FRAMEWORK FOR THE SECOND NATIONAL RURAL CONGRESS

January 17, 2008

“The over-riding social concern of the Church in the Philippines has been all these years centered on the inequitable distribution of the nation’s wealth and the endemic social injustices that underpin that evil.”In its pastoral statement on “The Dignity of the Rural Poor – A Gospel Concern,” (28 January 2007), the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines summed up our social situation. It then issued a call to hold a second National Rural Congress to commemorate the first one convened forty years ago in 1967. It noted that “the greater number of our poor are in the rural areas” and that urban poverty is a consequence of rural poverty.

The pastoral statement also provides a framework on how the process of the rural congress should be carried out.

1. Social Teaching of the Church

First, it expresses “the hope that we would be able to educate ourselves more intensively in what the social teaching of the Church is all about.” The recently-published Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church enables us to examine more closely the moral principles that should guide us in our quest for a just and prosperous society. In this light, the CBCP statement urges that we “focus our attention on the greatest victim of our unjust economic order, the rural poor, and the diminishment of their dignity as people and as citizens.”

2. Constitutionality

This phrase, “as people and as citizens,” connotes the second guideline in the NRC framework – to review the social justice provisions of the Philippine Constitution. Article XIII, in particular, enunciates the spirit of social legislation that should give “the highest priority” to measures that: protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity; reduce social, economic, and political inequality; remove cultural inequalities; and diffuse wealth and political power for the common good.

The CBCP pastoral statement notes that “the one big effort of the government at alleviating rural poverty has been its ongoing comprehensive agrarian reform program.” Despite deficiencies in the drafting of the law by a landlord-dominated Congress, government must see to it that social justice programs like CARP should be reviewed and improved through consultations, and properly implemented towards its completion. This is for the common good of small farmers and landless workers.

This review also extends to other social justice measures affecting small fishermen, indigenous people communities, rural women, etc. Environmental issues as consequences of irresponsible mining and logging, as well as of climate change, have also become major concerns today.

3) Non-violent and democratic means

A third guideline for the NRC process mentioned in the CBCP statement is engagement with government and the various sectors of society through non-violent and genuinely democratic means – by first listening to the rural poor themselves; by decrying “the shameful ‘extra-judicial’ killings of unarmed crusaders for justice and equality”; and by calling on government to act. “The responsibility to act,” further notes the CBCP statement, “is just as much ours as those who have the official responsibility.” Demands for good governance, transparency and accountability are thus essential factors in this call for social transformation.

“Today we see only too clearly,” the CBCP statement concludes, “the need for the reform not only of our national institutions but of our very moral fiber as a people.” Thus, through the social teaching of the Church, through the social justice provisions of the Philippine Constitution, and through our active, non-violent engagement with government, we are confident and hopeful that this second National Rural Congress can indeed provide the renewed steps towards the social transformation of Philippine rural society today.

NRC II Central Committee and Secretariats
17 January 2008

Call to Social Transformation

Social transformation is a component and consequence of the work of evangelization. Without it evangelization is incomplete. The necessity of social transformation is not a new demand. It is a demand of Christian discipleship.

1. Evangelization and social transformation must include among their essential elements a proclamation of the church’s social doctrine (cf. CA 5), which have been called the church’s “best kept secrets.” Because they do not land often enough among the teachings explained, developed, discussed and proclaimed in church gatherings and preachings.

If our struggle to build the Kingdom of God , and our striving is to authentically follow the Jesus of the Gospel, then it must be a journey towards social transformation towards truth and justice, love and peace, a journey towards the fullness of life (cf. PCP-II 263). “It is evident that Christian discipleship or a spirituality of social transformation demands a properly formed social conscience, the lack of which in many Filipinos is a major tragedy” (PCP-II 283).

“In the light of our situation we believe that certain truths in the social doctrine of the Church stand out as urgent and necessary. These truths, needing emphasis today for the development of the just life and of the just society which serves that life are: Integral Development based on Human Dignity and Solidarity; Universal Love; Peace and Active Non-violence; Love of Preference for the Poor; the Value of Human Work; the Integrity of Creation; Empowerment of the People” (PCP-II 291), each of which would demand a separate lecture or even a seminar.

2. The way the Church must go is the way of social transformation. There is only one direction that PCP-II says we must take as a Church, and that is to become a BEC- type of Church. “We have envisioned a renewed Church as a community of disciples missioned by the Lord to labor in our particular Filipino situation” (155). Fifteen years after the PCP-II, plus the experience that has gone before in our Philippine situation, BEC as a model of the Church is no longer an abstract vision. BEC as the PCP-II vision of Church is a growing reality in dioceses or parishes that have had the experience of BECs.

When I say that, I do not disregard the fact that particular parishes could still be dominated by the thinking and culture of the Institution. It may be good to evaluate how the BEC ecclesiology is affecting some of our traditional associations in the church, and how the BEC model already influences their internal and external mechanisms as well as their relationships and spirituality.

We know what is implied by being transformed by the BEC model of Church. “In order to be renewed as a Church, we must leave behind many ways of thinking, speaking and acting which no longer effectively serve and perhaps even obstruct our evangelizing mission. This will mean an unsettling pain, a disengagement from what is cherished but is now obsolete or obstructive, a dying to what is sinful, that we may come to newness of life” (PCP-II 143).

3. The object and subject of social transformation is man, every man, in his unique as well as ordinary circumstance, the “concrete” and “historical” man (CA 53). Man is the way the BEC-type of Church must go. “(The human person) is the primary route that the church must travel in fulfilling her mission…the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption” (RH 14; CA 53).

As an instrument of evangelization and social transformation, the social doctrine reveals man to himself and gains credibility from the “witness of actions” in the promotion of justice, most especially when it concerns the powerless, the voiceless, the marginalized and the exploited. Social transformation is person-oriented.

CALL TO INTERPERSONAL LEADERSHIP

If the Philippine Church is to become a community of communities of the disciples of the Lord, an embodiment of solidarity and communities of compassion, it must have interdependence as a moral category, and solidarity as a moral and social virtue (SRS 38-40). Underlying the call to lay evangelization and social transformation is the call to interpersonal leadership.

1. T achieve interpersonal leadership, both individual and group must move out of the paradigm of dependence into the paradigm of independence and into the paradigm of interdependence. The servant of God, John Paul II has made us aware of this in “Solicitudo Rei Socialis” when he pointed out to the global nature of the responsibility for development. “The obligation to commit oneself to the development of peoples is not just an individual duty and still less an individualistic one, as if it were possible to achieve this development through the isolated efforts of each individual…” “Collaboration in the development of the whole person and of every human being is in fact a duty of all towards all and must be shared by all parts of the world, East, West, North and South, or as we say today by different ‘words’. If on the contrary, people try to achieve it in only one world, they do so at the expense of the others, and, precisely because the others are ignored, their own development becomes exaggerated and misdirected” (SRS 32).

Working for social transformation means recognizing the truth that we are created for interdependence, for fellowship, for dialogue, for collaboration, for creative cooperation, for community of families.

2. Interdependence and interpersonal leadership is behind the approach of our Lord in sending the twelve apostles and the seventy-two disciples in teams of two (Mk. 6/7; Lk. 10/1). Marked by a common vision and common mission, they could combine their talents and abilities and create something greater together.

`Interdependence is a methodology: “the team approach to evangelizing.” “Such a team approach demands the emergence of a new type of leadership that will animate, facilitate and coordinate apostolic team efforts, activate charisms and maximize participation” (PCP-II 198). Interpersonal leadership is a partnership which shifts the interaction from vertical to horizontal and being partners in results as well as in operation. Our Lord also made his apostles aware of the shift: “I no longer speak of you as slaves, for a slave does not know what his master is about. Instead, I call you friends, since I have made known to you all that I heard from my Father” (Jo 15/15).

Interpersonal leadership will mean one plus one equals three or even more.

3. The communion as leaders of the different communities must reflect that “communion” with which John Paul II describes the Church as a whole, in two of his Encyclicals, one on the Laity (Christifideless Laici) and the other on the Clergy (Pastores Dabo Vobis). Ours is a Church of communion, a Church of participation, patterned after the communion of love that dwells within the Trinity.

The communion of leaders could well be the starting point or the beginning of the ideal “communion of communities.” “The Church in its entirety should become a family of families” (422). PCP-II’s vision of “community of disciples” is the antidote to our “chronic, almost compulsive, dividedness”, group loyalties, obsessions and jealousies, and destructive fragmentedness (PCP-II 665, 668).

Community of Disciples, Communion of Communities: “It is almost an impossible enterprise.” “But we dare it with the certainty of the Man who said: “What is impossible for human beings is possible for God’ (Lk. 18/27). It is with him in him, then that we attempt the impossible. This is how we propose to begin being a community of authentic solidarity” (PCP-II 666).

Through interdependent and interpersonal leadership we will achieve the social transformation that renewed evangelization envisions to achieve, a leadership that in our present critical situation demands transparency, accountability, commitment to truth and justice, the sum total of which is credibility.

+ANGEL N. LAGDAMEO
Archbishop of Jaro
CBCP President

BEC – A Model of Being Church

BEC – A Model of Being Church

By Fr. Sim Sunpayco, S.J.

Our discussion is about the Church itself and not merely about a Church organization. We are familiar with the Church in its units: the parish with priests as pastors, the diocese with the bishop, then the universal Church with the pope as chief shepherd.

The Vatican II document on the Church [Lumen Gentium] presents it as a mystery. Mystery is a truth and a reality that cannot be fully understood or explained by the human mind. But God gives us a glimpse or some understanding of a mystery.

We look at two dimensions of the Church to help our understanding of, and the way we tell people or explain to them the mystery, that is, the Church. First, the nature, life of the Church, presented in three ways or aspects [models]: (a) Mystical Body [refers to the

interior or spiritual life of the Church. We are all like living parts of the BODY with

CHRIST as the HEAD]. (b) People of God [clergy and laity: are the members of the

Church in the world] (c) Institution of religion, with its own creed [body of doctrine and beliefs], code [laws and regulations administered by the hierarchy, pope, bishops and priests], cult [way of worship, and ceremonies].

The Jesuit theologian, Cardinal Avery Dulles, calls these aspects models of the Church. There are other models, other ways of presenting the mystery of the Church. We choose these three commonly used descriptions in this discussion about the life and nature of the Church. Second, the work or mission of the Church. The Church shares and carries out

the same mission as the mission of Christ. This is to proclaim the good news of the

Kingdom of God. We call it evangelization. The Church carries out this mission in all kinds of situation: in different places and at different periods of history. Each situation

is different from the others; needs, problems and challenges are different. Blocks to the establishment of the of God are also not the same. The Church employs different methods, structures, priorities in its mission of evangelization. Otherwise it will not be relevant or effective: different questions, different answers, different sickness, different

medicine. And there is analysis before solutions, like diagnosis before treatment!

The different forms and methods assumed and used by the Church to be effective in carrying out its mission with and for Christ are also called by a theologian from Latin-America, Fr. Jose Marins, “model” or way of being Church for its mission of evangelization. The model of church described by Avery Dulles, S.J. refers to the life and

nature of the Church. This is always the same in all places at all times. Anywhere,

everywhere, at any period of history theChurch is always 1) the Mystical Body of

Christ, 2) the People of God, 3) an institution of religion to articulate, regulate and

celebrate the Faith. But the same Church must assume different ways of being Church, live and use new ways and methods of evangelization. These models of evangelization are changed to meet different situations in different places and at different periods of

history. .

A Glimpse at Significant Models Assumed by the Evangelizing Church in History

33 – 100 After Pentecost the early Christians formed a Church of small communities

of love and sharing, written about in the Acts and Pauline letters [e.g. Acts 2:41–47]. The precursor and paragon of our Small Caring Groups and B.E.C.

100 – 300 During the persecution the most heroic way of proclaiming the good news of God’s Kingdom [evangelization] was to give witness to the Faith unto death. This was the Church of the Martyrs; prominently found in the Catacombs.

300 – 600 After the persecution the Christians came out from hiding and organized their creed + code + cult; the beginning of the Institutional model of Church, hierarchical, bringing gospel values, evangelizing Rome’s political structures: executive, legislative and judicial branches.

600 – 1300 The tribal “barbarians” of Northern Europe descended on and devastated

much of Roman civilization. Converted to Christianity the evangelizing work of the monks focused on the economic life of the nomadic people: teaching them in the monasteries how to settle down, to build their houses, to raise domestic animals, to plant crops, to read and write, to pray. This was the Monastic Model of being Church.

1300 – 1600 When most of Europe became Christian, culture became the field for the Church’s mission of evangelization: architecture in imposing cathedrals, establishing universities, other arts in museums. Call this model ‘‘Christendom’: the powerful popes sponsoring exploration of new territories, crowning emperors, organizing the Crusades. This was also the age of St. Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas.

1600 – 1960 With power came wealth, that, brought corruption into the monasteries,

and up to the papacy. There was rebellion: the so-called Reformers protested against the power of the bishops, got rid of the sacraments, denied Catholic doctrine, founded their own sects. The very existence of the Church was threatened. In reaction to this, the Church closed itself and became defensive against the Protestants [katolikosarado].

Uniformity was imposed all over the world: the Church became “Roman”, Latin was its language even in the liturgy. People all over the world; liturgical vestments and style were as they were in Rome: [even nuns in the tropics put on habits for wintry Europe];

change was considered sinful. Whereas in past ages evangelization was to bring the good news to the economic, political and cultural life of the people, at this time the main preoccupation was the creed, code, cult, of religion, the domain of the clergy, controlling activities mostly inside churches. Colonization that accompanied evangelization developed for it a favored clientele, [mga suki] the well-to-do, those in position of power and authority, schooleducated elite. Such are the characteristics of the Parish model of being Church that lasted 400 years and still in tension with aggiornamento’s renewal and reform.

1960 till the end of time. The HolySpirit of the Risen Lord blows and inspires the People of God where and how it chooses. It was in 1958 that Giuseppe Angelo Cardinal Roncalli who never left his grassroots orientation, was elected Pope and convened Vatican II in 1962. But for many years before that he had observed “the women liberation movement”,

witnessed colonies clamoring for independence, labor and peasant unions demanding

fair treatment and justice from their employers, participation in the affairs that affect their life. Pope John XXIII read in them the signs of the times: women and men aspiring for dignity, for a share in the fruit of their labor, for freedom and justice to be fully human: for social transformation, not merely personal conversion and salvation of souls. But in all this the Church was “locked up in the sacristy” in endless war with Protestants over the creed-codecult of religion, over the mysteries of the faith which were beyond their human understanding. Then in spite of progress in means of travel, of communication, in the social and psychological sciences, advance in technology [or because of them] humanity suffered in two world wars, was trembling in the Cold War between the East and the West. There were two Koreas, two Germany’s, two Viet Nams, the Iron Curtain,

millions were homeless and refugees! But did He not promise “I will be with you

till the end of time”; hence, Pope John’s optimism. Pope John XXIII ordered the

katoliko-sarado Church to open up, to bring in fresh air and new inspiration of the

Holy Spirit, urged on dialogue with non- Catholics, cooperation with all people of

good will for peace and unity, for total human development; for enculturation, adaptation of the expression and celebration of faith-life to the culture and language of the people: aggiornamento [return to the sources, renew inspiration, reform methods, update the Church], [ecclesia simper reformanda]—in an era of permanent change The hour has come! The Holy Spirit unleashed its power over human resistance to change. Inspired

by Pope John’s optimism other people in and outside the Church introduced movements

that over the years updated the Church and made its evangelizing mission more effective: New approaches to biblical studies, Catholic Action, Legion of Mary, Cursillo, Better World Movement, Family Life Apostolate, Charismatic Renewal. In the Philippines in the mid 50’s President Magsaysay aroused great enthusiasm among the barrio people and in 1967 a little heralded Catholic Rural Congress in Cagayan de Oro City ushered the Church to pay them special attention.

Parish and BEC—Two Ways of Being Church

Independently of one another Small Communities began to appear in some countries of South America, Africa and in Mindanao with these characteristics: 1) composed of lay people in small communities, 2) mostly from the poor and lower class, 3) coming for fellowship—friendship, sharing and caring, 4) listening to the Word of God, 5) planning action to attend to their needs and the needs of others and 6) praying together. Not all of them profess or live up to all the six qualities mentioned above. Some carry strong religious or liturgical orientation, others with more projects [developmental], still others adding justice issues, with or without ideologies. They also are called by different names:

B. C .C. - Basic Christian Community BCC-Co - Basic Christian Community –Community Organizing B. E. C.s - Basic Christian Communities [plural, many small units] M. S. K. - Munting Sambayanang Kristiyano: M. P. K. - Munting [Mumunting]

Pamayanang Kristiyano G. K. K. - Gagmay [Ginagmay] Kristohanong Katilingban

KRIS-KA - Kristohanong Kasilinganan, - Cebuano ; [Kasilingan - Ilongo], Kistiyanong Kapitbahayan – Tagalog; Christian Neighborhood Community These are small units, no exact size but small enough for easier sharing, big enough to have enough resources for their needs in their life and work as small communities: “igo-igo ka daku”.—just the

right size!”— “katamtaman ang laki.”

They are SMALL COMMUNITIES that also are COMMUNITIES of the “SMALL” not in stature but in status, the marginalized poor in economic, political, cultural and religious institutions. We identify three types of these Small Caring Groups: 1) Six to nine families in the same neighborhood called in some places KRISKA ‘selda’; since it’s not monastic or the prison cell, better if “celula” is used— living cell of an organism! 2) Six to 12 individuals from the same SECTOR, students, teachers, vendors, drivers [sectoral].

3) Prayer Groups: some of them in remote chapels gathering for Liturgy of the Word.

The 1968 Medellin Conference of the Latin American Church gave approval to their Commuinidades Cristianas de Base. Groups in the Philippines adopted the name B.C.C. from the American translation Basic Christian Communities. But a more accurate translation of de base was from the roots, the base of society. Instead of B.E.C. Fr. Jose Marins used the term “Church from the roots”. Following the lead of the 1975 Synod

on Evangelization, the 1979 Puebla Conference in Mexico stressed the ecclesial nature of the small communities. In 1983 the 5th Mindanao-Sulu Pastoral Conference convened in Cotabato City. There MSPC V made B.E.C. [Basic Ecclesial Community] the more acceptable name of the small communities in Mindanao. When these Small Caring Groups gather together, coordinate their activities and ministries in the PARISH, they constitute the NEW WAY of BEING CHURCH.

The LOCAL CHURCH in its new MODEL: new structure, new leadership, new priorities— a B.E.C. The Parish becomes a Christian Community of many Small Christian Communities. In Cebuano: G. K. S. Gagmay’ng Katilingbang Simbahan

G. S. K. Gagmay Simabahanong Katilingban. In English: B. E. C. Basic Ecclesial Community - - - - [singular] In Tagalog: S. M. S. Simbahang Maliliit na Sambayanan o kaya M. S. S. Maliliit na Sambayanang Simbahan Their essential elements: 1) community 2) ecclesial, 3) new way of being Church.

1) COMMUNITY – KATILINGBAN – SAMBAYANAN: Not just people living

or working together in a place, but Christian Community, people knowing, caring

for one another as friends in the Lord: a socialization of Trinitarian life, thus becoming

truly God’s likeness.

2) ECCLESIAL – CHURCH (SIMBAHAN in Tagalog and Cebuano). (1) Faith-life in Christ: (2) Filled with Gifts of the Holy Spirit, (3) Listening to the Word of God (4) Nourished by the Sacraments & the Eucharist (5) With Bishops [& priests] as Servant–Leaders [Pastors] (6) under the tender care of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Both Church models, parish & new way must be community and church [ecclesial]. But one of them is “BASIC” and the other “traditional PARISH”. Most parishes now display some of the characteristics of the new way of being Church. But take note: B.E.C. is CHURCH, “sacrament” of the KINGDOM OF GOD which is “ALREADY-BUT-NOT-YET”, naa na apan wala pa, nandirito na ngunit wala pa. Christ has begun the Kingdom

and was perfect [love] in Him on the Cross; but among us it is still in process. . .Aggiornamento, resulting in B. E. C... The Parishes follows a similar process: alreadybut- not yet!

The Dream: Confusion and Problems: The Challenge

This article has no more pages left to say something about the spirituality of B.E.C. or to return to the 1991 PCP II crafted Vision-Mission of the Church of the Philippines which now seems to be a “hidden secret”, pinakatagong lihim, in the Church. Ten years later in 2001, The National Pastoral Consultation on Church Renewal evaluated and lamented our failure to implement PCP II Acts and Decrees. But the N.P.C.C.R. also failed to ignite our fervor to do so. For brevity the confusions and problems will be presented as challenges and what obviously are the responses [perspiration with inspiration] will hopefully bring about the ideal [aspiration] . . .

1) B.E.C. is considered as an organization and worse, carrying with it a “new canonicalism” or legalism: “those who are not members of our B.E.C. may not have

their babies baptized nor may they stand as baptismal sponsors.”—more Catholic

than the pope—when the new way of being Church should be more compassionate,

and more friendly, even with non-Catholics.

2) “But the rich are also poor”. There are three kinds of poor: (a) the morally poor

[sinner vs. saints], (b) the marginally poor [the least, last, lost, helpless, hopeless—

Christ’s preferences and our priority], (c) the evangelically poor [no luxury, with

less wants while attending to basic needs, diligent in work, generous in sharing, available

for service, dependence for effectivity on the power of the Word and the Holy Spirit, not on one’s own expertise, or latest gadgets.]

3) Newly ordained priests are invited by well-to-do friends to bless, offer Mass,

give talks, etc. How can they refuse good people asking them to do good things? No

such invitation from the marginalized poor. Sooner or later one has no more time, nor

energy, nor desire to go to the poor for their conscientization, evangelization and

formation into Small Caring Groups.

4) Seminarians are trained to pray in the seminary setting; assisted by schedules, routine atmosphere conducive to silent study and reflection with duly appointed spiritual directors and rector to look after their formation. After ordination they are on their own, with people and relatives claiming their attention and time: in conventos at times full of relatives, with annual retreats that at times look like jamborees or spiritual tourism. Nobody denies that solid prayer life is essential to a dedicated priesthood, but too often it is taken for granted; only presumed to be all right. Hence crisis of faith, of celibacy, of

authority, of permanent commitment, producing stray shepherds for the “assist

program.”

5) To live and act as shepherds of the Small Caring Groups priests must always renew a deep commitment to the person of Christ and involvement in His mission and priorities. If only they join their flock in regular and consistent dialogue of life [with

the poor and youth as priority] instead of merely waiting for them in the church to be

“hatched”, “matched”, “dispatched”— bunyag, kasal, lubong. Time and persevering

efforts are needed for the training of Parish Formation Teams and Small Caring Group leaders. Prayer Life of the priests and of the people will be a real Spirit-given gift when Small Caring Groups have their regular prayer sessions joined in by their pastors who go around the neighborhoods visiting and joining them.

6) Dangers: (a) the bishop’s priority of providing inspiration, guiding formation and coordination gives in to his becoming a decoration in festive events. (b) When reshuffled in the parishes, the first thing a new pastor does is to erase the memory of his predecessor—thus sowing again confusion among the people.

7) Needed is the political will of the bishop to implement the Acts and Decrees of PCP II. The Vision-Mission Statement of the Philippine Church must be resuscitated and not replaced by another vision-mission. All his priests must agree to study, to implement the same vision-mission, the same triple thrust: (a) to become a community of disciples, (b) a Church of the poor, (c) engaged in integral evangelization in every parish, assisted by all the schools, organizations and movements in the diocese without exception—even by the nuns in cloister. Together they produce the essentials of a Christ-centered, holistic,

ongoing formation process. Every priest is assigned to a vicariate or deanery or district, primarily to organize a Parish Formation Team in his own parish. Once a month the deanery with all its priests and a couple of lay formators gather for a whole day recollection-meeting for sharing reports of pastoral priorities, reflection and evaluation, planning and praying as partners of Christ in His mission of Evangelization by means of Small Caring Groups. Irony: good priests with good people doing good things are blocks to B.E.C. if the good they do are according to the Council of Trent, not according to Vatican II and PCP II!

Promoting and Forming Basic Ecclesial Communities

Promoting and Forming

Basic Ecclesial

Communities:

Problems and Prescriptions

Fr. Amado L. Picardal, CSsR, STD

One of the significant developments in the Church after Vatican II is the emergence of Basic Ecclesial communities (BECs) in various parts of the world including the Philippines. In his encyclical Redemptoris Missio (51), John Paul II considered BECs as “signs of vitality in the Church… a cause of great hope for the Church and a solid starting point for a new society based on the civilization of love.”

The promotion and formation of BECs is one of the means of renewing the Church which was the aim of Vatican II. The communitarian vision of the Church as Communion and as People of God—a priestly, prophetic kingly people—has made it possible for BECs to emerge. The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines, echoing the Vatican II vision of a renewed Church, recognized this when it declared: “Our vision of the Church as communion, participation and mission, the Church as priestly, prophetic and kingly

people, and as the Church of the Poor—a church that is renewed—is today finding expression in one ecclesial movement. This is the movement to foster Basic Ecclesial Communities.” (PCP II, 137) PCP II has further decreed that the formation of BECs be “vigorously promoted in urban and rural areas in the Philippines for the full living of the Christian life.” (PCP II, Acts and Decrees). PCP II views the ordained ministry in relation to the Christian community—a ministry of presiding over a community that is priestly, prophetic and kingly (serving) in nature. PCP II also recommended that training and formation of those preparing for the ordained ministry should be oriented to the formation of BECs. The presence and vitality of BECs in the dioceses and parishes may be one of the indicators for evaluating how ecclesial renewal promoted by Vatican II and PCP II is being implemented.

For some dioceses the BECs as envisioned by PCP II is already a reality. For others it remains a dream. In the course of promoting and forming BECs, a lot of problems and concerns have emerged that need to be addressed.

Problems and Concerns

1. Sustainability. Many BECs that have been formed could not be sustained, especially when the parish priests who initiated them were transferred and those who took their place were not supportive. This was also the case, when external pastoral agents who helped form BECs were gone. Some BECs have a ningas cogon mentality. The members were very enthusiastic at the start but they lost interest after a while.

2. Attendance and participation. There are BECs, where only a few actively participate in the ongoing activities (e.g. the weekly bible-service and biblesharing). Most of those who attend are women. The men and young people are seldom seen. Attendance and participation may increase during community masses and during fiesta, Christmas and Holy Week.

3. Policies and Sanctions. In order to ensure maximum attendance and participation, some dioceses especially in some parts of Mindanao, have resorted to policies and sanctions. Only active members of BECs can avail of the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, matrimony). Communities without active BECs or those who fail to pay their monthly dues cannot have fiesta masses. So, many participate due to coercion. But this has also driven others away and some have transferred to other Christian denominations.

4. Leadership. Some BECs have leaders who are incompetent and lacking in commitment. Others have leaders who are very authoritarian and dictatorial. Some are acting like “pari-pari” or little-priests, falling into a new form of clericalism of lay leaders. The leaders lack team-work. Many don’t go out of their way to reach out to the members and to encourage them. Others resort to policies and sanctions to assert

their authority.

5. Relations with Lay Organizations, Movements and Associations (LOMAS). In many cases the relationship between BECs and lay organizations, movements and associations

(LOMAs) tend to be problematic. Some members of LOMAs regard BECs as

just another organization and because of this there is no need to participate in

the BECs since they already belong to an organization. Others claim that their

organizations can be considered as BECs—so again there is no need to be members of the BECs in their neighborhood or village. In some cases, members of BECs who become members of LOMAs stop participating in their BECs. Consequently, a spirit of antagonism and competition prevails between BECs and LOMAs.

6. Responding to Social Concerns and Issues. Many BECs remain inwardlooking

communities that lack social concern. Their activities revolve around bible-sharing and liturgical celebrations. They do not respond to social problems and issues that they

face—e.g. poverty, hunger, criminality, injustice, armed conflict, the destruction

of the environment, etc. These BECs feel helpless in the midst of poverty and armed conflict. They are either incapable of addressing these concerns or they think that BECs

should only focus on spiritual concerns.

7. Understanding the vision and nature of BECs. Many practitioners and members of BECs do not have an adequate understanding of the vision and nature of BECs. There are many who associate BECs exclusively with the small group or cell, composed of six to

ten members, who gather weekly to reflect on the word of God. The BEC becomes just an activity (bible-reflection) or that small exclusive group. With this understanding of

BECs, any small group can be considered as BECs—the small cells in the neighborhood,

inside the classrooms, within the seminary, a small prayer group (SPG) or the CFC

household unit. The focus is on the smallness, rather than community dynamics and

ecclesiality. Most of these problems and concerns are interrelated. The problems of sustainability and poor participation in BECs may be the result of problematic

leadership, the use of coercive policies and sanctions, problematic relationship

with LOMAs, failure to respond to social concerns and inadequate understanding of

the vision and nature of BECs.

10 Prescriptions for Forming Sustainable BECs

In view of the problems and concerns, the following prescriptions may be helpful in the more effective promotion and formation of BECs. These are based on the lessons learned from the setbacks as well as the successes of BECs for the last four decades. These may be helpful for those who are just starting to form BECs and also those who want to revitalize BECs that have become stagnant or dormant.

1. The promotion and formation of BECs should be adopted as the thrust of the local Church, the diocese and the parish. It has to be regarded as a means of renewing the local Church in the spirit of Vatican II and PCP II. Thus, the formation of BECs is not merely optional. It is the obligation of the bishop, the clergy, religious and lay faithful in

every diocese to promote and form these communities. The diocesan commissions (especially worship, education, social action, youth) should be oriented in implementing the BEC thrust.

2. A leveling off regarding the vision and nature of BECs needs to be done. The PCP II provides a holistic vision of BECs—community of disciples, living in communion, participating in the mission of Christ as a prophetic (evangelizing), priestly (worshipping), and kingly (serving) communities and the Church of the Poor. The BEC must be understood as a way of life or culture— a communitarian way of living the Christian life where there is communion (a sense of belonging, participation and

sharing) among the members, where they come together regularly to reflect on the Word of God and to celebrate their faith in the liturgy, and where they work together for social transformation— for total human development, peace, justice and the integrity of creation. The BEC should be understood as the community in a locality which may be composed of cells and family groupings that are interconnected. It has to be seen as the most local expression of the Church at the grassroots, village and neighborhood.

3. A BEC parish formation team has to be formed for each parish. Imbibing the BEC culture, filled with missionary dynamism and adequately trained, this team can assist the parish priest in the formation of BECs. Team-work between the priest and the members of the formation team is very important. They need to regularly come together for planning, monitoring and evaluation.

4. A Pastoral/Strategic Plan for the parish must be drawn up by the parish priest, parish formation team and selected lay leaders. This pastoral plan includes the vision-mission, an external and internal analysis of the parish (SWOT analysis), goals, strategy selection, operational plans, monitoring, and evaluation mechanism.

5. A renewed evangelization is an essential component in the formation or revitalization

of BECs. The BEC is the fruit of evangelization and corresponding personal conversion that the members need to undergo. The parish should not rely on coercive policies and sanctions to evoke the active participation of the lay faithful in the BECs. An evangelization program for communities, families, men and youth should be drawn up.

6. Lay organizations, movements and associations should be given orientation on BEC and encouraged to actively participate in the formation of BECs in their village or neighborhood.

7. BEC Core groups should be formed in each village or barangay. They will function as light, leaven and salt in the midst of the community. Filled with missionary dynamism

they can help in the ongoing evangelization and in the expansion of the BEC. From among them will emerge the leaders of the community. A leadership formation program

should be set up at the parish level. This program should promote a participatory type of servantleadership. The commitment and competence of the leaders should be developed

as well as their teamwork. They should eventually function as the council of leaders.

8. In large villages or barangays, as the BECs expand and more people become active, it may be helpful to subdivide the community into cells or family groupings. This can

facilitate close relationship among the members. The cells should have their own

regular gatherings. The cells should be linked together and understood as part of the BEC.

9. Regular/sustainable activities and structures should be introduced to facilitate the growth of BECs as witnessing, worshipping, and serving communities. This may include weekly bible-reflection in the homes for cells or family groupings, weekly bible-service or liturgy of the word in the chapel for the whole community, monthly or bi-monthly BEC mass, monthly general assembly, etc. These regular activities should help deepen

the bond of unity and friendship among the members and help develop the BEC culture. The WESTY (worship, education, service/social action, temporalities, youth) committees may be set up at the BEC/Barangay level as well as the parish level. Neighboring BECs should be linked as zones. The BEC zones should be represented in the Parish Pastoral Council.

10. The BECs should eventually be mobilized to engage in renewed social apostolate. This means developing their social awareness and their capability to respond to the pressing social concerns (poverty, injustice, armed conflict, destruction of the environment, etc.). If necessary, the BECs should help develop livelihood projects that can help in poverty-alleviation, set up peace zones in areas of armed conflict, resist logging and mining operations, help in reforestation projects, participate in prayer rallies

in support of the CBCP or NASSAinitiated nationwide campaigns, change the political culture at the grassroots level. In this way John Paul II’s vision of BECs becomes a reality: “They take root in less privileged and rural areas, and become a leaven of Christian life, of care for the poor, and of commitment to the transformation of society” (Redemptoris Missio 51). Ultimately, BECs can only be sustained if they truly become a way of life for the lay faithful and if they can truly respond to their needs—whether material, social, spiritual. These communities can make a difference—in renewing the Church and transforming Philippine society.

B.E.C… “A New Way of Being Church”

B.E.C… “A New Way of Being Church”

By Msgr. Elmer S. Abacahin, SSJV

In 1991, the Church in the Philippines held its Second Plenary Council (PCP II) in order to evaluate the national pastoral situation and set directions for a renewed integral evangelization. PCP II realized that “a new evangelization” had to take place in view of the “lights and shadows” of the cultural, religious, political and economic situation of

the country. It recognized that the Church has been a potent but “flawed” instrument

of evangelization. The Church in the Philippines has to be a more credible and more

effective bearer and proclaimer of the Lord’s gospel. Therefore, toward the integral renewal of the Church, PCP II drew up a formidable vision of a renewed Church. The Church in the Philippines has to be truly a community of authentic disciples of the Lord,

prayerful, participatory and committed to social transformation in the light of faith,

inculturated and a Church of the Poor. This vision directly addressed the problems

within the Church as well as its relationship to Philippine society.

From 1992 to 1997, a flurry of renewing activities took place in all dioceses of the

Philippines. Moved by the vision of the Church drawn up by PCP II and encouraged

by the pastoral thrust of the local churches in Mindanao, more dioceses in Luzon and in the Visayas opted to build Basic Ecclesial Communities as “new way of being church”.

But many observers perceived a decline of interest five years after PCP II. The work of renewal was found quite exhausting. The challenge of renewing parish structures and pastoral methods was very difficult. There was no single approach to renewal that could easily be followed step by step. Most of all the implications of renewal with regard to lifestyles and pastoral mentalities—the personal dimensions of renewal—were too demanding.

Therefore, many efforts of renewal began to dissipate and fade. For this reason

the 10th Anniversary of PCP II in 2001 became an opportune moment for the

church in the Philippines to review the 10-year period after PCP II. Hence, the Catholic

Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) decided to hold the National Pastoral

Consultation on Church Renewal (NPCCR). NPCCR took a deep look at the renewal

done in many dioceses by way of BEC building. PCP II had described the Basic Ecclesial Community (BEC) as a “reflection of a renewed and renewing church”. The dioceses that started and persevered in building BEC’s were very much advanced in the efforts of integral renewal toward integral evangelization, including social transformation. In these

dioceses, the BEC at the grassroots was, indeed, an effective and credible expression

of a “new way of being church” in accord with the vision of PCP II.

Guided by the vision of the Church that PCP II had articulated and drawing lessons from the 10-year experience of renewal, NPCCR drew up nine major pastoral priorities for the Church in the Philippines. NPCCR strongly revived the movement of renewal. It stirred up the impulse of becoming a “new way of being church” by way of BEC. However, it soon became evident during and after NPCCR that a more systematic and coordinated effort to build BEC was required. There had been some BEC assemblies, but these had been called by CBCP-NASSA, whose interest was on the dimension of the BEC as an

agent of social transformation. NASSA 2006 annual report says: The year 2006 features concrete strings of achievements for the BEC based Integral Evangelization Program. “After five years of implementation a total of 30 arch/dioceses, prelatures and vicariates serving 70,731 families in 1,135 Basic Ecclesial Communities and 150 parishes have benefited from the program by batches. In an attempt to draw definition of a BEC,

NASSA organized the National Consultation of BEC Promoters on the Social Concerns

of BEC’s in the Philippines in June 1996" (cf. NASSA 2006 Report).

Much more was needed. An assembly had to be called to reflect on the integral life (social, political, cultural, religious) of the BEC and plan on the building of BEC’s themselves. This in fact was the conclusion of the national consultation on Basic Ecclesial Communities in 2003. More than 100 delegates from different dioceses in the Philippines attended the national consultation. They made two major recommendations

to facilitate the building of Basic Ecclesial Communities in the different dioceses: That the CBCP set up a national office to serve as a resource and coordinating center for the building of BEC’s; That a BEC national assembly be held periodically to exchange experiences in BEC building, identify strengths and weaknesses, evaluate efforts at BEC building, share resources and plan for the future.

Subsequently, the CBCP approved the first recommendations. It also approved the appointment of Bishops for the Board of the BEC National Office. The newly established Board in turn approved the recommendation to hold the First BEC National Assembly under the auspices of the CBCP-BEC National Office, in September 2005.

Basic Ecclesial Community

Soon