Joey Villarama…Who?

Last Friday, I had the privilege of interviewing one of the highest-ranking yet
probably one of the least known Filipino bishops of the 20th and 21st centuries, His
Eminence Jose Cardinal Sanchez.  Let me qualify why I said he may be one of the least known Filipino bishops: he hasn’t lived and worked in the Philippines for 22 years! To people my age, that’s practically a lifetime.  So let me take this opportunity to introduce His Eminence to you.

Cardinal Who?

As I wrote in my script for Bandila last Friday, "Hindi matunog sa maraming Pinoy ang  pangalang Jose Cardinal Sanchez.("To many Filipinos, the name Jose Cardinal Sanchez doesn’t ring a bell.") Before even writing this sentence as my story’s hook, I put the statement to the test.  I asked around the newsroom who they thought Cardinal Sanchez was.  One supervisor answered, "Hindi ba siya yung bagong Archbishop of Manila? (Isn’t he the new Archbishop of Manila?)" Another co-worker retorted, "Aba ewan! (I don’t know!)" A third officemate said, "Siya yung taga-Vatican, di ba? (He’s the one from the Vatican, right?)" Well, the last answer is partly true.  He worked at the Vatican and has been a resident of Rome for the last 22 years. But he is certainly not from the Vatican. Jose Cardinal Sanchez is from the Philippines. To be more specific, he is Bicolano.

The Making of a Cardinal

Much of what is known about Cardinal Sanchez is written in a handful of Catholic websites.  This is what we know thus far: He was born in Catanduanes, became a priest in 1946, a bishop in 1968 and the Archbishop of Nueva Segovia (geographically Vigan, Ilocos Sur) from 1982-1986. In 1985, he was called to the Vatican by Pope John Paul II to become Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, enabling him to travel and spread the Gospel to people in Africa, Europe, etc.  (Note: A Vatican "Congregation" is similar to a Cabinet Department in a presidential form of government. Being a secretary thereof is like being an Undersecretary of the Department.) In 1991, he was made a Cardinal (see a related post on the importance of being a Cardinal or go to this website: http://www.catholic-pages.com/hierarchy/cardinals.asp) and was made Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, the Vatican department in charge of all priestly concerns.  (Note: Prefect is similar to a Cabinet Secretary.)

The Inside Story

One of the first questions I asked His Eminence during the interview was, "What is   the
story behind your appointment to the Vatican?"  His Eminence let out a chuckle and told me that his appointment would not have materialized had he decided not to go to the Vatican in 1985, as he originally intended to.  Church law dictates that a bishop visit the Vatican every 5 years and call on the Pope to present a report on the affairs and progress in that bishop’s diocese.  His Eminence had initially decided not to fly to the Vatican and thought of using the money he would have used as airfare to finance some worthy pastoral project.  He also thought of sending his report to the Pope via the Apostolic Nuncio (Vatican ambassador to Manila). But upon learning that he was the only Filipino bishop who had not yet visited the Pope, he hurriedly packed his suitcase and left for Rome. During his meeting with the Pope, then Archbishop Jose Sanchez was asked if he could stay in Rome and immediately assume the secretariat of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. He was a bit reluctant but priests and bishops are duty-bound to obey the Pope so he could not refuse.  At the Colegio Filippino where Filipino bishops stayed while in Rome, Archbishop Sanchez kept mum about his appointment. But a few days into their Roman sojourn, his fellow bishops noticed that he paid unusually frequent visits to the Apostolic Palace on his own.  Despite being questioned by his colleagues about it, Archbishop Sanchez was keen on withholding the information until after they have returned to the Philippines.  But during one meeting with Vatican officials, the Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples decided to announce Archbishop Sanchez’s appointment as secretary.  Three months after his appointment, Archbishop Jose Sanchez finally packed his bags and left Ilocos Sur to officially become a member of the Roman Curia (the government of the Universal Church).

Six years of experience as secretary of a major curial department made Archbishop Sanchez ready to become a Prefect.  Thus, in 1991, after Cardinal Innocenti, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, reached retirement age, Sanchez was appointed by John Paul II to that post.  And, as was traditional to bishops holding that curial rank, Archbishop Sanchez was elevated into the College of Cardinals in June 1991, becoming the 5th Filipino to be given that distinction.

His Eminence says he is clueless why John Paul II chose to call him to work at the Vatican.  The only thing that came to mind with regard to being "noticed by the Pope," was his work as a speech writer and translator for John Paul II, during His Holiness’ 1981 visit to the Philippines. But in humility, His Eminence attributed his appointment to the Vatican as being part of God’s will for him and quoted this scriptural passage many times during the interview to refer to God’s will as to how one becomes a priest,  "You did not choose me, I chose you."

The Only Filipino at the Curia

To this day, Jose Cardinal Sanchez remains to be the only Filipino Cardinal to have held a secretarial and a prefectorial position at the Roman Curia.  His Eminence says he hopes the present pope will bring more Filipinos to work at the Vatican because Filipinos have a lot of experience to offer in terms of pastoral and administrative work in the Church.  In fact, His Eminence is happy to report that Filipinos residing in Italy are leading their Asian counterparts in evangelizing children and their non-Catholics peers.

The Popes and the Philippines

As Cardinal-Prefect, His Eminence had the chance to work closely with the Pope. Having an audience with His Holiness was not very difficult, especially since His Eminence brought forth reports concerning the priests of the world before the Pope. During his many conversations with the Pope, Cardinal Sanchez got a clear sense of His Holiness’ affection for the Philippines. To John Paul II, the Philippines had an important role to play in evangelizing Asia.  John Paul’s successor, Benedict XVI, also holds this opinion, Cardinal Sanchez says. 

The Cordial Cardinal

Over a snack consisting of C2 iced tea and chocolate whammos, I went on to ask His Eminence about a myriad of things, ranging from suicide, the Orthodox Church, ecumenism, the College of Cardinals, to what he eats for lunch in Rome. His Eminence was very cordial and very casual, unlike many Catholic bishops and prelates I have encountered so far. To think this man, by civil protocol, is ranked among princes of reigning royal houses during ceremonial functions.

At 87, His Eminence is still in very good shape. As a matter of fact, he is very eager to do pastoral work again.  Though he is living comfortably in Rome with other retired cardinals, His Eminence says he can still contribute a lot for his country.  If plans push through, he will be coming back to the Philippines permanently by the end of the year and will be lending a hand to one of the bishops here in Metro Manila (the exact diocese of which I will keep secret, as His Eminence’s handlers requested.)
So until that time comes, I wish His Eminence the best of health and thank him for representing us well in the Universal Church.

God speed Your Eminence!

Happy Easter to all!

I found out a few days ago that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches celebrated Easter Sunday on the same date. (Though both are branches of the Christian Church, the
Orthodox Church follows the Julian Calendar while the Catholic Church
follows the Gregorian Calendar. Last year, both Churches celebrated
Easter Sunday a week apart.) I know it may not mean anything to the lay person, but the  rich culture and history, and significance of the Oriental Churches in relation to the Western Church can expand our  knowledge of Christian tradition and further strengthen our faith as Catholics. Given the chance, I would like to study more about the Eastern and Western Churches.

 1. Eastern vs. Western, Roman/Latin vs. Orthodox
Before I even discuss the implications of this common Easter celebration, let me
give you a background as to how the Christian Church came to be divided into East/West, Catholic/Orthodox. I know many well-meaning Catholics experience a little discomfort when the name "Orthodox Church" is mentioned. For some of us who have had the benefit of seeing a picture of an Orthodox cleric (i.e., a long- bearded churchman in black or gold, wielding a staff with snakes on them…much like the pharisees in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ), we tend to regard them as "enemies" of the Catholic Church who espouse creeds or doctrines that negate those of the Catholic faith.  But even before the Catholic Church became more open about ecumenism, the Orthodox Church is and has always been its brother/sister. The truth of the matter is, although both Churches have had major and trivial disagreements (as siblings do), they both belong to one body, the body of Christ.

When Jesus established the early Christian Church, He never intended for it to be divided into two. But for purposes of culture and geography, the Church was traditionally  designated as being Eastern (Middle East, Mediterranean region and Eastern Europe) and the Western (from Rome westward) in character.  The West and the East sourced their doctrine from the same deposit of faith but added the unique features of the culture and tradition of the specific region (ie, Eastern is to Greek, Western is to Roman or Latin) to their rites and liturgy. Traditionally, St. Peter was designated as the father of the Church of Rome (the seat of the Western Church) while St. Andrew, his brother, was the father of the Church of Constantinople (the seat of the Eastern Church). When you look at it, the East and West are fraternal twins.

The Christian Church was ruled by five patriarchs (heads or fathers of the
church) : the bishops of Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.  Each patriarch had authority  over bishops in a specified geographic region. The patriarch of Rome was primus inter pares, "first among equals" or "first in place of honor" among the five
patriarchs.

But man, although prompted by the Holy Spirit to do what is right,
buckles and falls, and his pride or misguided sense of power makes him
decide otherwise.  I am not saying that a particular Church, much less
a particular person should be blamed for the division. But we, as
humans, should accept the fact that we have erred. It’s not the Holy
Spirit’s fault; it is the bane of humanity, human weakness, that is at
fault.

Although the Christian Church was doing well during the first
millennium of its earthly existence, differences in doctrinal,
political/juridical, geographic and linguistic aspects of the
church arose. Among these are the assertion by the Pope of his
authority over the Greek-speaking patriarchs of the East and the introduction of the filioque clause in
the Nicene Creed ("We believe in one God…) by the Western Church.
(Ask your priest about the filioque clause or research about it and
study it discerningly, so as not to be misguided.) These, among other
things, brought forth what history calls the Great Schism between the
Eastern and Western Christian Churches in 1054.  The Eastern Church was left to the 4 patriarchs while the Western Church was governed by the bishop of Rome, the Pope.

The Eastern Church
Called itself Orthodox Church because it views itself as having closely
conformed to the original precepts of the Early Christian Church and
the 7 church councils before the Schism. The Western Church came to be
known as the Roman or Latin Church.

After
the schism the honorary primacy among patriarchs shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had previously been accorded the second-place rank at the First Council of Constantinople.

2.  Catholicism

The term "Catholic" means "universal." Being catholic or universal is one of the four marks of divinity of the true Church of Christ, the one which He Himself established.  The True Church is (a) one - her members believe in the same things and follow one leader, the successor of St. Peter, (b) holy - it was established by Jesus Himself, (c) catholic or universal - it has reached out through everyone, Gentiles and Jews, servants or free men, man or woman and has subsisted through the ages and (d) apostolic - it was founded upon the apostles, whose lawful successors, through an unbroken line of succession, are the bishops.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd bishop of Antioch, in 110AD, was the first church father to refer to the Early Christian Church as being "catholic" or "universal" in nature. Thus, 900 years before the Great Schism, the Early Church was already referred to as being catholic. But after the Schism, the term Catholic was used to refer to the Western/Latin or Roman Church, with the Pope as its head. In fact, one of the honorific titles of the Pope, in relation to his Eastern counterparts, is "The Patriarch of the West."

3. Eastern Orthodoxy

The Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion comprising the fourteen or fifteen separate autocephalous or independent hierarchical churches that recognize each other as "canonical" (those who follow the original canons before the Schism) Orthodox Christian churches. The 10 or 11 other churches were born after the Schism, the original four being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

There is no single earthly head of all the Orthodox Churches comparable to the Pope of the Catholic Church. However, the Patriarch of Constantinople (presently Bartholomew I, whose picture you see above) who is also the head of one of the autocephalous churches, is considered the ecumenical patriarch, the primus inter pares.  These organizations are in full communion
with each other, so any priest of any of those churches may lawfully
minister to any member of any of them, and no member of any is excluded
from any form of worship in any of the others, including reception of
the Eucharist. Each local or national Orthodox Church is a portion of the Orthodox Church as a whole.

4. Orthodox and Catholic Communion

Full Communion is a term used to describe relations between two distinct Christian churches that, while maintaining some separateness of identity, recognize each other as sharing the same union and the same essential doctrines. Its significance is understood differently in, on the one hand, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology, and, on the other hand, in the theology of other Western Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church, however,
makes a distinction between full and partial communion. Partial
communion exists where some elements of Christian faith are held in
common, but complete unity on essentials is lacking. Thus, the Catholic
Church sees itself as in partial communion with Protestants, and as in
much closer, but still incomplete, communion with the Eastern Orthodox
Churches.

Canon law lists guidelines which can aid Catholic ministers in deciding whether to administer the sacraments to our brethren in the Eastern Churches, with whom we are not in full communion. Portions of Canon Law 844 are as follows:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance,
Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern
Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if
they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is
also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the
Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as
these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgement of
the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave
necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments
licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the
Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community
and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest
Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

5. The Eastern Catholic Churches

Not the entire Eastern Church joined the Orthodox Church during the Great Schism in 1054.  There are particular churches that still maintained the unique quality and tradition of the East, while acknowledging the same beliefs as the Western Church and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the spiritual and temporal leader of the Catholic Church. These Churches are called the Eastern Catholic Churches or loosely, the Uniate Churches.  Though their ministers look like Orthodox ministers and their liturgy is the same as that of the rites our Orthodox brethren use,  they are in full communion with the Catholic Church. 

Most Eastern Catholic Churches have counterparts in other Eastern Churches, from whom they are separated by a number of theological concerns or from whom they are separated primarily by differences in
understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome within the College of
Bishops. While Eastern Catholics are Catholics in full communion with the
Pope, and are therefore members of the same Church that is sometimes
officially called the Roma Catholic Church, they are not "Roman Catholics" in the narrower sense of that term since
they are not part of the local Church of Rome and do not use the Roman Rite liturgy or any other of the Latin Rites.

The Eastern Catholic Churches were located historically in Eastern Europe, the Asian Middle East, Northern Africa and India but are now, because of migration, found also in Western Europe, the Americas and Ocenaia to the extent of forming full-scale ecclesiastical structures such as eparchies, alongside the Latin dioceses.

The terms Byzantine Catholics and Greek Catholic are used of those who belong to Churches that use the Byzantine Liturgical Rite. The terms Oriental Catholic and Eastern Catholic
include these, but are broader, since they also cover Catholics who
follow the Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian and Chaldean liturgical
traditions.

Thus, a Roman or Latin Rite Catholic follows the rites or liturgies that we normally follow in Philippine parishes and in the Vatican, while the Eastern Rite Catholics follow the liturgies of their culture or tradition.  The different Eastern Christian liturgical traditions are: Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian, Byzantine and Chaldean. 

6. The Common Easter

Now you begin to wonder, what is the significance of all these, especially the common celebration of Easter of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Well, I already mentioned it in passing somewhere in the middle of this post.  The Church is Christ’s body but sad to say, it is broken in many pieces.  When He established the Church during His earthly ministry, He never intended for it to be divided. But unfortunately, it is. The celebration of the common date for Easter may not be a major milestone in mending the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches but is thus a portent of the joy the unification between the two Churches (in fact between the True Church and other Christian denominations) can bring.  Not only will the body of believers be happy, but Jesus Himself, at the thought of his own body being mended and healed from the wounds of division and pride we have sown, will also be happy. Until man swallows his pride and accepts the will of the Spirit, however, we can only hope that the Julian and Gregorian calenders will again coincide soon, for us to experience and celebrate that common Easter joy.

Peace be with you!

Christ is Risen! Alleluia!

                                      URBI ET ORBI MESSAGE
                                               EASTER 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters throughout the world,

Men and women of good will!

Christ is risen!  Peace to you! Today we celebrate the great mystery, the foundation
of Christian faith and hope: Jesus of Nazareth, the Crucified One, has risen from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures.  We listen today with renewed emotion to the announcement proclaimed by the angels on the dawn of the first day after the Sabbath, to Mary of Magdala and to the women at the sepulchre: “Why do you search among the dead for one who is alive?  He is not here, he is risen!” (Lk 24:5-6).

It is not difficult to imagine the feelings of these women at that moment: feelings of sadness and dismay at the death of their Lord, feelings of disbelief and amazement before a fact too astonishing to be true.  But the tomb was open and empty: the body was no longer there.  Peter and John, having been informed of this by the women, ran to the sepulchre and found that they were right.  The faith of the Apostles in Jesus, the expected Messiah, had been submitted to a severe trial by the scandal of the cross.  At his arrest, his condemnation and death, they were dispersed.  Now they are together again, perplexed and bewildered.  But the Risen One himself comes in response to their thirst for greater certainty.  This encounter was not a dream or an illusion or a subjective imagination; it was a real experience, even if unexpected, and all the more striking for that reason. “Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘peace be with you!’” (Jn 20:19).

At these words their faith, which was almost spent within them, was re-kindled.  The Apostles told Thomas who had been absent from that first extraordinary encounter: Yes, the Lord has fulfilled all that he foretold; he is truly risen and we have seen and touched him!  Thomas however remained doubtful and perplexed.  When Jesus came for a second time, eight days later in the Upper Room, he said to him: “put your finger here and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing!”  The Apostle’s response is a moving profession of faith: “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20:27-28).

“My Lord and my God!”  We too renew that profession of faith of Thomas.  I have chosen these words for my Easter greetings this year, because humanity today expects from Christians a renewed witness to the resurrection of Christ; it needs to encounter him and to know him as true God and true man.  If we can recognize in this Apostle the doubts and uncertainties of so many Christians today, the fears and disappointments of many of our contemporaries, with him we can also rediscover with renewed conviction, faith in Christ dead and risen for us.  This faith, handed down through the centuries by the successors of the Apostles, continues on because the Risen Lord dies no more.  He lives in the Church and guides it firmly towards the fulfilment of his eternal design of salvation.

We may all be tempted by the disbelief of Thomas.  Suffering, evil, injustice, death, especially when it strikes the innocent such as children who are victims of war and terrorism, of sickness and hunger, does not all of this put our faith to the test?  Paradoxically the disbelief of Thomas is most valuable to us in these cases because it helps to purify all false concepts of God and leads us to discover his true face: the face of a God who, in Christ, has taken upon himself the wounds of injured humanity.  Thomas has received from the Lord, and has in turn transmitted to the Church, the gift of a faith put to the test by the passion and death of Jesus and confirmed by meeting him risen.  His faith was almost dead but was born again thanks to his touching the wounds of Christ, those wounds that the Risen One did not hide but showed, and continues to point out to us in the trials and sufferings of every human being.

“By his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pt 2:24).  This is the message Peter addressed to the early converts.  Those wounds that, in the beginning were an obstacle for Thomas’s faith, being a sign of Jesus’ apparent failure, those same wounds have become in his encounter with the Risen One, signs of a victorious love.  These wounds that Christ has received for love of us help us to understand who God is and to repeat: “My Lord and my God!”  Only a God who loves us to the extent of taking upon himself our wounds and our pain, especially innocent suffering, is worthy of faith.

How many wounds, how much suffering there is in the world!  Natural calamities and human tragedies that cause innumerable victims and enormous material destruction are not lacking.  My thoughts go to recent events in Madagascar, in the Solomon Islands, in Latin America and in other regions of the world.  I am thinking of the scourge of hunger, of incurable diseases, of terrorism and kidnapping of people, of the thousand faces of violence which some people attempt to justify in the name of religion, of contempt for life, of the violation of human rights and the exploitation of persons.  I look with apprehension at the conditions prevailing in several regions of Africa.  In Darfur and in the neighbouring countries there is a catastrophic, and sadly to say underestimated, humanitarian situation.  In Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo the violence and looting of the past weeks raises fears for the future of the Congolese democratic process and the reconstruction of the country.  In Somalia the renewed fighting has driven away the prospect of peace and worsened a regional crisis, especially with regard to the displacement of populations and the traffic of arms.  Zimbabwe is in the grip of a grievous crisis and for this reason the Bishops of that country in a recent document indicated prayer and a shared commitment for the common good as the only way forward.

Likewise the population of East Timor stands in need of reconciliation and peace as it prepares to hold important elections.  Elsewhere too, peace is sorely needed: in Sri Lanka only a negotiated solution can put an end to the conflict that causes so much bloodshed;  Afghanistan is marked by growing unrest and instability;  In the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.  In Lebanon the paralysis of the country’s political institutions threatens the role that the country is called to play in the Middle East and puts its future seriously in jeopardy.  Finally, I cannot forget the difficulties faced daily by the Christian communities and the exodus of Christians from that blessed Land which is the cradle of our faith.  I affectionately renew to these populations the expression of my spiritual closeness.

Dear Brothers and sisters, through the wounds of the Risen Christ we can see the evils which  afflict humanity with the eyes of hope.  In fact, by his rising the Lord has not taken away suffering and evil from the world but has vanquished them at their roots by the superabundance of his grace. He has countered the arrogance of evil with the supremacy of his love.   He has left us the love that does not fear death, as the way to peace and joy. “Even as I have loved you – he said to his disciples before his death – so you must also love one another” (cf. Jn 13:34).

Brothers and sisters in faith, who are listening to me from every part of the world!   Christ is risen and he is alive among us.  It is he who is the hope of a better future.   As we say with Thomas: “My Lord and my God!”, may we hear again in our hearts the beautiful  yet demanding  words of the Lord:  “If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honour him” (Jn 12:26). United to him and ready to offer our lives for our brothers (cf. 1 Jn 3:16), let us become apostles of peace, messengers of a joy that does not fear pain – the joy of the Resurrection.  May Mary, Mother of the Risen Christ, obtain for us this Easter gift. Happy Easter to you all.