THE Gawad Kalinga phenomenal success in building homes for the poor was originally a social outreach for the poor by the organization Couples for Christ, which started in 1995. To date, with the progress of the implementation of their GK777 target declared in 2003 i.e., to build 700,000 homes in 70,000 communities in 7 years, and with the support of many interested sponsors donating funds for the project, in due time they will be successful in meeting the GK777 targets.
Then in 2006, Gawad Kalinga and Tony Meloto, head Elder, received the prestigious honor of the Ramon Magsaysay Award both for community service and as an individual. Another award was given to him the Philippine Daily Inquirer Award as the Most Outstanding Filipino of the year 2006. While Gawad Kalinga was mentioned as a project of Couples for Christ chaired by Frank Padilla, the focus of the awards was Tony Meloto’s achievement.
Last June 22 during CFC’s 26th anniversary, the election of the new officers, that is, of the Elders Assembly of Couples for Christ, was held. Prior to this there were separate meetings held between CFC elders siding with Frank Padilla and those with Tony Meloto at the invitation of the member bishops of the CBCP Episcopal Commission on the Lay Apostolate. The Bishops recommended that the elections be postponed (to avoid the break up) until such time that agreement on both sides could be reached. Frank Padilla’s concern was that Gawad Kalinga was veering away from CFC’s mission. He expressed, “The basic danger is that GK will become a SOCIAL work that has lost its SPIRITUAL foundation. Couples for Christ because of Gawad Kalinga is veering away from the vision/mission of CFC and from Catholic teachings and because of Gawad Kalinga’s enough manpower and resources are not given to the other ministries of CFC, like evangelization and catechesis”. Coming out with this grave accusation and the breaking away of Couples for Christ from Gawad Kalinga now that it has gained international recognition, is a big concern for the Catholic Laity in general.
Despite the Bishops’ advice to the two factions to postpone the elections, which formalizes the leadership control of Gawad Kalinga, and to deliberate further on the resolution of their problem, the elections were held and there are now two factions, Gawad Kalinga and Couples for Christ for Family and Life. This puts a dilemma on the Vatican recognition of Couples for Christ. Ironically, not even the Council of the Laity under the Episcopal Commission on the Lay Apostolate has a direct line to the Vatican. Couples for Christ, through Mr. Frank Padilla was able to get that privilege from the Pontifical Council for the Laity. In its statutes, it states, “Couples for Christ (CFC) is a private international association of the faithful of pontifical right recognized by the Pontifical Council of the Laity. It is committed to the work of global evangelization and renewal, with the goal of winning the world for Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit”
This break away from the mother organization is not the first incident of its kind. In the 1950’s, the Christian Family Movement was brought to the Philippines by Pat and
Patty Crawley of Chicago bringing with them the Inquiry Method (Observe Judge Act) of Cardinal Joseph Cardijn. This was adopted by the Christian Family Movement headed by Tony and Teresa Nieva here in the Philippines. In 1969, Fr. Gabriel Calvo of Spain introduced the Marriage Encounter (ME). The evangelization process was very much liked by Filipino couples hence the Marriage Encounter groups grew rapidly. Quoting from CFMs 50th Anniversary Book, A Journey of 50 Years, the breaking away of an apostolate group is described:
“The first local Marriage Encounter was heldduring a weekend conducted by Fr.Reuben Tanseco, S.J., and Sito and Sony Sison with other CFM officers at the Loyola Retreat House in Angono, Rizal, in October 1969. Soon after, it was replicated in Metro Manila, Baguio City, Batangas, Quezon, Cebu and Davao.
“To meet the growing demand, several priests and encountered couples were trained to conduct the weekend for CFMers as well as non CFMers. Among the latter were members of a Catholic charismatic community called Ligaya ng Panginoon (The Lord’s Joy). After some time, its spiritual director, Fr.Herbert Schneider, S.J., expressed the desire of its encountered members to make their follow-up activity a charismatic prayer meeting. Fr. Schneider requested CFM assistance in formulating a suitable program. So was born one of the earlier charismatic groups which evolved into Couples for Christ whose first meetings were held in Quezon City.”
This was not the end of the break-away phenomenon. Trying to improve on the M.E. Calvo format, the Jesuit priests made the Marriage Encounter groups more relevant to the family challenges of the day especially when they started using M.E. guidebooks for meetings addressing local needs. With this success, the original Marriage Encounter apostolate broke away from the Christian Family Movement. Other family life groups like Bukas Loob sa Diyos was formed which split into another faction, SERVIAM.
With these events that had transpired we pose the following questions: Should the break-away of an apostolate from the original organization be considered as a normal phenomenon of growth? What is the stand of CBCP on this matter? While public associations are directly supervised by CBCP through ECLA, Couples for Christ as a private association accessed worldwide influence through the Pontifical Council of the Laity. Now that there is an internal dissension, should it not be the duty of the Pontifical Council of the Laity to mediate? Will the formation of the Couples for Christ for Family and Life as a private association be under the direction of the Episcopal Commission on Family and Life or under the direction of the Episcopal Commission on the Lay Apostolate?
This break-up may possibly diminish support for Gawad Kalinga’s Housing for the Poor. This will be a great disservice to the poor, not only of GK projects in the Philippines but also in other parts of the world. The poor and the hungry can not be evangelized without first having the basic necessities of life, rice and viand on the table, and roof over their heads. To discontinue the building of homes for the poor is a greater roadblock to the evangelization of the laity.
