September 27, 2022
Manila, Philippines
MANILA— Here’s the full text of CBCP president Bishop Pablo Virgilio David’s talk at the Manila Cathedral on Sept. 26 during the “Celebrate Asia in Manila” conference in preparation for the 50th general conference of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) in Bangkok, Thailand next month.
I. Our Philippine synodal experience in the light of FABC’s 50th anniversary
The context in which we are reflecting on New Pathways for Synodality for the Church in the Philippines is our Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of FABC.
FABC has been promoting greater synodality in the Church since it began. It has been known mainly for its insistence on DIALOGUE. For us in Asia, FABC emphasizes that synodality has to take the form of a threefold dialogue: one, with the religions of Asia, two, with the cultures of Asia, and three, with the poor of Asia. Perhaps we can begin by replacing Asia with the Philippines and ask ourselves how we have fared in each level of dialogue while reviewing our own synodal experience in the Philippines.
A. On dialogue with religions
Ironically, as regards IRD, our disadvantage has been the fact that we are a predominantly Christian country. (Ironically, I say, because being predominantly Christian is precisely the reason why we have the tendency to be less concerned about dialoguing with other religions.) It is different talking about dialogue in a context in which you are the majority, than in a context in which you are a minority, which is the more common experience in Asia. It is in a minority setting that the advocacy for religious freedom, tolerance and dialogue usually becomes more palpable. It is a common tendency for us Catholics, when we are the majority, to be presumptuous, to throw our weight around, to be intolerant and less open to dialogue. No wonder, our efforts at IRD have remained very insignificant. The other communities of faith are usually surprised when we even bother to reach out to them.
We have Catholics who simply take it for granted that we can just celebrate Masses in public spaces as if these belonged to us. We sometimes just presumptuously occupy the streets and mess up the traffic for our processions often without bothering to coordinate with the LGUs or Barangays about traffic rerouting. Sometimes, this happens precisely because the LGU leaders and Bgy captains are mostly Catholics anyway. They quickly say ok and presume that we will marshall the traffic ourselves, which, of course doesn’t happen when not consciously attended to. It is when government officials happen to belong to other religions or Christian denominations that we often become conscious of the need for dialogue. I call that a self-serving kind of dialogue, dialogue when we are in a position of disadvantage.
Take note, please, I am not necessarily advocating a secularistic kind of society that is intolerant of religious expressions in public spaces. There are countries where all communities of faith are equally given the privilege of using the public space for their festivals, often even with support from the other religions.
Synodality with other religions is actually more than peaceful coexistence, or even more than dialogue. It is also about proactively discovering spaces of partnerships and collaboration, about opening our basic Christian Communities to basic human communities. In our Philippine synodal journey, the aspiration for ecumenical dialogue has been more significant than Interreligious dialogue, for obvious reasons. It is mostly in Mindanao where Interreligious dialogue figures more prominently in the diocesan synodal reports, such as in the MSPC, which paved the way for the Bishops-Ulama Encounters. And yet, even in Luzon and Visayas where we are majority, we cannot deny the presence in our midst of Muslim traders, of Taoist and Buddhist Chinoys, of INCs, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and of IP communities that have held on to their animist faiths.
It is in the realm of social advocacies that ecumenism and Interreligious dialogues have tended to be more productive. Examples of these would be the common concerns for the climate crisis and the protection of our common home, advocacies for good governance and responsible citizenship, for CHAMP elections, for a peaceful resolution of conflicts, for the protection of human rights, for the defense of human life, for land reform, anti-corruption, etc.
New avenues have been opened in our relationship with IFI, because of the 500th YoC celebration and the CBCP’s joint statement with IFI that has endeavored to heal the historical wounds that have alienated them from the RCC. We also feel the defensive position of our traditional Church-going Catholics towards Pentecostal and Evangelical groups that have been actively engaged in what they often regard as “sheep stealing.”
The common suspicion is that these groups are out to proselytize, and that they are consciously aiming at converting hordes of unchurched Catholics to their fold. In dialogue, they ask us, “Would you rather keep them distant from the Christian faith than allow them to hear God’s Word through our evangelical efforts? We do not force them; we invite them. We know that they are baptized Catholics but they claim that they do not feel at all like they belong to the Catholic Church. They are baptized but they know very little about the Christian faith.”
B. On dialogue with the poor
The synodal consultation has been a very humbling experience for our parishes, especially in regard to reaching out to the “unchurched” who constitute the majority of our Catholics. It has been very humbling to admit that, despite PCP II’s vision of promoting a Church of the Poor, the poor have remained not only in the margins of society but also in the margins of the Church.
The sectoral dialogues have also opened our eyes to the great tendency in our parishes to be so focused only on our Churchy concerns, to be inward-looking, to be self-referential (to use the vocabulary of Pope Francis), to be parochial in the negative sense. We have tended to limit the Church involvement of the laity to serving the Church, rather than serving society as part of a servant Church.
Most parishes have felt a certain awkwardness about dialoguing with the sector that calls itself the LGBTQ+, or with single parents, or separated couples or families living in not-so-ideal situations. There are PWDs who bewail the absence of PWD-friendly facilities in Churches, or even the availability of sign language interpreters for the hearing impaired. We’ve heard the painful experiences of families about the apparent lack of compassion of the Church when they lost a family member because of depression—that their loved one could not be blessed in Church because their family member had committed suicide. The most common remark had to do with poor people unable to avail themselves of the sacraments because they couldn’t afford the “fees”. There are stories of abused women and children wishing they could seek refuge in church in times when they had to run away from their abusers, and senior citizens who wish that the Church could establish more facilities that could attend to abandoned elderly people.
The most common and rather painful remark that we heard very often in our synodal consultations was the general impression that the poor felt discriminated against in their parishes, that many priests and lay leaders tend to be more welcoming towards the wealthy and influential, visit them more often, favor them for parish leadership roles as in PPCs and PFCs. Even more painful was the common remark that most Church leaders, clerics or lay, do not bother to listen to their voices, or express concern about their struggles to earn a living, to have decent dwellings, to send their children to schools, to protect their human dignity against those who exploit them economically. There are of course stories that point otherwise to a more caring Church.
It is in the BECs that the poor find welcoming spaces. Many of them feel that their popular religious expressions of faith are looked down upon or misjudged by the more educated Catholics, or even by their own parish priests. There are slum communities in the urban areas or far flung communities in the rural areas that hardly feel the Church’s presence. Many have said they don’t feel welcome when they come to Church because they are not properly dressed. They are drawn to Church during fiestas, Christmas and Holy Week but they choose to stay in the patio and sit on the plant boxes rather than enter. They feel awkward sitting inside and not being able to drop some money collection bag is passed before them.
Right within the Church, among active Church members, especially those involved in Church ministries, the common lament is the lack of catechesis and faith formation, as well as formation opportunities that would equip them for their ministries. Many of them have observed the fact that the laity’s involvement in PPCs and PFCs is mainly consultative. Their involvement in actually drafting , implementing and evaluating pastoral plans tends to be minimal. They are not even allowed to meet without the parish priest.
C. On dialogue with cultures
With regard to the dialogue of cultures, many feel that the Church has a strong tendency to be mono-cultural. The concern about native or ethnic cultural values and traditions seems to be more prominent among indigenous peoples who are often suspicious of Church agenda when suddenly allowed to express these in Church liturgies which they find too foreign, or too intellectual or partial for the educated. They feel that the use of vernacular languages is becoming less and less evident in our Churches. There is also the prevalent observation that our liturgical celebrations are too Romanized, too pompous, too formal, and lacking of elements that one might call ecclesial in the sense of communitarian.
