Along with the investigation of the Simala miracles, the organization of the monks must also be investigated due to conflicting declarations of the archdiocesan officials.
Right after the expose of ***, lies, money and guns in the monastery, Msgr. Dakay said that the group should be investigated to find out whether they enjoy some form of recognition. Msgr. Binghay stated the monastery is of diocesan right. Cardinal Vidal declared that they are only a public association of the faithful and that they do not qualify as a congregation.
These different statements lead to the impression that church officials do not really know the true status of the monastery. The conferment of a right to exist is a major event. It is the birthday of the monastery. While the monks put up markers of miracles, pictures of the crying virgin, thanksgiving letters, and other proofs of their claimed miracles, nowhere can one read about their diocesan recognition. Nowhere is it displayed the episcopal decree granting them the diocesan right or a mention of such in their press releases.
Who has the power to confer on the monastery the diocesan right? It can only be the Cardinal. If so and if Msgr. Binghay is correct, why would the Cardinal say that the group does not qualify as a congregation and is only a public association of the faithful (like CWL or LOM or COM). Did he recognize something that he does not really know and without conducting an evaluation? If there is such recognition, why would not Msgr. Dakay know about this? This is a diocesan event and it would have been very easy to just say “the monastery was granted the episcopal recognition as a religious institute of consecrated life on whatever date”.
After granting recognition, a new canonical entity shall be subject to supervision by the diocese. However, it is bothersome to note when the Cardinal stated that the monks have no spiritual director and he instantly appointed the parish priest of Simala. Meaning, the Simala parish priest was forbidden before to guide the monks in his parish? Cardinal also stated that the monastery has not been furnishing him with financial reports. Strange, as this would show that once given recognition, the monks were left all by themselves without supervision. And what was the Cardinal doing during his visits to the monastery? Did not the boom there excite his curiosity how much money the monks are earning and to demand a financial report? Was this not observed by canon lawyer Msgr. Binghay who also is a frequent visitor in Simala?
Every entity applying for canonical recognition must have a constitution and bye-laws. Here, the official name of the organization is stated as well as their organizational structure, etc. The name cannot be changed without amending the constitution and without consent of the authorities. But the monks sported different names. They said they were the Blue Brothers (of the Pink Sisters) being the Brothers of Eucharistic Adoration, then as Marian Brothers of the Eucharistic Adoration and then as Marian Monks of the Eucharistic Adoration, without marking the date these names were officially approved.
A constitution of a monastery must conform to canon law requirements, like the Prior or Superior must not be the same as the Financial Administrator. As it is, it is clear that Bro. Martin has been both the Superior and Finance Officer. Was the monastery recognized with this set up of officers which clearly violates canon law?
The monks were originally from Pampanga. What was their status there? Were they given the diocesan right there? And why did they have to transfer to Cebu? Was the right revoked by the Pampanga diocese? Were they expelled there? And if their number in Cebu cannot qualify as a congregation, why do they have to send other monks to branch out to Hilongos, Leyte?
There are lots of questions to be answered and we the faithful expect a clear and official finding or declaration. Otherwise, somebody is lying or must have lied or will continue to lie on the monastery’s true status with the people continuing to be in the dark. But for now, the BEA, MBEA or MMEA, the Blue Brothers or the Blue Monks, is nothing under canon law.
Why the authorities appeared not to have applied Canon Law to these so-called monks is a thing to be discovered during the investigation. And the proper forum is not the archdiocese because it appears that the church officials have to be investigated as well for their inaction.
REFERENCE: CANON LAW: BOOK II. PART III : INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE AND SOCIETIES OF APOSTOLIC LIFE
SECTION I: INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE
CLICK HERE
Canon Law Menu
10-28-2009, 12:10 PM
