Cardinal Tagle greets the poor of Tondo
In the recent article posted on inquirer.net by Mr. Jhufel Querikiol entitled “Is the Church too rich now to care for the poor?” wherein he criticizes the Church of being too rich and he questions on how the finances and collections in the Church are been handled. In this case, I myself like him was a former seminarian which came from some seminaries already, because of that I would like to answer him on this matter.
Mr. Querikol shared his experience in his former seminary like a place of heavenly delights because of the ammenities and the food he got from the seminary which were provided to them by the community. Then ater that he shifted to the use of Mass collections and gap between the priest and the poor people. In this case Mr. Querikol over generalized the facts because he did not elobrate well why and how the funds were used. He did not eloborate how he got his nice favorite food in the seminary where it came from. When I was in the seminary our formators taught us to earn our bread with the sweat of our brow through farming and poultry, we were taught how to plant vegetables and if it is harvest time we collect the harvest and use it for our food, the only ones that the seminary will be spending would be for the meat, rice, fish and other things from the market. We were taught to conserve electricity and water to lessen the expenses. Sometimes generous parishioners which became our benefactos donate one or two sack or rice to support the seminarian’s needs, the seminary was also supported by either the diocese or the Generalate providing subsidy to the seminary. Some of them came from other countries, which will be as a support to seminarians who came from poor families to provide for their tuition and other needs. These people who give their generosity does not donate to make the seminary rich nor the seminarians reach and spoiled but rather they wanted support them because these young people who respond to their call left the comforts of home in order to serve the Lord, sacrificing everything. Sometimes donations came also from the local parish, but not from the collections, but from donation boxes in churches that is why sometimes we see donation boxes with the word ‘For the Seminarians’ the only time that there would be a second collection is during the seminary’s vocation day. After that no more, if he saw swimming pools and some amenities, those things are used for recreation purposes of seminarians so that while secluded from the outside world they may enjoy their life in fun and happiness with their companions. Meaning those are necessities already for the formation. So that the seminarians will feel that seminary life if not boring nor like a hell. Besides seminaries are like that having always with them generous benefactors, in fact some seminaries has to beg from the people to support their seminarians.
Regarding his statement ” Whenever I look at the collection baskets being passed around (twice in many Sunday Masses) these days, or at the envelope that contains the stipend for the priest, and then see the lifestyle of some priests, or the cars they drive, the restaurants they frequent, and the gadgets they’re so busy with—Jesus, forgive me!—I can’t help but ask: Where does all the collection money go? Do the collections still go where they’re supposed to go? To the seminary? To the poor?”
That would be a nice one that he asked where does the collection money go, but also this should be the question for him, di you even bother to investigate further where the Mass collections go?. To answer Mr. Jhufel, I would like to say that every parishes provides the statement of accounts posted on each parish bulletin word and that is where the collection in the Mass go. Another thing is that, each parish was also asked by the diocese to give its share not only in supporting the projects of the diocese but also for the needs of the old priests who needs help. That statement of account is the evidence which Mr. Jhufel is looking at, the question is if he even bother to check it, besides another thing, Mass collections also go to the charitable apostolate of the parish, in the Archdiocese of Manila, it goes also to Caritas Manila, the charitable institution of the diocese which is concern in helping the poor and in some parishes giving food and school supplies to the poor of the suburbs, also it goes also in providing scholarship to out of school youth living in the squatter’s area, other than the other expenses of the parish. What goes into the seminary is just a small percent of the collection money. Mr. Jhufel also questions regarding the Mass stipends which were given to the priests and also the envelopes, well unfortunately for Mr. Jhufel he didn’t know that other envelopes were donations to church construction and maintenance, besides in a priest who lives in the parish, he uses it for his ministerial work, especially if he commutes or when riding a vehicles going to a chapel to celebrate Mass. Mr. Jhufel did not distinguish between what is a want and what is a need in the priest’s use of vehicles and gadgets. He thought that it alienates the priests from the poor. I have been an altar server for 12 years and I know where those Mass offerings and stipends go. Actually, the priest only has a small portion of it for his own personal expense, most the stipend goes to the diocese, giving a certain percent of his share to support the ailing priests, and also for the priest contributors future needs if he is old already. In seminaries whether religious or diocesan, the stipend goes to the needs of the seminarians, and a percent of it goes also to the province or diocese for its charitable projects, the priest only gets a small proportion of it for their own personal allowance.
Unfortunately for Mr. Jhufel he criticizes the priest’s dress and compares it with the poor man. Was he referring to the chasuble of the priest? or was he referring to the day to day dress of the priest? He cannot distinguish between the two, first, the chasubles of the priests are not his own, he did not use it for his own expense but for the ministry, the priest is also a minister of the Church, and also a priest of God, the priest has to use it in worshipping God, for we must give what is the best we have for God, in the Bible we read that God requires the priest to dress in its most best way. Besides how sure he is that the priest are not helping the poor? How sure he is also that the priest treats the poor as inferior? that is only his opinion. For he did not look beyond what he sees, priest does not look down on the poor nor do they treat them as inferior, in fact it was the priest who ministers to the poor. When I was an altar server, after the Mass, our parish priest was approached by street children asking for food and sometimes a poor family, I saw our priest giving most of the Mass offerings to them, like fruits and some others canned goods, if priests treat the poor as inferior, then why does the bishops has to establish Caritas Manila? if they didn’t know when Cardinal Tagle was still our bishop, before the Chrism Mass, when a little poor boy was asking him for some water, he happily gave his unused bottled mineral water to the boy, actually in our diocese if was him who helped the street children who roam at the Cathedral giving them scholarships for the school. The Church is really concerned for the poor, most of its funds goes to its charitable works for the poor. The Church can alleviate poverty but she cannot fully exterminate it because poverty is a social reality that cannot be easily removed in the life of man. Mr. Jhufel’s statements has a bit o a Marxist tone, because he mentions the gap of the priest’s and the poor, of them treating the poor as inferior and them as superior. He does not rather investigate further on the reality what does the Catholic Church really do to help the poor.
I have been the seminary alms giver for many months before, I was tasked by my formators to give foosd and rice to the poor who knock on our seminary gates, because our seminary reserved funds to give rice to those poor families who needs food. And I as a living witness can testify how the CHurch really cares for the poor, our seminary every saturday has its feeding program for the poor children and even had a medical mission for them in cooperation with the local parish. Giving them free check up for them, I remember that we seminarians were given the task to list the names of the patients who will have their check up. And I can assure you that the poor families where very happy for it. Is this the gap which Mr, Jhufel is referring to? who are those proud priests he is mentioning? Even the so called proud priests are not alien to the poor because they have also the heart not to treat the poor as inferior. Besides that mentality of saying that priests are treating the poor as inferior are Marxists because they think the Church is exploiting the poor which is wrong and not true.
Lastly, Mr. Jhufel quoted Mark 6:37 to support his claims, he didn’t know that he quoted it out of context. Because if we weill read the whole of the story it did not say that those people who went to Christ were all poor people, rather it just said that the vast crowd were following Jesus, meaning no status quo mentioned, since they are in a desert, the food has no opportunity to eat, but when the Gospel said this, it doesn’t mean that it totally pertains to poor people. But rather to the people who left everything just to hear the words of Jesus.If we will read the Gospel carefully the disciples said “Dismiss them so that they can go to the surrounding farms and villages and buy themselves something to it.”, meaning those who followed Jesus were not all poor people but middle class people who can buy food in the market. So what’s the relation of it to his whole article? Actually the best answer to Mr. Jhufel is this our Lord said this one when somebody critcizes Mary of Bethany for the expensive perfume which was wasted when it was poured upon the head of Jesus, of which its proceeds should have been given to the poor. But Jesus said to Judas in reply:
“Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for he? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me. She has done what she could.”
(Mark 14:6-8, NAB)
Christ is right, that the poor is everywhere and anytime we can help them, but the opportunity to know the truth of the faith and also the sacraments which is necessary for our salvation especially the Eucharist which is the Body and Blood of Christ. And the CHurch cannot neglect that to the people if it concerned too much on the poor. Anytime the Church can help them but of course it needs to sustain and provide for the spiritual needs of its flock. That is why Mr. Jhufel cannot just the priest wearing a beautiful cassock or chasuble which puts a gap between him and the poor, because the vestment that he use is not for his own self glory or own use but for his ministry in the Church. Lastly, I would like to tell Mr. Jhufel to go beyond what he see, to look also on the other side of the picture before he even mention that the Church is becoming too wealthy to be concerned for the poor. The Church has no wealth of its own but its own wealth is its people, and its own wealth is Christ the Lord present in the Eucharist.
Mr. Jhufel’s article:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/92694/is-the-church-too-rich-now-to-care-for-the-poor#ixzz3zeuTtp62