ON THE EXODUS OF THE OUR LADY MOTHER OF THE POOR FOUNDATION FROM MONTE MARIA

ON THE EXODUS OF THE

OUR LADY MOTHER OF THE POOR FOUNDATION

FROM MONTE MARIA

Msgr. Ruben Dimaculangan

Vicar General

Archdiocese of Lipa

The exodus of the Our Lady Mother of the Poor Foundation from Monte Maria to Cavite has spread like wildfire. There is a need to clarify certain issues obfuscated by filtering and lack of necessary information. Since many of our confused friends have been sending text messages of mixed emotions, I deem it important for you to know the following replies to some questions below. As a recommendation, it will be wise to learn the facts involved but it would not be advisable for anyone to square off with the media unless he is mandated by H.E. Archbishop Arguelles as spokesperson and unless he is armed with an official written statement:

Question: Is it true that the Archdiocese of Lipa drove the Our Lady Mother of the Poor Foundation away?

Reply: Archbishop Arguelles said a number of times that he welcomed Fr. Suarez and invited the Companions of the Cross to accompany Fr. Suarez in his unique healing mission to the Filipinos. The Our Lady Mother of the Poor Foundation came into the scene because it wanted to assist Fr. Suarez financially. Silently they came and now silently they leave.

Question: How true is their allegation that they left because of the exorbitant price tagged by Congressman Dodo on the surrounding lots of the 5-hectare land donated to Fr. Suarez?

Reply: Dodo said that after having donated the five-hectare land, some members of the Foundation were seeking to acquire spots of surrounding land at the original price when it was bought, that is, from the current selling price of P4,500/square meter to P150/square meter.

Question: Is it true that the reason why the Foundation was not able to construct the thematic chapels and other buildings was because Congressman Dodo did not have the titles in his name?

Reply: Congressman Dodo replied that it was the Philippine law which prohibited the Foundation from owning the five-hectare area for lack of residence. Accordingly, the Foundation needed three years. Besides, although the titles of the land were not yet in his name, Congressman Dodo attests that he really owns the land. To solve the aforementioned problem posed by the requisite 3-year residence, Fr. Totit Mandanas, representative of Archbishop Arguelles on the matter, proposed that the title be endorsed first to the Archdiocese of Lipa so that the Foundation could construct without legal impediment. Allegedly, not all members of the Board of the Foundation welcomed this provisional solution.

Question: Has this exodus of Monte Maria Foundation thrown away from the Archdiocese such a big opportunity, materially and spiritually?

Reply: Materially, yes. For some of our poor, this could have been a source of job opportunities, health assistance and donations from the Foundation. Spiritually, this would have exhibited the Archdiocese as the spiritual capital both in the Philippines and in Asia. But whether the Archdiocese has lost a big opportunity for spiritual growth with the exodus of the Foundation, the way things go, I do have some doubts. If the real intention of the Foundation was to make Fr. Suarez heal and shepherd the poor, its members should have been contented with starting small without so much passion to acquire adjacent lands.

Question: There was an allegation that Danding Cojuanco discouraged the Foundation to put up the statue of our Lady taller than the Statue of Liberty because it would have benefited only Congressman Dodo.

Reply: Congressman Dodo was all the time transparent that he was both a sincere Catholic and a businessman. Certainly, the statue would have benefited the affairs of the Congressman. Whether he intends it or not, it could have been his effective standard bearer, financially and politically. But it was not 100 per cent business: Side by side with the 5-hectare donation to Fr. Suarez, he was planning to put up thematic parks and hotels that would cater to the needs of club members who want to have a place for prayer and rest. For the Archdiocese, he was planning to donate under BOT terms, parks and buildings, etc., that would cater to the spiritual needs of the common people. The latter however will have access to the theme parks owned by Congressman Dodo. Thus, all the while Congressman Dodo has always admitted that it was a business venture in tandem with the healing ministry of Fr. Suarez and with the pastoral guidance of the Archdiocese. The three separate ventures are not in conflict because comprehensively they will make up a unique ambience in the Philippines or in Asia noted as a place for “religious tourism”. He added that for some Chinese partners this business would not be a goose that would lay golden eggs because of its association with sick people who frequent the area. And yet although not being a lucrative business, he is willing to risk pushing through with such a unique spiritual enclave.

Question: What happens to the recently blessed Santo Nino Chapel which has cost Mr. Garcia P80M to construct?

Reply: According to Congressman Dodo, he will donate the 5-hectare land to the Archdiocese. Concerning the Santo Nino Chapel, the decision would depend upon Fr. Fernando Suarez and Archbishop Arguelles.

Question: What do you think has been the real problem in this controversy? There have been fingers pointed at different personages as the party to blame.

Reply: It is a complicated issue. The problem could have been simpler had Fr. Fernando Suarez chosen to start small with the primary motive of healing and shepherding the flock without dreaming of acquiring a site bigger than the 5-hectare enclave. I think it started to become a problem when he made the innocent mistake of accepting and announcing the construction of the statue of our Lady, bigger than the statue of Liberty, as a condition for acquiring the 5-hectare land for the Foundation’s thematic chapels and other centers. The issue became complicated when some members of the Foundation allegedly tried to purchase adjacent lands because it put a different color to the ministry of Fr. Suarez. It became even more complicated when they insisted in the name of the Foundation to acquire adjacent lands at their original price many years ago. It compounded with the Foundation’s legal incapacity to receive donations vis-à-vis the expectant hope of the big donors that the announced grand statue of Our Lady and the other projects portrayed in the website would have been built.

Question: Any concluding remark?

Reply: Fr. Fernando Suarez is a holy man. I can see it from his simple but incisive homilies. His gift of healing helps him to be holy. He has a grand dream for the country, especially for its poor. He is a man to trust. But the way things have gone this far seems to show he should discern whether he is just being used by people who did not or do not really have the intention of using him. He should know that healed people who try to assist him still need to be guided home to the idea that his primary objective is to heal people and the country not through grand, if not grandiose, structures or enclaves which in the end may become standard bearers only of themselves, not of the healing Christ. I still think that in this Country the real standard bearers of the love of Christ are structures where our poor will be more overwhelmed by a very welcoming simple healing ambience than by structures owned by an elite that could alienate their being sick and poor.

NOTE:

THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN EYES ONLY. THE MOTIVE OF DISCUSSING THIS IS JUST TO HUMBLY TAKE THE LIBERTY OF INFORMING YOU ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS YOU MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN. THE CONCLUDING PART IS ONLY MINE.

- moderator curiae -