A woman named Chiara

"THERE is no problem that love cannot solve," Chiara Lubich once said.

Chiara was known as a leading proponent of love and unity. Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Sikh. She had gathered them all to pray and work together.

"That all may be one." This was the prayer of Jesus that this exemplary lay woman made her own and lived out throughout her life. Millions have since sought and trod the path she had opened to all. Millions have gathered as one, in varied times and climes, in many parts of the world, to celebrate and heed the call to oneness.

Chiara, founder and president of the worldwide Focolare Movement, with established communities in 182 countries, passed away last March 14 in her home in Rome. She was 88.

Chiara is the acknowledged spiritual leader of about 5 million-strong Focolare (87,000 members and several million adherents) in five continents, which counts not only Catholics but also other Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and followers of other religions. Many Catholics and non-Catholics from various spiritual, political and civic fields considered her their spiritual mentor.

Chiara was born in 1920 in the Italian city of Trent during the time of Fascism. Her family experienced a difficult life. It was in 1943 that Chiara experienced the divine call that meant dedicating her life entirely to God. She was only 23 years old.

In 1944, while Trent experienced heavy bombing and her relatives escaped to the mountains, Chiara decided to stay and be with suffering humanity. At that time, young women who were drawn to the path she had chosen decided to stay with her.

The Focolare movement (focolare means hearth or family fireside) came to life when Chiara and her friends decided to dedicate their lives to living out what is in the Bible.

After World War II, Chiara met more individuals who co-founded the movement with her, among them, Igino Giordani, a statesman, member of parliament, writer, journalist, a pioneer in ecumenism and a family man. Chiara also met Pasquali Foresi who would become the first focolarino to become a priest. Both Giordani and Foresi are considered to be among Chiara's co-founders.

From 1949 and thereafter, the growing movement gathered regularly in a summer place in the Dolomite mountains. Over the years, new gathering places (called Mariapolis) emerged all over the world. These "mini-cities" became centers of unity.

In 1958 Christians from other traditions began to be drawn into the movement. In the following years, leaders of different religions recognized the unifying work of Chiara. The Focolare believes that cooperation and dialogue of all believers in God are important components of world solidarity and peace. The Focolare is a permanent member of the World Conference on Religion and Peace.

Over the years, specialized movements came to life, among them, the New Humanity and New Families Movement, the Parish Movement, the movements for diocesan priests and for women and men religious, and the Youth for a United World. In 1988, the New Humanity Movement was given NGO status at the United Nations.

Their common goal is the renewal, through the Gospel, of their segment of society. The animators of these movements are core members of the Focolare.

The Focolare runs publishing houses in different parts of the world. Communication, especially with and among the youth, is given prime importance.

Chiara has also contributed to the field of economics through the Economy of Communion, a system of entrepreneurship where the corporate owners use part of the profits for the marginalized sectors of society. This is at work in the Philippines and the countries where the Focolare operates.

Chiara also gave birth to the Political Movement for Unity, which unites politicians from various party lines and ideologies and makes them work for the common good. This has good followings in Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and South Korea. Don't ask about the Philippines!

Focolare spirituality took root in the Philippines in 1966 and quickly spread in the Asian region. There are several Focolare centers in the Philippines, the biggest of which is the sprawling Mariapolis in Tagaytay which is like a village unto itself. A fascinating place, I must say.

The Mariapolis in Tagaytay was built in 1978 from the proceeds of the Templeton Prize in Religion which Chiara received in 1977. In 1982, the School of Oriental Religions and School for Priests were added there.

I am not a member of the Focolare but I have several friends who are members and who have enriched my life. I have written a couple of articles about Focolare projects among the poor that are indeed inspiring.

And since March is women's month, here is what Chiara once said about women in the Church.

"Pope John Paul II knows our movement, which is made up of lay people in various forms for consecration-young people, families, people committed to the world, priests, men and women religious. On several occasions he has emphasized the movement's strong Marian features. (I)t is our hope that in the years to come, the movement might retain its Marian identity, not only at a spiritual level but also in its public profile, thereby preserving God's plan for it in as much as He entrusted its conception and development to a woman. One day I plucked up the courage to ask (the Pope) if he thought it possible to have it confirmed in our statutes that the president of the movement should always be a woman.

"He replied with enthusiasm: 'And why not?'"

The Focolare's head, I am told, will always be a woman.

Chiara should be a candidate for beatification.

Hold on a while longer to the afterglow of Easter.

Sins of the high-tech, modern age

Some issues to ponder this Holy Week.

The so-called seven deadly sins are certainly no longer just seven and there could be deadlier sins than what had traditionally been known as the signposts that lead to damnation.

But contrary to what came out in the news recently, the Vatican did not issue a list of new sins. The remarks of Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, were misinterpreted by the media as a Vatican update to the seven deadly sins laid out by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century.
(These seven deadly sins are pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth.)

Today these sins are often looked upon as personal when compared with the more devastating “social” sins that violate a huge number of people and creation.

Zenit.org, an online news organization devoted to Vatican affairs, denied there was a new list by quoting what Girotti had said that led to the news about “new sins”.

“There are various areas in which today we can see sinful attitudes in relation to individual and social rights.

“Above all in the area of bioethics, in which we cannot fail to denounce certain fundamental rights of human nature, by way of experiments, genetic manipulation, the effects of which are difficult to prevent and control.

“Another area, a social issue, is the issue of drug use, which debilitates the psyche and darkens the intelligence, leaving many youth outside the ecclesial circuit.”



The bishop also zeroed in on social inequality “by which the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer, feeding an unsustainable social injustice” and the “area of ecology.”

Based on Girotti’s utterances, the media came up with the news on the “new” sins, namely, excessive wealth, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia, genetic manipulation, social inequality and pollution.

We sought out some individuals for their thoughts on some so-called “new sins”.

Bro. Ceci M. Hojilla, FSC, Lasallian Brother animator:

“If the wages of sin is death, the worst victim of ‘excessive wealth’ is the rich man himself. One only has to recall the gospel story of the suffering beggar, Lazarus, and the wealthy but ‘unaware’ and nameless ‘party man’. Perhaps the Church finds it necessary to remind every one that there is more to the popular slogan ‘Live simply so others may simply live’ than dole-out charity.

“Pangit, di tama. (It’s ugly, not right.) Even kids react when they realize the disparity between the few who are rich and the many who are poor. This is true especially when the young discover that there is actually a ‘cause and effect’ relationship between the two seemingly separate and independent realities.

“I am reminded of a quotation I once read in a Franciscan Monastery in Assisi. ‘The justice some men seek is the change others fear.’

Sr. Aida Velasquez, OSB, coordinator of Lingkod Tao-Kalikasan:

“Pope John Paul II said that ‘Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential path of their faith.’

“If one looks at our planet, one realizes that humanity has disappointed the divine expectation. In our time, man has devastated wooded plains and valleys, polluted the waters, deformed the earth’s habitat, made the air unbreathable, upset the hydrogeological and atmospheric system, implemented uncontrolled forms of industrialization, humiliating—to use an image form Dante’s ‘Paradiso’—‘the earth, that flower-bed that is our dwelling.’

“On genetic manipulation. At present there are four questionable varieties of GMO corn approved and planted in the country. Since 2006, people have been worried about the sale of imported US rice contaminated with GMO rice. The Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry and the National Food Authority have not settled the grave questions.”

Dr. Angeles Tan-Alora, former dean of University of Santo Tomas College of Medicine:

“Genetic engineering is an advance in science which allows man to manipulate body characteristics. Now specific segments of the DNA can be cut, switched and matched. How much ethical pain are we willing to pay for scientific gain?

“One must consider the motive, means, utilization and consequences.

“Is it for good, to cure or prevent a disease, to improve health? But is to grow taller, be whiter, having a higher IQ and run faster good for the person, his parents and society? Correction of deficiencies of chromosomes is desirable, provided it is directed to the true promotion of personal well-being.

“Not enough is scientifically known. Mortality rates and risk of abnormalities resulting from the procedure could be high, both for the individual who was manipulated and for his/her descendants. The embryo cannot be used merely as a means, or altered to become what parents like. There is no consent from the embryo or the succeeding offspring.

“Genetic manipulation violates justice. Only the rich can afford the procedure. The poor handicapped will be further discriminated against.

“The destruction of the integrity of genetic patrimony is an attack on human nature or dignity. Every individual has the right to an intact genetic heritage.

“Genetic engineering may make us slide down from enhancement to eugenics. Who will decide what to redesign? Which traits to be enhanced?

“Pope John Paul II said: ‘The dignity of the human being transcends his or her biological condition. Genetic manipulation becomes arbitrary and unjust when it reduces life to an object, when it forgets that it is dealing with human subjects capable of intelligence and freedom, worthy of respect whatever may be their limits.’”

Spratlys on my mind

Suddenly there it was, Pag-asa, a little green island floating on a sea of turquoise blue. Our small Air Force plane felt like a feather floating in that windy vastness. And I remembered the famous pilot-philosopher Antoine de Saint Exupery’s words” “Below the sea of clouds lies eternity.”

After some two hours of eternal sea and sky from Palawan, there it was. The Air Force 10-seater Nomad plane circled just a little longer to allow us to feast our eyes on the proverbial emerald isle and take photographs and then came down with a light thud on runway abloom with dandelions.

I was in Pag-asa, one in the Spratly Group of Islands claimed by the Philippines, many years ago when the issue of possession and ownership was again in the international news. The Spratlys then were being seen as a flash-point and that gave a sudden cold flash in the spine because there are six other formidable Asian nations (Vietnam, Taiwan, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei) making claims to the rest of the more than 50 islands “rumored” to be sitting on a bed of oil. The islands that the Philippines claims are called Kalayaan or Freedom Group of Islands.

Today the Spratlys are again a hot item in the Philippine news because of the joint “exploration” some years back the Philippines had with China and Vietnam, both claimants too, and whether or not this had anything to do with the scrapped controversial ZTE-NBN deal with China that has been rocking the political landscape in the past months.



I had waited several years to get to Spratlys. The day came and I was set to go. There we were, a few journalists, in the middle of nowhere. More accurately, we were far into the South China Sea, 278 nautical miles off Puerto Princess, Palawan, far enough to say we were no longer on the regular map of the Philippines. But make no mistake, we were definitely still on Philippine soil.

We stepped out into the open and were met by men with dark brown faces. If not for their snappy salutes and weather-beaten uniforms, they could have come straight out of Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea.” Then Air Force chief Maj. Gen. Loven Abadia was on his first visit there as commanding general and we were invited to come along.
Occupancy is possession. That seems to be the law of the sea in those parts. Since the 1950s when the Philippines took over nine islands, Philippine troops have always been stationed there. We now have only eight islands, I think, fewer than some countries are occupying. When the Philippines abandoned Pugad island in the 1980s, Vietnam took over with lightning speed and has since held on to it.

Pag-asa, the main and biggest Philippine-owned island (32.6 hectares), is where most of the Air Force and navy troops are stationed. There is a weather station there. At that time, the seven other islands had men watching over them too. Security prevented us from divulging how many men were stationed there.

I did write a long series on the Spratlys and learned a lot in the process. I also did get to interview Tomas “the Admiral” Cloma, the man who, in 1956, made a “Proclamation to the Whole World” asserting ownership over the islands. Cloma’s claim came after a first attempt by the Philippine government in 1947 to declare ownership over what it then called “New Southern Islands”.

Each country-claimant invokes a variety of reasons—from legal to historical—to back up its claim. And while for many long years most Spratly occupants had lived peaceably side by side, there had been hostilities, as in the case of Vietnam and China. In 1988, a bloody clash between the two countries over some reefs resulted in more than 70 deaths and three Vietnamese ships sank.

The issue of ownership breaks out every so often. There is chronic unease. While the Philippines occupies only eight islands, it claims all. So who owns the Spratlys?

It is not a question of who possesses the perfect title but who among the contending parties has the better title. This is was what the late Haydee Yorac, UP Professor and Comelec Chair said then. She was also an expert on the Spratlys. In international law, she said, that is how conflicting claims to territory are resolved.

As Comelec chair, Yorac pushed for elections in Kalayaan which became the 21st municipality of Palawan. Yorac said then that she could argue the Philippines’ claim over all 53 Spratly islands. The Philippines, said Yorac, had always been sensitive to the question of what constitute its island waters and maritime boundaries. The reasons for this sensitivity are economic, fiscal, political and security. Because of its archipelagic nature and having islands lying more than 12 nautical miles from each other, the Philippines consistently advances the concept of its territory as both land and water formed into a composite and integral unity. The legal bases for this are: recognition by treaty, devolution by treaty rights and historic title.

The 1935 Constitution defined Philippine territory as “all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris and Spain (on Dec. 10, 1898) the limits of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington, between the U.S. and Spain on (Nov. 7, 1900) and the treaty concluded between the U.S. and Great Britain on (Jan. 2, 1930) and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.”

In 1955 the Philippines notified the United Nations and other states that all waters within the line described by the Treaty of Paris and the Constitution were Philippine territory subject to the exercise of the right of innocent passage by friendly nations.

‘Spirituality of/for revolution’

Last week, while the country was in the throes of yet another people power outing/revolution, an updated version of Bishop Julio X. Labayan’s 1995 book, “Revolution and the Church of the Poor,” was (re)launched. This book is about what the bishop perceives to be an all-important ingredient for a revolution to work—spirituality.

Who is Bishop Labayen? “Bishop Julio Xavier Labayen, a member of the Order of the Discalced Carmelites, is viewed by many as ‘controversial,’ having figured in clashes with the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship. In a sea of conservatives in the Philippine Church hierarchy, the bishop is considered ‘a voice in the wilderness.’” I wrote that many years ago.

But wait, I had waited for the chance to say this: Recently, the 80-ish bishop figured prominently in the media when some thoughtless ideologues marched him into the Trillanes Peninsula military misadventure/press conference and, when things got awry, left him there to fend for himself. When the smoke cleared and the misadventurists (and the media people who were doing their job) were hauled away, Labayen found himself among the detained, hobbling his way to the barracks and overnight detention. Good thing Fr. Robert Reyes was there, too, and looked after him. Task Force Detainees had to get him out the next day. Where were his thoughtless handlers/users? There, take that.



I do stress Labayen’s being a Carmelite— steeped in the spirituality of mystics John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila—to contrast with his being perceived as a leftist by the military and even by his colleagues.

In his book, Labayen attempts to present the Church of the Poor from “the perspective and analysis of revolution.” And vice versa. The book is not an apologia or defense of church people’s romancing Marxism and so-called liberation movements. Far from it. What Labayen wants to see is “a letting go of what has become irrelevant and obstructive, a going beyond ... a dying to what has ceased to serve life ...” What he is driving at is the failure of revolutionary movements to deliver. Some things just didn’t work. Or don’t work anymore. Or were bound to fail.

“What I write here,” says Labayen, “is the fruit of my 33 years of pastoral experience as the Bishop Prelate of Infanta (in Quezon province) ... interwoven with the dark strands of trials, crises, harassment, persecution and marginalization, and also with the bright strands of pastoral breakthroughs, deep insights, qualitative turning points, reassuring faith-experiences of the living God of history, His/Her comforting presence in the midst of abandonment, and discovery of the fathomless depths of the human spirit.” The bishop has the “K” (“karapatan,” or right) to write a book like this.

But before Labayen tackles revolutions, he presents two models of the Church: the “imperialist” Christendom model and the Church of the Poor. In this context, he says that “while the Church may be historically shaped and conditioned by history, the same Church was founded by Jesus Christ to shape history.”

Chapter 5 (“Where did revolutions go wrong?”) makes a straightforward criticism of revolutions abroad. He cites Europe and China and lingers in Latin America, Nicaragua especially, where the Church played a vital role in the revolution. “In the initial process of revolutions,” Labayen writes, “the outcomes either fall short of the initial noble intentions or, sometime after victory, shortchange the masses.”

At home, Labayen cites the failure of the Christians for National Liberation (founded “with the intention of having a Christian presence in the revolution”) “to influence the revolutionary process to make it more humane, compassionate and less rigid.”

He notes that cultural and psychological perspectives are often not taken into consideration in revolutionary affairs. It cannot all be politics and economics, Labayen points out. The human factor is important. The human heart and the human spirit, he argues, also seek to be liberated.

But of course, he presents another paradigm: Christ. Not the one who is conveniently portrayed as a radical to polarize social classes, but the Christ who preaches about an interior revolution in the human heart and spirit. The bishop is now onto another plane. Labayen, the social action man, is not shy to say: “Those who are committed to revolution often think that the interior journey of the human heart and spirit is tantamount to copping out of the struggle ... considered reactionary (and) will delay the revolution.”

He urges revolutionaries to “consider the essential condition for a genuine and lasting revolution which is that of a radically changed human heart and spirit. In other words, a spirituality for/of revolution.” He dares suggest that they “understand the contribution of the mystics and psychologists... It may well be that here we encounter a yet untapped inner resource that we have not harnessed for revolution. Could it be that herein lies the ingredient that is lacking for the satisfactory and fulfilling outcome?”

I am stumped by this. I have long waited for someone to say this.

Dig into your inner well, he exhorts. Then he offer words from Juan de la Cruz’s Spiritual Canticle: “And then we will go on/ To the high caverns on the rock/ Which are so well concealed;/ There we shall enter/ And taste the fresh juice of the pomegranates.”

If, as they say, John of the Cross, when peeled and stripped of the Christian layers, is really a Buddhist monk, I think, Bishop Labayen, if stripped of his activist label, is really a contemplative, a monk at prayer, on his knees in the bloody fields of battle.