC art 41). The bishop is the shepherd to whom the Lord has entrusted the care of his sheep, a particular Church or diocese which depends on him for the accomplishment of its baptismal com mitments and for the nourishment and growth of its Christian life. He is first of all a spiritual father, a shepherd whose main concern is the molding of the entire man and the entire com munity in the image of Christ. His office of teaching, sanc tifying and governing has this as its aim. If he spends his energy in the work of mercy and the establishment of social justice, he does so from the perspective of Christ’s command to feed his flock with the word and the sacraments. Thus, in a very particular way, the pastoral ministry of the bishop cen ters around the liturgical life of his diocese. Being primarily a spiritual father and animator of his people, rather than an organizer and administrator of material goods, the bishop dedi cates his life to the work of redemption which is realized in the celebration of the Christian mysteries. For as Vatican II states, it is “from the liturgy and especially from the Eucha rist, as from a font, that grace is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as to ward their end, is achieved in the most efficacious possible way." (SC art 10). In conformance to the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, Vatican II reaffirms that the responsibility of regula ting the liturgical life of the diocese is incumbent first of all on the bishop. The decree “Christus Dominus” (art 15) says that the “bishops are the principal dispensers of the mysteries of God, as well as the governors, promoters and guardians of the entire liturgical life of the Church comitted to them.” ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 557 Without at all minimizing the responsibility of priests, it should be stated that, in tne unal analysis, all the ministers in a diocese act only in the name of the bishop whom they assist in the discharge of his duties. Thus, as early as the year 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch could emphatically write: “Apart from the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is of fered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has comitted this charge. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God.” (Ad Smyrn 8). We ob serve in St. Justin Martyr that only the bishop performed the liturgical functions of giving the homily and offering up the eucharistic prayer. (Apol I, 67). This tradition evolved to such an extent that the delivery of the homily during the synaxis as well as the recitation of the eucharistic prayer became the "special liturgy” of the bishop. Through his charismatic gift he was considered the high priest of the prayer of the Church as well as the teacher of her faith. On no account did any priest presume to give the homily during liturgical celebrations, except in cases of emergency. We know for an historical fact that one of the most brilliant minds of the Church, Origen him self, was severely reprimanded by his own bishop when he. as a simple priest, preached at the liturgical assembly of Cae sarea at the invitation of the local bishop. In Hippo the people resented the delegation of the office of preaching to Augustine, then a priest serving the community under an aged bishop. All this, of course, is to be seen from the perspective of an historical development in the Churcl) from the second to the fourth century, when the acephalous communities of the early Christians gradually adopted the monarchical structure with a resident bishop as head. Being the high priest of the commu nity, the bishop became the center of Christian life and the liturgy. It is along this monarchical tradition that Vatican II urges the faithful to “hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathe dral church; they must be convinced that the preeminent mani festation of the Church consists in full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same Eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded bv his college of priests and by his ministers.” (SC art 41). This situation envisioned 558 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS by the council is, however, only an ideal one. Present-day conditions do not allow bishops to preside always and everywhere over the entire community of the diocese. Thus, parishes have been set locally under pastors who take the place of the bishop. To them the bishop delegates his office of preaching, sanctifying and governing the flock. However, the delegation of office to the parish priests and pastors should not obscure the historical development of the bishop’s role in the liturgy. The bishop remains the good shep herd who knows his sheep and whose sheep know him. As governor, promoter and guardian of liturgical life, he carries a heavy burden of responsibility. His task is to regulate the worship of his Church. This he can wisely perform only if he is willing to take the trouble of celebrating the liturgy with the different parish communities, in order to make himself cognizant of the existing conditions and needs of the diocese. In other words, as the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God in the Word and the sacraments, no bishop can afford to be a mere armchair liturgical minister. He cannot restrict him self to the task of issuing liturgical norms to be followed by his priests and people, but he must actively and directly engage himself in the different liturgical celebrations all over the dio cese. In practice, the cathedral church is no longer the center of the entire diocesan liturgy. But the bishop still is the center of community worship. That is why, he cannot confine himself to his cathedral church, or much less, to his private chapel. History made the bishop a resident monarch, but it does not mean that he losses contact with the people over whom he presides in the solemn act of worship. Like the itinerant bishops of old, he must continually make his rounds of the different parish communities, in order to personally preach the Word of God, celebrate the Eucharist and administer the sacraments to his flock. Too often the liturgical ministry of the bishop in the parishes is limited to confirmation. It will be ideal, if he, as the head of the family can, as often as possible, be at hand to baptize in parishes, especially during Easter time. Likewise, as minister of reconciliation, he should preside at the peniten tial rites in parishes during Advent and Lent, in order that he may personally exhort the communities to penance and conver sion. His leadership in the eucharistic community should become a visible reality. To this end he needs to circulate among the parish churches in order to celebrate the Eucharist, especially ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 559 on Sundays and other occasions when the entire parish can be gathered around the table of the Lord. His presence as shepherd must be felt by the sheep of Christ, because as father and animator, he can no longer act and direct from a distance. As St. Ignatius of Antioch beautifully puts it: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal Church.” (Ad Smyrn 8). Today one of the aims of liturgical renewal is to make worship trully meaningful and expressive of the life and acti vities of the Christian community. The success of such a renewal will depend largely on the attitude of the bishop and his community. More and more we have to realize that the liturgy must be person, not ritual oriented. For the Church herself is not mere structure, but a living community; and her liturgy is not mere ritual, but the dynamic celebration of her life. The classical principle of theology, properly understood, holds true even today: “sacramenta sunt propter homines.” If our Lord gave the sacraments to his Church, it was for no other reason than to serve the needs of men. Indeed, one can be bold enough to say that the sacraments lose their meaning, If men do not profit from them. The sacraments exist because of men. That is why, we are asked to value men and their redemption more than our rituals, traditions and eccle siastical structures. Liturgical reform, therefore, like any hu man reform, must begin with the reform of attitudes. As long as we are not convinced that the liturgy is not a dead ritual, as long as we do not let it reflect the daily life of men, as long as we do not make it conform to their needs, liturgical reform will be nothing more than an external and superficial change of ceremonials, or worse, a servile and legalistic implementation of liturgical instructions without due reference to the people for whom our Lord instituted the sacraments. In the past, liturgy was as absolute as the dogmas; what was considered good in Rome had to be good in Manila and all over the world. And even when the Romans no longer under stood their own liturgy, it had to be retained, because it was understood once upon a time. What was considered reform in Rome was expected to satisfy the needs of a barrio in the Philippines. As the great bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, so pointedly remarked in defense of his Church’s custom of washing 560 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS the feet of neophytes: "I say this, not to rebuke others, but that I may commend my own ceremonies. In all things I desire to follow the Church in Rome, yet we, too, have human feeling; what is preserved more rightly elsewhere, we too presei-ve more rightly.” (De Sacram III, c. 1, 5). Today we realize that the liturgy cannot be uniform, and much less immutable, but must be necessarily conditioned — like the people who celebrate it — by cultural, political and socio-economic factors. And since no twx> situations are identical, no two celebrations should in prin ciple be the same. The result of this will be a certain diversity of liturgical forms depending on the circumtances of the different communities. But diversity is not something to be abhorred. While the division of tongues at Babel was a divine curse, diver sity was the work of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Thus, the Council admits that “in the liturgy the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community.” (SC art 40 & 37). We have, of course, to recognize the fact that the liturgy cannot be amorphous: it is the worship of the community, and hence, needs a certain form in order not to degenerate into chaos. Order is not only aesthetic; it is vital in the life of any society. That is why, the Council insists that the “regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church.” (SC art. 22) It is also to keep a sense of order and form in the worship of the Church that the Council urges that “as far as possible, notable differences between rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.” (SC art. 23) However, liturgical forms should not be so fixed and inflexible, that they rule out any form of initiative, spontaneity and creativity. For the liturgy is the celebration of life, and the celebrant are not robots, but living persons who continuously experience change and novelty. Thus, there is a constant need to adapt the worship of the the Church to the conditions of the people. It is then the task of the bishop and his cooperators to search or test the kind of worship which would correspond to the needs of his community. As Vatican II reminds us: “The liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These latter not only may, but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.” (SC art 21) in saying this, the Council makes us understand ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 561 that we need not look forward to a final, definitive and canoni cal structure of the liturgy, and much less to any form of uniformity. While the divine elements are maintained, the human must reflect the condition of the Christian community as a moving and pilpim people on earth. Her liturgy must be expressive of her vitality and dynamism. It is an on-going experience in worship and cannot be petrified and fixed in liturgical books. It is in this context that w have to understand the sense of liturgical instructions and directives. For these are not ab solute laws from Rome to be folowed strictly to the letter. Rather they are guidelines which give the proper orientation and show the direction toward which adaptation is to be made. Roman rites are not meant to be stereotyped and acted out exactly as instructed. The Bishops’ Conference and the in dividual bishop in his diocese may modify the rites, adapt, add or subtract according to the situation of the place and the pro vision of the general norms of adaptation. Changes, however, should be based on existing liturgical forms which are being lived by the community. Adaptation is a factor in the process of growth, but it is homogenious, because it stems from the trunk itself. That is why, the Council warns that “care must be taken that any new form adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” (SC art 23) Radicalism may have some advantage — radicalism here being understood as an entirely new creation whose pur pose is to impress the people with something coming suddenly out of the blue — but it is certainly not the natural process of liturgical growth and should be triqd only with the greatest precaution. One of the headaches of certain bishops today is the exis tence of “underground liturgies.” These came about partly because some official bodies of the Church failed to cope with the demand for a more meaningful celebration, and partly be cause there are and there will always be persons who have an unsatiable thirst for novelty. Although "underground Litur gies” seem to respond to and satisfy the clamor of certain groups, there is no doubt that they are often thoroughly radical and unmindful of the total community and its traditions. But the question to be asked is not how to put a stop to abuses, for abuses there will always be in any human society, and no pas 562 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS toral action will be effective if it is geared solely to eliminating undesirable elements. In curing the headache, do we cut off the head? Because of abuses, shall we abandon liturgical adaptation-altogether? The question to be asked is whether the official leaders in the liturgy live up to the people’s expecta tions of renewal. And more piognantly stated, whether the bishop and his commission should not share the burden of adaptation and renewal with the parish priests who are res ponsible for their communities and who are more cognizant of their existing conditions. If the answer is “two heads are bet ter than one,” we remove the cause that leads to the existence of underground worship which has always given the impression that bishops are after the neck of recalcitrant priests, or that there is a “persecution” going on in the Church. How the parish priests and others will relate themselves to the official body of the Church is a matter of mechanics for those who accept the idea. The leadership of the bishop in the liturgy should also find expression in his concern for the Filipino cultural heritage. For it is a fact that in the Philippines popular liturgical cele brations, ancient churches and other liturgical art pieces are the principal features of our cultural tradition. Thus, religious practices and monuments belong, not only to the past, but also to the present: they belong to our people, they are part of their life. We have no right to abolish traditional religious celebra tions, although we can purify them of undesirable accruements, and much less to demolish old churches in the name of modern ity. It is tragic to see our religious heritage vandalized, churches and monuments razed to the ground, and liturgical artpieces sold to unscrupulous art collectors. Liturgy is so much part of the people’s life: that is why, it must conform to their pre sent conditions. Liturgy has a unifying force: it not only unites Christians, it also links them to the past and the future. It is to be hoped that through the intervention of the bishops, the iconoclasts will come to respect our Filipino cultural heritage and the people it represents. It is a sociological truth that a community which can pride itself of its historical monuments and traditional customs shows more solidarity. The preserva tion of our Filipino heritage will give us, not only a sense of cultural identity, but also a sense of unity. ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 563 To conclude, allow me to cite an uncalled-for remark we often hear these days from many quarters: that bishops do not have the monopoly of the Holy Spirit. It is, of course, true that the Holy Spirit speaks to non-bishops also. It is also true that the authority of the bishop is not despotic, in spiring fear and trembling in the hearts of the people. And it is true that he must discharge his office as leader, father and animator in the spirit of service. But it is an aberration to completely ignore or undermine the charismatic role of the bishop in the liturgy. For it is primarily through him lhat the Holy Spirit speaks in the hearts of Christians, and it is through him that the unity in faith and love among the faith ful is created and fostered. Vatican II states that the zeal for liturgical renewal is a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time and a movement of the Holy Spirit in his Church. (SC art 42) It can be added that the bishop plays a unique role in this movement. For he is the cooperator of the Holy Spirit in the building up of the community of people who wor ship the Father in spirit and in truth. EPISCOPAL ORDINATION ANNIVERSARIES Let us pray for our Bishops on the occasion of their ordination anniversaries. Most Rev. Vicente Ataviado D.D. August 8, 1968 . Most Rev. Francisco F. Claver, S.J. August 22, 1969 Most Rev. Vicente P. Reyes, D.D. August 24, 1959 Most Rev. William Brasseur, C.I.C.M. August 24. 1948 Most Rev. Antonino Nepomoceno, O.M.I. August 31, 1969 PRIESTS AND OUR BAHALA-NA SYSTEM • Wilfredo C. Paguio Filipino fatalism is best expressed in his bahala-na system. This fatalism is said to be a Muslim influence from which Christian Filipinos have not really been liberated. As a mat ter of fact this fatalism, this bahala-na system, is still being greatly blamed by sociologists today for the poverty which still enslaves many of our people. This, they say, has stripped them of ambition in life, of any desire to uplift their living conditions. A Salesian Father, for example, laments this attitude of his students in Barrio Magsaysay, Tondo, Manila because these leave school for a day’s opportunity of work in the piers when a ship docks there and bahala-na for the future which is more secured by their studies. This system is the doing of an inappropriate action prompt ed by a complete but false trust in God without any security as regards the other alternatives for the redemption of that action. As we have previously said, it is a happen-what-may attitude, conditioned by the Filipino present-time orientation, by which one decides between two or more courses of action for what gives immediate results with an utter disregard for the future. Thus, it is closely connected with our mamma habit and often results, at least to a certain degree, to our ningas-kngon trait. We decided to place this attitude under our religious values because, though this system has far-reaching socio-eco nomic consequences, it is, to our mind, rooted in a defective understanding of God and His Divine Providence. Again, we must state that the purpose of our paper is to discover the positive values of this system which can be of help to priests in their ministry. We have divided this topic into two general divisions, namely, explanation through usages and investigation through effects. BAHALA-NA SYSTEM 565 EXPLANATION THROUGH USAGES In trying to explain this system, let us attempt to delve into the soul of our people and sort out what elements there are which may give us light as to the understanding of their fatalism. We divide this section into four parts, namely, complete trust, predestination, resignation, and superstition. COMPLETE TRUST — The phrase bahala-na is used both in regard to men and to God. Thus, when a Filipino gives anyone a complete charge over another or over anything, he says: “Bahala ka na diyan” (literally: “Take charge of her or him or it.”) We say that these words imply a complete charge of a person over another or over something because it usually happens that if a person gives this right to another and the yiver still meddles with the affair, thej/iven gets angry and says: “Pinamahala ako, paykatapos pakikialaman!” (literally: “He has given me charge over it and yet he still meddles with the affair!”). We see, therefore, that for the Filipino bahala implies a complete trust. This is also true with regard to God. We say, for example, in blessing or in curse: "Bahala na any Diyos na yumanti sa iyo.” (literally: “May God repay you.”) Thus, we hear a beggar say this when we give him alms. Or, an angry person says the same thing when he feels that an injustice is done to him. And this they say with complete trust as though they believe in a certain built-in structure vliich assures that good is repaid and evil avenged. This, of course, sounds similar to the oriental concepts of Karma. And if we can only disregard the long centuries of Christianity in the Philippines, we can easily surmise that this attitude is traceable to this oriental belief. However, Catholicism in these islands is a fact. Hence, we can only interpret these situations in the light of the Chris tian doctrine of comnlete trust in God no matter how often this is lamentably misunderstood. PREDESTINATION — This complete trust which characterizes the Filipino’s relationship with God arouses in him a kind of belief in predestination. He uses, for example, such expressions as iyinuhit ny tadhana (predeter 566 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS mined by fate). Or, he uses the phrase itinalaga ng Diyos (It is predestined by God). The Filipino, therefore, meeting fortune or misfortune, just mutters the well known adage: Kung talagang ukol, talagang bubukol (If something, whether good or bad, is really for one, he will have it no matter what happens). One, for example, who wins in the sweepstakes believes that fate has really predestined him or her to be rich. And another who meets an accident must accept his or her fate as meekly as the one who won in the sweepstakes because he actually has no hand in the determination of events even those which directly concern his or her life. This acceptance is very similar to that of an unknowledgeable child who asks a series of questions on causes of things and just receives a blunt and exhausted answer: talaga! (because it is so or because God made it so) from an adult. And this, without any intellectual process. Thus, I once heard a reckless jeepney driver reasoning out to one of his complaining passengers: “Kung talagang madidisgrasya ka, — madidisgrasya ka! Kung hindi, hindi!" (If you will really have to meet an accident, you will meet it no matter how careful you drive! If not, no!) Hence, we can conclude that the Filipino believes in a certain kind of predestination. RESIGNATION — This notion of predestination has, as its natural consequence, the resignation of its believers to their present lot in life. This is why we notice that a Filipino, upon incurring unto himself a certain misfortune, comforts himself with the words: “Talagang ganyan lang ang buhay” (Life is just like that). One need not worry. Also, when he hears that a virtuous man is favored by luck, or, when he receives news that an evil man gets the mis fortune he deserves he exclaims: “Talagang marunong ang Diyos" (God is really wise). For He rewards the good and punishes the evil through certain ways and means that He alone knows. This is the reason why one who has met injustice in his life and is angered, is appeased by another saying: “Huwag kang ganyan. Marunong ang Diyos," (Don’t behave that way. God is wise.). These words are supposed to remind him that God will not leave him unavenged. BAHALA-NA SYSTEM 567 This fact of God being the Supreme Remunerator, there fore, in a way explains why the Filipino is so resigned to his lot. SUPERSTITIONS — Then we have superstition whereby peo ple attribute effects to the wrong causes. We find Filipinos believing in their gtihit ng palad (line of the palm). Their lives are believed to be directed by the lines of their palms. So, he believes that whatever happens to him is his kapalaran (a word, which comes from palad i.e.. palm, meaning fate). One who is fortunate is called mapalad (also coming from the word palad). And one who is unfortunate is termed .sawing-palad (also coming from palad). Palmistry is therefore closely associated with Filipino fatalism. Success or failure in life is believed to be predes tined which is principally concretized in one’s own palms. Other signs or signos of one’s fate which are but projections of the lines of the palms are also accepted. For example, we have the nunal sa balikat (mole on the shoulder) which signi fies that the owner will suffer hardships in his life. The same is said on the moles or mole on the furrows of one’s cheeks which blocks the falling of one’s tears. INVESTIGATION THROUGH EFFECTS In the preceding division of our paper, we have seen through the investigation of some of our usual expressions and other terms which we use, that the Filipino is actually fatal istic. In this division of our discussion, we shall attempt to consider reactions which this bahala-na attitude arouse in our people upon incurring the effects of this behavioural pattern. Necessarily, the effects of such attitude will either be good or bad. Hence, we divide this section of our paper bet ween these two. GOOD EFFECTS (SUWERTE) When our bahala-na attitude brings about a good effect as, for example, when a traveller passes unharmed through a road near a cemetery at night despite beliefs that the said road 568 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS is infested by asivang, mangkukulam, tianak etc., the cause is attributed to the goodness of God. This is why, often, the frightened traveller, upon reaching his destination, exclaims in relief: ‘‘Salamat sa Diyos!” (Thanks be to God!). When a poor man sacrifices his last coins to bet in the huweteng (a local kind of sweepstakes or raffle), and he wins, the luck is attributed again to the goodness of God. And, often, the money won is well taken care of because this is regarded as grasya ng Diyos (grace of God), although, of course, the social aspect of this grasya ng Diyos through the pabalato (shares of the money won distributed to relatives, neighbors, friends and other well-wishers similar to our more sophisticated “blow-out” done as an expression of joy) is never lacking. EVIL EFFECTS (MALAS) Our bahala-na attitude often have evil effects. These arouse different reactions from the Filipino. Some accept their fate humbly and consider them as just a matter of course. Others, attributing divine interventions in these, think of them as punishments from God. Still others content themselves with some superstitious explanations. And still, there are others who can go as far as to bitterly blame God for their misfortune. We classify these reactions into three, namely, those who attribute these misfortunes to a non-divine cause, those who attribute them to a divine cause and those who attribute them to a superstitious cause. We divide this section of our paper among them. NON-DIVINE CAUSE — There is a number of our people who, upon experiencing miseries in their lives, are able to accept them as they come without any grumb ling or murmuring. It never occurs to them that such evils may have been sent by God. They just think that no evil can come from God since God is the source of good alone. To my mind, these people are still influenced, and very well so, by the Chinese Yang-Ying principle which holds that everything is composed of opposites. Thus, there is male and female. There is light and darkness. There is sorrow and happiness in life. BAHALA-NA SYSTEM 569 These people believe in the happy harmony of things. As they, therefore, expect fortune, they also expect misfortune. Hence, the latter never comes as a surprise to them. It just ar rives as a welcomed guest — and is received calmly, patiently. For talagang ganyan ang btthay. And they can carry on for they know that 'marunong ang Diyos. Time will come, they will also have their day (May araic din siya.) DIVINE CAUSE — Here, the cause of the situation is referred to God as punishment for evil done. The situation is hereby thought of as self-caused. This situation, moreover, is regarded as remediable by repentance. In extreme cases, however, when the full force of the bahala-na meaning Bathala na, that is, when “everything” is left in the hands of God (the Bathala, from where the term bahala is said to have originated) and misfortune comes which is thought of as not commensurate to the past good life of the subject, then faith in God Himself may be at stake. God will then be blamed for all the harm one experiences in life no matter how seemingly irrational this may be. SUPERSTITIOUS CAUSE—Instances also occur when the evil incurred is not considered as com ing from God but is regarded as simply predetermined due to some signs (signos) in the subject himself as, for example, a nunal sa balikat or buwaya (crocodile) mark in one’s palms which we have already mentioned above. From birth, a person with signos ape, therefore, thought of as destined to suffer or enjoy (the signs may also signify fortune as three consecutive daughters called tatlong Maria are regarded as buenas or suirerte) whatever the signos signify. CONCLUSIONS It is clear that our fatalism dates back to our pre-Spanish ancestors. However, some traces of Christian dogmas can be gleaned from our discussion on its effects. It appears that the missionaries did not attack this problem at the very roots. Regarding the good effects which we discussed, we can say that our people should bo taught how to be moderate in 570 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS giving jHibaJato. The Filipino has indeed the tendency to give away all he has for a “blow-out” and thus be a beggar again after the merry-making. As to the evil effects of this fatalism, we can say that we observe that the Filipino, after having incurred the bad effects of this bahaki-na attitude, never loses hope to rise above it. Thus, we find that a sick person will never be let alone suffering. Remedies must have to be sought. If doctors are no longer able to do the cure, even herbolarios are resorted to even if it be just for the spirit of pagbabakasakali (chance). Hence, here we can easily insert the saying: Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gaiva. (Man proposes, God disposes.). Man has to work and not just leave everything to God. Also, through this channel of our bahala-na system, a catechist can approach the teaching of the Church’s dogmas on grace, faith, providence, works and salvation. REFERENCES CREEL, H.G., Chinese Thought From Confucius to Mao Tse-Tung, (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1953), pp. 1-211. FOX, ROBERT B., “Family and Society in the Rural Philippines,” Science Review, (April, 1961), pp. 1-5. (Manila: National Science Development Board). LIEBAN, RICHARD, “Fatalism and Medicine in Cebuano Areas of the Philippines”, Anthropological Quarterly, XXXIX: 3, (July 1966), pp. 171-179. PACANA, IIONESTO C., “Notes on a Filipino Role of Conduct: Non interference,” Philippine Sociological Review, VI: 1 (January, 1958), pp. 29-30. PINON, ANTONIO, “The Rapport Between Shankara and Aquinas”, Philippiniana Sacra, VI:18, (Sept.-Dec., 1971), pp. 558-574, Pablo Fernandez, O.P. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES Chapter 26 COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY "They have a special talent for imitation and, with good teachers, they would make things perfectly. They serve as scribes; they run barbershops, tailoring shops, carpentry shops. They are good at masonry, iron work, silverwork, embroidery, and weaving. They can sing in the choir, play the organ, and perform other similar musical tasks. They are not inventive nor are they given to the abstract sciences which call for deeper reflection or prolonged thinking, or the like. However, there is a great difference between the pro vinces and Manila, where people are more advanced and sophisticated. "Manufacturers: These are limited to abaca, cotton, and silk, which is the best. There is in general very very little weaving, but some excellent cloths are made ... In Camarines, Ilocos, and the Visayas, the people frequently wear these roughly woven cloths, while those of finer weave are exchanged as gifts and serve to flatter the vanity of the rich.” This is how a Dominican writer described the native in dustry in the latter half of the eighteenth century.1 The present chapter will briefly show how these native talents and industries developed under the guidance of the missionaries. 1 Collantes, Domingo, O.I’., “Informe al Gobernador General, I'elix Bcrenguer de Marquina,” Manila, Sept. 7, 1788: APSR, MSS, HCF, Tome 4 Documento 2a, folios 4v-.r>. 572 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS INDUSTRY 1. Sugar. It was the Augustinian fathers who brought to the Philippines the Mexican trapiche, a primative con traption of wood or stone to extract the juice from the sugar cane which they had been raising in Panay Island. Naturally, the trapiche was a crude and rudimentary machine which only partially extracted the cane juice from the plant fibers, or bagasse. The machine consisted of two wooden or stone cylin ders which, by a combination of gears, also of wood, revolved in opposite directions to each other when started in motion by the pull of a carabao tied to another wooden gadget called caballo. The cane was crushed between the cylinders, while the juice was channeled into several cauldroon, or caua, lined up inside a long oven. The juice was boiled as it passed from one caua to another, until by the fifth caua, the juice had solid ified into sugar. This they kept in big kettles.2 The native Filipinos quickly learned the process, realzing the benefits they could gain for themselves by exploiting the sugar cane.3 4 2 Zamora Eladio, Las corporaciones religiosas e» Filipinos (Madrid, 1900), 284-285. •* Op. cit., 327. 4 Chirino, Pedro, S.J., Relation de las Islas Filipinos (Manila: His torical Conservation Society, 1969), 37. 2. Silk and Cotton. Father Antonio Sedeno, one of the first Jesuits who came to the Philippines in 1581, had thought of introducing the silk industry to the country in order to stop the flow of silver to China. He planted mul berry trees and initiated similar projects, even building a loom and teaching the people the European method of weaving.1 About two centuries later, urged on by the ambitious socio economic program of the Governor General Don Jose Basco (1778-87) to make the islands economically independent of Mexico and encouraged by the Sociedad Economica de Amigos del Pais, the Rector of the College of San Jose ordered the planting of mulberry trees in the estate of San Pedro Tunasan which belonged to the college. The trees bloomed, silkworms were brought in from China, and enough silk cloth was pro duced, just as in the other parts of the Philippines where the same program was inaugurated. But, at sales time, the planters found out that they lost more in raising mulberry trees than if they had planted another kind of crop from which they earned more money, even if it were only camote. This initial PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 573 failure, plus the labor required to raise the silkworm and the expenses of silk weaving, explained why the silk industry in the Philippines was discontinued.5 * 5 Zuniga, Martinez de, Estadismo, 1, 29. 0 Zamora, op. cit., 288-289. ' Marin y Morales, Valentin, O.P., Sintesis de uh ensayo de los tralxijus realizados por las corporaciones rcliy iosas de Filipinos (Manila. 1901) II, 89, 93, 113, 115, 116. 8 Gomez Platero, Cataloyo bioprdfico de los reliyiosos franciscanos (Manila, 1880), 42. 11 Inhcrtas. 7 October 1899. 10 Libcrtas. 1 December 1899. Besides raising silk worms or mulberry trees, the mission aries also taught the people the use of the weaving loom. Made only of bamboo, it was necessarily crude and poorly built; but it surprisingly served the purpose when plied by the native weavers, who produced various kinds of fine cloth which for a long time won the admiration of foreigners.'’ It was mainly the Augustinians who introduced weaving to the people: Fray Juan Zallo in Laoag (Ilocos Norte), where the new industry earned rich profits for the natives; Fray M. Perez in Argao (Cebu), Fray M. Alvarez in Santander (Cebu), and Fray Bermejo in Boljon (Cebu) who, besides, set up two machines for seeding the cotton pods and spinning the thread.7 Another Augustinian friar introduced linen and cotton weaving in Paoay (Ilocos), while a Franciscan, the Venerable Fray Antonio de Nombela (t 1627) introduced the production of lambony cloth by the women of Nacarlang (Laguna), whence its use spread to the rest of the country.8 * The Dominican missionaries also promoted the manufac ture of cloths in Bataan in the middle of the nineteenth century, and the industry served to supply the needs not only of the of Orani but of the entire province.® Somehow, the efforts of the Dominican Fray Balbino Ezpeleta in Mangatarem (Pangasinan) failed to improve the local cloth industry. Some Ilocanos in the town were already weaving cotton, and Fray Ezpeleta’s bigger loom brought in from Europe did not attract the people who preferred their own' rough, crude looms to which they were accustomed. However, enough cotton and indigo were raised to satisfy local needs for weaving and dyeing.10 574 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS We might mention here the Recollect Fray Juan Tuseu, parish priest of Catmon (Cebu), who taught the women to make their own looms and occupy themselves in works “proper to their sex.” 11 11 Ruiz, Liciniano, Sinopsis hist-orica de la provincia de San Nicolas de Tolentino (Manila: Tip. Pont, de la Univ, de Sto. Tomas, 1925), I, 634. '-The Sunday Tinies Magazine (Manila), 25 October 1970, p. 14. 1:1 Libertas, 16 December 1899. 14 Chirino, op. cit., 37. 16 Marin y Morales, Op. cit., II, 90, 91. ln Perez, Elviro, Catdlogo de los religiosos agustinos (Manila, 1906), 238. 3. Quarries, Brick and, Mortar. It was the need to rebuild the Manila Cathedral in the middle of the seventeenth century that occasioned the discovery of marble deposits in the mountains of Antipolo by the Peruvian Canon Melo.11 12 * 14 In Aguilar (Pangasinan), Fray Victor Herrero, the last Dominican priest of the town, discovered extensive quarries of marble in the mountains nearby. He provided the people with the work tools and taught them himself how to block off and polish the stones. It is from these stone deposits that the government house in Lingayen was constructed, just as the flag stones on the ground floor of the parish rectory and the courtyard of the parish church.11 But it was the Jesuit Father Sedeno who first introduced lime and made the first tiles with which he raised the first concrete building in thfe * Philippines.11 Philippine masonry of the 17th and 18th centuries was of such durability and consistency that on several recent occasions it had been quite difficult to destroy cisterns or flying buttres ses when people wanted to remodel or construct modern struc tures. Some say it was made with molasses; others, with sea shells; but probably at least in Nueva Vizcaya, it was made with a certain kind of white stone which was subjected to a full week’s burning. The lime industry was introduced by an old Augustinian missionary in Pasulquin (Ilocos), while ano ther helped develop it in San Miguel de Sarrat (Ilocos Norte). This is why this latter town is known for its good houses.1’' The Augustinian Fray Juan Albarian (44761) wrote an essay, the manuscript of which was preserved in Cebu, entitled The Art of Building in the Philippines, and a Method of making bricks, tiles, lime, etc.10 Finally, it was on the occasion of the cons PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 575 truction of the hospital in Nueva Caceres which the Franciscan missionaries called "San Diego” but which the people called "San Lazaro” that the friars taught the people how to make tiles and heat brick.17 4. FISHERIES AND SALT FARMS. The town of San Dionisio of the old district of Concepcion in Panay Island owes its fishing industry to the efforts of two Augustinian priests, Fray Pedro Bartolome and Fray Casto Rosa. These two missionaries also taught the people how to make salt.lb Other Augustinians encouraged the salt industry in two towns of the same name Talisay one of Batangas and the other in Cebu province,10 white Fray Manuel Camanes, also an Augustinian, helped the people of Betis exploit the fishing industry and salt making.20 5. Other Industries. There were many other industries which the missionaries encouraged, for besides their spiritual tasks, they felt they could also help the people by teaching them to improve their material condition. Some of these industries were: a) The Gathering of Resin. At the suggestion of the Re collect missionary Fray Pedro de San Miguel (+1774), Governor Anda wrote the Recollect Provincial to encourage the people of Zainbales to extract as much resin as they could from the pine in the province and bring it down to the government store houses in Manila, for which the Royal Treasury would pay the workers. In this way, both the government and the people would be benefited?1 b) Oil. The same priest discovered oil in Zambales, where he was working. It was produced from the cane called balao, the kind used for the bitumen needed for the boats. Governor Anda also ordered the Recollect Provincial to develop industry for the benefit of the state and the people.2'-’ 576 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS c) Tanneries. Fray Mariano Gutterrez, a Recollect (+1855), taught the people of Jagna (Iloilo) to tan the skin of the big bats, an industry that brought in good results for the people.23 d) Pottery. The people of San Nicolas (Ilocos Norte) owe to their Augustinian parish the beginning and the development of their pottery industry. In the farms of Makati, which once had belonged to the Jesuits, there was already by the early nineteenth century, a factory for roof-tiles, bricks, earthen pots, and other kitchen utensils. These were however priced dearly and found few buyers.24 e) Wood. The people of the Philippines also learned from the missionaries the full use of the wood in the country, of which there is so much good and hard wood, some of them in corruptible, for building houses and furniture.25 * f) Foundries. During the time of Archbishop Juan Angel Rodriguez, a Recollect priest who was knowledgeable in the technique of smelting, conducted an early experiment success fully in the casting of bells.20 g) Mines. In his excursions into the mountains of Siniloan, the Franciscan missionary Fray Agustin Jimenez discovered some iron and copper mines from which he took samples that won a “diploma of honor’’ in the Regional Exposition of the Philippines.27 h) Other Weaving Industries. Fray Mariano Granja, O.F.M. encouraged in Lucena (Quezon) the weaving of hats and sigar-cases, while an unknown Franciscan whose memory is kept alive in legends taught the people how to exploit and make use of the pina fiber.2* 23 Op. cit., 208. Op. cit., 92; Zuniga, I, 212. 25 Zamora, Op. cit., 323. -’o Concepcion, Juan de la, Historin de Pilipinas, XI, 98-99, No. 5. 27 Marin y Morales, Op. cit., 359. 23 On. cit.. 3G0. 3fi9. COMMERCE The principal contribution of the religious orders in the improvement of commerce in the Philippines was the opening and building of roads to facilitate exchange and communication PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 577 among the towns. The road, for example, that Fray Juan F. Villaverde, O.P. opened from Aritao to San Nicolas in Nueva Viz caya was so important that on 27 July 1905, a member of the Commission on Roads mentioned at one of their meetings how transportation in that province had been facilitated such that transporting 6,000 pounds of goods from the region cost as much as transporting 600 pounds in the past. An engineer added that traffic along the same road was very important: “. . . in one day alone, 800 beasts of burden had carried goods for loading in the train to Pangasinan.” 29 Besides roadbuilding, however, some missionaries directly encouraged commerce, like the already mentioned Fray Granja, who founded the town of Lucena. He himself sought out the persons to attend to the sale of copra to the commercial agen cies in Manila?9 The Franciscans in Albay also developed, together with the coconut and abaca industries, the system to export these products, thus opening a source of wealth and freeing the Bicolanos from their poverty. “Between 1835 and 1810, the towns under the Franciscans exported not more than 3,000 piculs of abaca; but from 1890, the same district, called Itaya. reached an annual export of 300,000 piculs, and the popu lation grew in proportion to its increased wealth.” 31 =»(’orre<> Sino-anamita, XXIII (1889), 487; XXIV (1890), 450, 460. Marin y Morales, Op. cit., 360. Op. cit., 361. FERIA, FERIA, LUGTU & LA’O ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW PHILIPPINE TRUST BLDG.. PLAZA GOTH . P O BOX 1219 . MANILA JOAQUIN RAMIREZ FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. RAFAEL ORTICAS JOAQUIN RAMIREZ, JR. RAFAEL ORTIGAS, JR. Samirps & ©rtigas Ahorjabas 1616 ROXAS BLVD. BUILDING. MANIU TEL. 47.93-77 VKRAUT ART GLASS'AEO A 879 BILIBID VIEJO • MANILA • TEL. 47-39-23
EDITORIALS FOR EVERY RIGHT A DUTY This might be attributed to fallen human nature, but we notice in our society the propensity to demand and clamor for ones rights and privileges but little or no mention of ones duties and obligations. In the family there are husbands who are ready to lay down their lives in defense of their right to the wife’s fidelity and loyalty. But look how they fulfil their duty of fidelity and loyalty to the wife. There are children who raise hell over their right to parental care and support but they do not care about 4th Commandm'ent: “Honor they father and thy mother." And there are parents who gnash their teeth over the refusal of the offspring to give them the respect due to them. But look how they care foi' their own parents. In the school there are those who demand the best facilities, the best professors. But note how they cling to their tuition pennies, how they abuse the facilities like the use of electricity, how negligent they are in their studies. And vice versa there are school owners who collect the tuition and other fees due them but do not bother about the welfare of their teachers and students. In the nation there are those citizens who know by memory them rights to police protection, to health services, to good roads and means of transportation, etc. etc. but are deaf and dumb and blind about taxes, and other civic duties and obligations. And vice versa, we have also government officials who are so strict in collecting their salaries and allowances yet so remiss in the performance of their duties. In the Church, God’s kingdom on earth, there are those who want to enjoy the use of a clean, well lighted, well decorated EDITORIALS 501 house of prayer; who want all the lights on and all the bells ringing for their weddings and baptisms; who want the best service from their clergy because they are entitled to it; but note how much they give at the Colecta. And vice versa, there are those priests who collect their fees to the last centavo but do not sing the right notes in their sung Masses or Responso. Note further how some priests demand from their Bishops their rights to be heard, to be given due process, to be treated charitably and justly. See how these same priests deny freedom of speech to their fellow priests at their own meetings, how they refuse due process among themselves, how uncharitable and unjust they are among themselves and to their Bishops. And note also how a Bishop pines for the love and effection of his priests and seminarians when he is so aloof and unapproachable. May the good Lord forgive us for such a perversity. It may be attributed to human frailty. Why, we may not even be aware of such a defect. Perhaps there is a need for a meditation, perhaps a monthly meditation, on these words: "FOR EVERY RIGHT THERE 'IS A DUTY: FOR EVERY PRIVILEGE THERE IS A.V OBLIGATION:’ THE SAINTS OF AUGUST Saints are given us by Holy Mother Church for our emulation! The month of August is specially full of models for us priests. August 1st has St. Alfonso de Lifjiiori, the hero of the Confession Box. August 4th has St. John Vianney, Patron of Parish Priests, whose mediocrity in human intelligence was supplemented by piety and divine wisdom. August 8th has St. Dominic of Guzman, chief propagator of the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the one responsible for extending the power to preach, then reserved to Bishops, to the priests. August 10th has St. Lorenzo, Martyr, who could
EDITORIALS 501 house of prayer; who want all the lights on and all the bells ringing for their weddings and baptisms; who want the best service from their clergy because they are entitled to it; but note how much they give at the Colecta. And vice versa, there are those priests who collect their fees to the last centavo but do not sing the right notes in their sung Masses or Responso. Note further how some priests demand from their Bishops their rights to be heard, to be given due process, to be treated charitably and justly. See how these same priests deny freedom of speech to their fellow priests at their own meetings, how they refuse due process among themselves, how uncharitable and unjust they are among themselves and to their Bishops. And note also how a Bishop pines for the love and effection of his priests and seminarians when he is so aloof and unapproachable. May the good Lord forgive us for such a perversity. It may be attributed to human frailty. Why, we may not even be aware of such a defect. Perhaps there is a need for a meditation, perhaps a monthly meditation, on these words: "FOR EVERY RIGHT THERE 'IS A DUTY: FOR EVERY PRIVILEGE THERE IS A.V OBLIGATION:’ THE SAINTS OF AUGUST Saints are given us by Holy Mother Church for our emulation! The month of August is specially full of models for us priests. August 1st has St. Alfonso de Lifjiiori, the hero of the Confession Box. August 4th has St. John Vianney, Patron of Parish Priests, whose mediocrity in human intelligence was supplemented by piety and divine wisdom. August 8th has St. Dominic of Guzman, chief propagator of the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the one responsible for extending the power to preach, then reserved to Bishops, to the priests. August 10th has St. Lorenzo, Martyr, who could 502 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS manage to joke his tormentors while being roasted at the grill. August 20th has St. Bernard, the Troubador1 of Our Lady. August 21 has St. Puis X, the Pope of frequent Communion and the Patron of Catholic Action. August 28th has St. Augustine, priests’ model in continuous studies and the preacher on the Most Holy Trinity and other not very popular topics. Finally, August 29th has St. John the Baptist, the model of apostolic freedom who had the courage to face Herod with the words “Non Licet”. All Ye, Saints and holy priests in heaven, pray for us, the poor, weak and struggling priests on earth! MOST REV. ALEJANDRO OLALIA. D.D. Archbishop of Lipa On the occasion of the erection of the new Archdiocese of Lipa, with the Dioceses of Lucena, Infanta and Calapan as suffragans, and the elevation of His Excellency Most Rev. Alejandro Olalia to the rank of Archbishop, on August 15, 1972, the Boletin Eclesiastico extends its prayerful greetings and congratulations.
LETTER FROM POPE PAUL VI TO OUR VENERABLE BROTHER GABRIEL MARY CARDINAL GARRONE PREFECT OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION The graces which God, the giver of every good gift, pours out upon us, remind us continually to thank Him with a sincere and humble heart. However there are certain times and occasions in human life which inspires us to fullfil this duty of gratitude with greater care and zeal and earnestness. This is surely the way you will feel, when in the very near future you celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of your episcopal consecration. We certainly do not want this anniversary of yours to pass by without congratulating you sincerely and expressing the love and goodwill which We have for you. Christ Jesus loved you first and called you that you might partake in His saving mission as a priest, and subsequently might attend to a larger flock as a “steward of the grace of the high priesthood” (Vat. II, Lumen Gentium, 26). ZEAL IN PASTORAL MINISTRY It is a consolation to recall that soon after you were promoted by right of succession to the See of Toulouse, you had missions take place throughout the entire archdiocese, you organized a diocesan Synod, you restructured and streamlined the entire framework of the Church in the territory of your jurisdiction, and you built new churches. We are not ignorant of the fact that you worked hard for the Catholic Action group and for the association called Worker’s Mission, because it had • L’Osservatore Romano July 13, 1972. 504 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS as its scope the evangelization of the working classes, and finally that you strove to further the teaching of the catechism. In this way you endeavoured to present an image of the pastor who was driven by “the love of the truth” and “the urgency of love” (cf. St. Augustine The City of God. XIX. 11; PL XLI, 647). After you were appointed a member of the College of Cardinals and put in charge of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, your activity spread out into a wider field and now closely cooperates with our own ministry, which must look to the good of the entire Church. We have indeed placed a heavy burden and task on your shoulders; for you have to devote much care and concern to seminarians, in order that they may be trained through soundness of teaching and holiness of life to enter upon the priesthood. If, according to the principle of the Second Vatican Council, “the hope of the Church has been entrusted” to the Directors and teachers in seminaries (Optatwi tot.iiis, 22) this pertains ways protect you. BLESSINGS AND PROTECTION Therefore We pray God that He may graciously assist you in carrying out such important duties, and that the Virgin Mother of God, the Mother of the Eternal High Priest and Mother of the Church may always protect you. These then are the thoughts which We desired to share with you together with Our esteem. The best wishes which We extend are accompanied by Our Apostolic Blessing which We most willingly impart to you. From the Vatican, 10 June 1972. in the ninth year of our Pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI
LETTER FROM POPE PAUL VI TO OUR VENERABLE BROTHER JOHN JOSEPH CARDINAL WRIGHT PREFECT OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY Toward the end of this month of June the happy memory of a blessed event in your life, Venerable Brother, will present itself once again to mind: for a full twenty-five years will have passed from the time you received your episcopal ordination and thereby were numbered among the first-rank leaders of the pilgrim people of God on earth. The loving regard which We have for your person inspires Us to undertake this gratifying duty of kindness and to hasten to make this anniversary, which is about to dawn, all the happier through Our good wishes and congratulations. Certainly as We reflect upon the many and various functions which you have carried out in the Church up to the present, We are convinced that you above all deserve to be the object of those encouraging words in the Bible: “Possess Wisdom, because it is better than gold, acquire prudence, because it is more precious than silver. . . The heart of the wise man will instruct his lips, and will add chArm to the words of his mouth’’ (Prov. 16, 16, 23). OUTSTANDING IN GOODNESS For especially as the bishop Worcester and for ten years as the pastor of the flock in Pitssburgh you did an outstanding amount of good to assure the growth of Catholicism; you merited for yourself a good name and left on example of those qualities which are a great help to bishops in exercising their important ministry: namely, vigilant concern for Catholic unity, * L’Osservatore Romano July 13, 1972. 506 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS careful guidance and care for seminarians, active works of mercy toward the needy, agreeable mannerisms and that which is the epitome and queen of all the other virtues, goodness. Now that you have been called to Rome to preside over the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, you are working intelligently and prudently to preserve the Catholic faith intact, to teach that faith and to reinforce the training of the clergy. For if a pure and clear concept of God is maintained, it immediately opens the way to an increase in the spiritual life as well as to interior and exterior dignity and peace, while on the other hand ignorance of these truths brings with it every possible error and final anarchy in any society. INVOKING ENLIGHTENMENT As you are engaged in such difficult tasks, may Jesus Christ himself, the Word of the Father who is "light of light, the font of light, the day * illuminating every day” (St. Ambrose, Morning Song) enlighten your mind and assist you in undertakings in order that through your prudence, piety and zeal you may lay up for yourself rich treasures in heaven, and that by harmonizing your works with your words in an exemplary way your speech may be that of the Lord — instructive, pure and clear, like silver cleansed in fire and purified seven times (Ps. 11, 7). May this hope then which is supported by fervent prayers, become a complete reality through the intercession of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, the guide along every straight path and the Star of the Sea. We sincerely wish that this may all come about and for that reason We impart to you our Apostolic Blessing. From the Vatican, 3 June 1972, in the ninth year of our Pontificate. PAULUS PP. VI
INSTRUCTION CONCERNING CASES WHEN OTHER CHRISTIANS MAY BE ADMITTED TO EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH * L’Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1972. 1 The Decree on Ecumenism “Unitas Redinlegratio”, n. 8. "Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. There arc two main principles upon which the practice of such common worship depends: first, that of the unity of the Church which ought to be expressed; and second, that of the sharing in means of grace. The expression of unity very generally forbids common worship. Grace to be obtained sometimes commend it. The concrete course to be adopted, when due regard has been given to all the circumstances of time, place and persons, is left to the prudent decision of the local episcopal authority, unless the Bishop’s Conference according to its own statutes cr the Holyy See, has determined otherwise. Cf. also Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), n. 27. _ Directorium ad ea quae a Concilio Vaticano de re oecumenica promulgata sunt exsequenda (Directorium oecumenicum, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 59 (1967) pp. 574-592). 1) Sharing in Liturgical Worship with our Separated Eastern Brothers. “Besides cases of necessity there would be reasonable ground for encouraging sacramental sharing if special circumstances make it materially or morally impossible over a long period for one of the faithful to receive the sacraments in his own Church, so that in effect he would be deprived without legitimate reason, of the spiritual fruit of the sacraments (n. 44) 1. THE QUESTION We are often asked the question in what circumstances and on what conditions can members of other Churches and ecclesial communities be admitted to eucharistic communion in the Catholic Church? The question is not a new one. The Second Vatican Council (in the decree on Ecumenism IJnitatis Redinte<jrati<>) and the Directorium Oecumenicum dealt with it.1 The pastoral guidance offered here is not intended to change the existing rules but to explain them, bringing out the doctrinal principles on which rules rest and so making their application easier. * 1 EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 509 2. THE EUCHARIST AND THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH There is a close link between the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the Eucharist. a) The Eucharist really contains what is the very foundation of the being and unity of the Church: the Body of Christ, offered in sacrifice and given to the faithful as the bread of eternal life. The sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, given to the Church so as to constitute the Church, of its nature carries with it: — the ministerial power which Christ gave to his apostles and to their successors, the bishops, along with the priests, to make effective sacramentally His own priestly act — that act by which once and forever He offered Himself to the Father in the Holy Spirit, and gave Himself to His faithful that they might be one in Him; — the unity of the ministry, which is to be exercised in the name of Christ, Head of the Church, and hence in the hierarchical communion of ministers; — the faith of the Church, which is expressed in the eucharistic action itself — the faith by which she responds to Christ’s gift in its true meaning. 2) Sharing in Liturgical Worship with Other Separated Brethren “Celebration of the sacraments is an action of the celebrating Com niunity, carried out within the Community, signifying the oneness in faith, worship and life of the Community. Where this unity of sacramental faith is deficient, the participation of the separated brethen with Catholics especially in the sacraments of the Eucharist, penance and anointing of the sick, is forbidden. Nevertheless, since'the sacraments are both signs of unity and sources of grace (cf. Decree on Ecumenism, n. 8), the Church can for adequate reasons allow access to those sacraments to a separated brother. This may be permitted in danger of death or in urgent need (during persecution, in prisons) if the separated brother has no access to a minister of his own Communion, and spontaneously asks a Catholic priest for the sacraments — so long as he declares a faith in these sacraments in harmony with that of the Church, and is rightly disposed. In other cases the judge of this urgent necessity must be the diocesan bishop or the Episcopal Conference. A Catholic in similar circumstances may not ask for these sacraments except from a minister who has been validly ordained” (n. 55). — Cf also na dichiarazione del Segretario per 1’unione dei cnstinai. La posizione della Chiesa cattolica in materia di Eucarlstia comune tra cnstiani di diverse confessioni, in L’Osservatore Bomano of 12-13 January 1970 <in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 62 (1970) pp. 184-188). 510 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The Sacrament of the Eucharist, understood in its entirety with these elements, signifies and existing unity brought about by Him, the unity of the visible Church of Christ which cannot be lost.2 - Cf. Lumen Gentium, 3; Unitatis Redintegratio, 4. 3 Instructio generalis missalis romani, chap. I, n. 1. * Ci. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 4. 5 Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quas primas 28 Deaember 1925: A.A.S. 17 (1925), p. 598; Vatican II, Presbyterorum Ordinis, 5; Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2, 6. b) “The celebration of Mass, the action of Christ and of the people of God hierarchically ordered is the centre of the whole Christian life for the universal Church as for the local Church and for each Christian.”3 * 5 Celebrating the mystery of Christ in the Mass, the Church celebrates her own mystery and manifests concretely her unity. The faithful assembled at the altar offer the sacrifice through the hands of the priest acting in the name of Christ, and they represent the community of the people of God united in the profession of one faith. Thus they constitute a sign and a kind of delegation of a wider assembly. The celebration of Mass is of itself a profession of faith in which the whole Church recognizes and expresses itself. If we consider the marvellorft meaning of the eucharistic prayers as well as the riches contained in the other parts of the Mass, whether they are fixed or vary with the liturgical cycle; if at the same time we bepr in mind that the liturgy of the word and the eucharistic liturgy make up a single act of worship/ then we can see here a striking illustration of the principle lex ora-vdi lex credendi.6 Thus the Mass has a catechetical power which the the recent liturgical renewal has emphasized. Again, the Church has in the course of history been careful to introduce into liturgical celebration the main themes of the common faith, the chief fruits of the experience of that faith. This she has done either by means of new texts or by creating new feasts. c) The relation between local celebration of the Eucharist and universal ecclesial communion is stressed also by the special mention in the eucharistic prayers of the pope, the local bishop and the other members of the episcopal college. What has been said here of the Eucharist as centre and summit of the Christian life holds for the whole Church and EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 511 for each of its members, but particularly for those who receive the Body of Christ. Communion during Mass is indeed the most perfect way of participating in the Eucharist, for it fulfills the Lord’s command, “take and eat”.0 3. THE EUCHARIST AS SPIRITUAL FOOD The effect of the Eucharist is also to nourish spiritually those who receive it as what the faith of the Church says it truly is — the body and blood of the Lord given as the food of eternal life (cf. John VI, 54-58). For the baptised, the Eucharist is spiritual food, a means by which they are brought to live the life of Christ himself, are incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of his saving mystery. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in men and I in him” (John VI, 56). a) As the sacrament of full union with Christ7 and of the perfection of spiritual life, the Eucharist is necessary to every Christian: in our Lord’s words, “. ... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John VI, 53). Those who live intensely the life of grace feel a compelling need for this spiritual sustenance, and the Church herself encourage daily communion. b) Yet though it is a spiritual food whose effect is to unite the Christian man to Jesus Christ, the Eucharist is far from being simply a means of satisfying exclusively personal aspirations, however lofty these may be. The union of the faithful with Christ, the head of the mystical body, brings about the union of the faithful themselves with each other. It is on their sharing of the Eucharistic bread that St. Paul bases the union <; “Perfeclior Missac participatio” (Const, de Sacra Liturgia: Sacrosanclutn Consilium, n. 55 ). Cf. Instructio de cultu mysterii euchirastici: Eucbaristicum mystcrium, of 25 May 1967, n. 12 (A.A.S. 59 (1967), p. 549). The fact of having received the same baptism does not of itself afford a title of admission to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing expresses an integral profession of faith and full insertion in the Church towards which baptism leads. This sacrament "constitute the sacramental bond of unityexisting among all who through it are reborn. But a point of departure, for it is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ. Baptism is thus ordained toward a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation into the system of salvation such as Christ Himself willed it to be, and finally, toward a complete integration into eucharistic com inunion.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 22). ' Cf Presbyterorum Ordinis, 5. 512 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS of all the faithful, “Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the same loaf” (1 Cor. X, 17). By this sacrament “man is incorporated in Christ and united with His members.”8 By frequently receiving the Eucharist the faithful are incorporated more and more in the body of Christ and share increasingly in the mystery of the Church. c) Spiritual need of the Eucharist is not therefore merely a matter of personal spiritual growth: simultaneously, and inseparably, it concerns our entering more deeply into Christ’s Church “which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph. I, 23). ■1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO COMMUNION Where members of the Catholic Church are concerned, there is a perfect parallel between regarding the Eucharist as the celebration of the entire ecclesial community united in one faith and regarding it a^jsustenance, as a response to the spiritual needs, personal and ecclesial, of each member. It will be the same when, in the Lord’s good time, all the followers of Christ are reunited in one and the same Church. But what are we to say today, when Christians are divided? Any baptized person has a spiritual need for the Eucharist. Those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church have recourse to the ministers of their own communities, as their conscience dictates. But what about those who cannot do this, and who for that or other reasons come and ask for communion from a Catholic priests? The Directorium Oecumenicum has already shown how we must safeguard simultaneously the integrity of ecclesial communion and the good of souls. Behind the Directorium lie two main govering ideas: a) The strict relationship between the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the Eucharist can never be altered, whatever pastoral measures we may be led to take in given s Concilium Florentinum, Decretum pro Armenis, DB 698; DS 1322). — In the work of St. Thomas Aquinas we often come across the ex pression sacramentum ecclesiasticae unitatis (e.i.: Summa Teol., p. 73, a. 2. sed c.). The Eucharist effects the unity of the Church, or more strictly it effects the mystical body because it contains the real body of Christ. EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 513 cases. Of its very nature celebration of the Eucharist signifies the fullness of profession of faith and the fullness of ecclesial communion. This principle must not be obscured and must remain our guide in this field. b) The principle will not be obscured if admission to Catholic eucharistic communion is confined to particular cases of those Christians who have a faith in the sacrament in conformity with that of the Church, who experience a serious spiritual need for the eucharistic sustenance, who for a prolonged period arc unable to have recourse to a minister of their own community and who ask for the sacrament of their own accord; all this provided that they have proper dispositions and lead lives worthy of a Christian. This spiritual need should be understood in the sense defined above (No. 3, b and c) ; a need for an increase in spiritual life and a need for a deeper involvement in the mystery of the Church and of its unity. Further, even if those conditions are fulfilled, it will be a pastoral responsibility to see that the admission of these other Christians to communion does not endanger or disturb the faith of Catholics.1* 11 Cf. Orientalium Ecelcsiarum, 26. 10 Cf. Directorium, nn 44 and 55. 11 Here arc two important passages from the Directorium derived from Council documents: 39) "Although these (Eastern) Churches are separated from us. yet they possess true sacraments above all — by apostolic succession — the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy. Therefore some sharing in liturgical worship (communicatio in sacris) given suitable circumstances and approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged (Decree on Ecumenism, n. 15; cf also the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, nn. 24-29). 5. DIFFERENCES, IN VIEW OF THESE PRINCIPLES, BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES AND OTHER CHRISTIANS The Directorium Oecumenicum* 10 11 gives different directions for the admission to holy communion of separated Eastern Christians, and of others. The reason is that the Eastern Churches, though separated from us, have true sacraments, above all, because of the apostolic succession, the priesthood and the eucharist, which unite them to us by close ties, so that the risk of obscuring the relation between eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion is somewhat reduced.11 Recently the 514 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS Holy Father recalled that “between our Church and the venerable Orthodox Churches there exists already an almost total communion, though it is not yet perfect: it results from our join participation in the mystery of Christ and of His Church.“,;! With Christians who belong to communities whose eucharistic faith differs from that of the Church and which do not have the sacrament of Orders, admitting them to the Eucharist entails the risk of obscuring the essential relation between eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion. This is why the Directorium treats their case differently from that of the Eastern Christians and envisages admission only in exceptional cases of “urgent necessity.” In cases of this kind the person concerned is asked to manifest a faith in the Eucharist in conformity with that of the Church, i.e. in the Eucharist as Christ instituted it and as as the Catholic Chruch hands it on. This is not asked of an Orthodox person because he belongs to a Church whose faith in the Eucharist is conformable to our own. Which Authority decides'particular cases? The meaning of No. 55 of the Directorium Oecumenicum. No. 55 of the Directorium allows fairly wide discretionary power to the episcopal authority in judging whether the necessary conditions are present for these exceptional cases. If cases of the same pattern recur often in a given region, episcopal conferences can give general directions. More often however it falls to the bishop of the diocese to make a decision. He alone will know all the circumstances of particular cases. Apart from danger of death the Directorium mentions two examples, people in prison and those suffering persecution, but it then speaks of “other cases of such urgent necessity”. Such 40) "Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches separated from us there is still a very close communion in matters of faithfcf.Decree on Ecumenism, n. 14); moreover, through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature’ and ‘although separated from us yet these Churches posses true sacraments, above all — i- Letter to Patriarch Athenagoras, 8 February 1971. French text in La Documentation catholique of 21 March 1971, p. 255. This letter was published in L’Osservatore Romano of 7 March 1971. It had been given to Metropolite Meliton of Chalcedon during his visit to the Holy Father on 8 February 1971. EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 515 cases are not confined to situations of suffering and danger. Christians may find themselves in grave spiritual necessity and with no chance of recourse to their own community. For example, in our time, which is one of large-scale movements of population, it can happen much more often than before that nonCatholic Christians' are scattered in Catholic regions. They are often deprived of the help of their own communion and unable to get in touch with it except at great trouble and expense. If the conditions set out in the Directorium are verified, they can be admitted to eucharistic communion but it will be for the bishop to consider each case. Hanc inslructioncm pasloralcm Summus Pontifcx PAULUS VI, cum littcris Emmi. Cardinalis a Secretis Status die 25 mensis maii 1972 inIrascripto Secretariatus Card. Pracsidi missis, approbavit et publici juris fieri iussit. Datum Romae, ex aedibus Secretariatus ad Christianorum Unitatem fovendain, die 1 mensis Junii 1972. I II. HIERONYMUS HAMER, O.P. a Sccreiis IOANNES CARD. WILLEBRANDS Praeses CONDITIONS FOR INTER-COMMUNION In particular cases the conditions are: 1) Recipients must have the same faith in the Eucharist as is professed by Catholics; 1> they must have a deep spiritual need for the Eucharist; 3) they must have been unable, over a prolonged period, to communicate in their own Church; ■I) of their own accord they must request the sacrament of Communion.
DOCTRINAL REASONS FOR THE INSTRUCTION * • L’Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1972. The Instruction just published propose to explain the doctrinal reasons for the regulation of the Church as outlined in the Conciliar Decree Unitatis Redin teg ratio and in the first part of the Ecumenical Directory which was published on 14 May 1967. It is intended as a help to the bishops in the concrete decisions they have to make in regard to admitting to eucharistic communion Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church. The doctrinal reasons for the regulation made by the Church are to be founcbbriefly expressed in the two documents mentioned above. It seemed useful, however, to give a more ample exposition of these reasons in order to facilitate the application of a regulation which touches on certain basic points of our faith. On the one hand there is a close bond between the mystery of the Eucharist and the mystery of the Church, and on the other hand the Eucharist is a spiritual nourishment whose effect is to join the Christian in person with Jesus Christ and to bring him yet more deeply into Christ’s Church. Those two statements are of equal importance and have both to be safeguarded, whatever may be the pastoral decisions which pastors are called upon to make in particular circumstances. As it is. generally speaking, on the second statement that those who ask for “eucharistic hospitality” in the Church base their request, the Instruction aims to remind those concerned what may not be done at the expense of the first statement in which the indestructible bond between the Eucharist and the Church is underlined. The regulation itself in regard to this matter, however, changes with the times. That brought in by Vatican Council DOCTRINAL REASONS FOR THE INSTRUCTION 517 II offers somewhat more of a welcome than the one in force previously. But the profound doctrinal reasons remain unchanged, because these are bound up with the very nature of our eucharistic belief. Less stringent for Eastern Churches The Instruction does not simply take its stand on a general question of principle. It shows how the two statements can be safeguarded at the same time, and are in fact safeguarded, in the actual regulation laid down by the Church. Those called upon to express their views on this matter must constantly be concerned not to sacrifice the one statement in favour of the other. We have no intention of repeating here what can be found explicitly stated in the Instruction. We wish simply to underline one point which this document puts very clearly. To ask a Catholic priest for the Eucharist, a member of another Christian community must feel “a serious spiritual need of nourishment from the Eucharist” (cf. 4b and 6). That sets the problem on a high level, that namely of profound spiritual needs. The regulations laid down for admission to eucharistic communion are less stringent in the case of those belonging to the Eastern Churches, not in full communion with us, than they are in the case of other Christians. Why this discriminaton? The reason is to be found in the first of the two statements mentioned above. On a question of profession of faith, of the Sacraments and of ecclesiastical structure, the Eastern Churches are very close to us, and so the risks of obscuring the essential bonds between the Church and the Eucharist are notably less. The Instruction recalls the Holy Father’s recent declaration as to the “communion almost total, though not yet perfect” between the Orthodox Church and our own. Referring to the Directory On the particular point of belief in the Holy Eucharist these Eastern Churches hold a faith conformable to ours in virtue of the profession faith made by the same Churches. On the occasion of being admitted to Holy Communion, therefore, their members will not be asked for a personal profession of faith in this Sacrament “as instituted by Christ and in accordance with the tradition of the Catholic Church.” 518 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The Instruction ends with a brief comment from n, 55 of the Ecumenical Directory. It recalls first of all the extent accorded by the Directory itself to the authority of the bishops in applying the general criteria to particular cases. It then makes it clear that the two cases mentioned as examples in n. 55, namely deprivation of freedom and conditions of persecution, are not the only ones in which there is to be discerned a great spiritual need for the reception of the Holy Eucharist. It is clear that a need of this kind can be felt even apart from situations of suffering and danger. The case given of the diaspora (groups of non-Catholics settled in a Catholic country) is illuminating on this point. The Instruction is, then, an expansion of certain points of the 1967 Directory, which itself still remains in force. We may recall that this Directory was the work of a “plenary meeting” of the Secretariat for the Union of Christians (this “Plenary” is the annual session on the part of the members of the Secretariat, composed of 7 Cardinals and 24 Bishops), to meet a need already made manifest in the Council. It was produced with the active collaboration of experts from different countries, of Episcopal Conferences throughout the world, and of various organisations pertaining to the Roman Curia, such as the Sacred Congregations for the Eastern Churches, for the Evangelization of the Peoples and for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Directory was approved by the Holy Father during an audience granted to the “Plenary” of the Secretariat on 28 April 1969. A more or less similar procedure was adopted and followed in the case of the present Instruction. — In February 1968 a mixed commission was set up, chosen from the Secretariat for the Union of Christians and from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to study the interpretation to be given to certain norms laid down in the Conciliar Decree Unitatis redintegratio and in the Ecumenical Directory on the question of “communicatio in sacris”. — In November 1969, the “Plenary” of the Secretariat was informed as to the conclusions arrived at by the commission, and then discussed the whole problem on the basis of a document prepared by a committee of its own Consultors. The “Plenary” requested the Cardinal President to set up a commission limited to three bishops to pursue the study of the whole matter. DOCTRINAL REASONS FOR THE INSTRUCTION 519 — As a practical result of this resolution there was a meeting of the three bishops concerned from May 30 to June 2, 1970, in which the question was studied, use being made of nine considered opinions given by as many specialists (biblical scholars, historico - patrologists, theologians). This commission produced a report which was submitted to the “Plenary” of 1970. — In 1971, a new mixed commission, chosen from the Secretariat for the Union of Christians and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, determined the line to be followed in the production of a new Pastoral Instruction. This commission worked on two basic documents: the conclusions of the first commission (1968-69) and the report from the meeting of the three bishops (May-June, 1970). — Along the lines determined upon, a sample Instruction was worked out. which the Cardinal President of the Secretariat for the Union of Christians submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with a view to agreement and possible observations. A definitive reply was given by this Congregation on 8 February 1972. — On being submitted to the Holy Father, the present Instruction was approved on 25 May 1972. With this approval of the Holy Father the present Instruction is now offered to all those who have need to formulate exactly the motives for the practice adopted by the Church, whether it be in pastoral directives, or in preaching, or in teaching. or in catechetics. Both the faithful of the Catholic Church and also the other Christian brethren who read it can judge how clearly our mode of action in this matter flows from our most profound religious convictions. We feel sure that this text will be studied by all with the same anxious desire for truth, for understanding, and for fraternal charity, as that which has inspired all those who have contributed to its production. Jerome Hammer, O.P.
SIGNIFICANCE OF PASTORAL NORMS ON PENANCE * * L’Osservatore Romano July 27, 1972. During the general audience at Castel Gandolfo on lit July, the Holy Father explained to the faithful the importance of the recent document of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on general sacramental absolution, The text of Paul VPs address is as follows. You will certainly know of the promulgation of some “Pastoral Norms on General Sacramental Absolution” issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 16 June 1972. If you Jiave not yet heard of them, you had better inquire about them, for these norms concern the discipline of the sacrament of penance, and regard one of the fundamental points of Christian life. That is the reconciliation of the sinner both with- God by means of the re-establishment (or restoration) of the state of grace, the supernatural life, in one who has lost (or weakened) it. and with the Church by means of readmission to her communion, if, unhappily, the sin committed should entail complete or partial exclusion from living participation in the mystical body of Christ, which the Church is. As you see, we are touching upon an essential and vital point of our personal relationship with the system of our salvation. COLLECTIVE ABSOLUTION? And what is it? It is the sacrament of Penance, which, by a rule deriving from Christ, from the Tradition of the Church, from the ecumenical Councils of Lateran IV (year 1215) and Trent (sess. XIV, c. 8), involves Confession. Confession requires a minister, the priest authorized to hear it. and then to give absolution. And where there are no priests? Where there are so few of them, or they come so rarely (as PASTORAL NORMS ON PENANCE 521 in mission territory), that there is no way, or time, for the normal exercise of this ministry? Can it not be replaced by collective absolution, without individual confession? Moreover, has not a so-called community confession already been introduced in certain places, that is, a penitential rite of a gathering of faithful, to whom sacramental absolution is given collectively, without individual and auricular confession? The answer given by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after much study and consultation, after a thorough attempt to interpret the duty deriving from Christ’s merciful will, and after considering with a sense of responsibility and pastoral insight the real advantage of the Church and of the individual faithful, as well as the duty and importance of the priestly ministry, is the following. First, the norm of the Council of Trent remains in force, in fact both priests and faithful (including the priests themselves) are called upon to observe it with exactitude: to have absolution of mortal sins, personal accusation is necessary, as hitherto. The law remains, second, as already established, in certain cases of imminent danger of death (for example, fire, shipwreck, war...), when there is no time to hear individual confessions, ‘‘any priest has the power to impart absolution to several persons together”. Necessity and urgency prevail over the usual norm. Third, and this is the new feature: “Apart from the cases of danger of death, it is lawful to give sacramental absolution collectively to a number of faithful who have confessed only generically but have been suitably exhorted to repent, provided that there is serious necessity: namely, when in view of the number of penitents there are not enough confessors at hand to hear properly the confessions of each within an appropriate time, with the results that the penitents through no fault of their own would be forced to do without sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time. This can happen especially in mission lands but in places also and within groups where it is clear that this need exists. This is not lawful however, when confessors are able to be at hand, merely because of a great concourse of penitents such as can for example occur on a great feast or pilgrimage . . . The celebration of this rite is to be kept quite distinct from the celebration of Holy Mass”. Other prescriptions, which it will be well to know and which will certainly be clearly expounded, complete this new discipline, which anyone with a sense of real Catholic pastoral life will greet with a twofold sentiment in his heart. Of adBOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS miration and of joy at the charity of Mother Church, anxious to dispense the treasurers of grace as widely as possible; and of appreciation and hope at the reminder of the prime importance of the unfortunate drama of sin in man’s life, a drama which modern laxism tends to soft-pedal, and at the authoritative and stimulating confirmation given to the People of God about the ministry of penance exercised by means of Confession. For our times, so much in need of the restoration of a clear and solid moral sensibility, so eager for liberation from what imprisons man most deeply and gravely, this reminder of the importance of the sacramental grace of penance today is certainly a providental fact. If sin is slavery, it is death, the recovery of the awareness of sin and recourse to the divine remedy of the remission of sin, is a thing that should be reconsidered and extolled with the interest and enthusiasm we reserve for the most important events of life and history. We say to you. confreres in the priesthood, called to be the doctors of souls, the confidents, the teachers, the “psychiatrists” of grace, in the extremely fruitful, though so delicate and responsible, exercise of the ministry of Confession. And we say so to all of you. faithful sons of the Church, whether you have the happy experience of it, or whether you are held back by deeply rooted pride or unjustified timidly. Let all of you have admiration. reverence, gratitude, desire for that "ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5. 18). which is really paschal iov of resurrection. With our Apostolic Blessing.
PASTORAL LETTER ON VIGILANCE AGAINST CONTEMPORARY ERRORS CONCERNING THE MYSTERIES OF THE INCARNATION AND THE MOST HOLY TRINITY Rufino J. Cardinal Santos Archbishop of Manila To Their Excellencies, Our Auxiliary-Bishops and Vicar General, Our Archdiocesan Senate of Priests and Pastoral Council Our Vicars-Forane and Parish Priests and their Assistants, The Religious Congregations and Secular Institutes The Officers and Members of the Apostolate of the Laitv (ALAM), and The Faithful in the Archdiocese of Manila GREETINGS AND PEACE! We address this Pastoral Letter to you impelled by the solicitude proper of Our Office for the purity and integrity of the Deposit of the Faith, which is foremost among the sacred obligations of bishops under the guidance of the Pope, the Supreme Pastor. As Vatican II has it, only by “holding fast to this deposit the entire people united with their bishops remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers”. (Dei Verbum, 10) ERRORS AGAINST THE FAITH Our 20th century is witnessing the unfortunate revival of the Arian error about Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of many others that follow upon the heels of this capital error. Among the latter we wish to single out those that concern the Divine Persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit, errors that enveigh against the very nature of the Godhead and the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. (This PASTORAL LETTER was publicly read by His Eminence, Rufino J. Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila, at the Pontifical High Mass at the Metropolitan Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila, on June 30, 1972, on the occassion of POPE’S DAY.) 524 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS This revival is called by some neo-Arianism and by others, perhaps with more accuracy, neo-Modernism. Not without irony, these errors have reappeared after sixteen centuries, during which the pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils and a universally accepted Liturgy had exorcised them from the Church. The irony is sharpened by the fact that these errors are spreading at a time when the bishops of the whole world, gathered solemnly in the Second Vatican Council together with the Holy Father as their Head, had reaffirmed the profession of the Faith in its integral wholeness and had left it inscribed on each and every page of the Council’s Decrees and Constitutions. GRAVITY OF THE CONTEMPORARY ERRORS The central error of this neo-Modernism — let us call it by this name — lies in that it denies that Jesus Christ is God, the Only-Begotten Son of God, and truly a Divine Person. The Partisans of this revived error indeed attribute to Our Blessed Lord and Master Jesus Christ all conceivable human perfections. They profess that Christ is the man sent by God to redeem men. and that Christ fulfilled this mission by His life and His death upon the cross. Nonetheless, they deny the eternal pre-existence of Jesus and His Divine Sonship. Thereby, notwithstanding the accumulation of all conceivable human perfections in Him, these Neo-Modernists acknowledge Christ to be nothing more than a mere man and a son of God only by adoption just as we all are. Now, the Divinity of Jesus Christ is the ground upon which the whole of Christian revelation rests. Therefore, to deny that Christ is truly a Divine Person is to eliminate the very foundation of our Christian mysteries. It is enough to recite the Apostles’ Creed or the Symbol of the Mass to grow aware that to deny that Christ is truly God and equal in nature to the Father is to deny in the same breath the existence in God of the Person of the Father, and likewise to deny the Person of the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This neo-Modernism, therefore, eliminates from our religion the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, and the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. The negation of the other mysteries of our faith flows logically from these fundamental errors. The redeeming values of Our Blessed Lord’s Life and Passion is rooted in the fact PASTORAL LETTER ON VIGILANCE 525 that the Lord Jesus is truly a Divine Person. This fact endows all His acts — even the most minimal — with an infinite worth. This is the reason why the merits of Christ were — and are — sufficient to redeem all men from all their sins. But if Christ is not truly God, as these neo-Modernists pretend, His Life and Passion could neither have infinite value nor could they ever suffice to redeem one man even one single sin, because no matter how small we suppose the sin to be, it will always remain an offense to the infinite God. It is thus clear that this fundamental neo-Modernist error entails the complete denial of the whole mystery of our Redemption from the Incarnation of Our Lord up to His Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God, co-equal in glory with His Father. This basic error further implies the denial that Jesus Christ could ever have the power to send from above the Person of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles; nay, the very existence of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person proceeding from both the Father and the Son is negated. Consequently, all the fundamental dogmas of our Creed are eliminated. TOTAL EXCLUSION OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP AND OF THE SACRAMENTS St. Paul declares: “He who is just lives by faith.” (Rom. 1:17). The denial of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation of the Word of God subverts at its base the whole edifice of the Christian life since the later, consists of faith and the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and lives and works through charity. We receive this life of faith and grace by way of the sacraments, while prayer and worship nurture it to perfection. It is implanted in us in Baptism, which purifies us from sin and inserts us into Christ; in Penance it is restored by the forgiveness of our actual sins; in the Eucharist it is nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ the Only-Begotten of God. And so on tiil the day of our bodily resurrection. The neo-Modernist error negates the Most Holy Trinity in Whose name we are baptised and from Whose power all the sacraments draw their efficaciousness. It inevitably follows that there is neither validity in our baptism, nor truth in the forgiveness 526 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS of sins, nor Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, nor any worth in our Liturgy and prayer. Hence the whole of Catholic cult is deprived of all meaning and worth, not only where it concerns the Mass and the sacraments, but also where it concerns the worship due to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the veneration owed to the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God and to the Saints as our elder brethren who from the glory of heaven are capable of helping us only because of the infinite merits of Christ, “the first born among many brethren.” (Rom. 8, 29). THE GRIEVOUS DUTY OF PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS All the preceding is but the briefest summary of the lethal effects and sonsequences that logically follow from the Arian erros being spread in these days of theological neo-Modernism. Upon us all weighs the obligation to defend and preserve the treasure of our faith in all its purity and integrity. We, therefore, expect that our priests and the religious in our Archdiocese, both men and women, wilt get themselves efficaciously involved in teaching our Catholic Faith purely and integrally. Upon it depends both the faithful discharge of our mission within the Church and, above all, the salvation of the souls of men. As we exhort our priests and our religious men and women zealously to preserve pure and integral the Faith, We also wish to caution them not only against the tendency to introduce doubts and uncertainties, but also against propensity to employ equivocal or ambiguous expressions in matters of faith where by her definition Holy Mother Church has fixed the authentic meaning of our dogmas together with the formulae whereby that meaning is expressed. No less than the Holy Father himself has sounded the alert against the danger involved in this practice, the effects of which are corrosive and readily sow doubt in the people of God. Said the Holy Father in his Exhortation to the Bishops, mincing no words: “At this very moment many of the faithful are troubled in their faith by an accumulation of ambiguities, uncertainties and doubts about its essentials. Such are the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas the mystery of the Eucharist and the Real Presence, the Church as the institution of salvation, the priestly ministry in the minds of the people of God, the value of prayer and the sacraments, and the moral requirements concerning, for instance, the indissolubility of marriage or respect for life. Even the divine PASTORAL LETTER ON VIGILANCE 527 authority of the Scripture is not left unquestioned by a radical demythologization.” (Cf. A.A.S. 1971, pg. 99). For, indeed, faith — if it be a true faith — receives the revealed deposit as the very word of God. Hence, faith is as certain and as infallible as God Himself. Wherefore, the slightest doubt, uncertainty, ambiguity, destroys the infallible certainty of faith and thus kills faith itself. The vital importance of the subject We have sketched above places upon all priests engaged in the ministry of preaching, and upon all religious and lay men and women engaged in religious education, especially catechist, the bounden duty of being alert to, and of keeping themselves free from, these errors of our times. Obviously, a much graver obligation weighs upon the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff. In pursuance of this obligation, the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued the Declaration which We herewith offer to the priests and religious men and women in our Archdiocese. This Declaration specifies in concise terms the aforementioned errors and indicates the dogmatic conciliar from which we must all receive the doctrine concerning these mysteries together with the genuine sense in which the Church has always held them. The Declaration admirably embodies the sense of the Church, and the Holy Father has of course ordered its publication. Nothing less than the most unfathomable mysteries of God is at stake here: the intimate life of God in the Trinity of Persons, the Divine Sonship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the infinite worth of His revelation and salvific work. All of this superexceeds human understanding. Faith alone enables us to enter into, and participate in, these mysterious realities by humbly believing and confessing them. Hence. We exhort each and every one cordially to receive this priceless Declaration and to confirm to it our preaching, teaching, and Catechism. Trustfully We call on our Vicars General, our parish priests and clergy, and the religious Superiors in our Archdiocese to aid Our solicitude for the integrity and purity of the Faith with their zeal and vigilance in so vital a matter. Given in the City of Manila, Philippines, on the 30th day of June 1972, in commemoration of the 9th anniversary of the Coro nation of llis Holiness, Pope Paul VI.
"Till Death Do Us Part" by Dr. Antonio T. Pinon An Appraisal of the Arguments for Divorce The widespread climate of permissiveness, specially in matters of sex, has occasioned a spate of attacks and campaigns against all those institutions that would impose some curbs on sexual activity. To cite but the most significant, there was first the spirited, and still ongoing, campaign for birth control to “liberate” sex from children. Today we witness the start of movement for the legalization of divorce to “liberate” sex from the indissoluble ties of marriage. One needs no gift of prophecy to foretell where all this is bound to end— the scrapping of marriage in the name of the complete “liberation” of sex, which is but the deodourized term for freewheeling absolute promiscuity. This permissiveness has so permeated all levels and strata of society that not even the Church has succeeded in escaping its influence altogether. While Vatican II was still in session there were priests, bishops, and even cardinals, who openly advocated the licitude of contraceptive practices and were telling everybody that the Church was on the verge of changing her uncompromising stand against contraception until Paul VI showed them up as false prophets with his forthright encyclical Humn»ne Vitae. So now we also see in print statements attributed to priests like the following: “Fr. Healy told the convention delegates that discussion on divorce was in progress in the Church and that one insight gaining ground was the theory that while Christ was against divorce. ‘He was holding it un as an ideal and not as a precept.’” (Panorama. 13 Feb. 1972) Although the reporter does not make it clear, I presume that what Christ was holding up as an ideal was not divorce, but indfcsohib’e marriage. “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 529 To get our bearings straight on this matter a distinction must be made and clearly understood between these three things: declaration of nullity, legal separation, and divorce. DECLARATION OF NULLITY It is not uncommon to meet people, even well-educated ones, who misconstrue a declaration of nullity granted by the Holy See as a decree of divorce. One often hears it said that moneyed couples can bring their cases to Rome and obtain an ecclesiastical sentence allowing them to separate and remarry. And if this is not divorce, then what is it? The answer is that what these couples get is not divorce but a declaration of nullity, which is an altogether different thing. Marriage, it is true, is much more than a contract. It is a state of life. It is an interpersonal relationship. But it is no less true that the gateway of this interpersonal relationship and state of life is the marriage contract. By this contract a man and a woman acquire the right to the sort of interpersonal relationship that is the woof and warp of the married state of life. Now, as in all contracts, certain conditions are required by law for the marriage contract to be valid or binding. Where any of the requisites for the validity of the contract is wanting, then the contract is mill and void from the very beginning. In plain terms, there never was anly contract at all. A declaration of nullity should never be confused with an annulment. Annulment is the voiding of a contract that was valid and binding up to the moment of its annulment. When a marriage is annulled there was a valid hiarriage and the couple were truly man and wife up to the time when the sentence of annulment was passed. On the other hand, in a declaration of nullity there never was a valid and binding contract. When a marriage is declared null and void there is no unmaking of what was made and existed before. There is only an official finding that there never was a marriage, that the couple were never truly man and wife because some essential requisite(s) for validity were wanting at the time the marriage contract was solemnized. What happened in this case is that the couple mistakenly thought they had contracted a valid marriage whereas no valid marriage had taken place in reality, and they never were man 530 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS and wife. When the error is detected, the couple either contracts a valid marriage, that is, makes good the defective contract in any of the ways provided for by law, or else they are bound to separate. If they choose the latter alternative since they never were married, it is obvious that both are free to marry someone else. It must always be borne in mind that a declaration of nullity does hot dissolve a marriage simply because there is no marriage to dissolve. On the other hand, divorce always implies or presupposes a valid marriage contract which binds the couple to each other. LEGAL SEPARATION A valid marriage contract produces two effects. In the first place, each party gives to the other the exclusive right to his or her body for the performance of the marital act. In the second place, and as a natural corollary of the right to the marital act, the contract effects a certian unity of life whereby the man and the womSn share the same roof, board, and bed. When ? married couple break the complementary unity of life, when they no longer sleep together, nor live in the same house, we have an Imperfect or relative divorce, more commonly known by the term legal separation. DIVORCE It should be obvious that what binds two people together in the state of matrimony is not the physical or geographical togetherness. It is the marital rights and duties exchanged by the marriage contract. So long as these rights and duties subsist, the man is bound to the woman and the woman is bound to the man even if they should no longer live together. And so long as the bond subsists, the marriage subsists. When the man and the wife agree not merely to sleep in different rooms, or to live in different houses, but take the further step of revoking the exclusive rights they mutually granted each other, then the marriage bond itself is broken the marriage dissolved, and the divorce is called perfect or absolute. To prevent misunderstanding, I shall employ the term of divorce always in its perfect or absolute sense. Proponents of divorce are fundamentally interested in the right to remarry. “TILL DEATH DO US PART’’ 531 This right to remarry is absent in mere legal separation where, d&pite the physical separation, the parties remain bound and married to each other. It is precisely the dissolution of the married bond, which absolute divorce presumes to effect, that leaves the divorced parties free to many again. The Church admits both the declaration of nullity and the legal separation, the latter usually on broader grounds than the civil codes. For instance, the Philippine Civil Code provides for only three causes for legal separation, to wit, adultery on the wife’s part, concubinage on the husband’s part, and attempt on the life of either of the spouses. Besides these, Canon Law allows legal separation for other causes, e.g. criminal and ignominious life, spiritual danger to either spouse, cruelty. Legal separation is ordinarily effected by order of the competent authority, but Canon Law allows the innocent party to leave the guilty one on his/her authority if there be danger in delay. A similar proviso is wanting in the Philippine Civil Code. ANNULMENT OF NON-CONSUMMATED MARRIAGE Likewise Canon Law admits the annulment of marriage. This is granted for cause, usually in the case of a validly contracted but uot consummated marriage. When a valid contract is voided the contracting parties are returned to the status they had prior to the contract, as if the contract had not taken place. In the case of marriage this is possible before the consummation of the marriage, but it is obviously impossible once the marriage is consummated. Still more, marriage is not a run-of-the-mill contract. It is an exceptionally exceptional contraot in that its subject matter is the very persons of the contracting parties and it has the most profound repercussions in their intimate individual lives. Marriage is a total giving of the self to another. Therefore if liberty is an essential ingredient of any contract, utmost liberty ought to be available and guaranteeable for this exceptionally exceptional contract. The point of no return where freedom must make its choice is the definitive ratification of the marriage contract represented by the actual possessing of each other’s person in the marital act which consummates the marriage. Conversely, this is the last rampart and defense of the individual’s liberty. Often a man or a woman are compelled 532 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS to go through a shotgun marriage. Is the wedding ceremony the moment of truth? No. After the ceremony is ended and the documents are duly signed and witnessed, after the reception is through and the guests have gone home, the moment of truth comes in the privacy of the nuptial chamber and bed. A shotgun marriage can be performed under well camouflaged duress, but in the sanctuary of the nuptial chamber consummation does not take place without the free volition of both parties. This is the moment of truth. Consummation is strong evidence that the parties have changed their minds and now under no compulsion freely ratify the contract and take each other as man and wife in the marital act. On the contrary, a persistent refusal of consummation is strong proof of a continuing repudiation of the marriage celebrated under duress. Thus consummation or non-consummation' is the clearest indicator of free consent or lack of it to the marriage contract. The contention thus boils down to divorce, i.e. to the dissolution of the marriage bond and the consequent freedom to remarry in the case of a validly and consummated marriage. But the issue still needs ** to be nailed down more accurately. THREE QUESTIONS When anything is proposed to be done three questions can be raised about it: (1) Can it be done? (2) Should it be done? (3) How is it to be done? Likewise three questions can be raised about divorce: (I) Can divorce be legalized? In other words, is it within the authority of the state or of the Church validly to legalize divorce? (2) Should the state or the Church legalize divorce? (3) How is divorce to be legalized? That is. what kind of provisions are to be included in a divorce law? Now, these three questions cannot be raised in any order as you please. They must be raised in precisely the order stated because the first question is presupposed by the second, and the second question is presupposed by the third. THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT AT ISSUE In plain language, the fundamental question is whether the state — or the Church — possesses the competent authority validly to legalize divorce. This is the fundamental point at “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 533 issue, and it must be settled prior to any other. If it is not, all other issues are left without a proper foundation. To illustrate crudely. Suppose a Constitutional Convention delegate were to propose the inclusion in the fundamental charter of the land of a provision to the effect that typhoons and earthquakes shall be banned by the state. There is any number of good reasons why they should be banned from the country: to spare the lives of the people, to insure their properties, to protect the crops to safeguard the economy, etc. There is but one fly in the soup — the fact that, as natural phenomena, typhoons and earthquakes obey the laws of nature, they are beyond the purview of the state’s power and authority. BEGGING TIIE QUESTION The proponents of divorce muster what looks like a formidable array or arguments in defense of their position. On closer inspection, however, one finds that they all boil down to two. First, the state should legalize divorce in order to do away with all the illicit relationships that fester in our midst. Secondly, divorce should be legalized in order to provide a remedy for so much unhappiness in the spouses and in the children. People should not be condemned to suffer because of one mistake; on the contrary, the humane thing to do is to allow them a chance to make good their mistake. These arc emotionaly loaded arguments. “Illicit relationships,” “unhappiness,” “condemned to suffer” — these key words all aim straight for, and score a bull’s-eye on, the heart. Nothing wrong with that, provided, of course, that the heart is not allowed to play a trick on the intellect by obscuring the fact that, as arguments, they all suffer from one fatal defect. They all miss the fundamental issue. The debate got off on the wrong foot because it got off on question no. 2, viz. should divorce be legalized? By starting off with that question, the first and fundamental question — has the state the authority validly to legalize divorce? — was completely overlooked and bypassed. The effect of overlooking this fundamental question is that the power or authority of the senate to legalize divorce is assumed or taken for granted. Since that is precisely the fundamental point at issue, to take it for granted is unwittingly to fall into the fallacy of beqqina the question. 534 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS I shall, therefore, take the liberty to challenge the fundamental assumption and to nail the debate down to the basic issue: does the state have the power or authority validly to dissolve the marriage bond? ARE ALL MISTAKES CORRIGIBLE? To argue that divorce should be legalized so that people may have the chance to correct their mistakes is, to begin with, to assume that marriage is dissoluble, which ’ is to beg the question. In the second place, the argument also assumes that all mistakes are corrigible, which is patently false. There are mistakes that can be corrected, and there are mistakes beyond correction. This is crystal clear to common;sense. Suppose you decide to end your life by slashing your wrist. A moment later, as you see blood spurting ojyt, you decide that it was a mistake, that you want to go on living after all. This is the kind of mistake * that can be made good. You have a servant apply a tourniquet and call for a doctor. On the other hand, suppose you decide to go by stepping off the window of youi- apartment which happens to be on the 12th storey. A split second later, as you clutch at emptiness, you feel that it was all a mistake. We can only accompany you in being sorry for yourself. Your mistake is irretrievable. This argument is also often presented in the following form: What you do freely, you can freely undo. A man enters into marriage freely; he ought to be able to get out of it freely. People who argue this way forget that the act is one thing, and the consequences of th® act are quite another thing. To place or not to place the act lies within the scope of your freedom. But once you place the act, its consequences may lie completely beyond your freedom. You are absolutely free to jump or not to jump off the window of your apartment on the 12th storey. But once you have jumped, you are not free to fall or not to fall. The natural law of gravity takes over and smashes you on the pave^ment below. THE RIGHT TO HAPPINESS? The argument that divorce should be legalized because people have a right to happiness is wobbly on a number of counts. “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 535 In the first place, speaking strictly within the context of law whether statutory or constitutional, the right to happiness is not a fit subject for legislation. The reason is quite simple. When a right is made the subject of legislation, the object or subject matter of that right is guaranteed by law. Now, is it possible for the law to guarantee happiness to any man? Obviously no. Therefore the right to happiness cannot be guaranteed or enforced by the law. Therefore it is not a fit subject legislation. What is guaranteeable and enforceable by law is the right to the pursuit of happiness. That is to say, the state can by law see to it that a man is not hindered in his search for happiness and that the state of affairs is so organized and ordered that man shall have some means to achieve happiness. But whether he will be happy or not, that is beyond the power of the state to guarantee or enforce. However, the pursuit of happiness is not, and cannot be. an unrestricted right. There is no right to pursue happiness in any manner and by whatever means one chooses. Otherwise, a rapist could justify his crime by claiming that he was merely exercising his right to pursue happiness. A man has the rig''/ to pursue happiness only by licit ways and means. But would legalizing divorce not make it a licit way o pursuing happiness? To answer in the affirmative without producing proof is simply to beg the question. People who answer yes, if they were consistent, should have no qualms about legalizing rape, theft, murder so that the lustful, the thieving, and the violent may have a licit way of pursuing and achieving their happiness. And why go to all the bother and expense of suing for divorce? Would it not be muph simpler, less expensive, less troublesome more convenient to legalize adultery? LEGAL DISCRIMINATION In the second place, just what is meant by domestic happiness or domestic unhappiness? Can anybody come up with a satisfactory legal definition of these terms? The obvious impossibility of defining them for legal purposes is the reason why divorce statutes prefer to concern themselves with the causes of marital unhappiness, e.g. adultery, concubinage, attempt on the life of either spouse, etc. These are things that can be objectively assessed and described with sufficient accuracy for legal purposes. 536 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS In which case what does legalizing divorce really amount to? Simply this: if you are unhappy because pL adultery, or concubinage, or an attempt on your life . . . rejoice: The law grants you a second chance at happiness. But should you be miserable for any other cause, then wallow and sink deeper in your misery; you cannot have another chance at happiness. In plain language, the law says that some unhappy people have the right to be happy with another partner, but some other unhappy people must stay put in their unhappiness. If the right to pursue happiness is a fundamental right, then it belongs to each and every one. And if divorce is justified on the basis of this fundamental right, then any divorce law which would specify certain causes for divorce and rule out other causes is inconsistent and discriminatory. THE INTERNAL LOGIC OF DIVORCE This is precisely the reason why, once it has gained a legal foothold, no matter how slight, divorce cannot be contained or restricted only.to a few serious cases, as its proponents would lead us to believe. Water is impelled by a built-in tendency to spread itself out. So, too, legalized divorce is propelled by an internal logic to an ever increasing relaxation of standards, to more and' more permissiveness, to a greater facility in dissolving marriages. The evidence lies before our eyes, not merely in the experience of other countries, but in the very draft of the divorce proposal. Up to now there was only legal separation, which could not be obtained save on the following serious grounds: adultery on the part of the wife, concubinage on the part of the husband, attempt on the life of either spouse. Then came the proposal to legalize divorce on the self-same grounds. The proponents tell us with a straight face, “See? We haven’t liberalized anything; now. have we? The grounds or causes are still the same.” Are they so naive as not to be aware that the mere jump from legal separation to divorce is in itself an enormous relaxation of marital morals? Besides, does not the draft itself provide a convenient door to further relaxation by empowering Congress to specify other grounds or causes for divorce? To come to the heart of the matter, when the law itself in effect starts making distinctions and setting up different “TILL DEATH DO US PART’’ 537 classes among married couples, favouring some with the right to sue for divorce while denying the same right to others, can anyone seriously believe that the unfavoured ones will not clamour and agitate for a change in the law that will allow them the same access to divorce? How can the law credibly tell me to stay unhappily put with my partner when it allows my neighbour to divorce his? A CURE FOR UNHAPPINESS. In the third place, the most distressing fact about this whole business is that those who hold up divorce as a second chance at happiness miss the mark by a wide mile. To tout divorce as a cure for unhappiness is to foist, unwittingly perhaps, a deception on unsuspecting people. Divorce is not, and cannot be a cure for marital unhappiness. To convince oneself of this truth it is enough honestly to consider the grounds for which divorce is granted. Examine any one of them — adultery, concubinage, attempt on the life of either spouse, and any other cause that may be subsequently specified by law — and you cannot but admit to yourself that it is not marriage but a personal fault, defect, or shortcoming, that is the true cause of marital disharmony and unhappiness. If the wife is a flirtatious butterfly that got herself singed in the flames of passion, if the husband all but strangled his wife to death in a fit of jealously, will divorce magically cure the wife of her flirtatious nature or the husband of his cankerous jealously? Obviously not. And if divorce is but the prelude to another marriage — since that is precisely the reason why, people are not satisfied with legal separation and demand divorce — then the personal faults and shortcomings, that are the true causes of marital unhappiness, are carried over like bad debts, liabilities and encumbrances, to the next marriage to wreak havoc on it. Which is why divorces and divorcees keep changing hands like bad money, and experience supports the truth of the statement that nothing succeeds in breeding more divorces than divorce. ILLICIT RELATIONSHIPS Divorce, it is argued, is “better than tolerating illicit relationships which have now become rampant in our midst.” (Panorama, 13 Feb. 1972) 538 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The fatal weakness of this argument lies in the assumption that the only reason why the relationship is illicit is the fact that it is not countenanced by the law. The present statutes do not allow a married couple to separate and remarry: hence, the affairs entered into by either spouse with other persons are illicit. However, if the present statutes were amended to allow divorce and remarriage, illicit relationships will cease to exist. Obviously, the contention that legalizing divorce will do away with illicit relationships holds water only in the supposition that the state possesses the authority validly to legalize divorce. But that is precisely the fundamental point at issue. To make this clear, let us probe deeper into the argument. Illicit relationships have become rampant in our midst. Therefore let us eliminate them by legalizing divorce. Suppose we argue in the same vein: the crimes of theft and murder have become rampant in our midst. Therefore let us eliminate them by legalizing theft and murder. Imagine the advantages of such a move: at ohe .stroke police blotters would be purged of criminal entries; our jails, at present bursting at the seams due to over congestion, would be emptied of more than 50% of their population; the crime rate would drop miraculously; we could save by cutting our police force by more than half; jailbirds would be rehabilitated and turned overnight into law-abiding citizens. What would the man in the street, with two cents’ worth of common sense, say to this? He would state flatly that it cannot be done, that it is beyond the authority and power of the state to legalize the killing of innocent people or the arbitrary dispossession of rightfully acquired property. That if the state should persist in legalizing theft and murder it would then be guilty of the most atrocious and heinous tyranny co such an extent that it would become incumbent on every decent man to resist and overthrow it. This insight of common sense is significant in that it acknowledges limits to the state’s power or authority in making laws, limits that are set by fundamental human rights which are not of the state’s making but prior to the state itself. These fundamental rights are rooted neither in Congress nor even in the Constitution. They are inherent in the very nature of things — of man, in this case — or in the explicit will of God. “TILL DEATH DO US PART" 539 As a natural bodily oryanism, man is subjected to and ruled by natural physico-chemico-bilogical laws which define what is good or bad for his life and health. As a natural person, man is governed by natural moral laws which define what is good or bad for him as a rational, free, and responsible agent. On either level the natural law and order is antecedent to and independent of the state. When it legislates on matters of health the state cannot act independently of, but must take into account the natural physico-chemico-biological laws which determine what is good or bad for the health of the citizens. Likewise, when it legislates on matters of free and responsible behaviour the state cannot proceed independently of, but must keep in mind the natural moral laws which define the good and evil use of human freedom. SENSES OF THE TERM SOCIAL At this point the challenge is raised that all this has pretty little to do with marriage. Even if it is granted that man is himself prior to the state, what has that to do with marriage? Isn’t it true that marriage is a social institution? If social, then it is a creation of, and dependent on, the society or state. The weakness of this challenge lies in its ambiguous use of the term social. A thing can be called social in many different senses: 1. Because it is a creation of the society or state itself. In this sense the banking and credit system is a social institution, and so are trade-unions, cooperatives, business corporations. forms of government. 2. Because it exists and develops itself within the society or state, with or without the latter’s acceptance, protection, and guarantee. In this sense graft and corruption, usury, private armies have become social institutions in this country. 3. Because it associates or brings people together. In this sense birthday celebrations, concerts and operas, weddings, parties, balls, graduations, inaugurations are called social affairs or events. 4. Because it lies at the basis, foundation, or origin of society. It is in this sense that Rousseau employed the term Social Contract. 540 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS When therefore it is argued that marriage depends on the society because it is a social institution, in what sense is the term social used? In the first of the enumerated senses? In that case we would be back at the fundamental fallacy of begging the question. Marriage is social in the second sense — it exists and develops itself in the society with society’s blessing and protection. However, this does not prove that marriage is purely and simply society’s creation any more than the fact that man is born, grows, and develops himself in the society and is defended by society proves that man is purely and simply a creature of society. Marriage is social also in the third sense—it associates a man and a woman in the common task of begetting and bringing up children. But if this proves anything, it proves that of itself marriage belongs to the natural order and, consequently, is prior to the state. The preservation and continuation of the species is not a goal set by convention or human agreement, or by government statute, it is a goal of nature itself. The institution oi- association whose specific goal and objective is determined by nature is itself properly a natural institution, a natural association. This is to say that marriage is, as a natural institution, ruled by natural laws, i.e. laws that are prior to, and independent of, the state; therefore, laws which it is not in the state’s power or authority to abrogate or dispense with; laws that maintain their vigour and validity despite contrary acts by the state. INSIGHTS FROM THE TASADAYS One approach to ascertain the natural characteristics of marriage begins by assuming the position of the proponents of divorce, finding its necessary implications and then verifying whether the facts support the implications or contradict them. Actually this is an application of the well-known and tested rule of logic: if p then q; but not q therefore not p. Let us therefore assume that, marriage is purely and simply a creation of the state. In this supposition it would follow that no form of marriage existed prior to the state. This implies that the marriage institution has evolved out of a primitive condition characterized by the absence of any form of marriage, ‘TILL DEATH DO US PART” 541 that is to say, a state of utter and absolute promiscuity. Out of this primeval promiscuity would have evolved the first forms of marriage characterized naturally by residues of promiscuity, viz. group marriage whether polygynous or polyandrous. Out of these polygamous forms of marriage would have ultimately evolved our present monogamous marriage for life. Thus these theorists would have us believe that as we trace back the history of marriage, its present well-defined structure of lifelong pairing of one with one would first blur into the hazy and indistinct lines of polygyny, polyandry and group marriage, and as we continue pushing farther and farther back into earlier ages and more primitive groups, even these hazy lines would finally dissolve into utter promiscuity, which is the absolute denial of the marriage institution itself. Do the facts square with the theory? A very recent find in our own backyard in the mountains of South Cotabato set the anthropological world agog. Anthropologists were understandably excited by the discovery of the Tasadays. The significance of the Tasadays lies in the fact that they are still living in the paleolithic age, that is, in the early part of the stone age, when men had just begun to fashion tools and implements out of stone. Here then was a living sample of one of the earliest types of human existence — a matchless chance to confront theory with fact, to glean answers to nagging questions about human behaviour and its standards or norms. The Sunday Times of 16 April 1972 published a report signed by E.P. Patanhe with the title Tasaday Group Confirms Ethnological Insights. Among the insights are: — That monogamy, rather than polygyny or polyandry, has an ancient sanction in the primitive social order . . . — That in the most simple of human organizations, a form of marriage was observed. The comicstrip notion of the caveman dragging a mate by the hair is thus farcical . . . Early theories about the origins and history of marriage forms which conceived of a primitive state of promiscuity have thoroughly been demolished from the Tasaday data. 542 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The anthropologists Beals and Hoijer have, howeever, stated: "No evidence of a state of promiscuity has ever been recorded, whether among primitives or others. Every human society known has rigid rides of marriage, similar in kind and complexity . . . And group marriage (polygyny or polyandry), while it is so rare as to be notable, and like polygamy is not confined to primitives.” (Loe. cit., pg. 12; underscoring mine) In plain language, according to the report the structure of marriage does not become hazy nor does it dissolve into utter promiscuity as we trace it back to earlier and earlier ages. Indeed the opposite appears to be the case: the earlier the age, the more prehistoric the group, the more stripped it is of the veneer and accretions of civilization, the closer it is to a state of nature as it were, monogamous marriage is clearly seen as the norm. On the other hand, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage are seen with equal clarity as notable rarities, or deviations from the iform. One further observation and insight deserve our special attention to wit: — That cave-dwelling — and an extended family rather than just a nuclear family — appear to be the oldest form of human organization. (Ibid.: underscoring mine) To say that the extended family appears to be the oldest form of human organization is equivalent to saying that the larger civil or political society grew as an extension of the family. But the family is itself an augmentation or extension of the marital society of husband and wife. Thus the data confirm that marriage is prior to the civil and/or political society. A second implication is that not marriage but divorce is a product or result of human invention. For if the oldest form of human organization appears to be the extended family, it follows that divorce is either non-existent, or if it exists,’ is another notable rarity or deviation from the norm. Divorce strikes at the very roots of marriage. Divorce dissolves marriage and, consequently, dissolves the home and the family. “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 543 Therefore where divorce is socially acceptable as part of normal living, an extended family is both a psychological and a social impossibility. In short, the earliest anthropological data available clearly point to the fact that marriage is prior to the state. Consequently, marriage is governed by laws prior to state laws. Add to this that the specific goal of marriage and the task correlative to it are set by nature, and you have that the basic structure and laws of marriage are likewise set by nature. Consider now that in the oldest form of human organization divorce appears to be either non-existent or a notable rarity, i.e. a deviation from the norm, and you have that in the earliest form of marriage the norm appears to be a pairing of one for life. When you say “earliest form of marriage,” you say that form of structure which is the least adulterated, which most closely hews to the purity, as it were, of the state of nature. When you say “pairing of one,” you say monogamous. And when you say “for life,” you say indissoluble save by death. Therefore when you say that from all available data the earliest form of marriage appears to be a pairing of one with one for life, you are simply saying that the available data confirm the fact that monogamy and indissolubility are seen as characteristics of the structure of marriage that is closest to what may be described as the state of nature. THE EXPLICIT LAW OF GOD From whom can we more clearly learn the characteristics and laws inherent in the very nature' of the institution of marriage than from God. the author and designer of marriage? The Catholic Church’s uncompromising and unalterable opposition to divorce does not really stem from the findings of human sciences nor from arguments. She stands four-square on what God Himself has revealed about marriage as He, its Author, designed and willed it to be. The Holy Scripture describes the first meeting of man and woman in these terms: “These now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh . . . Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh.” (Gen. 2. 22-24) Many centuries later the Pharisees tempted Christ with the question. “Is it lawful for a 544 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS man to put away his wife for any cause?’’ Our Lord prefaced his reply with a reference to the institution of marriage. “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Math. 19, 3-5). It is interesting to note that in Genesis it is Adam who speaks those words, whereas Our Lord puts them not in Adam’s mouth but in the mouth of the Creator Himself. Obviously, then, we have Christ’s testimony that Adam spoke under the inspiration and motion of God, it was God speaking through Adam. But what exactly did the Creator mean by these words? Christ, the Son of God, makes their meaning crystal clear by adding immediately. “Therefore now they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Matt. 19, 6). The Pharisees immediately understood Christ’s meaning, for they at once objected. “Why then did Moses command to give a written notice .of dismissal and to put her away?” The answer of Our Lord is illuminating. “Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wives: but it was not from the bepinning." (Matt. 19, 7-8). Two things stand out in this short and pithy reply. First, “it was not so from the beginning.” )jAt its very institution marriage was indissoluble, divorce had no place in it. Secondly, God subsequently, through Moses, permitted divorce (cf. Deut. 24, 1-4) “by reason of the hardness of your heart.” It comes like a thunderbolt to realize that while we press for divorce on grounds of humanitarianism, in the eyes of God all such reasons are reduced to one: hardness of heart. This stark analysis from the mouth of wisdom Incarnate should give us pause and make us see through all the humane pretenses that gift-wrap divorce proposals. Verily “My thoughts are not your thoughts; not your ways my ways, saith the Lord” (Is. 55, 8). “Man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart” (I Kings 16, 17), for “all the ways of a man are open to his eyes; the Lord is the weigher of spirits.” (Prov. 16. 2). “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 545 PRECEPT, NOT COUNSEL I mentioned at the outset the opinion being bandied about, even by priests, that the words, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” should be taken to mean that Christ Himself was personally against divorce; nonetheless, Our Lord did not intend thereby categorically to forbid divorce. In other words, indissoluble marriage is not imposed by way of precept, but only held up or counseled as an ideal. This supposed “insight” is, to speak bluntly, nothing but a distortion of the biblical text. For we read in Luke: "Everyone who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16, 18) Mark is no less explicit: “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if the wife puts away her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10, 11) And Mathew also explicitly concurs: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.” (Matt. 19, 9) Note that all the three Synoptics agree in that Christ defines remarriage after marital separation as adultery. Now. the Jews, to whom Christ was speaking, understood to a man the very serious nature of adultery. It was a capital crime punishable by stoning to death. The "insight” that would have us believe that an injunction the violation of which is sanctioned by capital punishment is merely counseled as an ideal is utterly ridiculous on the face of it. What is. qualified or defined in terms of a capital offense can be nothing but an extremely serious, strict, and rigorous precept or commandment. NO EXCEPTION The text of Matthew just quoted appears to supply ammunition to the proponent of divorce. They gleefully point out that Christ Himself makes an exception: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery ...” (Italics added). Therefore, by Christ’s own words, in case of inmorality or infidelity divorce is justified and licit. 546 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS To understand this passage correctly several things must be taken into consideration. To begin with, the clause, "except for immorality,” is clearly an exceptive clause; thus, a qualifying clause. What does it qualify? If we look'at the text, we find that it can qualify either “whoever puts away his wife,” or “and marries another.” In the second place, Christ uttered those words in reply to a question. Therefore, to interpret His meaning correctly, His reply must be referred to the question which it is meant to answer. There are two possible questions here. One, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Two, is it lawful for him to marry another? In the third place, what was the actual question put to Our Lord? Matt. 19, 3, records the question in the following words: “And there came to him some Pharisees, testing him, and saying, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?’ ” (Underscoring supplied). That was the actual question placed before Christ, to which the answer is negative, except for immorality.” Therefore the genuine interpretation of the passage is this: it is not lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause; only in the case of ’ immorality will it be lawful for a man to put away his wife. Thus the exceptive clause, “except for immorality,” is a qualifier of “whoever puts away his wife.” But once this question is settled, a second question logically crops up. Suppose a man has put away his wife because of immorality. It. is lawful for him to do that. Now, then, is it also lawful for him to marry anothei- woman? And is it lawful for the woman to marry another man? This second question is touched upon by the Pharisees when they called attention to the law of Moses in Deut. 24, 1-4. There it is explicitly allowed that the divorced wife could marry another man. Bearing this in mind, we can fully appreciate how loaded was the retort of the Pharisees: “Why then did Moses command to give a written notice of dismissal and to put her away?” (Matt. 19, 7) The Pharisees must have been gloating inwardly. They thought that they had finally caught Our Lord in an airtight trap. They fully understood what Jesus had meant by saying: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” What did He mean to do? Overrule Moses the Lawgiver? “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 547 But the wisdom of men is foolishness before God (I Cor. 1, 20 and 25). To this loaded question Christ replies by reminding his tempters of two things: one, the reason behind the permission granted by God through Moses, viz. “the hardness of your heart”; two, God’s original intention and design: “but it was not so from the beginning.” Then, having laid down this foundation, He proceeds to answer the question directly. He assumes the full role, power, and authority of the Son of God Who had come to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5, 17) : “And I say to you” — note that Jesus here employs the first person singular, the same form of authoritative address that He had previously employed in the Sermon on the Mount when “the crowds were astonished at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one havinff authority, and not as their Scribes and Pharisees” (Matt. 7, 28-29) — “1 say to you, that whoever puts away his wife [even if it be for immorality], and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.” (Matt. 19, 9). TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT That this is the authentic interpreation of Christ’s answer is shown by the unbelieving and shocked reaction of His own disciples. Mark recalls that alter the encounter with the Pharisees Jesus retired to a house and there “his disciples again asked Him concerning this.” Concerning what? Concerning the lawfulness of a man putting away his wife because of immorality? No. Jesus had already agreed to that; and, besides, that was the accepted custom. Concerning the lawfulness of marrying another after a separation on grounds of immorality? If Jesus had also agreed to this, there would be no reasoning for reopening the question, since it was also the accepted ethic. The reason why the disciples reopened the problem and began plying the Lord with questions all over again was because, in His debate with the Pharisees, Jesus had clearly and definitely repealed the permission given through Moses to marry again. To the impertunations of his own disciples, Christ merely reiterated what He had said to the Pharisees. He did not attempt to soften, attentuate, water down in any manner the revocation of the exception given through Moses. “And He said to them, ‘Whoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if the wife puts away her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10. 10-12). 548 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS In Matthew we read the final, dazed reaction that this uncompromising, flat, definitive reply of Jesus caused in His disciples. “His disciples said to Him, ‘If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to many.’ ” In modern language: if a man marries and finds out it was a mistake but is not allowed to correct his mistake, if he is condemned to unhappiness for as long as he lives, then it is much better not to marry ever. To which Jesus answers: “Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can.” (Matt. 19, 10-12). In plain language: Christ does not disagree with the assessment made by the disciples. Yes, it is better not to marry provided you do it foi- the sake of God and not simply to be able to indulge your lusts with more freedom and no responsibilities. The man who puts away his wife because of immorality must thereafter live as a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Of course this is not an easy teaching, and many will dispute it. Take it or leave it. ST. PAUL’S TEACHING If further confirmation is needed, we have the testimony of the Apostle St. Paul. His testimony is particularly significant since, as he himself point out, his doctrine and teaching were revealed to him directly by Christ. (Gal. I, 11-12). In Rom. 7, 2-3, Paul teaches that “the married woman is bound by the Law while her husband is alive; but if her husband dies, she is set free from the law of the husband. Therefore while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress if she be with another man; but if her husband dies, she is set free from the law of the husband, so that she is not an adulteress if she has been with another man.” What does Paul mean by “the law of the husband?” In I Cor. 7, 4, he explains that “the wife has not authority over her body, but the husband; the husband likewise has not authority over his body, but the wife.” The authority, ox- right, acquired by the husband ovei- the wife through marriage is what Paul calls “the law of the husband.” It is this which binds the wife to the husband, even if she be legally separated from “TILL DEATH DO US PART” 549 him, for as long as he lives. She is set free from this law or bond only by the husband’s death. Obviously, since the husband has no right over his body but his wife, the husband is also bound by what we might similarly call “the law of the wife” for as long as she lives; only her death can set him free from this bond. Thus, if the wife is an adulteress if she be with another man while her husband lives, so is the husband an adulterer if he be with another woman while his wife lives. Consequently Paul admonishes: “To those who are married, not I, but the Lord commands” — note that the apostle does not say advises, or counsels, but commands; mark, too, that he is careful to say that the command is not his (Paul’s) but the Iiord’s — “that a wife is not to depart from her husband, and if she departs, that she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.” (I Cor. 7, 10-11; underscoring supplied). Obviously, the same command applies equally to the husband. ULTRA VIRES Marriage is a natural social institution. Its structure, fundamental laws and properties are determined by the Author of nature, God. When He instituted marriage God designed it for the replication and perpetuation of the race and made it both monogamous and indissoluble. These three things are inherent in the very nature of marriage. They can be dispensd from only by divine authority. They cannot be voided by any human power or authority. On the contrary, being grounded on the absolutely supreme and unappealable authority of God, they nullify and void any contrary human enactment, be it in the form of a congressional statute, or of a constitutional provision, or even purely ecclesiastical legislation. Not even the Church can, on her own authority, authorize divorce. Any such enactment is an act that jurists describe by the term ultra vires, that is to say, beyond the power of any human agency. No human authority can validly legislate against the natural law or against the explicit command of God. Natural and divine laws retain their inherent vigour and validity despite contrary acts by any human power. The first and basic question was: Does the state have the power or authorty validly to legalize divorce? The answer to that is a clear and round NO. This negative reply renders all further questions nugatory.
DIVORCE IN PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION PROBLEM: Divorce has become a hot topic these days in the Ultreyas and study clubs of my parish, because of the publicity given it by the Constitutional Convention. Sometimes even delegates to the Con-Con attend these forums. My questions are: 1) What would you say if divorce were introduced into the new Philippine Constitution? 2) Would you point some objections or disastrous consequences of it, if any? A Parish Priest ANSWER: Few topics can be more important for the well-being cf both State and Church in the Philippines than the subject of divorce. Foi- once divorce is admitted as part of our legislation a series of fatal consequences will be set in motion against the very foundations of our homes, against the lives of the spouses themselves and. still more ominously against the moral life of children, the nation’s children. Nay against the Christian life of the members of the Church and against the Church herself, the destructive effects of such law would defy all calculations. In order to be clear in such vital matters we will take the points of the Parish Priest in the order he listed them. WHAT ABOUT A LAW ADMITTING DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES? 1. DEFINITION We speak of divorce in the very sense that it is understood by our Delegates to the Convention, i.e. a divorce that dissolves the marriage bond which consists in the very essence of the matrimonial contract. Once the bond is pronounced broken by such a law, the parties would be allowed by the same law to marry again. This is how divorce is understood by nations admitting divorce in their legislation. DIVORCE 551 Divorce, by definition, has nothing to do with the bodily separation of the spouses which is called ‘legal separation’. Indeed, in ‘legal separation’ the marriage bond is kept intact, and no way is open to any further marriage as long as the other party lives. The Church acknowledges this bodily separation in certain cases, adultery of one of the parties rightly being the more pertinent case. But in ‘legal separation’ the bond stands firm and no right to another marriage is given at all. 2. A MATTLR OF FAITH THAT EXCLUDES OPINIONS’ Happily for Catholics, the outright immorality of a divorce decreed by human legislation is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of faith defined as such by the Church, as all priests know. This doctrine has been endlessly repeated for centuries and was proclaimed again by the Second Vatican Council. And, after the Council, by Pope Paul VI in his strong protest to the Italian government. The fact, however, remains that in our ever more secularized society the laws of the Church are scorned by her own children, while the very natural law decreed by God from the beginning has become almost obliterated in many a conscience. Still, for our comfort, such is the unanimity in the Church about divorce, that no Catholic theologian directly impugns this dogma of faith, notwithstanding the coarse voices of the more unruly representatives of the nco-modemistic heresy and its ‘new theology’. 3. A LAW ESSENTIALLY WRONG AND IMMORAL The following is not an opinion but a part of our faith: if a law admitting divorce is introduced into the Philippine Constitution or Code, it could happen only through sacrilegious usurpation by our Delegates of a matter utterly outside of their field of competence. In a matter that God has reserved to Himself alone no man may arrogate competence. Evidently a Delegate can enjoy no more power than that given him by his electors. No man may delegate a right he does not possess. And no man has a right against God. And no Christian has a right against Christ. Logically, then, no Delegate may without sacrilegious usurpation vote for a divorce law. Thus, if a law should be passed by our Delegates in favor of divorce such a law would be intrinsically wrong, as theologians say, namely, an immoral law which absolutely under no cir552 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS cumstances can be considered valid. Such a law would amount to a grave abuse of legislative power, and no Filipino citizen could be bound to accept it. On the contrary, every honest citizen from those in government positions to the humble voter should reject it. As St. Peter and St. John replied to the unjust legislators of old,“You must judge whether in God’s eyeB it is right to listen to you and not to God” (Acts, 4:19). We offer some considerations that may convince the impartial reader of the rationale of our position. a. Essential incompetence of civil authority — That any law admitting divorce is a usurpation of divine right reserved to God Himself alone is clear from Gen. 2:23-24 as it was declared by the Lord Jesus: “It was not like this from the beginning”. And “what God has united, man must not divide” (Matth., 19: 8 & 6). This applies, by the very words of the Lord Jesus, to all marriages in all parts of the world regardless of religion, custom or legislation by any government. So, it is evident that not without sacrilegious offence of God may any legislator vote the law of divorce anywhere in the world. b. The law of divorce is a sacrilegious usurpation of Church’s right — Indeed, only to His Church did the Lord Jesus commit His authority over His sacraments. For this reason it is a part of the Catholic faith that for all Christians, Catholics and others, all matrimonial causes belong to the Church alone (cfr. Denz. 982, 1559). And here in the Philippines, it is a fact that the great majority of Filipinos, Catholic or not, are indeed Christians On this score a new dimension will be added to the guilt of the Delegate who would vote for divorce, in a such a flagrant act of usurpation of the right of the only One Church of Christ. 3. OTHER EVIL EFFECTS The innumerable disastrous effects that would follow from divorce should be enough to deter a conscientious Delegate to vote in favor of divorce. No one can ennumerate the evils that would flood the nation with the introduction of this bill. Not only for the parties themselves and for their children, but also for the family and society at large, especially with regard to the education of divorcees’ children, heredity, legitimacy and a host of other evils. However the most lethal effect of all will be the pollution of public attitude towards the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage. Once the immoral law enters into DIVORCE 553 the ordinary practice of our courts, our citizens will take for granted that marriage could be treated just as any other contract and that it would be the normal right of government officials to pass judgment on matrimonial causes. Actually, to de-christianize the Philippines and to desecrate our society few devices possess the effectivity that divorce, by its own nature, truly possesses. We hope that these considerations will help the discussants in the Ultreyas and study clubs of the Parish Priest. OTHER OBJECTIONS AND FURTHER IMPLICATIONS 1. THE MORAL SENSE OF OUR PEOPLE With a provision for divorce all the blessings enjoyed for decades of no-divorce laws will be jeopardized and will gradually disappear from our society. The desecration of marriage will foment pagan secularism and rampant eroticism which characterize the countries where divorce has been at the disposal of petitioners. Soon we will have the scandals we witness among so many prominent people, and our movie stars will start to swap partners as easily as they change dresses. Read the two examples below among the hundreds that fill the international press: Divorced: George C. Scott, 44, talented non-conformist of show business, the actor who turned down his Oscar for “Patton” last year by Colleen Dewhurst, 47, statuesque stage and screen actress; for the second time in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, Feb. 2. Colleen married Scott in 1960, divorced him in 1965 and remarried him in 1967. The setllement gives her custody of their two sons, a house in South Salem, N.Y., and about $100,000 a year. “It was a mistake to remarry,” she told columnist Earl Wilson. “You can’t go back to that first ecstatic glow.” (Newsweek, Feb. 14, 1972) Divorced: Lana Turner, 51, former Hollywood sweater girl, whose marriages have exhibited all the shedding quality of angora, from Ronald Dante, 51 nightclub hypnotist; in Santa Monica, Calif., Jan. 26. Married in May 1969, they separated six months later. Lana has now been divorced from seven husbands, beginning with bandleader Artie Shaw. No. 6 was Robert Eaton, author of a disputed Howard Hughes memoir. (Newsweek. Feb. 7. 1972) 554 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS With such examples, our young will start to move in these waters and will plan accordingly when approaching marriage, the most vital problems of their lives with an eye to future possibilities instead of the unbreakable union of undying love. 2. SINFUL COOPERATION WITH CRIMES OF OTHERS BY ALL WHO IMPLEMENT THE IMMORAL LAW. This consideration suffices for a Catholic Delegate to oppose the bill of divorce. Indeed, the passing of such law will implicate their own conscience in a dreadful responsibility to God, but it will also have further repercussions on the conscience of all government officials whose business it will be to implement the law. From the incontroversible fact that the law of divorce is sacrilegious and intrinsically wrong, all persons who may cooperate in its passage and its implementation shall be seriously guilty of culpable cooperation with the immoral acts of the citizens who will ask or demand the ‘benefit’ of such ‘law’. Thus, the following persons shall be involved in serious sinful cooperation: a. The Delegate who votes in favor of divorce. b. The partner — singly or both — who seeks divorce. c. The judge who pronounces the divorce’s sentence. d. The advocate, i.e. the lawyer who defends a client, even if he happily loses his case. e. All other cooperators in the case, such as advisers, those who help with expenses, etc., each one of these according to the measure of his participation in the case. Evidently, the most responsible are the Delegates. They are the fathers of the pernicious law and their influence will continue for as long as the law is not repealed or amended. Then the judges who pass sentence against a formal decree of God, of Christ and of their own Church. Lastly, the lawyers who defend the clients. Apart from the offences against God — this is what really matters most — Catholic judges and lawyers who treasure their faith and hope for a life of immortality may feel obliged in conscience to leave their posts of responsibility rather than betray a conscience they have nurtured with their faith and the teaching of their Church, with the dreadful consequences that our courts will be taken over by unscrupulous judges who have no regard for the honor of God and the norms of the Church of Christ. DIVORCE ;job 3. A WORD OF HOPE The foregoing are just the salient points of the innumerable consequences involved in the creation of divorce law. The discussants of the Parish Priest may contribute with deeper and fresher arguments from their own research and experiences. But we believe that if we, priests, and more so bishops, only be true to our duty of explaining these points of faith and morality to our Catholic Delegates, given the majority of Catholics among them, our country will be delivered from the threatening scourge of divorce, it would be ironic that we, Catholics, would introduce the destructive law in the Philippines through the instrumentality of our own Catholic votes. It is true that no one is supposed to impose his opinion or his beliefs on anyone else. It is also true that our separated brethren and other non-Catholics Delegates may. in conscience, feel themselves obliged to take a position contrary to ours. No one wishes to force them to vote against divorce. But we speak of Catholics and of their duties and rights as Catholics. With no malice towards anyone, the Catholic Delegate has the right to vote what his conscience proposes to him as good for the people, for Christian family and society, and together with his right he is in possession of a most sacred duty to vote according to his well informed conscience. We do frankly believe in the personal integrity of our Delegates and their fidelity to God to His Church and to the people who elected them. But it is not easy for all to master the biblical, canonical, theological sciences. Our Delegates have the strict right to demand from us, their priests, and especially from our and their bishops, the proper guidance so that the rights of God and society will be preserved. If We only do our duty in propounding clearly the faith and the Church’s doctrine, our Delegates, no doubt, will follow their right conscience and use their sacred right to vote against divorce in our nation. • QUINTIN MA. GARCIA, O.P.
The Role of Bishops in the Liturgy Aiiscar J. Chupungco, O.S.B. “The bishop,” says Vatican 11, “is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.” (SC art 41). The bishop is the shepherd to whom the Lord has entrusted the care of his sheep, a particular Church or diocese which depends on him for the accomplishment of its baptismal commitments and for the nourishment and growth of its Christian life. He is first of all a spiritual father, a shepherd whose main concern is the molding of the entire man and the entire community in the image of Christ. His office of teaching, sanctifying and governing has this as its aim. If he spends his energy in the work of mercy and the establishment of social justice, he does so from the perspective of Christ’s command to feed his flock with the word and the sacraments. Thus, in a very particular way, the pastoral ministry of the bishop centers around the liturgical life of his diocese. Being primarily a spiritual father and animator of his people, rather than an organizer and administrator of material goods, the bishop dedicates his life to the work of redemption which is realized in the celebration of the Christian mysteries. For as Vatican II states, it is “from the liturgy and especially from the Eucharist, as from a font, that grace is poured forth upon us; and the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God, to which all other activities of the Church are directed as toward their end, is achieved in the most efficacious possible way." (SC art 10). In conformance to the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, Vatican II reaffirms that the responsibility of regulating the liturgical life of the diocese is incumbent first of all on the bishop. The decree “Christus Dominus” (art 15) says that the “bishops are the principal dispensers of the mysteries of God, as well as the governors, promoters and guardians of the entire liturgical life of the Church comitted to them.” ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 557 Without at all minimizing the responsibility of priests, it should be stated that, in tne unal analysis, all the ministers in a diocese act only in the name of the bishop whom they assist in the discharge of his duties. Thus, as early as the year 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch could emphatically write: “Apart from the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has comitted this charge. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God.” (Ad Smyrn 8). We observe in St. Justin Martyr that only the bishop performed the liturgical functions of giving the homily and offering up the eucharistic prayer. (Apol I, 67). This tradition evolved to such an extent that the delivery of the homily during the synaxis as well as the recitation of the eucharistic prayer became the "special liturgy” of the bishop. Through his charismatic gift he was considered the high priest of the prayer of the Church as well as the teacher of her faith. On no account did any priest presume to give the homily during liturgical celebrations, except in cases of emergency. We know for an historical fact that one of the most brilliant minds of the Church, Origen himself, was severely reprimanded by his own bishop when he. as a simple priest, preached at the liturgical assembly of Caesarea at the invitation of the local bishop. In Hippo the people resented the delegation of the office of preaching to Augustine, then a priest serving the community under an aged bishop. All this, of course, is to be seen from the perspective of an historical development in the Churcl) from the second to the fourth century, when the acephalous communities of the early Christians gradually adopted the monarchical structure with a resident bishop as head. Being the high priest of the community, the bishop became the center of Christian life and the liturgy. It is along this monarchical tradition that Vatican II urges the faithful to “hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the preeminent manifestation of the Church consists in full active participation of all God’s holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same Eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded bv his college of priests and by his ministers.” (SC art 41). This situation envisioned 558 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS by the council is, however, only an ideal one. Present-day conditions do not allow bishops to preside always and everywhere over the entire community of the diocese. Thus, parishes have been set locally under pastors who take the place of the bishop. To them the bishop delegates his office of preaching, sanctifying and governing the flock. However, the delegation of office to the parish priests and pastors should not obscure the historical development of the bishop’s role in the liturgy. The bishop remains the good shepherd who knows his sheep and whose sheep know him. As governor, promoter and guardian of liturgical life, he carries a heavy burden of responsibility. His task is to regulate the worship of his Church. This he can wisely perform only if he is willing to take the trouble of celebrating the liturgy with the different parish communities, in order to make himself cognizant of the existing conditions and needs of the diocese. In other words, as the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God in the Word and the sacraments, no bishop can afford to be a mere armchair liturgical minister. He cannot restrict himself to the task of issuing liturgical norms to be followed by his priests and people, but he must actively and directly engage himself in the different liturgical celebrations all over the diocese. In practice, the cathedral church is no longer the center of the entire diocesan liturgy. But the bishop still is the center of community worship. That is why, he cannot confine himself to his cathedral church, or much less, to his private chapel. History made the bishop a resident monarch, but it does not mean that he losses contact with the people over whom he presides in the solemn act of worship. Like the itinerant bishops of old, he must continually make his rounds of the different parish communities, in order to personally preach the Word of God, celebrate the Eucharist and administer the sacraments to his flock. Too often the liturgical ministry of the bishop in the parishes is limited to confirmation. It will be ideal, if he, as the head of the family can, as often as possible, be at hand to baptize in parishes, especially during Easter time. Likewise, as minister of reconciliation, he should preside at the penitential rites in parishes during Advent and Lent, in order that he may personally exhort the communities to penance and conversion. His leadership in the eucharistic community should become a visible reality. To this end he needs to circulate among the parish churches in order to celebrate the Eucharist, especially ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 559 on Sundays and other occasions when the entire parish can be gathered around the table of the Lord. His presence as shepherd must be felt by the sheep of Christ, because as father and animator, he can no longer act and direct from a distance. As St. Ignatius of Antioch beautifully puts it: “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal Church.” (Ad Smyrn 8). Today one of the aims of liturgical renewal is to make worship trully meaningful and expressive of the life and activities of the Christian community. The success of such a renewal will depend largely on the attitude of the bishop and his community. More and more we have to realize that the liturgy must be person, not ritual oriented. For the Church herself is not mere structure, but a living community; and her liturgy is not mere ritual, but the dynamic celebration of her life. The classical principle of theology, properly understood, holds true even today: “sacramenta sunt propter homines.” If our Lord gave the sacraments to his Church, it was for no other reason than to serve the needs of men. Indeed, one can be bold enough to say that the sacraments lose their meaning, If men do not profit from them. The sacraments exist because of men. That is why, we are asked to value men and their redemption more than our rituals, traditions and ecclesiastical structures. Liturgical reform, therefore, like any human reform, must begin with the reform of attitudes. As long as we are not convinced that the liturgy is not a dead ritual, as long as we do not let it reflect the daily life of men, as long as we do not make it conform to their needs, liturgical reform will be nothing more than an external and superficial change of ceremonials, or worse, a servile and legalistic implementation of liturgical instructions without due reference to the people for whom our Lord instituted the sacraments. In the past, liturgy was as absolute as the dogmas; what was considered good in Rome had to be good in Manila and all over the world. And even when the Romans no longer understood their own liturgy, it had to be retained, because it was understood once upon a time. What was considered reform in Rome was expected to satisfy the needs of a barrio in the Philippines. As the great bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, so pointedly remarked in defense of his Church’s custom of washing 560 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS the feet of neophytes: "I say this, not to rebuke others, but that I may commend my own ceremonies. In all things I desire to follow the Church in Rome, yet we, too, have human feeling; what is preserved more rightly elsewhere, we too presei-ve more rightly.” (De Sacram III, c. 1, 5). Today we realize that the liturgy cannot be uniform, and much less immutable, but must be necessarily conditioned — like the people who celebrate it — by cultural, political and socio-economic factors. And since no twx> situations are identical, no two celebrations should in principle be the same. The result of this will be a certain diversity of liturgical forms depending on the circumtances of the different communities. But diversity is not something to be abhorred. While the division of tongues at Babel was a divine curse, diversity was the work of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Thus, the Council admits that “in the liturgy the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community.” (SC art 40 & 37). We have, of course, to recognize the fact that the liturgy cannot be amorphous: it is the worship of the community, and hence, needs a certain form in order not to degenerate into chaos. Order is not only aesthetic; it is vital in the life of any society. That is why, the Council insists that the “regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church.” (SC art. 22) It is also to keep a sense of order and form in the worship of the Church that the Council urges that “as far as possible, notable differences between rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.” (SC art. 23) However, liturgical forms should not be so fixed and inflexible, that they rule out any form of initiative, spontaneity and creativity. For the liturgy is the celebration of life, and the celebrant are not robots, but living persons who continuously experience change and novelty. Thus, there is a constant need to adapt the worship of the the Church to the conditions of the people. It is then the task of the bishop and his cooperators to search or test the kind of worship which would correspond to the needs of his community. As Vatican II reminds us: “The liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These latter not only may, but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.” (SC art 21) in saying this, the Council makes us understand ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 561 that we need not look forward to a final, definitive and canonical structure of the liturgy, and much less to any form of uniformity. While the divine elements are maintained, the human must reflect the condition of the Christian community as a moving and pilpim people on earth. Her liturgy must be expressive of her vitality and dynamism. It is an on-going experience in worship and cannot be petrified and fixed in liturgical books. It is in this context that w have to understand the sense of liturgical instructions and directives. For these are not absolute laws from Rome to be folowed strictly to the letter. Rather they are guidelines which give the proper orientation and show the direction toward which adaptation is to be made. Roman rites are not meant to be stereotyped and acted out exactly as instructed. The Bishops’ Conference and the individual bishop in his diocese may modify the rites, adapt, add or subtract according to the situation of the place and the provision of the general norms of adaptation. Changes, however, should be based on existing liturgical forms which are being lived by the community. Adaptation is a factor in the process of growth, but it is homogenious, because it stems from the trunk itself. That is why, the Council warns that “care must be taken that any new form adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” (SC art 23) Radicalism may have some advantage — radicalism here being understood as an entirely new creation whose purpose is to impress the people with something coming suddenly out of the blue — but it is certainly not the natural process of liturgical growth and should be triqd only with the greatest precaution. One of the headaches of certain bishops today is the existence of “underground liturgies.” These came about partly because some official bodies of the Church failed to cope with the demand for a more meaningful celebration, and partly because there are and there will always be persons who have an unsatiable thirst for novelty. Although "underground Liturgies” seem to respond to and satisfy the clamor of certain groups, there is no doubt that they are often thoroughly radical and unmindful of the total community and its traditions. But the question to be asked is not how to put a stop to abuses, for abuses there will always be in any human society, and no pas562 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS toral action will be effective if it is geared solely to eliminating undesirable elements. In curing the headache, do we cut off the head? Because of abuses, shall we abandon liturgical adaptation-altogether? The question to be asked is whether the official leaders in the liturgy live up to the people’s expectations of renewal. And more piognantly stated, whether the bishop and his commission should not share the burden of adaptation and renewal with the parish priests who are responsible for their communities and who are more cognizant of their existing conditions. If the answer is “two heads are better than one,” we remove the cause that leads to the existence of underground worship which has always given the impression that bishops are after the neck of recalcitrant priests, or that there is a “persecution” going on in the Church. How the parish priests and others will relate themselves to the official body of the Church is a matter of mechanics for those who accept the idea. The leadership of the bishop in the liturgy should also find expression in his concern for the Filipino cultural heritage. For it is a fact that in the Philippines popular liturgical celebrations, ancient churches and other liturgical art pieces are the principal features of our cultural tradition. Thus, religious practices and monuments belong, not only to the past, but also to the present: they belong to our people, they are part of their life. We have no right to abolish traditional religious celebrations, although we can purify them of undesirable accruements, and much less to demolish old churches in the name of modernity. It is tragic to see our religious heritage vandalized, churches and monuments razed to the ground, and liturgical artpieces sold to unscrupulous art collectors. Liturgy is so much part of the people’s life: that is why, it must conform to their present conditions. Liturgy has a unifying force: it not only unites Christians, it also links them to the past and the future. It is to be hoped that through the intervention of the bishops, the iconoclasts will come to respect our Filipino cultural heritage and the people it represents. It is a sociological truth that a community which can pride itself of its historical monuments and traditional customs shows more solidarity. The preservation of our Filipino heritage will give us, not only a sense of cultural identity, but also a sense of unity. ROLE OF BISHOPS IN THE LITURGY 563 To conclude, allow me to cite an uncalled-for remark we often hear these days from many quarters: that bishops do not have the monopoly of the Holy Spirit. It is, of course, true that the Holy Spirit speaks to non-bishops also. It is also true that the authority of the bishop is not despotic, inspiring fear and trembling in the hearts of the people. And it is true that he must discharge his office as leader, father and animator in the spirit of service. But it is an aberration to completely ignore or undermine the charismatic role of the bishop in the liturgy. For it is primarily through him lhat the Holy Spirit speaks in the hearts of Christians, and it is through him that the unity in faith and love among the faithful is created and fostered. Vatican II states that the zeal for liturgical renewal is a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time and a movement of the Holy Spirit in his Church. (SC art 42) It can be added that the bishop plays a unique role in this movement. For he is the cooperator of the Holy Spirit in the building up of the community of people who worship the Father in spirit and in truth. EPISCOPAL ORDINATION ANNIVERSARIES Let us pray for our Bishops on the occasion of their ordination anniversaries. Most Rev. Vicente Ataviado D.D. August 8, 1968 . Most Rev. Francisco F. Claver, S.J. August 22, 1969 Most Rev. Vicente P. Reyes, D.D. August 24, 1959 Most Rev. William Brasseur, C.I.C.M. August 24. 1948 Most Rev. Antonino Nepomoceno, O.M.I. August 31, 1969
PRIESTS AND OUR BAHALA-NA SYSTEM • Wilfredo C. Paguio Filipino fatalism is best expressed in his bahala-na system. This fatalism is said to be a Muslim influence from which Christian Filipinos have not really been liberated. As a matter of fact this fatalism, this bahala-na system, is still being greatly blamed by sociologists today for the poverty which still enslaves many of our people. This, they say, has stripped them of ambition in life, of any desire to uplift their living conditions. A Salesian Father, for example, laments this attitude of his students in Barrio Magsaysay, Tondo, Manila because these leave school for a day’s opportunity of work in the piers when a ship docks there and bahala-na for the future which is more secured by their studies. This system is the doing of an inappropriate action prompted by a complete but false trust in God without any security as regards the other alternatives for the redemption of that action. As we have previously said, it is a happen-what-may attitude, conditioned by the Filipino present-time orientation, by which one decides between two or more courses of action for what gives immediate results with an utter disregard for the future. Thus, it is closely connected with our mamma habit and often results, at least to a certain degree, to our ningas-kngon trait. We decided to place this attitude under our religious values because, though this system has far-reaching socio-economic consequences, it is, to our mind, rooted in a defective understanding of God and His Divine Providence. Again, we must state that the purpose of our paper is to discover the positive values of this system which can be of help to priests in their ministry. We have divided this topic into two general divisions, namely, explanation through usages and investigation through effects. BAHALA-NA SYSTEM 565 EXPLANATION THROUGH USAGES In trying to explain this system, let us attempt to delve into the soul of our people and sort out what elements there are which may give us light as to the understanding of their fatalism. We divide this section into four parts, namely, complete trust, predestination, resignation, and superstition. COMPLETE TRUST — The phrase bahala-na is used both in regard to men and to God. Thus, when a Filipino gives anyone a complete charge over another or over anything, he says: “Bahala ka na diyan” (literally: “Take charge of her or him or it.”) We say that these words imply a complete charge of a person over another or over something because it usually happens that if a person gives this right to another and the yiver still meddles with the affair, thej/iven gets angry and says: “Pinamahala ako, paykatapos pakikialaman!” (literally: “He has given me charge over it and yet he still meddles with the affair!”). We see, therefore, that for the Filipino bahala implies a complete trust. This is also true with regard to God. We say, for example, in blessing or in curse: "Bahala na any Diyos na yumanti sa iyo.” (literally: “May God repay you.”) Thus, we hear a beggar say this when we give him alms. Or, an angry person says the same thing when he feels that an injustice is done to him. And this they say with complete trust as though they believe in a certain built-in structure vliich assures that good is repaid and evil avenged. This, of course, sounds similar to the oriental concepts of Karma. And if we can only disregard the long centuries of Christianity in the Philippines, we can easily surmise that this attitude is traceable to this oriental belief. However, Catholicism in these islands is a fact. Hence, we can only interpret these situations in the light of the Christian doctrine of comnlete trust in God no matter how often this is lamentably misunderstood. PREDESTINATION — This complete trust which characterizes the Filipino’s relationship with God arouses in him a kind of belief in predestination. He uses, for example, such expressions as iyinuhit ny tadhana (predeter566 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS mined by fate). Or, he uses the phrase itinalaga ng Diyos (It is predestined by God). The Filipino, therefore, meeting fortune or misfortune, just mutters the well known adage: Kung talagang ukol, talagang bubukol (If something, whether good or bad, is really for one, he will have it no matter what happens). One, for example, who wins in the sweepstakes believes that fate has really predestined him or her to be rich. And another who meets an accident must accept his or her fate as meekly as the one who won in the sweepstakes because he actually has no hand in the determination of events even those which directly concern his or her life. This acceptance is very similar to that of an unknowledgeable child who asks a series of questions on causes of things and just receives a blunt and exhausted answer: talaga! (because it is so or because God made it so) from an adult. And this, without any intellectual process. Thus, I once heard a reckless jeepney driver reasoning out to one of his complaining passengers: “Kung talagang madidisgrasya ka, — madidisgrasya ka! Kung hindi, hindi!" (If you will really have to meet an accident, you will meet it no matter how careful you drive! If not, no!) Hence, we can conclude that the Filipino believes in a certain kind of predestination. RESIGNATION — This notion of predestination has, as its natural consequence, the resignation of its believers to their present lot in life. This is why we notice that a Filipino, upon incurring unto himself a certain misfortune, comforts himself with the words: “Talagang ganyan lang ang buhay” (Life is just like that). One need not worry. Also, when he hears that a virtuous man is favored by luck, or, when he receives news that an evil man gets the misfortune he deserves he exclaims: “Talagang marunong ang Diyos" (God is really wise). For He rewards the good and punishes the evil through certain ways and means that He alone knows. This is the reason why one who has met injustice in his life and is angered, is appeased by another saying: “Huwag kang ganyan. Marunong ang Diyos," (Don’t behave that way. God is wise.). These words are supposed to remind him that God will not leave him unavenged. BAHALA-NA SYSTEM 567 This fact of God being the Supreme Remunerator, therefore, in a way explains why the Filipino is so resigned to his lot. SUPERSTITIONS — Then we have superstition whereby people attribute effects to the wrong causes. We find Filipinos believing in their gtihit ng palad (line of the palm). Their lives are believed to be directed by the lines of their palms. So, he believes that whatever happens to him is his kapalaran (a word, which comes from palad i.e.. palm, meaning fate). One who is fortunate is called mapalad (also coming from the word palad). And one who is unfortunate is termed .sawing-palad (also coming from palad). Palmistry is therefore closely associated with Filipino fatalism. Success or failure in life is believed to be predestined which is principally concretized in one’s own palms. Other signs or signos of one’s fate which are but projections of the lines of the palms are also accepted. For example, we have the nunal sa balikat (mole on the shoulder) which signifies that the owner will suffer hardships in his life. The same is said on the moles or mole on the furrows of one’s cheeks which blocks the falling of one’s tears. INVESTIGATION THROUGH EFFECTS In the preceding division of our paper, we have seen through the investigation of some of our usual expressions and other terms which we use, that the Filipino is actually fatalistic. In this division of our discussion, we shall attempt to consider reactions which this bahala-na attitude arouse in our people upon incurring the effects of this behavioural pattern. Necessarily, the effects of such attitude will either be good or bad. Hence, we divide this section of our paper between these two. GOOD EFFECTS (SUWERTE) When our bahala-na attitude brings about a good effect as, for example, when a traveller passes unharmed through a road near a cemetery at night despite beliefs that the said road 568 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS is infested by asivang, mangkukulam, tianak etc., the cause is attributed to the goodness of God. This is why, often, the frightened traveller, upon reaching his destination, exclaims in relief: ‘‘Salamat sa Diyos!” (Thanks be to God!). When a poor man sacrifices his last coins to bet in the huweteng (a local kind of sweepstakes or raffle), and he wins, the luck is attributed again to the goodness of God. And, often, the money won is well taken care of because this is regarded as grasya ng Diyos (grace of God), although, of course, the social aspect of this grasya ng Diyos through the pabalato (shares of the money won distributed to relatives, neighbors, friends and other well-wishers similar to our more sophisticated “blow-out” done as an expression of joy) is never lacking. EVIL EFFECTS (MALAS) Our bahala-na attitude often have evil effects. These arouse different reactions from the Filipino. Some accept their fate humbly and consider them as just a matter of course. Others, attributing divine interventions in these, think of them as punishments from God. Still others content themselves with some superstitious explanations. And still, there are others who can go as far as to bitterly blame God for their misfortune. We classify these reactions into three, namely, those who attribute these misfortunes to a non-divine cause, those who attribute them to a divine cause and those who attribute them to a superstitious cause. We divide this section of our paper among them. NON-DIVINE CAUSE — There is a number of our people who, upon experiencing miseries in their lives, are able to accept them as they come without any grumbling or murmuring. It never occurs to them that such evils may have been sent by God. They just think that no evil can come from God since God is the source of good alone. To my mind, these people are still influenced, and very well so, by the Chinese Yang-Ying principle which holds that everything is composed of opposites. Thus, there is male and female. There is light and darkness. There is sorrow and happiness in life. BAHALA-NA SYSTEM 569 These people believe in the happy harmony of things. As they, therefore, expect fortune, they also expect misfortune. Hence, the latter never comes as a surprise to them. It just arrives as a welcomed guest — and is received calmly, patiently. For talagang ganyan ang btthay. And they can carry on for they know that 'marunong ang Diyos. Time will come, they will also have their day (May araic din siya.) DIVINE CAUSE — Here, the cause of the situation is referred to God as punishment for evil done. The situation is hereby thought of as self-caused. This situation, moreover, is regarded as remediable by repentance. In extreme cases, however, when the full force of the bahala-na meaning Bathala na, that is, when “everything” is left in the hands of God (the Bathala, from where the term bahala is said to have originated) and misfortune comes which is thought of as not commensurate to the past good life of the subject, then faith in God Himself may be at stake. God will then be blamed for all the harm one experiences in life no matter how seemingly irrational this may be. SUPERSTITIOUS CAUSE—Instances also occur when the evil incurred is not considered as coming from God but is regarded as simply predetermined due to some signs (signos) in the subject himself as, for example, a nunal sa balikat or buwaya (crocodile) mark in one’s palms which we have already mentioned above. From birth, a person with signos ape, therefore, thought of as destined to suffer or enjoy (the signs may also signify fortune as three consecutive daughters called tatlong Maria are regarded as buenas or suirerte) whatever the signos signify. CONCLUSIONS It is clear that our fatalism dates back to our pre-Spanish ancestors. However, some traces of Christian dogmas can be gleaned from our discussion on its effects. It appears that the missionaries did not attack this problem at the very roots. Regarding the good effects which we discussed, we can say that our people should bo taught how to be moderate in 570 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS giving jHibaJato. The Filipino has indeed the tendency to give away all he has for a “blow-out” and thus be a beggar again after the merry-making. As to the evil effects of this fatalism, we can say that we observe that the Filipino, after having incurred the bad effects of this bahaki-na attitude, never loses hope to rise above it. Thus, we find that a sick person will never be let alone suffering. Remedies must have to be sought. If doctors are no longer able to do the cure, even herbolarios are resorted to even if it be just for the spirit of pagbabakasakali (chance). Hence, here we can easily insert the saying: Nasa Diyos ang awa, nasa tao ang gaiva. (Man proposes, God disposes.). Man has to work and not just leave everything to God. Also, through this channel of our bahala-na system, a catechist can approach the teaching of the Church’s dogmas on grace, faith, providence, works and salvation. REFERENCES CREEL, H.G., Chinese Thought From Confucius to Mao Tse-Tung, (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1953), pp. 1-211. FOX, ROBERT B., “Family and Society in the Rural Philippines,” Science Review, (April, 1961), pp. 1-5. (Manila: National Science Development Board). LIEBAN, RICHARD, “Fatalism and Medicine in Cebuano Areas of the Philippines”, Anthropological Quarterly, XXXIX: 3, (July 1966), pp. 171-179. PACANA, IIONESTO C., “Notes on a Filipino Role of Conduct: Noninterference,” Philippine Sociological Review, VI: 1 (January, 1958), pp. 29-30. PINON, ANTONIO, “The Rapport Between Shankara and Aquinas”, Philippiniana Sacra, VI:18, (Sept.-Dec., 1971), pp. 558-574,
Pablo Fernandez, O.P. HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES Chapter 26 COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY "They have a special talent for imitation and, with good teachers, they would make things perfectly. They serve as scribes; they run barbershops, tailoring shops, carpentry shops. They are good at masonry, ironwork, silverwork, embroidery, and weaving. They can sing in the choir, play the organ, and perform other similar musical tasks. They are not inventive nor are they given to the abstract sciences which call for deeper reflection or prolonged thinking, or the like. However, there is a great difference between the provinces and Manila, where people are more advanced and sophisticated. "Manufacturers: These are limited to abaca, cotton, and silk, which is the best. There is in general very very little weaving, but some excellent cloths are made ... In Camarines, Ilocos, and the Visayas, the people frequently wear these roughly woven cloths, while those of finer weave are exchanged as gifts and serve to flatter the vanity of the rich.” This is how a Dominican writer described the native industry in the latter half of the eighteenth century.1 The present chapter will briefly show how these native talents and industries developed under the guidance of the missionaries. 1 Collantes, Domingo, O.I’., “Informe al Gobernador General, I'elix Bcrenguer de Marquina,” Manila, Sept. 7, 1788: APSR, MSS, HCF, Tome 4 Documento 2a, folios 4v-.r>. 572 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS INDUSTRY 1. Sugar. It was the Augustinian fathers who brought to the Philippines the Mexican trapiche, a primative contraption of wood or stone to extract the juice from the sugar cane which they had been raising in Panay Island. Naturally, the trapiche was a crude and rudimentary machine which only partially extracted the cane juice from the plant fibers, or bagasse. The machine consisted of two wooden or stone cylinders which, by a combination of gears, also of wood, revolved in opposite directions to each other when started in motion by the pull of a carabao tied to another wooden gadget called caballo. The cane was crushed between the cylinders, while the juice was channeled into several cauldroon, or caua, lined up inside a long oven. The juice was boiled as it passed from one caua to another, until by the fifth caua, the juice had solidified into sugar. This they kept in big kettles.2 The native Filipinos quickly learned the process, realzing the benefits they could gain for themselves by exploiting the sugar cane.3 4 2 Zamora Eladio, Las corporaciones religiosas e» Filipinos (Madrid, 1900), 284-285. •* Op. cit., 327. 4 Chirino, Pedro, S.J., Relation de las Islas Filipinos (Manila: Historical Conservation Society, 1969), 37. 2. Silk and Cotton. Father Antonio Sedeno, one of the first Jesuits who came to the Philippines in 1581, had thought of introducing the silk industry to the country in order to stop the flow of silver to China. He planted mulberry trees and initiated similar projects, even building a loom and teaching the people the European method of weaving.1 About two centuries later, urged on by the ambitious socioeconomic program of the Governor General Don Jose Basco (1778-87) to make the islands economically independent of Mexico and encouraged by the Sociedad Economica de Amigos del Pais, the Rector of the College of San Jose ordered the planting of mulberry trees in the estate of San Pedro Tunasan which belonged to the college. The trees bloomed, silkworms were brought in from China, and enough silk cloth was produced, just as in the other parts of the Philippines where the same program was inaugurated. But, at sales time, the planters found out that they lost more in raising mulberry trees than if they had planted another kind of crop from which they earned more money, even if it were only camote. This initial PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 573 failure, plus the labor required to raise the silkworm and the expenses of silk weaving, explained why the silk industry in the Philippines was discontinued.5 * 5 Zuniga, Martinez de, Estadismo, 1, 29. 0 Zamora, op. cit., 288-289. ' Marin y Morales, Valentin, O.P., Sintesis de uh ensayo de los tralxijus realizados por las corporaciones rcliy iosas de Filipinos (Manila. 1901) II, 89, 93, 113, 115, 116. 8 Gomez Platero, Cataloyo bioprdfico de los reliyiosos franciscanos (Manila, 1880), 42. 11 Inhcrtas. 7 October 1899. 10 Libcrtas. 1 December 1899. Besides raising silk worms or mulberry trees, the missionaries also taught the people the use of the weaving loom. Made only of bamboo, it was necessarily crude and poorly built; but it surprisingly served the purpose when plied by the native weavers, who produced various kinds of fine cloth which for a long time won the admiration of foreigners.'’ It was mainly the Augustinians who introduced weaving to the people: Fray Juan Zallo in Laoag (Ilocos Norte), where the new industry earned rich profits for the natives; Fray M. Perez in Argao (Cebu), Fray M. Alvarez in Santander (Cebu), and Fray Bermejo in Boljon (Cebu) who, besides, set up two machines for seeding the cotton pods and spinning the thread.7 Another Augustinian friar introduced linen and cotton weaving in Paoay (Ilocos), while a Franciscan, the Venerable Fray Antonio de Nombela (t 1627) introduced the production of lambony cloth by the women of Nacarlang (Laguna), whence its use spread to the rest of the country.8 * The Dominican missionaries also promoted the manufacture of cloths in Bataan in the middle of the nineteenth century, and the industry served to supply the needs not only of the of Orani but of the entire province.® Somehow, the efforts of the Dominican Fray Balbino Ezpeleta in Mangatarem (Pangasinan) failed to improve the local cloth industry. Some Ilocanos in the town were already weaving cotton, and Fray Ezpeleta’s bigger loom brought in from Europe did not attract the people who preferred their own' rough, crude looms to which they were accustomed. However, enough cotton and indigo were raised to satisfy local needs for weaving and dyeing.10 574 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS We might mention here the Recollect Fray Juan Tuseu, parish priest of Catmon (Cebu), who taught the women to make their own looms and occupy themselves in works “proper to their sex.” 11 11 Ruiz, Liciniano, Sinopsis hist-orica de la provincia de San Nicolas de Tolentino (Manila: Tip. Pont, de la Univ, de Sto. Tomas, 1925), I, 634. '-The Sunday Tinies Magazine (Manila), 25 October 1970, p. 14. 1:1 Libertas, 16 December 1899. 14 Chirino, op. cit., 37. 16 Marin y Morales, Op. cit., II, 90, 91. ln Perez, Elviro, Catdlogo de los religiosos agustinos (Manila, 1906), 238. 3. Quarries, Brick and, Mortar. It was the need to rebuild the Manila Cathedral in the middle of the seventeenth century that occasioned the discovery of marble deposits in the mountains of Antipolo by the Peruvian Canon Melo.11 12 * 14 In Aguilar (Pangasinan), Fray Victor Herrero, the last Dominican priest of the town, discovered extensive quarries of marble in the mountains nearby. He provided the people with the work tools and taught them himself how to block off and polish the stones. It is from these stone deposits that the government house in Lingayen was constructed, just as the flag stones on the ground floor of the parish rectory and the courtyard of the parish church.11 But it was the Jesuit Father Sedeno who first introduced lime and made the first tiles with which he raised the first concrete building in thfe * Philippines.11 Philippine masonry of the 17th and 18th centuries was of such durability and consistency that on several recent occasions it had been quite difficult to destroy cisterns or flying buttresses when people wanted to remodel or construct modern structures. Some say it was made with molasses; others, with sea shells; but probably at least in Nueva Vizcaya, it was made with a certain kind of white stone which was subjected to a full week’s burning. The lime industry was introduced by an old Augustinian missionary in Pasulquin (Ilocos), while another helped develop it in San Miguel de Sarrat (Ilocos Norte). This is why this latter town is known for its good houses.1’' The Augustinian Fray Juan Albarian (44761) wrote an essay, the manuscript of which was preserved in Cebu, entitled The Art of Building in the Philippines, and a Method of making bricks, tiles, lime, etc.10 Finally, it was on the occasion of the consPHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 575 truction of the hospital in Nueva Caceres which the Franciscan missionaries called "San Diego” but which the people called "San Lazaro” that the friars taught the people how to make tiles and heat brick.17 4. FISHERIES AND SALT FARMS. The town of San Dionisio of the old district of Concepcion in Panay Island owes its fishing industry to the efforts of two Augustinian priests, Fray Pedro Bartolome and Fray Casto Rosa. These two missionaries also taught the people how to make salt.lb Other Augustinians encouraged the salt industry in two towns of the same name Talisay one of Batangas and the other in Cebu province,10 white Fray Manuel Camanes, also an Augustinian, helped the people of Betis exploit the fishing industry and salt making.20 5. Other Industries. There were many other industries which the missionaries encouraged, for besides their spiritual tasks, they felt they could also help the people by teaching them to improve their material condition. Some of these industries were: a) The Gathering of Resin. At the suggestion of the Recollect missionary Fray Pedro de San Miguel (+1774), Governor Anda wrote the Recollect Provincial to encourage the people of Zainbales to extract as much resin as they could from the pine in the province and bring it down to the government storehouses in Manila, for which the Royal Treasury would pay the workers. In this way, both the government and the people would be benefited?1 b) Oil. The same priest discovered oil in Zambales, where he was working. It was produced from the cane called balao, the kind used for the bitumen needed for the boats. Governor Anda also ordered the Recollect Provincial to develop industry for the benefit of the state and the people.2'-’ 576 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS c) Tanneries. Fray Mariano Gutterrez, a Recollect (+1855), taught the people of Jagna (Iloilo) to tan the skin of the big bats, an industry that brought in good results for the people.23 d) Pottery. The people of San Nicolas (Ilocos Norte) owe to their Augustinian parish the beginning and the development of their pottery industry. In the farms of Makati, which once had belonged to the Jesuits, there was already by the early nineteenth century, a factory for roof-tiles, bricks, earthen pots, and other kitchen utensils. These were however priced dearly and found few buyers.24 e) Wood. The people of the Philippines also learned from the missionaries the full use of the wood in the country, of which there is so much good and hard wood, some of them incorruptible, for building houses and furniture.25 * f) Foundries. During the time of Archbishop Juan Angel Rodriguez, a Recollect priest who was knowledgeable in the technique of smelting, conducted an early experiment successfully in the casting of bells.20 g) Mines. In his excursions into the mountains of Siniloan, the Franciscan missionary Fray Agustin Jimenez discovered some iron and copper mines from which he took samples that won a “diploma of honor’’ in the Regional Exposition of the Philippines.27 h) Other Weaving Industries. Fray Mariano Granja, O.F.M. encouraged in Lucena (Quezon) the weaving of hats and sigar-cases, while an unknown Franciscan whose memory is kept alive in legends taught the people how to exploit and make use of the pina fiber.2* 23 Op. cit., 208. Op. cit., 92; Zuniga, I, 212. 25 Zamora, Op. cit., 323. -’o Concepcion, Juan de la, Historin de Pilipinas, XI, 98-99, No. 5. 27 Marin y Morales, Op. cit., 359. 23 On. cit.. 3G0. 3fi9. COMMERCE The principal contribution of the religious orders in the improvement of commerce in the Philippines was the opening and building of roads to facilitate exchange and communication PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 577 among the towns. The road, for example, that Fray Juan F. Villaverde, O.P. opened from Aritao to San Nicolas in Nueva Vizcaya was so important that on 27 July 1905, a member of the Commission on Roads mentioned at one of their meetings how transportation in that province had been facilitated such that transporting 6,000 pounds of goods from the region cost as much as transporting 600 pounds in the past. An engineer added that traffic along the same road was very important: “. . . in one day alone, 800 beasts of burden had carried goods for loading in the train to Pangasinan.” 29 Besides roadbuilding, however, some missionaries directly encouraged commerce, like the already mentioned Fray Granja, who founded the town of Lucena. He himself sought out the persons to attend to the sale of copra to the commercial agencies in Manila?9 The Franciscans in Albay also developed, together with the coconut and abaca industries, the system to export these products, thus opening a source of wealth and freeing the Bicolanos from their poverty. “Between 1835 and 1810, the towns under the Franciscans exported not more than 3,000 piculs of abaca; but from 1890, the same district, called Itaya. reached an annual export of 300,000 piculs, and the population grew in proportion to its increased wealth.” 31 =»(’orre<> Sino-anamita, XXIII (1889), 487; XXIV (1890), 450, 460. Marin y Morales, Op. cit., 360. Op. cit., 361.

Item sets: Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas

Media: Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas; For every right a duty [editorial]; The Saints of August; Letter from Pope Paul VI: To our venerable Brother Gabriel Mary Cardinal Garrone Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education; Letter from Pope Paul VI: To our venerable Brother John Joseph Cardinal Wright Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy; Instruction concerning cases when other Christians may be admitted to Eucharistic Communion in the Catholic Church; Doctrinal reasons for the instruction; Significance of pastoral norms on penance; Pastoral letter on vigilance against contemporary errors concerning the mysteries of the incarnation and the most holy trinity; "Till Death Do Us Part"; Divorce in Philippine Constitution; The role of bishops in the liturgy; Priests and our Bahala-Na system; History of the Church in the Philippines, Chapter 26: Commerce and industry