What is cbcp

The CWO handed a letter to the President stating the stand of the Church with regard to the Masonic commitment of the three officials. It availed itself of the services of Atty. Raul Manglapus, Atty. Ambrosio Padilla, Atty. Jose Feria and Atty. Francisco Rodrigo in prosecuting the cause of the Church.

The Rizal Bill No. Originally authored by Sen. Claro Recto, the bill, sponsored by Sen. The measure ignited a hot controversy, and encountered a determined opposition from the CWO, not to mention the various Catholic organizations led by the Catholic Action of the Philippines CAP , on the ground that it violated freedom of conscience and religion.

The controversy ended with a substitution of a different measure which accommodated the objections of the CWO. But the concerted voice of the CWO was also communicated to the Catholics and the whole nation at large through its letters and statements.

The CWO was almost always able to issue them on issues of national importance. Its concern for the threat of Communist takeover can be seen in its pastoral letter on social justice 21 May and on Communism 15 August In these letters, the bishops wisely pointed out the social roots of Communism, and criticized the injustices of Capitalism which encouraged the growth of the communist movement; and with the surrender of Luis Taruc showed its opposition to witch-hunt, even though it rejected Communism.

That it considered the transmission of Christian truth and values through the schools important in a society that fostered pluralism in religion can be inferred from its letters and statements on Religious Instruction in Public Schools on 18 February , on Catholic Education on 10 April , and on the Religious Instruction Bill on 6 June The ground for its opposition to the Rizal Bill finds expression in a statement on the two novels on 21 April And against the corruption of morals, it wrote a pastoral on materialism, its first joint letter to Filipinos after the war.

All in all, the CWO issued 39 joint pastoral letters and statements from to It may be observed that although these letters and statements were strong when Catholic interests were under attack, in general they tended to dwell on general principles and lacked prophetic slant when it came to particular political and social questions.

It would appear from the foregoing, that the CWO was for the most part concerned with the Church ad intra. In fact, its administrative structure lends support to this observation.

After eight years of existence, in addition to the agencies under the secretary general Sentinel, Relief, Legion of Decency, and Public Relation Office , it had only three episcopal commissions, which were hardly engaged in ad extra issues: Department of Education and Religious Instruction, Department of Catholic and Social Action, and Department of Mission.

That, however, is understandable. The ecclesiological framework derived from the theology of the Council of Trent put theological limits to the CWO involvement in the socioeconomic and the political structure of the nation. It is not surprising, therefore, that despite the unrest in agriculture and labor fronts, its involvement in these spheres may be characterized chiefly as social charity or welfare. The importance of the Catholic schools, orphanages, hospitals and other charitable institutions, like the Catholic Charities which Cardinal Santos founded in , may be viewed from this angle.

Indeed, although it wrote letters on social principles and social justice , the place of these social principles was not yet well integrated into the ecclesiological outlook inherited from Trent.

Obviously, the CWO needed some vehicles to translate these principles into the particular situation. However, in , the Social Action Department of the CWO was established to promote, on the national level, a sound and effective program of Catholic action in the social field for the reconstruction of the social order in accord with the directives set forth by the popes especially in Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno.

Jeremias Montemayor. Staunchly anti-Communist, its purpose was the organization of small farmers and tenants for cooperative action in defense of their rights, and promotion of their social welfare. Even so, the CWO was not very much involved in labor and rural problems of the day, despite the fact that its statements often quoted papal social encyclicals. The same ecclesiological framework marked off the lay participation in the social apostolate. Understandably, Pius XI, in his Ubi arcano Dei , within the boundaries of a monarchical ecclesiology, defined lay apostolate in terms of cooperation in the apostolate of the Hierarchy.

Still, that cooperation was a major link between the Bellarminian view of the Church which rooted all ministry in the Hierarchy and the consciousness that each Christian had to be a witness to the Gospel in the world.

In the Philippines, the lay participation was accomplished through the coordination of various religious organizations on a national scale under the Episcopal Commission on Catholic Action. Their primary objective was to strive, give practical effect, in their respective fields, to the mandata of the Hierarchy in accord with the directives of Pius XI.

Aside from such traditional activities as organization of religious celebrations, congresses, and catechesis, these organizations were the frontliners in many rallies, lobbied in Congress, and were engaged in various social activities. It was not within the province of the lay apostolate to be directly involved in socioeconomic institutions and their activities.

And obviously, it was the thinking at that time that if the social order was to be renewed, it would come from the top. Four outstanding events, which came to pass during this period of the CBCP history, and in which the CWO played a part, may be recalled because, among other reasons, they demonstrated that the Philippine Church, despite the onslaughts against it by the Masons and other anti-Catholics, was vibrant and flourishing.

Its purpose was to bear witness to the Catholic faith of the Filipino people , and to decree such legislations as may be necessary for the preservation, enrichment and propagation of Catholic life.

To solve the problems confronted at the time, the Council, no doubt within the Tridentine framework, offered to renew the social order through the renewal of spirit of both clergy and laity.

That spirit was to be manifested in the concern for individual salvation and formation of social conscience. And the individual and social energy generated was to be organized in the forms approved by the Church and under the direction of the Hierarchy.

It was a grand manifestation of Catholic faith, which culminated in a liturgical celebration, participated in by more than a million Catholics, headed by President Ramon Magsaysay and his family. Then, on 7 October , the Pontificio Collegio-Seminario Filippino, whose cornerstone was laid on 1 August , was finally inaugurated and blessed, so that Filipino seminarians and priests could be trained sub umbra Petri.

Lastly, the nation observed a six-day celebration of the 4th centenary of the Philippine Christianization in Cebu 27 April—2 May , graced by Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi, Apostolic Delegate to the US, and by most of the Philippine bishops. It saw the birth of the Philippine Mission Society, signifying, among others, that it was now the turn of the Filipinos to spread to other lands the faith they had received.

When the Second Vatican Council ended in December , it created a paradigm shift in ecclesiology, as noted earlier: from a Church understood mainly as a social institution, the self-understanding moved primarily to a Church as the people of God. The CWO was met by the challenge of the shift, and its corresponding theological and pastoral implications. The changes brought about by the council were, of course, partly noticed even in the CWO Constitution itself which was revised pursuant to the conciliar decree, Christus Dominus nn.

Approved by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation on 12 December , the newly amended constitution was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 29 Feb.

However, since this constitution was ad quinquennium experimenti gratia , it was revised and approved in July , and given recognitio by the Holy See on 21 May From to , the following were presidents of the Conference: Archbishops Lino Gonzaga [], Teopisto Alberto [] and Cardinal Julio Rosales, whose term extended to the next, even more difficult, period.

Admittedly, however, the impact of the conciliar ecclesiology in terms of the collective theological outlook of the bishops was not immediately felt in the years that immediately followed. On this score, the post episcopal body was much in continuity with the post-war CWO. This is not to say, however, that the CBCP remained on the defensive. Quite the contrary, it slowly changed its focus from defensiveness to awareness of the role of social apostolate in the mission of the Church, as it did not fail to address the problems of the time, which by through , especially in the First Quarter Storm, became the issues of rallies, strikes and demonstrations in Metro Manila.

Hence, the appropriateness of calling this period one of difficult transition. But while some sectors of society opted for radical change, others preferred social and political reforms. The CBCP was not without social awareness, and it stood for the amelioration of the socioeconomic order.

Indeed, at this stage the Conference, in its letters and statements, showed a better contextualization of Christian principles. Already on 8 January , it issued a pastoral letter on social action and development in which it emphasized, among others, the mission of the Church in the temporal order, the relationship between evangelization and development, and, in particular, the rights of workers.

In the same year, it organized the National Congress on Rural Development February to promote a genuine awareness of the socioeconomic problems. The congress was followed up by a pastoral letter on social awareness 1 May Priests were trained to head the Social Action Centers in different dioceses. The following year 1 May , which Pres.

It appears, then, that in the late s the CBCP saw non-conflictual development cooperatives, credit unions, farm-goods subsidy, social insurance for farmers and fishermen, self-help projects, etc. It must be acknowledged, however, that the development model was a remarkable step from that of social charity.

It is within the familiar framework that the Conference addressed political and government-related issues and problems. Then, by , student and peasant demonstrations became more frequent, and the CBCP was at first concerned with the demonstrations themselves and the analysis of their tactics.

It detected in them the dangers of Communism, and defended the Church against the accusation that it was rich. It proposed dialogue between teachers and the youth, establishment of recreation and training programs for the youth, even recommending the holding of a congress for the purpose. When the issues raised in these rallies and demonstrations led to an urgent call for a Constitutional Convention in the hope that a new fundamental law would provide new principles and provisions for solving the national crisis, the CBCP, on 25 Jan , appealed to Congress for a non-partisan convention.

In preparation for this convention, the Conference agreed to deliver talks and sermons about this political exercise, cooperate with other groups for honest and free elections, hold convention of priests on the subject, and allow clerics to run as candidates. It may be noted that the bishops exerted much effort and worked hard so that provisions on religious instruction and tax exemption of Church properties be included in the proposed Constitution.

Six months later, as the violence in the country escalated, it issued a letter on civic responsibility, denouncing what it perceived as the evils of society, and asking citizens to participate conscientiously in the political life of the nation. Avowedly, however, there were progressive members of the CBCP who perceived that more than social charity and development were needed to restructure the Philippine society and thus solve the social ferment.

Though these were a minority, this nonetheless indicates that the CBCP was being caught up in the difficult transition from the old to the new ecclesiological paradigm. With US support, he beefed up the military to more than , in 6 years, to more than , in 6 years, and to more than , in 8 years, and flung open wide the country to the world market.

A new oligarchy began replacing the old one. The poor became poorer, and violation of human rights was almost pandemic. In general, it may be said that the responses of the CBCP to the challenges under the new dispensation underwent uneven development, and were not always homogeneous.

Five days after the declaration of martial law, its Administrative Council made public a letter recognizing the right and duty of civil authorities to take appropriate steps to protect the sovereignty and assure peace and security of the nation, and asking martial law implementors to exercise prudence and restraint and respect human dignity, and the people to be calm and law-abiding under the new political realities 26 September.

But despite the uneasiness of a number of bishops, and despite such important issues affecting the nation as the abolition of Congress and the Referendum of through National Assemblies, and despite the appalling realities brought about by the new order, the CBCP was generally silent in the first five months, nay, in the first three years of the martial law regime This concern for the interest of the institutional Church is reflected in its various decisions.

And also, the CBCP petitioned the reopening of the closed radio stations. The same may be said of most of its joint statements and pastoral letters. These are rather numerous when compared to those directly related to martial law.

But even these latter were very circumspect and, when viewed against such grim realities as arbitrary arrests, mysterious disappearances, and torture of prisoners, which martial law continued to leave in its wake, mild. For instance, its joint statement on evangelization and development, issued on 25 July , among others, accepted the goals of the new society, though it cautioned against their pursuance at the cost of dignity and freedom.

The same may be said of its 31 January statement on the referendum of 27 February , although with reference to conscientious objectors, it managed to quote St.

At least it may be safely said that the majority of the bishops did not want to court the antagonism of the Marcosian regime. At the same time, the silence gives evidence of disunity within the Conference. Later, as was bound to happen, a fissure in the already strained relationship between the Church and the government occurred in the aftermath of the military raid of the Sacred Heart Novitiate in Novaliches on 24 August To be sure, the authoritarian regime was a novel experience to the CBCP, and if from to , its statements and letters were moderately tame in face of a worsening, greatly reshaped socioeconomic and political situation, it was not simply because they were compromise documents, but, to view them more deeply, more because of the different ecclesiological frameworks and their corresponding pastoral implications, within which the bishops approached the issue of martial law.

That this was so can be argued from the statements of the individual bishops. But these different ecclesiological approaches came to a head in In a deeper sense, this largely explains the different, sometimes conflicting, statements of the individual bishops and the two controve rsies that year. The rift, it may be conjectured, was not lost to Marcos who, after the massive boycott in the 16 October referendum, retaliated against the Church by deportation, raid, closure of radio stations and publications, as well as arrest and detention of lay workers.

Even though at this point in time it did not yet question the legitimacy of the regime, the CBCP, no doubt, was in touch with the concrete historical experience and the aspiration of the common people. At the same time, it became obvious that in its understanding of the role of the Church in the socioeconomic and political order, it was not only development but, more accurately, it was integral liberation, and the CBCP became more committed to it.

This, to be sure, constitutes a significant advance from the cooperative and development thrust in the late s. But in this January pastoral letter, the CBCP sharply criticized the government population program, the treatment of national minorities, the handling of the Mindanao situation, the harassment of basic ecclesial communities and the disregard for the human rights of evangelization workers.

For all the harassment and the efforts to suppress them, it held the lay workers essential in the implementation of that mission. This teaching marks a change from the pre-conciliar one in which lay apostolate was understood to have been derived from the mandata of the Hierarchy.

Henceforth, the Conference no longer engaged in generalities with regard to political problems; it did not remain at the level of pronouncing principles, as it did for instance in Instead, it courageously made moral judgment, denouncing the excesses of the regime. In fact, the following year was a bad one for the Church, for it endured not just threats to its legitimate interests, like the campaign to legalize divorce in or the threat to tax Church-owned schools and hospitals, but what amounted to Church persecution: arrests and detention of priests more than 50 of them by , layworkers, and activists; raids of institutions; attempts at infiltration; accusation of communist infiltration in the Church; trial by publicity in the media, etc.

In other words, the CBCP was now paying the price for prophesying. By , the year in which many Filipinos cause-oriented, mass-based, party-based, etc. The Church—and probably no other—was looked up to as the bastion of hope. No doubt, the collective ecclesiological outlook of the CBCP was liberationist, and the understanding of its role in the socioeconomic and political order became even more defined.

Indeed, it called for the transformation not only of individuals but also of societal structures as part of integral liberation. In the final result, what was under criticism was not simply the individual acts of martial law; the whole structure of dictatorship itself stood under severe criticism. It is not insignificant that from through , all its joint pastoral letters and statements, except for its statements on biblical apostolate February and on the Marian Year 1 February and 6 August , had direct reference to martial law and the major problems it engendered.

It took a clear preferential option for the poor, supporting them in their assertion of dignity and defense of rights. With his authority slipping off, Marcos instituted the PCO Presidential Commitment Order by means of a decree, which enabled the military to arrest arbitrarily and detain indefinitely. On 7 August, the CBCP, in its message to the people on the exercise of PCO, passed a moral judgment on the presidential decree, calling it, along with its implementation, immoral.

To forestall the reading of this letter in the pulpit, Marcos announced the abolition of the PCO, and hoodwinked the bishops by replacing it with the Presidential Detention Action [PDA] which was scarcely any different in substance. Benigno Aquino, Jr.

With the country on the brink of chaos and anarchy, the CBCP issued a statement of reconciliation on 27 November, calling for a social transformation—transformation of unjust structures and individuals—required by authentic reconciliation with God and with one another as an alternative to the continuance of the present injustice and violence.

Late in the year, the CBCP Administrative Council 28 December decided to issue a statement on the forthcoming plebiscite on the constitutional amendment restating the office of the vice-president, and the Batasan elections in May Published on 8 January , it did not fail to mention, among others, the right not to participate in political exercises which citizens consider contrary to their conscience. In terms of political outlook, this is a clear indication of the acceptance of pluralism which the CBCP now recognized as a right.

No external sources of information may be accessed during the exam held via ProctorU. Further details of the materials permitted are provided:. Certification Overview. Exam Information. Exam Pattern. Mode of Exam. Duration of exam. The total duration of the exam is 1 hour 60 Minutes. Closed book. Further details of the materials permitted are provided: Identification Proof.

Retaking of exam. If a Candidate does not pass the exam in the first 1st attempt, the candidate must wait for a period of at least seven 7 calendar days from the date of their attempt to retake the exam for second 2nd time or any subsequent time. The exam can be taken any number of times. Certification Validity. Trademark Acknowledgement. Download Sample Exam. Course Outline. Module Information - 3 Recovery teams Vendor roles and back-up methods Strategies for funding recovery Managing Recovery Plan Development Emergency response and operations Business Continuity Auditing Business Continuity Testing Verbal and written skills Coping with people in recovery Selecting the tools to support the process The missing elements.

Download Brochure.