User Rating: 5 / 5

by Jozef MATTON, cicm 
General Councilor  

There have been consultations for either the appointment of Provincial Superiors or Provincial Councilors in all of the Provinces during the last few months. Some of the Provinces will still have consultations for the appointment of their Provincial Councilors at the end of the year.

We all know that these are not elections. In this regard, articles 91 to 93 of our Constitutions are clear. Consultations are a way to have all the confreres participate more actively in the life and governance of their Province.

Each confrere has the opportunity to explain to the General Government how he perceives his Province’s situation: who can lead the Province or collaborate in its governance as Provincial Superior or as a Councilor and why. Many of the confreres who participate in the consultations do so in this spirit.

Fallowing the appointments, a member of the General Government summarizes the contributions recorded on the consultation ballots of the confreres who took part in the consultations in that Province. He then submits it to the new Provincial Government as a working tool during their term of office.

Many confreres point out the location of the Province’s lights. They also indicate the shadows, the challenges, and the concerns. Finally, they note what the Provincial and his Council must address during their term in office!

Nevertheless, I am curious how many confreres consider what they can do to help solve or improve situations that they have identified. Sometimes, one gets the impression that the Province is only the business of the Superior Provincial and his Council.

Indeed, the Superior Provincial and his Council bear responsibility because the confreres have their trust in them by proposing them as possible leaders. However, the confrere’s responsibility should not be confined advising others!

Some Examples

• During consultations, several confreres express concern about

the temptation, if not the risk of depending on or favoring the confreres of certain nationalities. Is it only the responsibility of the Superior Provincial and his Councilors to make efforts to improve fraternity in an entity or a Province? Who is to blame for this predicament? The Superior Provincial? This scenario is promoted or even created by the confreres who are members of that District or Province. What criteria were used to recommend this or that confrere for Superior Provincial or Councilor? Is it because of his characteristics? Is it because he is a good friend of mine, or because we get along?

Articles 48 and following, under the common title “In Fraternal

Communion,” are clear! Art 50.1 explicitly states:

Each one helps to create a climate of mutual respect and trust in which we can share our experiences with one another. We will truly be brothers, particularly toward those experiencing difficulties.

Many beautiful texts and recommendations for fraternal life in our Provinces and Congregation can be found in the Guidelines for Multicultural Life in CICM. It is beneficial to read them and, more importantly, to put them into practice in our everyday lives. And this is not only the responsibility of the Superiors and their Councils.

Tsimba Ngoma Edouard, the former Superior General, in the introduction to the Guidelines for Multicultural Life in CICM that were published in 2010, wrote:

Many of our General Chapters have discussed the topic of internationality. The 13th General Chapter of 2005 affirmed that “our multicultural character has become an integral element in the identity of CICM. Confreres should receive this gift, value it, and make every effort to integrate themselves into this reality of the Congregation”. The present document will be, I hope, a tool that will help all the confreres to live better this gift of multicultural character in our dear Congregation.

• A few Provinces are experiencing financial difficulties. And many times, we have read in the comments on consultation bulletins that the Superior Provincial and his Council must handle this problem and do everything possible to improve management. They must even take strict measures against confreres in the event of fraud or other forms of cheating.

Has the confrere who wrote this thought about how he manages money and how is his lifestyle? Has he considered whether he is overly demanding? What has he done to counsel a confrere when he notices that he is not living up to the requirements of religious life?

Perhaps, our formation in religious life does not prepare us enough to manage the assets of a community, a Province, or an Institute responsibly. A Treasurer is assigned to each level of an Institute, and his primary function is to manage material goods. However, this does not imply that he is solely accountable for the financial well-being of a given entity.

The General Guidelines for Financial Administration contain an entire chapter entitled Co-responsibility in the Administration of Goods and in Our Financial Policy.

In No. 15, we read the following about co-responsibility in financial matters:

Co-responsibility in the administration of goods and in financial policy goes hand in hand with subsidiarity. We must realize that we are all co-responsible for the financial support of the Institute and its works, so that each of us can feel upheld by his confreres. This presupposes a responsible attitude of each one with regard to the task entrusted to him personally, to his community, his Province or Autonomous District, and to the Institute as a whole. It also presupposes that all be concerned about carrying out our common options in an ever-better way.

I could give other examples since life, and indeed religious life, has many sides.

Being a religious missionary in the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not a solitary game for one’s interest or profit. It is instead a collective commitment to announce the Good News of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, let us not put the burdens on the shoulders of others and take the benefits as our own.

All Together Responsible

When we profess our religious vows, we are saying, in one way or another, that we commit ourselves to live a life shaped by the requirements of religious life in the Congregation. Religious life is therefore lived not as a solitary life but at the service of the common mission entrusted to the Institute in view of the realization of the Kingdom of God. And by accepting the vows, the Institute commits itself to work together with this confrere so that he can live in fidelity to his missionary-religious commitment. Thus, we are responsible for one another in view of a common mission.

I have written this before in another article: We are here for the mission, not the mission for us. (Cf. Chronica, No.5, September 2019, p. 201.)

On the occasion of the first profession or the renewal of vows, we can read beautiful texts expressing the will to live the requirements of religious life and the mission. However, unfortunately, the reality shows things to be quite different.

We have beautiful texts. Many of our Documents are truly unique and serve as references and models for many other Institutes.

If we were willing to live in depth our common commitment as missionaries and religious as our Documents speak of, we would avoid many of our problems and difficulties in our communities, our Provinces, and our Congregation. Cor Unum Et Anima Una. 

“The choice of our leaders follows a discernment process that can be improved and become more participative. The provisions of the Constitutions (Art. 91) and the General Directory (Art. 91.1) remain the basis of our discernment. It should never be equated with a democratic election where membership of a group of interests would take precedence over the human and spiritual qualities of the confreres we propose for leadership.”

Acts of the 15th General Chapter, p. 18

User Rating: 4 / 5

by Adorable Castillo, cicm 
Vicar General  

In a very informative article published in SEDOS Bulletin¹, James H. Kroeger states that the Philippines is the “world’s third-largest local church” (after Brazil and Mexico) with 82.9% of its total population of over 100 mil- lion are Roman Catholics. Sixty percent (60%) of Asia’s 120 million Catholics are Filipinos. Catholicism was introduced to the natives of the more than 7000 islands by Spanish missionaries who joined the Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition in 1521. The first Mass was celebrated in the Philippines on the small island of Limawasa. It was a milestone in the development of the local Church in the Philippines. In 1565, Miguel Lopez de Legazpi and his colonial fleet landed on the island of Cebu and established a permanent Spanish settlement there. Some years later, in 1571, he transferred his colonial headquarters to Manila. The archipelago was claimed by the Spanish Crown under King Philip II and maintained as an important colony until 1898.

Evangelization of the Philippines was purposely undertaken by several groups of dedicated missionaries: the Augustinians (1565), the Franciscans (1578), the Jesuits (1581), the Dominicans (1587), and the Augustinian Recollects (1606). Manila became a bishopric in 1579 with Fray Domingo de Salazar, OP, as the first bishop. Salazar was an exceptional breed. He was a zealous “disciple” of Bartolome de las Casas (later bishop of Chiapas in Mexico). In the very first Synod of Manila held in 1582, he denounced the abuses of colonial officials and held them accountable before God and people, and even refused “absolution” and “holy communion” to those offending Spaniards.

After the Philippine revolution in 1898 and the subsequent American imperial occupation beginning in 1899, several male missionary groups (non-Spanish) were summoned to continue the works of the Spanish missionaries. To name a few: Irish Redemptorists (1905), Mill Hill Missionaries (1906), CICM Missionaries (1907), Missionaries of the Sacred Heart (1908), Divine Word Missionaries (1908), De la Salle Brothers (1911), Oblates of Saint Joseph (1915), Maryknoll Missionaries (1926), Columban Missionaries (1929), Society of Saint Paul (1937), PME-Quebec (1937), Oblates of Mary Immaculate (1939), and others. Thousands of dedicated female religious also came to engage in the many caritative, educational and social works of the Church.

One peculiar question is being asked whether the Philippines is indeed “Christianized” after 500 years of the presence of Christianity. According to the statistics, almost 94% of Filipinos are Christians that comprise 82.9% Roman Catholics, 5.2% Protestants (of diverse denominations present since 1901), 2.6% Aglipayans (an independent Church founded by Isabelo de los Reyes and Gregorio Aglipay in 1902), and 2.3% Iglesia ni Cristo (founded by Felix Manalo in 1914). If more than 94% of the Filipinos are “baptized,” are they “evangelized”? The Gospel was supposedly proclaimed by the missionaries when Magellan landed in the archipelago in 1521 and, surely, it has been known since then. Is the Gospel being “radically” lived out as a way of life for most Filipinos? It is interesting to note that Filipinos, by and large, have been “sacramentalized,” but inadequately “evangelized.” And therefore, there is the urgent need for “new evangelization” that has been undertaken since the papacy of John Paul II who visited the Philippines twice in 1981 and 1995, respectively. Are contemporary missionaries and pastoral agents involved in this initiative of “new evangelization” or just a routine continuation of the “sacramentalization” of the “baptized”? For in- stance, how do we ensure a holistic formation for newly ordained deacons? Vested with a deacon’s stole and a majestic dalmatic, are they also being trained to “serve” the poorest of the poor akin to the function reserved to the first seven deacons in Acts of the Apostles 6, 1–6? Or are they just simply being prepared to become alert and adept “altar servers”? While bishops, priests and deacons “render service at the altar,” the ordained ministry is best and perhaps, authentically exercised “beyond the altar,” in the peripheries, in the fringe of mainstream society where we find the “last, the least and the lost.”

Magellan got the commission to embark on a voyage around the world to search for gold and spices and to establish Spanish dominion in those “newly discovered lands.” In other words, Magellan and his sailors were “mercenaries,” commissioned and paid by the Spanish Crown to promote Spain’s imperialistic ambition and commercial interests. But when the fam- ished and travel-weary Magellan and his crew encountered the natives of Homonhon and Limasawa in the provinces of Samar and Leyte, respectively, they were “disarmed,” if not “charmed,” by their hospitality and generosity. In other words, Magellan and his “mercenaries” unwittingly became “mission- aries” in their own right, as appropriately expressed by Bishop Pablo David of Kalookan:

They were mostly mercenaries who quickly shifted to acting like missionaries when they encountered people of good will among the natives of Samar, Leyte and Cebu. They were strangers in need of shelter and provisions and who were treated as welcome guests by our ancestors... These European foreigners, who thought they were bringing God to godless people, were probably surprised     to find God in the simple and generous hearts of the natives who gave them food, drink and shelter, and who helped them bury their dead and worship their God.²

The unexpected but providential “missionary” transformation of Magellan and his crew of “mercenaries” is an opportune challenge for today’s “missionaries” in the Philippines to carry out boldly and sincerely their missionary mandate and be consciously wary of any unfortunate “re- versal of roles.”

Catholic educational institutions founded by the missionaries have been flourishing in the Philippines. Thousands of parochial schools have educated millions of young Filipinos. A considerable number of our leaders in government, business sector, and civil society have been formed in these schools. A nagging question remains: Why is it that the Philippines scored low in the 2020 corruption perception index totaled as 34 out of 100? Five years ago, a populist leader got elected and his policies resulted in the killing of thousands of small-time drug runners, militant activists and innocent civilians. Apparently, our educational institution has educated “an elite but not a people.” While we value academic excellence as one of the primary goals of Catholic education, measured by the sheer number of professionals and experts graduating from Catholic schools, do we promote the formation of an informed social conscience and a profound sense of social responsibility?

Like in Latin America and elsewhere, popular religiosity in the Philippines is a social phenomenon to reckon with. Millions of devotees flock to the Quiapo Church for the annual feast of the Black Nazarene. Millions also participate in the festive celebration of the Santo Niño and actively take part in numerous devotions to the Blessed Virgin and other saints in various parts of the country. What is the role of popular religiosity in today’s effort of evangelization? Pope Francis puts great emphasis on the inherent power of popular religiosity to deepen the faith of the faithful and to harness their capacity for social transformation. In Argentina, he was known as the “bishop of the slums” for his pastoral program in the “villas miserias” of Buenos Aires. He recognizes the evangelizing power of popular expressions of faith in both the “never-ending process of inculturation” (Evangelii Gaudium # 126) and liberating pastoral activity for the poor to promote social change. In a book entitled Pasyon and Revolution, Filipino historian Rafael

C. Ileto argues that the popular reading of the passion of Christ became a powerful ideological vehicle for local resistance and uprisings against colonial rule in 19th century Philippines.³ The EDSA people power revolution of 1986 was one of the exemplary manifestations of the symbolic as well as the transformative role of popular religiosity in a historic political upheaval in the Philippines.

In the article mentioned above, J. H. Kroeger states that in the Philippines “Priest-Catholic ratio is one of the lowest in the world” and “there is also the glaring inequitable distribution of apostolic personnel within the country.”⁴ Priests and religious are mostly found in urban areas where the demand for sacraments is high and where the amenities of modern life are readily available. We can arguably say that the idea of “peripheries” is not just geographical but also more existential. However, should we turn a blind eye to the neglect of “geographical peripheries” and the abandon of the rural areas, we run the risk of committing a missionary “sin of omission.”

Another issue that should interest today’s missionaries in the Philippines is the presence of Islam in the country and the call for interreligious dialogue. Muslims represent just 4.6% of the population, predominantly present in Mindanao, in the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. Islam was introduced in the archipelago way back in the 14th century by Muslim merchants and Sufi missionaries. Due to prolonged social unrest and violent political upheaval, a good number of Muslims have already migrated to most big cities in Luzon and the Visayas. The most recent devastating event was the Marawi City siege that started on May 23, 2017 and lasted for five months. Hundreds of thousands of people, both Christians and Muslims, were displaced and economic hardship in large proportion ensued. The causes of social unrest, rebellion, and violence in these areas are myriads. Perhaps the only solution possible is “peace and dialogue” among peoples of different faiths. Pope Francis has already initiated a lot of endeavors to promote dialogue between Muslims and Christians. In 2019, he met the Grand Imam Ahmad al-Tayyeb in Abu Dhabi, and in 2020, he went to Iraq and visited the Shia leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In his latest encyclical Fratelli Tutti, he highlights the role of religious leaders as mediators of peace and dialogue in these words:

As religious leaders, we are called to be true “people of dialogue,” to cooperate in building peace not as intermediaries but as authentic mediators. Intermediaries seek to give everyone a discount, ultimately in order to gain something for themselves. The mediator, on the other hand, is one who retains nothing for himself, but rather spends himself generously until he is consumed, knowing that the only gain is peace. Each one of us is called to be an artisan of peace, by uniting and not dividing, by extinguishing hatred and not holding on to it, by opening paths of dialogue and not by constructing new walls. (#284)

There are still many challenges that lie ahead for us missionaries who wish to learn from the past 500 years of Christianity in the Philippines. The past has only a future if we are attentive to the promptings of the Spirit in our present time, and if we fully appreciate the gift of faith that we have received. As the main theme of the celebration evokes: we are “gifted to give” and the gift remains a gift if it is shared with the rest of the world.

¹  See James H. Kroeger, “A Beautiful Journey of Faith: Five Centuries of Philippine Catholicism” in SEDOS Bulletin, vol. 53, no. 1/2 (January-February, 2021), pp. 2-16.

²  “Church Situation in the Philippines: Church-State Relation, Perspectives for the Future,” unpublished article of Pablo David, Bishop of Kalookan, 2021.

³  See Rafael C. Ileto, Pasion and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840- 1910 (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1997).

⁴  Kroeger, p. 11.

by Charles Phukuta, cicm
Superior General 

The triennial process of consultations for the appointment of new Provincial Governments is underway in all our entities.  In its delibera­tions, the 15^th General Chapter addressed the issue of leadership as an essential part of our mission and our fraternal communion, declaring that “the CICM leadership will have to become a service of authority. It is a leadership of proximity, which, through good communication, interpersonal relationships and regular accompaniment, will lead the confreres to give the best of themselves and resolutely participate in decision-making processes.”^[1]

In this context, the leader is called to guide, showing the way, inspiring courage, or giving hope to the ones he serves. When leaders fail to play this role, eventually, the organization suffers. Thus, the importance of a good selection of a leader who, at a particular moment in history, can foster an acute awareness of the mission to be achieved and stimulate a sense of belonging among the members of the entity they serve.

Although our Constitutions talk a lot about the Government of the Institute, there is but one article about who the congregational leaders are or ought to be. Article 101 stipulates: “The Superior general will be a man of God. He must love the institute, be imbued with its spirit and convinced of its mission. He shows wisdom and discernment. He is truly a brother to all the members of the institute, guiding them with courage and steadfastness”. This article provides us with a description of the Superior General’s identity and spirituality and all the leaders of the Institute. The illustration of article 101 could practically apply to all responsible parish priests or administrators of works.

Admittedly, the Constitutions do not speak of a confrere endowed with extraordinary qualities. A responsible leader does not have to have exceptional gifts but being a man of God is central. While the depth of our relationship with God varies, we all are men of God. We love the Congregation and have a good knowledge of its spirit and mission. We have all received the gifts of wisdom and discernment to some extent.

Nonetheless, the last element of article 101 is the most difficult to put into practice: to be a true brother to each confrere, as the leader keeps on being courageous and firm. Experience shows that it is not easy to be a brother to all. As a matter of fact, some confreres consider the Superior as a brother insofar as he is neither courageous nor firm, especially about issues that have to do with them. There is no compatibility about being a true brother and giving in continually out of complacency.

Accordingly, a congregational leader is, at the most basic level, a good confrere, aware of his gifts and responsive to his needs for growth. He demonstrates appropriate conduct through normative and personal actions and interpersonal relationships. He promotes such conduct among members through interpersonal communication, empowerment, and decision-making. No wonder the leader is called to be a positive, honest, and trustworthy role model who uses Gospel values and the principles of religious missionary vocation as a compass for his leadership and decision-making.

A responsible leader is a mature person with a spirituality firmly rooted in Christ. He is easy to get in touch with and has a great capacity to accommodate. Confreres feel at home with him, which strengthens their motivation. He knows where he is going, and he is not afraid to take responsibility. Finally, and above all, he is inspired by the team spirit.

The Constitutions do not ask for exceptional qualities, but where do we find a leader who has all the necessary attributes? I do not know. However, I am sure a team is more likely to meet the challenge. Remarkably, Canon Law talks about a collegium empowered to effectively take decisions as the supreme authority of religious institutes. Canon 631 is about general chapters. It is a pretty clear statement of team leadership, but it is not a practical instrument of ordinary government.

For this reason, with the consent of his Council, the Superior General appoints the other Major Superiors and their Councils after consultation with the members of the entities concerned. Paraphrasing Perfectæ Caritatis, Canon Law (618-619) describes their leadership as docile to the will of God and in a spirit of service. They regard the members of the Institute as children of God and respect them as such. They listen to them attentively, even the most difficult ones, and promote cooperation, thus building caring communities where one seeks and loves God and one another.

Based on articles 83-85 of our Constitutions, what is described above refers to things that each confrere should expect from any other con­frere. It is about our identity. Leaders and all those in authority must personally ensure that none of those aspects is disregarded. This does not mean that leaders are required to fulfill every obligation to each member individually. They can call on other confreres to give a hand, especially members of the Council who must personally account for it.

It is not uncommon that the personal exercise of authority, even by well-motivated leaders, can easily descend into arbitrariness or outright peremptory disregard of differing opinions. When it comes to concrete decisions that directly affect members, Canon Law considers the superior’s role and position as legally distinct from those of the council members. The two perform different functions of government. Superiors are not allowed to function without a council. Teamwork is a necessity, and Canon Law (cc. 127 and 627) insists on the need to seek and value the assistance of councils; it also establishes several guidelines that guarantee individual freedom and responsibility.

Thus, the Councilor’s principal role consists of helping the Superior, offering him informed and honest counsel. To counsel well, the Counci­lor needs to be attentive to the reality of the Province. If necessary, he reminds the Superior to consult the members about matters that will affect them. The Councilor should be free to say what he thinks considerately and discreet enough not to take what is spoken about in the Government outside.

Our Constitutions and Common Directory stipulate decisions that require the advice or consent of the Council for their validity. The action of a Superior is legally invalid if he does not seek advice or obtain the consent of the Council on the matter in question. When an action requires consent, the Superior cannot legitimately act if he has not obtained it.

Even at the parish or another congregational work level, responsible Superiors share their authority instead of just applying it. As good listeners, they find ways to engage and involve everyone in the Administration and Governance processes. They highlight their members’ capacities as well as lead them to take responsibility for their actions. They encourage freedom of expression to broaden their minds. They favor collaboration rather than competition. Working side by side, not against each other, facilitates the ministry of Administration and Governance. They value and promote teamwork, interactions, and cooperation between confreres and between Provinces. In turn, they become more present with each other, more human, good-humored, curious, and compassionate. The reality is that today’s leaders must be supple in a fast-changing world, ready to fall a thousand times and rise. By tapping into their humanity, responsible leaders can see and understand others better, appreciate individuality and difference, and create a thriving culture of solidarity and universal brotherhood.

Today, our society demands greater accountability, even from the Church. Many confreres would agree that leadership is one of our crucial challenges. They share their concerns. They are not asking for theoretical answers such as new statements or new structures. Of course, these can also be helpful, but they need a lot more, namely, spirituality, community, proper accompaniment, compassion, reconciliation, and passion for the mission. It is from each confrere that they expect a response. The honest answer to their questions will be in relationships - with God and with one another. We hope that this reflection will invite further contem­plative reflection, especially by the new Provincial Governments. In our desire for responsible leadership, following the example of Christ at the Last Supper, let us reach for the pitcher and pour water into a basin. The feet of the confreres are waiting.

^[1] Acts of the 15^th General Chapter, p. 5.