__________________________________________________________________

Sent to the Frontiers
The JJCICSI Silver Anniversary

The 35th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus (GC 35) speaks of discovering new horizons and reaching “new social, cultural and religious frontiers” in the context of a globalized world that “is sustained by interrelated… structures that affect the core of our mission of faith [and] justice.”

As a Jesuit social apostolate, we at the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues (JJCICSI) have been sent to these frontiers, and we continue to believe that the “present moment is crucial, and the work to be done is urgent.”

For 25 years, research-based advocacy has been our tool in building bridges to make the concerns of the powerless comprehensible to the powerful. In carrying out this mission, we are enlightened by Catholic Social Teaching as we participate in the Church’s work of integral evangelization. It is this faith that does justice that distinguishes JJCICSI from other non-government organizations.

This 2009, JJCICSI is rekindling the fire for social justice, remembering friendships, and renewing its commitment to respond to the call to the frontiers. We invite you, as our partner and friend, to celebrate with us, and join us in reaffirming our mission to promote a Filipino society that upholds the dignity of the human person, especially of the poor.

The Beginnings of JJCICSI

by Bishop Francisco F. Claver, S.J.

One might wonder what “Church” in the title of the Institute means. In the minds of its initiators, it meant Church, as it is now more commonly emphasized since Vatican II, as the Holy People of God. Not just the “ Official Church”, i.e., the hierarchy, the bishops and priests as journalists often understand the term when they say “the Church says this or “the Church does that”, etc.

But for this looking back over the Institute’s first 25 years of existence, I would like to look at how ICSI has comported itself precisely with the Philippine hierarchy in its beginning years.

The First Piece of Research. Even before the Institute was set up and officially opened on July 31, 1984, its first piece of research had been completed and reported on. It was on the priorities and directions of the Philippine Church. Father Carroll dwelt on this research in his talk, the very first of the series. But I thought I’d add a bit more to what he said because of what followed the CBCP afterwards. The story that research and how it came about is easily told.

In early 1983, Archbishop Mabutas (he’d just been elected CBCP President) proposed that a National Pastoral Assembly be held with a view to coming up with a National Pastoral Plan for the entire Philippine Church. Before the idea could even be voted on, however, the objection was raised that it would not be easy coming up with such a plan since the bishops and the dioceses were not operating from a uniform concept of the Church. (The problem of the bishops’ differing ecclesiologies had been a sore point from the very start of martial law in 1972 and was, in the minds of many of us, one of the main reasons we couldn’t act as one far as martial law problems were concerned.) Archbishop Mabutas agreed, and he suggested that we find out what those variant theologies were. That was how Father Carroll and I were commissioned to do the research—although “commissioning” is not the right word as not a single centavo was appropriated for it!

To make the long story short, we did the research. From the priorities the diocese had set for themselves, we were able to classify them, in summary form, whether they, the dioceses, were still stuck pre-Vatican II notions of the Church and pastoral work or had launched out along the lines of renewal that the Council called for. Of the three regions, Mindanao was way ahead of the Visayas and Luzon as far as Vatican II renewal ideas were concerned, and of the latter two, Luzon had been following a more conservative line. But we didn’t ask only what priorities were being followed in 1983. A second question was asked about what the dioceses thought might be their priorities five year later. Answers to this second question pointed to clear direction: it was towards a Church that was more strongly in line with Vatican II ideas and concerns.

The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II). That direction was confirmed later in the Second Plenary Council seven years later in 1991. The decisions of the Council, especially the high pastoral priority it made of the BECs, made crystal clear the Philippine Church’s strong resolve to go completely in the direction of Vatican II ideals. In 1995 the National Pastoral Plan was drawn up from the PCP II’s decision and proposed to all the diocese for action. And that’s were we now as Church.

If I make much of the Institute’s part in the crucial event that the PCP II was, it is because that the plenary Council has been the best thing yet that has happened to the Church of the Philippines and has been in a very real sense the Philippine Church’s “reception”: of Vatican II i.e., our official and wholehearted acceptance of and commitment to all that Ecumenical Council has decreed for the renewal of our life as a Church. ICSI did its little part in helping the Plenary Council to do what it did.

In the lead-up to the convening of the Plenary Council, seven preparatory papers were written up for discussions in the dioceses. Two of these came from ICSI, one on “Church and Society”, the second on “Social Concerns”. Both papers were, to my mind, pivotal in the forming of the Council’s thinking, and this not only in the fact of the acceptance of their main ideas and thrusts but in the actual incorporation in the Council’s final document of some of their very wording of those same ideas and thrusts. Also, the Situationer that was prepared by the Institute was deemed comprehensive enough to be included in the appendix as the Council’s own reading of the state of the nation.

Current Issues in the Church at ICSI’s Founding

If our first research was about how the bishops defined the Church and worked their pastoral programs out of their definitions, there were other more pressing concerns for the wider Church arising from the continuing military rule of President Marcos that ICSI became involved with from its beginning. From 1976 on there had raged among socially-minded Church people what later was called “the faith-ideology debate”. In essence it came down to asking the question: for the reform of society, does one need a full-blown political ideology or is it enough to go by the general dictates of our Christian faith? The question was being asked in the context of the blatant instrumentalization of the Church by both government and Communist forces in their schemes of reforming Philippine society according to their special ideological blue-prints.

The problem in the end came down to these two: (1) how one analyzed society to see what changes had to be made (without falling into the Marxist line) and (2) whether resort to violence was the only way to bring about change (going therefore against the violence of both martial law and NDF zealots).

The analysis-problem came from the wide use of (Canon Houtart’s) “structural analysis” and its indubitably Marxist character. The problem with violence came not only from the Left’s program of liquidating perceived “enemies of the people” but just as strongly from the government’s all-out salvaging of Leftist and their suspected sympathizers. Both questions hence were actually one in that they sought to reply to the strong attraction exerted by proponents of the armed struggle option of the left as the only viable alternative to martial law excesses.

The Institute met these problems head-on in several symposia that were held once its offices were operative. Two were especially directly relevant: the symposium on social analysis held on September 14, 1984; the one on violence/non violence on March 9, 1985. Coming as they did before 1986, they helped bring about the line of thinking which went against the Communists’ armed-struggle option as well as the militaristic rule of Marcos and favored the ANV (active non-violence) way of social reform that ultimately ended in the EDSA people-powered rebellion.

The thought might seem preposterous but I believe a strong case can be made for EDSA I being one of the strongest factors leading to the beginning of the demise of International Communism in 1989. For as soon as it happened, it became the exemplar world-wide of popular revolts against oppressive governments of any color.

Peaceful social change (ANV) against the violence of military-dominated governments; people power against any from of dictatorship whether of the right or the left: that was EDSA—and the Institute, right from the very start, did its little part in bringing it about.

August 19, 2009

__________________________________________________________________

Since its establishment in 1984, JJCICSI has involved itself in areas like urban poverty, women and children, migration, agriculture and agrarian reform, to name a few - areas delving into policy issues which we consider as frontiers. As the years progressed, our research and advocacy activities ventured into other frontiers such as population and the development and the environment.

We invited former and current researchers of JJCICSI to relive their experiences in investigating these issues and share where their advocacies have led and will lead to.

DAY 1
The Founding of the Institute by John J. Carroll, S.J.
JJCICSI as a Social Apostolate by Silvino L. Borres, S.J.

DAY 2
Philippine Electionsby Atty. Carlos P. Medina
Of Forests and Frontiers by Ruth Esquillo-Ignacio

DAY 3
Population and Development by John J. Carroll, S.J.
The Environment by Pedro W. Walpole, S.J.

DAY 4
Urban Land Reform by Marlene Gatpatan-Bedia with Percival C. Chavez
Overseas Migration by Jeremiah M. Opiniano