Gospel of the Hospitable Family

I think it would be better to change the phrase “Gospel of the Family” (Relatio Synodi [R.S.]) of the 2014 Extraordinary Synod) into “Gospel of the Hospitable Family” for the Ordinary Synod in October 2015.

I think the following four realities deserve more attention in the discussion of the social context and the challenges in family life today: (1) the homelessness and the insecure residency of many families worldwide, (2) the many refugee families who have fled and are fleeing from war and oppression,

(3) the age-old shadow of idolatry of the family, or the priority of family interest over the common good, especially with the reality of clannishness, tribalism, or political dynasties in many weak States, and (4) the estrangement, alienation, or insufficient compassion that Catholics in problematic relationships or fragile families have experienced in their contact with some church institutions and communities. 

On the estrangement of some Catholics in problematic or broken relationships, one reads in the Instrumentum Laboris (Working Document) for the 2014 Extraordinary Synod: “persons who are separated, divorced or single parents sometimes feel unwelcome in some parish communities…some clergy are uncompromising and insensitive in their behavior; and, generally speaking…the Church, in many ways, is perceived as exclusive, and not sufficiently present and supportive” (I.L. 75).  These Catholics feel like unwelcome strangers in the Church.

Just as the Body of Christ cannot turn its back on those who suffer from poverty and disease, it cannot be heartless toward those who suffer from estrangement, broken relationships, and fragile families.  As Vatican II affirms: “The Church encompasses with her love all those who are afflicted by human misery and she recognizes in those who are poor and who suffer, the image of her poor and suffering founder.  She does all in her power to relieve their need and in them she strives to serve Christ.” (Lumen Gentium 8)

On the plight of refugees, the “Message” of the Extraordinary Synod says: “We think of so many poor families, of those who cling to boats in order to reach a shore of survival, of refugees wandering without hope in the desert, of those persecuted because of their faith and the human and spiritual values which they hold.  These are stricken by the brutality of war and oppression.”  The plight of refugees belongs to the category of “families in extreme situations.” 

I propose to include in the discussion of the vision and mission of Jesus as regards the family his radical redefinition of his family: “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew12:50).

Jesus proclaimed the Gospel of God’s Reign or Kindom, one image of which is the gathering of peoples, especially estranged peoples, to feast on “God’s abundance” of gifts “for renewed community” (John Koenig).  As Jesus declared, “Many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the Kindom of heaven” (8:11).

God’s Kindom is much more important than any treasured ties based on blood, marriage, affinity, descent, or the decision of guardians or authority figures.  Thus, Christ has declared: “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (10:37).  Among faithful followers of Christ, (baptismal) water is thicker than blood.  Water in the Holy Spirit is weightier than ancestral blood.

Jesus rejects any idolatry of the family, and thus conscientious pastors, missionaries, and theologians ought to consider the possibility that a “Gospel of the Family” might turn into a betrayal of the true Gospel in contexts in which clannishness or tribalism prevails to the detriment of the common good. 

In reference to one of the shadows in Philippine family life, the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines states: “Unity is sometimes solely based on ties of flesh and blood.  The family community itself consequently becomes insensitive to the greater demands of the common good.  When this happens, the families no longer care to participate in the development of society or the mission of the Church.” (PCP II, 582)

Especially among members of the elite, the welfare, comfort, prosperity, or political power of their families is their concern above all.  The unequal access to politico-economic power in many struggling societies contributes considerably to the pervasiveness and persistence of poverty, which in turn contributes to the dissolution of many marriages (R.S. 8) and to the decision of many couples to live together and delay or do without a church wedding, which in some locales is deemed “too expensive” (R.S. 42).  “Economic difficulties” constitute one of the significant obstacles to “the responsible procreation and education of children” (PCP II, 584).

The new family of Jesus comprises those who welcome the will of heaven, which finds a home in their hearts.  In this light, I hope the 2015 Ordinary Synod would include in its discussions of the family apostolate the Christian practice of hospitality.

Jesus valued hospitality when he sent out the Twelve two by two to preach the good news and heal the sick in villages throughout Galilee, and he instructed them to take no bread, bag, or money, for they were to hope for and rely on the hospitality of households that would welcome them (Mark 6:7-13).  The mission of the disciples involved the acceptance and offering of gifts: they were travelling strangers who received the gift of hospitality (food and shelter), and they offered their gifts of healing and good news.

The apostle Paul benefited from and promoted “house church hospitality” (Koenig).  He urged fellow believers to cherish God’s mercy through Christ and his Gospel by avoiding complacency and by offering their bodies as “a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1).  One of the ways in which believers can practice the sacrificial life in a world that at times can be hostile to them is the following: “Share with the Lord’s people who are in need.  Practice hospitality [philoxenia].” (12:13)

“Xenos, the word that means ‘stranger’ in Greek, also means ‘guest’ and ‘host’…xenophobia [is] fear of the stranger…philoxenia [is] a love of the guest or stranger.  Philoxenia can also mean love of the whole atmosphere of hospitality and the whole activity of guesting and hosting.” (Ana Maria Pineda)

Although it never mentioned hospitality, the “Message” of the Extraordinary Synod, in the first biblical text it quoted, offered the image of a Christ seeking hospitality: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me.” (Revelation 3:20)  A few paragraphs later, the “Message” called for a Church that would be hospitable to everybody, as it stated: “Christ wanted his Church to be a house with doors always open to welcome everyone.” 

Similarly, the Relatio Synodi does not mention hospitality, but near its conclusion it offers an image of the Church as a hospitable people: “The Church can assume a valuable role in supporting families, starting with Christian Initiation, by being welcoming communities” (R.S. 61). 

In the case of Evangelii Gaudium, this image is found: “A people for everyone… The Church must be a place of mercy freely giv­en, where everyone can feel welcomed, loved, forgiven and encouraged to live the good life of the Gospel” (E.G. 114).

In its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity (1965), Vatican II mentions “active hospitality” as one of the ways in which the family accomplishes its divine “mission of being the primary vital cell of society,” and it lists the following “among the various works of the family apostolate…adopting abandoned children, showing a loving welcome to strangers, helping with the running of schools…supporting married people and families involved in material and moral crises” (Apostolicam Actuositatem, 11). 

The Relatio Synodi mentions the adoption of children as an expression of “openness to life,” and it says: “The adoption of children, orphans and the abandoned and accepting them as one’s own is a specific form of the family apostolate (cf. Apostolicam Actuositatem, III, 11)...Such a choice is a powerful sign of family love, an occasion to witness to one’s faith and to restore the dignity of a son or daughter to a person who has been deprived of this dignity.” (R.S. 58)

What is Christian hospitality?  It is “the practice of providing space where the stranger is taken in and known as one who bears gifts” (Pineda).  The stranger is not just the foreigner, but can be the homeless person, the orphan, the evacuee, the refugee, the outcast, the abandoned, the forgotten, or the estranged member of the community. 

 

Even without possessions, every needy stranger bears the gift of his or her joyful and sorrowful memories and stories, which can offer real-life lessons.  “Strangers have stories to tell which we have never heard before, stories which can redirect our seeing and stimulate our imaginations” (Thomas Ogletree).

For the believer, however, the ultimate gift is the mysterious presence of the Lord and the divine word in the person of the stranger in need (Matthew 25:35).  Pope Francis says: “Whenever we encounter in love another person, we learn something new about God.  Whenever our eyes are opened to acknowledge the other, we grow in the light of faith and knowledge of God.” (E.G. 272) 

When Christ is welcomed as the guest in the hearts or lives of believers, a transformation occurs in which the guest becomes the host who makes believers feel at home in God’s presence and who offers the gift of wisdom, light, energy, rest or relief from suffering. 

For example, Jesus was a guest at dinner in Matthew’s house in which “many tax collectors came and ate with him and his disciples,” but he became the gracious host in showing them God’s gift of mercy and friendship (9:10-13).  In turn, Matthew the host became a guest, as he experienced the welcoming and gracious presence of God through Jesus.

Christian hospitality “involves creating space where people can learn how to receive and give” (Pineda) and where guests can turn into hosts, and hosts into guests.  Such an understanding of hospitality resembles that of married life, as there is “mutual self-giving in the Sacrament of Marriage” and mutual receptivity to or acceptance of the other (R.S. 21).  Each spouse has made the commitment to open one’s heart, one’s inner house or sanctuary, to the other spouse and to keep it open for life, so that spouses regularly turn into guests and hosts of each other’s inner house.

The lack of mutuality or mutual consent among spouses was perhaps one of the reasons for the opposition of the historical Jesus to the practice of divorce in his patriarchal society.  The decision to divorce could be made by the man alone through a certificate of divorce given to the woman (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it was not rare for the woman to find herself in a worse or dire economic condition afterwards.  Thus, it was not rare for a divorce to be unfair to the woman. 

Jesus cared for women who yearned for healing, right relationships, or relief from suffering (Matthew 9:20-22; 15:21-28) and unlike other Jewish teachers, he welcomed female disciples (27:55-56). 

After his statements on divorce and “eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom” (Mt 19:12), Jesus welcomed the little children (19:13-15).  They usually are the ones who endure the most suffering when their parents undergo divorce.  Such suffering is a form of “injustice which very often is associated with divorce” (R.S. 47).  The dissolution of a marriage and its aftermath almost always make it more difficult for a household to be hospitable to little children. 

At the same time, this question ought to be considered: even if he was primarily concerned about the fate of the woman and the children after a divorce, could the wise Jesus have wanted to give a rock-hard teaching on divorce and the indissolubility of marriage, when he was aware that his primary interlocutors were “some Pharisees [who] came to test (or trap) him” (19:3)?  It would be interesting to examine the question on how Sacred Scripture is utilized in the R.S. and the 2015 Instrumentum Laboris.

Missionary activity and pastoral care for those who suffer from homelessness, abandonment, neglect, discrimination, exclusion, persecution, or broken relationships can be envisioned as a venture in mutual and active hospitality in which space is created for everybody to receive and share gifts. 

Active hospitality does not merely wait for the homeless, the stranger, or the needy to come and beg for help or shelter.  Believers go out to meet them in the streets or to look for their huts, hovels, or holes-in-the-wall in order to invite them into welcoming hearts and hearths and to ask them to share the gifts of their presence, feelings, memories, and stories.

Missionaries, pastors and pastoral agents, including married couples and their families, who reach out to fragile families and couples in problematic relationships have to do so with sensitivity and receptivity to their real-life stories and struggles and the day-to-day signs of how “the grace of God works also in their lives” such as their everyday energy “to care for one another in love and to be of service to the community in which they live and work” (R.S. 25).

Another sign of God’s grace at work in persons with problematic relationships is the deep thirst for true love, and this is shown in the passionate interaction between two strangers, Jesus and the Samaritan woman in social intercourse at the well (John 4:4-26). 

It would be a practice of both wisdom and humility for missionaries and pastoral agents who want to proclaim the Gospel of the Hospitable Family to be receptive to or to seek first the day-to-day signs of grace, God’s self-giving, in the lives of fragile families and wounded couples, and to acknowledge, to show appreciation for, and to learn from these signs of self-giving, and to let themselves be surprised by these signs of grace.

After receiving the gifts of initial welcome and encouraging signs of grace, missionaries and pastoral agents can offer their gifts of compassionate and patient pastoral “accompaniment” (R.S. 45, E.G. 169) and the timely and eventual challenge to couples or family members to proceed to the next or higher stage of growth in their relationship with God, their interpersonal relationship, and their participation in the life, worship, and mission of the Church.  “To find the right way to gain their trust, their openness, and their readiness to grow,” wise discernment is necessary on the part of pastoral agents who accompany them (E.G. 172).

A “Gospel of the Hospitable Family” is relevant in our time of ecological crisis and anthropogenic climate change.  Jesus once said, “foxes have holes and birds have nests,” but humans are homeless (Matthew 8:20) usually because of indebtedness, greed, aggression, or war. 

In our time, many humans are still homeless, while the foxes are losing their holes and the birds their nests with the destruction of their habitats owing to greed, irresponsibility, and indifference, which also sustain involuntary and oppressive forms of poverty globally.  Human activities are rapidly depriving many vulnerable people and endangered species of hospitable places, spaces and places where they can thrive.

In discussing “the Wisdom of the Biblical Accounts” in his latest encyclical, Laudato Si, Pope Francis includes the following text from the Torah: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers’ (Lev 25:23)” (L.S. 67). 

The Creator is the ultimate owner of the earth, the “common home” of all earthly creatures.  The Creator is the Host, and humankind and all other species are guests, or at least strangers who are welcome to partake of and cultivate the gifts of God’s earth. 

The Creator has chosen humankind to be a genuine partner with a unique responsibility to help keep and make the earth hospitable to all peoples and other creatures.  Such responsibility requires humankind to create great space in their hearts, their inner houses, for other families, other peoples, other species, and the Ultimate Other, each one of whom bears visible and invisible gifts, benefits and challenges.

To conclude, (1) I propose to change the phrase “Gospel of the Family” into “Gospel of the Hospitable Family.”  (2) I propose to include in the description of the vision and mission of Jesus his radical redefinition of his family in order to maintain the challenge of the Gospel in contexts in which people tend toward clannishness, tribalism, dynastic politics, or an idolatry of the family.  

(3) I propose to include in the discussion on the vocation and mission of the family the Christian practice of active hospitality in which the homeless, the vulnerable, the stranger, and the estranged are sought, welcomed, befriended, and considered bearers of visible or invisible gifts.

5 Days of Awe (5 Araw ng Pagkamangha)

Sa dagat ng mga katawan,
bumabad mga Filipino at nagpaulan,
upang mukha't ngiti niya'y masulyapan.

In a sea of bodies
immersed the Filipino under the rain,
to catch a glimpse of his smiling face.

Baptism/Bautismo (with Basho)

Katahimikan ng ilog na matanda,
lundag ng dukha, tunog ng tubig,
tinig ng langit, ahon ng anak ng hari.

Silence of ancient river,
plunge of pauper, sound of water,
voice of heaven, rise and reign of son and daughter.

Start of Martial Law (September 1972)

From a personal account of the late Raul M. Gonzalez:

"Before the declaration of Martial was made public in the early evening of 23 September 1972, there were rumors of arrests of prominent anti-Marcos elements, student and labor leaders, political oppositionists, journalists and newspapermen, owners of media outlets, and persons known to be anti-administration.  Then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos came on the air in what was obviously a taped broadcast.  The decree declaring martial law for the whole country was ante-dated 21 September 1972.

 
"In one single stroke, Marcos cancelled the Constitution, abolished both houses of Congress, and placed the Armed Forces and the police under his direct command like his own toy to play around with.  He usurped the powers of duly constituted authorities and installed himself as the only authority in the land. 
 
"I felt disgusted with this turn of events.  I resigned all my positions in government and even my teaching position in the Philippine College of Commerce, a public educational institution.  From then on, I helped human rights victims by providing legal counsel and services for free. 

"I still continued with my legal office, which sustained me throughout my freelance days.  Among my clients were the Yangs of Manila who were the owners of downtown theaters Roxan, Odeon, Maxim and Miramar, among others.  The Yangs figured in the Carmelo-Bauermann real estate case.  The Bauermanns owned the lot in C.M. Recto Avenue where Maxim and Miramar stood, under a lease contract with the Yangs with an option-to-buy clause.  The Bauermanns sold the lot to another party instead.  The Yangs went to court in which I was their counsel, and we won the case up to the Supreme Court. 
 
"I was aware that Marcos was twisting the precepts of the law in order to show the country and the whole world that martial law was legitimate.  While he closed down the legislature, he maintained the Judiciary to make it appear that there was some form of due process still in effect.  There was no place to go but the Supreme Court, to lodge complaints and hope to be heard.    

"I petitioned the High Court to declare the Marcos decree imposing martial law as unconstitutional and was one of the first private citizens to do so.  I was in my law office together with a friend, Napoleon Dilag, who in the post-Marcos years became a judge in Cavite.  I composed a petition questioning martial law which was later given the file title: 'Dilag vs the Executive Secretary.'  I filed other petitions with the Supreme Court, one after the other, in my capacity as chapter president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

"I waited for results with confidence in the law of averages that soon one of my petitions would inevitably surface and be tabled by the High Court.  I wanted to put on record the fact that several petitions were filed in opposition to martial and questioning its legality, yet most of those petitions were unceremoniously rejected by the High Court.  I took comfort in the hope that the Justices would realize that history would also judge them." 

 

Work with Chief Executives and Legislators (1962-1972)

From a personal account of the late Raul M. Gonzalez:

 

"Antonio 'Yeba' Villegas, the vice mayor who took over after Mayor Lacson’s death, asked me to stay on and continue with my work as prosecutor of graft cases, the unofficial Manila city Ombudsman.  Young, tall for a Filipino and quite talented, he copied the gait and macho ways of the late mayor.  A brilliant lawyer, Villegas indiscriminately stepped on a lot of toes in his desire to eradicate graft and corruption in the city government, much like Lacson.           

"While still with Mayor Villegas, I was temporarily 'lent' to Sen. Rodolfo “Roding” Ganzon from Iloilo, as a legal adviser.  Roding and I shared a political heritage.  While my father served as the last mayor of the town of Jaro before it was made a district of Iloilo City, Roding’s father served as the first mayor of the expanded City.  Ganzon was a man driven by his ambitions.  Although his family was not rich, he persisted in his studies and worked his way through law school, as a laborer and a jeepney driver.  Graduating with honors, he topped the bar exams in 1953.  This made him a kind of folk hero and catapulted him to various political positions in the city and finally as a senator of the Republic. 

 
"Not long after that, I was again lent to Sen. Genaro Magsaysay of Zambales for the same position and likewise taken in as counsel of the Liberal Party while I was also doing part-time work in the office of Senate Minority Floor Leader Gerardo Roxas of Capiz.  In between these jobs, I was named executive secretary of the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures, another part-time job under the Office of President Diosdado Macapagal.  When President Marcos succeeded Macapagal in 1965,  I was appointed as an Executive Member of the Board of Censors with voting privileges.
 
"After Villegas, Atty. Ramon 'Bombay' Bagatsing took over the mayorship of Manila with wounds still fresh as a result of the bombing of the Liberal Party’s miting de avance at the Plaza Miranda in Quiapo in 1971.   Bagatsing was from Sagay, Negros Occidental, an Ilonggo like Lacson and me.  The friendship we established was instant, as we were both lawyers and he appreciated what I did, for he also pursued an anti-corruption campaign during his second term as a Congressman of Manila in 1961-1965." 

 

Exposure to 'Arsenic' Lacson of Manila

From a personal account of the late Raul M. Gonzalez:

"While I was working for Iloilo Governor Zulueta, there came an offer I could not refuse.  Manila’s aggressive mayor, Arsenio ‘Arsenic’ Lacson (1912-1962), wanted me to join him, and I bid goodbye to the Iloilo governor.  Lacson was one of a kind.  A fiery political figure and a straight shooter, his grit and courage was legend.  He was a no-nonsense administrator, and called a spade a spade.  His religiously chronicled tantrums were not pretense, and he was a man of the masses.  He spoke from the heart, and had the courage to stand up for his beliefs, principles and advocacies.  Some of his firm views soon rubbed off on me, and we had a productive relationship. 

"Lacson’s favorite picture was the one that showed him walking that macho Lacsonesque walk, in dark pants and printed sports shirt with sleeves rolled up showing muscled arms and with the trademark sunglasses to accentuate his ensemble.  This picture decorated my work table, as it did the tables of Lacson’s favorite lieutenants at City Hall.

"In his desire to cleanse his administration of grafters, I was hired by Mayor Lacson to be the watchdog and prosecutor of erring Manila City Hall employees.  Lacson was a born reformer, and he worked with transparency to demonstrate to his staff what a public servant should be as a guardian of the people’s rights and resources.  Guided by Lacson’s directives, I ploughed through scores of graft cases and prosecuted a good number of them. 

"Lacson got as much exposure in the media as national officials, and he toyed with the idea of a presidential excursion to see how far he could go.  One day in 1960, Lacson and his supporters were stomping through the towns in the province of Bulacan and Nueva Ecija when they were interrupted by a drunken Philippine Constabulary (PC) officer in San Miguel, Bulacan.  The officer pestered the crowd that attended the caucus, and it reached a point when it was useless to continue as the soldier was getting all the attention.  Lacson, fed up with the antics of the drunken soldier, rose, confronted the intoxicated fellow, and asked him to leave.  They stood there, toe to toe, Lacson with hands akimbo, the PC with his .45 caliber pistol.   The soldier slowly lost his composure, probably remembered who Lacson was, and shuffled his way out of the crowd.

"The Arsenic was my enthusiastic teacher.  He found an eager understudy and I gladly absorbed all his inputs.  This was an education with free tuition and an excellent professor.  We prepared for the presidential elections, as Lacson immersed himself in the fight.  But he failed to get the necessary numbers among convention delegates who would choose the party nominee, and the front-runner, Diosdado Macapagal, asked him instead to manage the campaign against incumbent president Carlos Garcia.  Macapagal won, and there were talks of a possible tandem in the next presidential elections.

"I continued to work closely with Mayor Lacson in prosecuting erring officials.  I was up to my neck in investigating anomalies and providing legal assistance to the mayor.  Among those I successfully prosecuted were three police majors who were found guilty of corrupt practices.  

"The Arsenic who left behind a deep impression on me died on 15 April 1962.  His death left a void in my world.  I was emotionally devastated because his death was so sudden, so permanent. The mayor who died of a stroke never had the chance to forewarn us of his sudden departure from this world.   We had many plans on the drawing board, so many projects to launch, so much unfinished business to settle.  Many of those projects and plans had to be shelved, a pity because they were so beneficial to the poor of the city."

Initial Law Practice and Governor Jose Zulueta

From a personal account of the late Raul M. Gonzalez:

As a budding member of the Bar, I continued to refine my knowledge especially about the procedures and rules of court.  My time spent in the academe as a lecturer of law subjects gave me the opportunity to hone my knowledge of the craft, the many intricacies of Philippine jurisprudence, and the application and interpretation of various edicts.  As much as I loved teaching, there came a time when I had much less luxury to attend to its rudimentary demands.  The call for me to give priority to the practice of law had become clear in my mind. 

I first signed up with the law firm Syquia and Francisco, and after a few years, I had the confidence to go on my own.  My circle of friends in Manila comprised Ilonggos who encouraged me to go solo, and I tapped their enthusiastic support now and then.  My uncle, Feliciano Gonzalez, was chairman of the Board of Censors, a precursor of today’s Movie and Television Ratings and Classification Board (MTRCB), and he invited me to join him as his secretary.          

I also worked with Dr. Manuel Buenafe of the Bureau of Census who recruited me for an advisory position.  It was merely an honorary post but it looked good on my resume, a welcome break for a neophyte.  It was a door that opened other doors of opportunity, and before my Census job was finished, I received another offer, taking me to the next level.

Gov. Jose C. Zulueta (1889-1972) of Iloilo was already in his twilight years as a political leader.  An astute politician respected by his opponents, he was a pillar of strength and a guiding light for the Liberal Party.  During the Pacific War, he was a member of the Executive Committee under the supervision of the Japanese, and he was accused of collaboration with the enemy.  After being cleared of the stigma, he was elected again as Congressman of the 1^st district of Iloilo, and was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1945.  He had served as a member of the national legislature since 1928.

At the invitation of President Manuel Roxas, Zulueta assumed in 1946 his former post as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and promptly clashed with rebel groups known as the HUKBALAHAP.  Afterwards, he was elected to the Senate in 1951, and became Senate President in 1953.  After the end of his Senate term in 1957, he ran and won as governor of the province of Iloilo in 1959.

His name resounded in the halls of power since his youthful days not only in Iloilo but on a national level.  Zulueta was a political force to reckon with, and as governor he recruited me as his protégé.  It was a learning opportunity and a productive relationship.  Zulueta used to give me valuable tips and advice that helped me steer out of troublesome waters in the world of political intrigues.  Best of all, he drilled me in the art of statesmanship.  Our collaboration was short but well-spent, memorable and fulfilling.