I just got back from Cabuyao and I found out that the plans to open up the right wing of the church to build an extension (adjacent to the left extension area) is true. I have spoken to a few people about this plan and after hearing their stories and opinions, here is my PERSONAL take on the matter:
(1) There appears to be a need to provide more room/space for parishioners who attend Saturday and Sunday masses. I have nothing but the deepest respect for what church authorities perceive to be their legitimate pastoral needs and necessities. But space in the long term, I must insist, will always be limited. There is only so much space that the church can provide to accommodate a consistently growing population of Catholic faithful under its jurisdiction and care. Ergo, I do not believe that expansion is the answer in the long term.
(2) I will stay out of the controversies that have been raised (whether real or imagined) about and against the pastoral administration of the parish. There will always be those who will like the state of affairs on one hand, and those who will be against these on the other. What I have is a question: How extensively has the consultation been on this proposed project? Have there been discussions of the benefits and costs vs. other possible alternatives within the council and beyond it, to include the sentiments of members of the parish community?
(3) Beyond the conservation and pastoral care of built ecclesiastical heritage structures such as this old church and its convento (which I will take up separately in a note that I intend to write for this page), has there been serious consideration of the architectural integrity and the structural soundness of the proposed expansion by the proponents and their technical consultants?
(4) Lastly, I am concerned that this is beyond a mere numbers and space issue -- this strikes at the heart of a communal responsibility to agree that heritage conservation, including and perhaps especially in the "house of God", is everyone's obligation. That it should not be the most expedient and dispensable option. That a commitment to conservation is a measure of our respect for history and the legacy of our forebears. That structures and objects of wood, stone and steel have stories to tell of our past and point us to a better understanding of ourselves and our community, today and in the future. In short, that cultural heritage is not the first and easiest thing to throw out the window at the slightest demands of "necessary works" attendant to the compliance with practical, and in this case, pastoral, needs and necessities.
I am prepared to humbly provide an alternative to this personally undesirable option in order to achieve the same expressed aims. Let me throw in my 10 centavos worth:
If the current space (without the expansion) provides a seating capacity, for example, of 1000 seats ( I am working with hypothetical figures here since I do not have the exact numbers) and the proposed expansion will provide an additional 150 seats, then we are proposing to provide 900 additional seats for 6 Masses on any given Sunday (150 x 6).
If that is the case, and if my mathematics is correct, wouldn't an additional Mass on a Sunday provide an equal number, if not more, seats to achieve the same end result?
If we agree that this is a better and less costly approach yet we are faced by the limiting factor to this as the lack of priests to provide more Masses on Sundays, then shouldn't the focus of our problem solving efforts be geared towards requesting for additional curates to provide pastoral care to our parish rather than to the more costly, time consuming and conservation unfriendly approach of structural demolition and expansion?
No comments:
Post a Comment