Pepeton - The facts behind the CFC-GK "split" (Padilla versus Meloto)

Re: GK & Meloto, Vatican and the BreakAway CFC group: What gives Boy M ?

This is quite an "EO" (Eye Opener)on the issue of GK-CFC under Meloto versus CFC-splintered group under Frank Padilla. Thank you for a simple, honest, forthright, and forthwith explanation, "Mr. Boy M"!

Let me re-state the point-at-issue, for our purpose, here in Iskandalo.com, free-wheeling discussion.

1. Frank Padilla who had been the head of CFC for over a quarter of a century had a disagreement in principle with their "subsidiary" GK- group under the leadership of Tony Meloto.

* * * Couples for Christ (CFC) - was a splintered group itself from Ligaya ng Panginoon (1993), its original "mother organization".

2. The disagreement was precipitated by the charge of Padilla that Meloto allowed and encouraged GK to accept donations from pharmaceutical firms that manufactured and marketed contraceptives
intended to be sold for use in contraception (or birth control method, allegedly not sanction by the Catholic Church, or "frowned upon by the Vatican).

3. CFC is fundamentally a PRO-LIFE advocate, and Padilla argued that GK (Meloto) should cease and desist from accepting, encouraging, much
less actively soliciting donations from pharmaceutical firms and any other donors who are engaged in activities that run against the CFC's fundamental doctrine supporting PRO-LIFE advocacy. Padilla
(consciously or not; wittingly, or not) rests his position on the moral principle - "the end does not justify the means."

4. GK saw its mission of nation building (i.e., specifically, constructing, developing and creating communities and initiating livelihood resources for the poorest of the poor), as primordial, for
providing practical, meaningful, real "survival support" for the true poorest of the poor. In other words, it did not share the view of Padilla that GK should stop accepting donations from pharmaceutical
firms, just because they are engaged in the business of manufacturing products that are intended to promote birth control or contraception.
There is enough moral justification for this position supported by the ethical tenet called "the principle of two-fold (or double effect); in addition to the pragmaticism embedded in the philosophy
of "utilitarianism" (i.e., the greatest good for the greater numbers; and the least pain for everybody else).

5. The CFC group led by Padilla, evidently elevated their point of disagreement with the GK-CFC group led by Meloto. This is the background for the current debates on the exact interpretation of
the reported "admonitions from the Vatican", (supporting the contention Padilla's group.)

6. What is not reported in Media, and which Boy M had explained in his posting here is a first hand (unabashed) account of the "behind-the-scenes" politics and in-fighting in CFC. In the course of human conflict, what we learn from this revelation is that... "It's still the same old story - a fight for love and glory...a case of do or die..."(paraphrase: "...the world will always welcome lovers"- to "the
fundamental things of of life apply...as time goes by..."

Maybe, we should kick the issue just for "mental calesthenics". Me? I can defend both sides of the issue, perhaps with equal and unequivocal alacrity, without committing to a particular position.
But that king of "posturing and positioning" never sits well with me.

Not necessarily in this order of preference, but first, I can take the "neo-con" (neo conservative and extreme rightist) view that the Vatican is advocating: "The end does not justify the means." And build a morally defensible and ethically irrefutable justification for such a position.

Which, BTW, brings to mind the "philosophy and guiding principles of investments which the Institute of the Christian Brothers imposed for
the handling of their investible funds by their appointed investment managers. This is no "small cookie jar" we are talking about here. We
are talking several Bs as in $4.5Billions. Believe that. This was published in their audited financial statements.

To wit. In their statement of mission, objective, and philosophy, the investment managing company of the Christian Brothers affirms categorically, that they do not invest the funds of the Christian
Brothers in any businesses that manufacture products or provide services that go counter to the fundamental doctrines of their "religio, mores, et cultura." Which, in light of the controversial politicalization of the corporatized DLSP, Inc
(affiliated group in the Philippines)and in direct participation of poltical activities violative of the country's Constitution\ of "Separation"...raises the question: "Quo vadis, Brothers...What is your fundamental faith-based doctrine of religion, (now)?"
If the PCBs were to be true to their original commitment to the founder of their school's "religio, mores, et cultura", the
answer should be quite clear. Crystal. Undeniable. Unequivocable. Viewed in this perspective, and put in the context of our discussion, the PCBs would support the position of Padilla et. al. And, simply
put, that is that.

==========PEPETON DISCLAIMER=====

However, I can take the other and opposing view, with equal if not more passion. And for this, I will rely on the "sacred and inviolable admonitions of the late author of "people empowerment" - Jaime
Cardinal Sin". Something to do with being "bribed as to who to elect" when confronted and inveigled with a bribe: Unquestionably, the P.E. (People Empowering) former Archbishop of Manila stressed: (Paraphrase for epek on da pekpek)

"Tanggapin mo ang suhol. Ang kuwarta ay
kuwarta. Tutal, ninakaw lang naman nila ang suhol sa inyo. Kuwarta din ninyo yan. Ninakaw nila. Tama lang na kunin ninyo uli. Ano sila sinusuwerte? My parents, my religious mentors did not raise Jaime
Lachica to be a gullible Sin.

"Pero huwag mong iboto, ang hijo de
cabra. Kunin mo ang atik. And know what? In so doing, nabawasan mo ang mga NINANAKAW NA KAYAMANAN nila na ginagamit sa pawang kawalanghiyaan. And in that sense, you are helping in the work of spreading charity and love to those who need it most."

Besides, while a number of the secular progressives and liberation theologists, (who conveniently interpret the Vatican II ecumenism to
support their chosen and preferred advocacies), would "charadearound" pretending they support the inviolability of the "Padilla - feigning, fawning, and frothing - ethical princile - "the end does
not justify the means"...it is clear...and the practices of these religious clerics are replete with prima facie evidences...they do not practice the principle, themselves.

Look at how some of the members of the CBCP...of the Catholic Church have repeatedly, consciously, and wilfully violated the "inviolable constitutional law on separation of church and state (or religion and
government). All their anarchic, sedionist, rebellious movements, demonstrations, and tawdry vaudevilles have all been disguised under the pompous claim --- "para sa mga mahihirap"..."in aid of the
poorest of the poor." It is so easy to lay claim to this "easy sell advocacy."

Everybody uses it. The worst of politicians. The worst of religious clerics. The worst among us...do. So, if somebody or a group uses the same justification, to truly further the cause of the real poor...why should their advocacy be questioned, any more than the hypocrisy of the Padilla rightists is tolerated and encouraged? Huh? BAKIT? Ano ka ba, Pinoy? Sa totoo! Are you a congenital
hypocrite? Or baka naman ang grupo lang ni Padilla? Malamang?

Here again, based on the PAST and HISTORY of the POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT of the PCBfarts (who blow it out from both ends, whichever comes first, whichever is convenient, whichever justifies
best their "meaness towards their ends" ..."in aid of morality in governance, in search of justice and truth, in defense and support of the poorest of the poor"...we know which side of their bread the
butter is spread on...nice and thick...!

Bottomline for me: EXPOSE THE OPPORTUNISTS. PILLORY THE HYPOCRITES. SCREW THE SAD-KSP.

The blame game ends here, with me. There is no
more room for BOB(ing)..."Bending Over Backward". My advise to those who use the cloak, the Church, its pulpit...and the Vatican to hide
their disgusting, despicable and reprehensible ulterior agendas...

LEAD, FOLLOW, GET OUT OF THE WAY', PUT UP OR SHUT THE FxxK UP, AND GO TO HELL, TOO.

If you cannot help (even partly) identify or provide the SOLUTION, YOU MUST BE (at least) PART OF THE DAMN PROBLEM!

And where I come from...you know what we do with PROBLEMs and their -makers? Why, we...

*Give dem de ax, de ax, de ax...right through da neck...da neck....da neck!

Give dem da ax, right through their neck...give them the ax, right through their neck...again...and again...and again....! No more problem.

I trust I made myself clear as crystal.

Pepeton

====================================================================

Check out:
Vatican `corrects' Couples for Christ's `GK' focus
By Jeannette Andrade
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:38:00 04/18/2008

===============o0o==========
> Media references:
> 1. Vatican admonishes Couples for Christ over Gawad Kalinga: by CARMELA FONBUENA

2.
=========================
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080418- 131127/Vatican-corrects-Couples-for-Christs-GK-focus
==========================

==========DISCLAIMER==============
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE COUPLES FOR CHRIST EXPLAIN THAT THE VATICAN DID NOT EXPRESS NOR IMPLY, THAT IN "ADMONISHING " GK, THEY SIDED WITH FRANK PADILLA."
=================================

IC RESPONSE TO THE ABS-CBN NEWS ON LINE ARTICLE:

Dear brethren:

We view with concern reports that the brethren are being unduly disturbed by the article that appeared in ABS-CBN News Online on April 15, 2008 entitled "Vatican Admonishes Couples for Christ Over Gawad Kalinga."

We would like to inform you of the following actions that the International Council has taken in this connection:

1. We have brought to the attention of ABS-CBN News Online the fact that the article quotes out of context portions of the letter that Cardinal Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council of the Laity of the Vatican, wrote to Executive Director Joe Tale last March 11, 2008.

2. We have also written to the Cardinal apprising him of this article and seeking his guidance on how to address the confusion that has arisen because of this article.

3. We shall issue statements in the future as it becomes necessary.

In the meantime, we would like to assure you of one important thing:

NOWHERE IN THE LETTER OF THE CARDINAL IS IT EXPRESSED THAT THE VATICAN HAS SIDED WITH THE GROUP OF FRANK PADILLA.

This is still part of the trials that the Lord has seen fit to allow us to undergo as a test of our humility and obedience. We ask everyone to pray for the community that we love so much and to continue to relate to everyone in love. We remind everyone that the Lord's message for each and every one of us is "Love one another as I have loved you."

May God bless us all.

THE CFC INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL