home / about the cathedral / news & events / status of former archdiocesan shrines

The Status of the Former Archdiocesan Shrines
After the Birth of the New Dioceses in Metro Manila
A Plea for the Creation of Metropolitan Shrines

(A Position Paper Presented by Rev. Msgr. Jesus-Romulo C. Rañada, Rector and Pastor of the Cathedral Shrine and Parish of the Good Shepherd, at the Annual Assembly of the Association of Shrine Rectors and Pilgrim Promoters of the Philippines held on July 18-21 in the City of Tuguegarao, Cagayan North.)

Introduction

During the 2nd Asian Congress on Shrines and Pilgrimages held in Seoul, Korea last November 2005, when the members of the Association of Shrine Rectors and Pilgrimage Promoters of the Philippines (ASRP) had the opportunity to meet as a national group, the status of the former Archdiocesan Shrines after the birth of the new Dioceses of which these shrines automatically became a part by virtue of their location was raised. We had in mind in particular the case of the Archdiocese of Manila and the shrines that used to be part of its territory prior to the division and which were thus called Archdiocesan Shrines. For instance, there is the case of the Shrine of the Good Shepherd in Fairview, Quezon City of which I have been given the privilege to serve as Rector since August 2002 till now. As already indicated, the Shrine used to be called the Archdiocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd. However, in December of 2002 after the creation of the new Diocese of Novaliches, where the Shrine happens to be located, we in Fairview suddenly found ourselves at a loss as to how we were to call the Shrine in the most proper and adequate way. For having been separated from Manila both de facto et de jure, the Shrine which consequently fell within the jurisdiction of the newly created Diocese of Novaliches had to be called thenceforth the Diocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd. For those of us in the Parish of the Good Shepherd, in particular, and those in the Diocese of Novaliches, in general, the change seemed to be simply a matter of course, the necessary consequence of the new ecclesiastical set up: the Shrine in what used to be mere district of the Archdiocese of Manila, namely, Quezon City North, that comprised Fairview and Novaliches, among others, now becoming a Diocese. Hence, what used to be the Archdiocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd has now simply become the Diocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd.

For many of us, considering simply that it was established precisely and, should we say, primarily, as an Archdiocesan Shrine, this new name and different way of reference signified a diminution of the importance of the Shrine. Fortunately, in the case of the Church of the Good Shepherd, it had also been chosen to be the Seat of the new Diocese. By its thus becoming the Cathedral of the Diocese of Novaliches, it eventually began to be referred to as the Cathedral Shrine of the Good Shepherd. The perceived diminution or demotion therefore, i.e., from Archdiocesan to Diocesan, was somehow mitigated if not glossed over by its subsequent name Cathedral Shrine. Still, the question remains: By its becoming Diocesan has the Shrine become less important and significant than before, that is to say, considering that the much larger territory and Church community of which it used to be of service has now been reconfigured and for its part and purposes has become rather small? Similarly, the question may be raised with regards to the other former Archdiocesan Shrines which now fall under the newly created Dioceses of Parañaque, Cubao, and Pasig. Following their separation from the same mother Church, that is, Manila, the Archdiocesan Shrines in these new Dioceses have also become, as a matter of course, simply Diocesan, both in name and in fact. With the sole exception of the Diocese of Caloocan where there was no existing Archdiocesan Shrine, such had simply been the case with the Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Joseph in the Diocese of Cubao, the Archdiocesan Shrine of Our Lady of the Abandoned in the Diocese of Parañaque, and the Archdiocesan Shrine of St. Anne in the Diocese of Pasig.

From the point of view of Canon Law perhaps the change of the status of those aforementioned Churches from Archdiocesan Shrines to Diocesan Shrines is quite plain and easy to understand. After all having become part of the newly established diocese, a shrine which is neither national nor international in scope and stature, logically follows the new ecclesiastical set up and assumes the new status accruing to its proper location. Simply put, it all has to do with devolution. Locality wise, by the mere fact that it falls within the territory of a diocese and, consequently, canonically stands subject to the respective Ordinary makes that shrine Diocesan, otherwise keeping its hitherto Archdiocesan name or identity would make it appear as though it still belongs to the Archdiocese and subject to the Authority of the Archbishop. In other words, the fact of their being in those new dioceses rightly makes each of these former Archdiocesan Shrines belong to their respective Dioceses subject to their respective Ordinary. But this is what Canon Law will say given the new reality or the new set up apropos the diocese which it itself acknowledges, defines, and protects. It goes without saying that if the shrine falls under the territory of a diocese and subject to its diocesan authority, which is the Bishop, it is and has rightly to be called Diocesan.

Speaking along these terms, however, may seem to reduce the discussion of the present issue to what is merely legal or Canonical. Important as this may be, of course, for settling issues of proprietary and pastoral responsibility, the issue has several other dimensions and some deeper significance as well. If we may venture in this still rather unchartered area, we can begin by saying that the issue of the status of the Shrine has theological, pastoral, and spiritual-devotional importance that talking about the issue from a simply canonical point of view may be to miss the other aspects of it that are perhaps even more sublime that Canon Law itself might also be wont to support or encourage. From this more holistic consideration, therefore, the status of the former Archdiocesan Shrines might have to be revisited, with their former standing in the local Church maintained if not further enhanced or elevated, and this is all, fundamentally speaking, for theological, pastoral, and spiritual-devotional reasons.

Some Theological Considerations

When a church is elevated to a shrine as in the case of the Parish Church of the Good Shepherd in Fairview in 1985, or of St. Anne in Taguig in 1989, or of Our Lady of the Abandoned in Muntinlupa in 1997, or of St. Joseph in Cubao in 1999, the Ordinary thereby recognizes if not confers on that church the honor of being a pilgrim site. This means that the Church is meant no longer simply for worshippers who live and practice the Catholic faith in that area (parish) but also and even for those who live and practice the faith outside of that place. It is therefore a formal endorsement by the Church that the House of Prayer concerned is truly a place of encounter with God, so that even those who live and practice the faith outside its more natural reach may come to visit it and thereby obtain special grace and favors attached to it. Dedicated as the case may be to the mystery of Christ, to the Blessed Virgin Mary or to some other particular Saints, the Shrine thus established and proclaimed stands to attract pilgrims, i.e., devotees and worshippers living outside its domain and coming to it for the particular purpose of obtaining that which it promises: peace, solitude, healing, forgiveness, reconciliation, sanctification, and many other graces besides.

Christian life has often been described as a pilgrimage, a journey of faith that finally leads us to God, to our meeting with Him. Our true home is Heaven and the earth is but a temporary place where we journey on. Thus we sometimes see ourselves, as the Salve Regina prayer goes, as the “poor banished children of Eve.” In this place we call “the valley of tears,” where we mourn and weep, we realize that we are on a journey and that we need to move on until we reach our heavenly homeland and so find in there the end of our of “exile.” The Shrines and the pilgrimages we make to these Shrines are meant to remind us of the truth of our human existence here on earth and what Christian life is about, namely, a journey of faith. Mirroring the journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem (where the Jews gather from everywhere to offer sacrifice at the Temple), we follow the Lord on the road of life where true discipleship meanwhile develops. There is in this Christian journey of faith and discipleship a dynamics that if it were to be authentic should be, relatively speaking, marked by some steady progress. In other words, we journey with the Lord Jesus and follow him all the way to his Father’s House, from this life to the next. We go on and move from place to place, as it were, or from phase to phase of our Christian human life development towards our final goal and destiny. Significantly, this goal and destiny is at the same time, as it turns out to be, our true origin as well, namely, God. Again, Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem with his disciples following him does not end finally in Jerusalem; no, Jerusalem simply becomes the Door, as it were, the narrow door that leads to the Sacred. The Sacred, however, is neither defined by nor confined to the Temple but is simply indicated by it so that one’s presence in the Temple after a long journey towards it only increases one’s further longing for the Holy One that makes the Temple holy and the city of Jerusalem thus significant. Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem leads him indeed to his passion and death, and from death he passes over to life, i.e., to life eternal. The Resurrection therefore is his return or coming back to life eternal with God from where he came from originally to us on earth. The journey of Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem is real and important but also symbolic and significant of that journey of his from this world to God. This journey of Jesus from this world to God is but a return journey, however, that began even long before, and also with God. That prior journey from God to the world is his Incarnation and from the world back to God is his Resurrection and Ascension. His Passion and Death serves as that crucial stage of passage that makes that journey with God finally come in full circle.

Like the Temple of Jerusalem that draws pilgrims towards itself and then from it towards God, our contemporary Catholic Shrines should draw pilgrims toward themselves and from them ultimately toward God. Why the Temple of Jerusalem, why the Shrines? It is because they are a place of encounter with the Holy One, a point of meeting with God. Shrines are holy places where men and women find God and experience God, discover peace, receive forgiveness, attain reconciliation, and obtain healing and wholeness from Him.

If the Shrines, specifically the Archdiocesan Shrines, stand not only as places of encounter with God here on earth but also as signs and symbols that powerfully remind us of that final encounter we shall have with God, of our ultimate destiny that is Him, their rich symbolism and deep significance as such must be carefully preserved. How? By keeping and even seeking to enhance whatever gains they had already made or whatever progress they have already come to represent to us. Obviously from Parish Churches to Archdiocesan Shrines represent a certain progress that includes the beyond, that is to say, physically and metaphysically speaking. That progress is itself a goal achieved through a grace-filled journey that broadens to include what is beyond these Church-Shrines in terms of peoples coming to them, spiritually benefiting from their visits to them. Allowing them to simply devolve and become Diocesan Shrines does not represent progress but rather regress from what they obviously had been: a grander yet simple place of encounter with God after such an arduous journey of faith, pointing us to something greater or more and helping us to expect the ultimate.

Some Pastoral Considerations

Archdiocesan Shrines are places of pilgrimages for all, that is, for everyone including those who live beyond the particular parochial territory where they are located. Archdiocesan Shrines represent an invitation to everyone, certainly to those living within and beyond the particular parishes involved as well as within the Archdiocese and beyond it, to come and make pilgrimages to these shrines. And people do come especially as the Archbishop, through the Rectors of the Shrines, promotes them to the faithful and thus contribute to realizing what certainly is for their own good. This was especially true during the Jubilee Year of 2000 when these Shrines become centers of pilgrimages for the People of God of the Archdiocese of Manila. People suddenly became more aware of places where they could go and make a pilgrimage. But then with the division of the Archdiocese of Manila just two-and-a-half years later, these centers or at least some of these centers, i.e., the former Archdiocesan Shrines mentioned above which, relatively speaking, had all been long established as pilgrim sites, have now become practically reduced to what they used to be, i.e., simply as places of worship for those living within their ambits, that is to say, for their own parishioners. Their significance as places of pilgrimages having thus been reduced from Archdiocesan to Diocesan, so too is the importance now of these places for the pastoral care and solicitude of the Church towards those pilgrims and itinerant peoples concern. In short, the pilgrim places seem to have become less important as they have become less significant for the faithful living in the affected territories which used to comprise the whole of Manila. For instance, the Archdiocesan-now-Cathedral-Shrine of the Good Shepherd has become less attractive or interesting for pilgrimage purposes of people from other parts of the Metropolitan See including its most recent suffragans. Again, the question is how to preserve the gains already made and established by those shrines as centers of pilgrimages for the People of God of the whole Metropolitan See, that is, to say for all the Faithful of the Archdiocese of Manila as well as its Suffragan Sees. After all these ecclesial territories, if not the People of God living in those territories and who used to comprise the whole of Manila, have come to benefit from these long established and already relatively well recognized centers of pilgrimages. I wonder whether instead of those Archdiocesan Shrines devolving and becoming simply Diocesan Shrines by virtue of their separation from the territory of the Archdiocese and therefore of their no longer being under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Manila, they become recognized or approved as Metropolitan Shrines instead. Doing so will help preserve the significance of those Shrines as places of pilgrimage for all the People of God at least within the metropolis if not within the whole country. Moreover, this will also make all the People of God in the whole Province of Manila become more aware of those Shrines as part of their patrimony.

Transforming or declaring the former Archdiocesan Shrines as Metropolitan Shrines will certainly be quite unprecedented, for one thing, there is no such category, Metropolitan, provided for in description or classification of shrines in Canon Law. Still, it will only be appropriate given the good we wish to preserve as far as the significance of the Shrine itself is concerned, on the one hand, and the need of the People of God for those places of pilgrimages, on the other. Moreover, the current status of the former Archdiocesan Shrines as resulting from the ensuing division of the Archdiocese has not been well anticipated. Nonetheless, we ask can we not find in Canon Law some adequate bases and proper justification for so-naming those former Archdiocesan Shrines as Metropolitan Shrines without simply meaning of course that they belong territorially speaking only to the Archdiocese of Manila being thus their Metropolitan (Mother Church)? In that case, Metropolitan Shrines would come to mean not as shrines simply belonging to the See of Manila proper, but rather to the whole Province of Manila. The classification is certainly novel, for there are no Metropolitan Shrines at the moment, only Diocesan/Archdiocesan and National/International Shrines. Be that as it may, the Canonical basis can follow, as it usually goes in many other established cases where Canon Law serves to supply the necessary theological and pastoral considerations with their concrete implementation. After all, Canon 1233 seems to provide a cue here where it says: “Certain privileges can be granted to shrines as often as local circumstances, the large number of pilgrims and especially the good of the faithful seem to suggest it.” Can a renaming of former Archdiocesan Shrines into Metropolitan Shrines fall under this consideration?

Metropolitan should primarily mean in this case that the former Archdiocesan Shrines remain as such, namely, shrines for all the People of God living in several territories in and around Manila, i.e., the Mother as well as the Daughter Churches of Manila. Having said that, however, those Shrines, while retaining their original significance and are thus not so demoted or reduced corresponding to their newfound territorial and pastoral situations, should still fall under the responsibility of the Bishop of the place who, needless to say, should ensure the adequacy and appropriateness of the pastoral care those Shrines are expected to provide. Still, the Shrines are open to all the sister-mother dioceses much like a home which we call ours is open to our brothers and sisters who themselves have settled in and have families of their own. In a way, those Shrines become as it were a common patrimony, namely, heritage Shrines, which belong to everyone who belongs to the same family of the Metropolitan See.

Some Spiritual-Devotional Considerations

Why all the trouble, you may ask? Why not just work towards the transformation of those former Archdiocesan Shrines into National Shrines? We are in fact going in that direction ultimately. However, to go in that direction, one does not have to go through some kind of demotion or diminution and the ensuing struggle to get over this sad feeling. The point is that the movement should not be a wavering recoil from Archdiocesan to Diocesan and then eventually to National Shrine status, but rather the movement should be a steady progress from Diocesan to Archdiocesan to National, and this is possible and becomes far smoother, we believe, if there is a mediating stage or phase that, for example, the Metropolitan status affords. This will be good especially for those who have come to be affected by the canonical divisions of the local Church such as that of Manila. Again the reason for our appeal to Metropolitan status has to do not so much with canonical as with theological and pastoral as well as spiritual and devotional reasons. We have already indicated the theological and pastoral points of our argument. We shall now proceed to highlight the spiritual and devotional aspect of it. And here allow me to make my sharing a more personal one.

When I became the Parish Priest and Rector of what was still then known as the Archdiocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd in Fairview, Quezon City that August 1, 2002, it did not really occur to me how significant that assignment would be for me. I took it as just one assignment like any other previous assignments received from the Cardinal-Archbishop of Manila. The Shrine and Parish of the Good Shepherd of course was the biggest pastoral assignment I had ever received from the Archbishop in the ten years that I had been a priest of the Archdiocese of Manila. After all, if only in terms of its size, the Shrine and Parish of the Good Shepherd is big. It sits in a sprawling 1.5 hectare complex that includes a parochial school. Undaunted, I took over the rein of the parish from a well-loved and respected predecessor, Msgr. Fidelis Limcaco, who had successfully served the Community for twenty-seven fruitful years, which includes the establishment of the Parish Church as an Archdiocesan Shrine. Prayers to the Good Shepherd were and still are recited today before every Mass on Sundays and Weekdays. Confessions were regular. But I noticed that the Shrine was not really visited much by pilgrims from other places. Moreover, when I get to visit other places and introduce myself as Pastor and Rector of the Archdiocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd very little reaction is aroused. Fairview seems to raise their curiosity far more than there being a Shrine. For those living in Manila, the name Fairview seems to strike them as that of a far distant land or subdivision. But the name Archdiocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd does not seem to ring a bell until I begin to speak about PREX. But that is another story. My point however is that becoming Rector of the Archdiocesan Shrine of the Good Shepherd is precisely that—a process—a long process of immersion into the role of chief promoter of the Shrine. But what does or should it mean to me? In the midst of all the adjustments I needed to make as the new Pastor and Rector of a vibrant and dynamic Catholic community as Fairview, it gradually occurred to me that pastoring a community, shepherding a people is not and will never be that easy. I needed and do need help, certainly, from the One Above. Eventually some time in my first year as Rector and Pastor in Fairview, I realized that I have a patron right there whose name is precisely borne by that Shrine and Parish I administer: Jesus the Good Shepherd. Subsequent meetings of the ASRP of which I had become a member also helped me realize the importance of the task before me. Promoting the Archdiocesan-now-Cathedral Shrine of the Good Shepherd requires imbibing the spirituality of Jesus the Good Shepherd and this begins with prayer and devotion to him hoping to obtain the favor of some day receiving “the heart of a shepherd” and so of truly shepherding the people towards the fullness of life the Lord Jesus promises.

Becoming a shepherd and acquiring a heart similar to that of Jesus the Good Shepherd is a constant prayer for me and a daily challenge as well. Only when I really began to realize the difficulty of meeting the challenge of becoming a true shepherd that many of our priests and even bishops face that I also began to realize the importance of the Shrine. The Shrine of Jesus the Good Shepherd is indeed for bishops, priests, and other pastoral leaders of various communities and families, small and big alike. It is meant for all of them. It is also meant for lay people and lay leaders who face some great difficulty with these kinds of pastoral leaders and who hope and pray and seek good shepherds or, at least, leaders who sincerely want to acquire the heart of a shepherd. My own personal struggle with pastoral leaders I know drive me right home to the Shrine of the Good Shepherd where I seek and pray for a good shepherd who can and must lead us at this crucial times. To make the story short, the Archdiocesan Shrine now turned Cathedral Shrine of the Good Shepherd seems to have instilled in me a spirituality that expresses itself in a devotion consistent to what the name actually stands for: Jesus the Good Shepherd. And finding Jesus existentially and personally as such, i.e., as a Good Shepherd Himself to me, convinces me to promote the Shrine as a place of encounter with God who in Jesus the Good Shepherd leads and draws us to Himself. Spirituality and devotion have become one: the spirituality of the Good Shepherd and the devotion to the Good Shepherd are one as each flows and mutually feeds on the other. Life then becomes a case of shepherding and being shepherded: shepherding the people is allowing oneself first of all to be shepherded by the Good Shepherd Himself. The Good Shepherd spirituality and devotion that find focus in the Shrine of Jesus the Good Shepherd thus becomes the Good News that we at the Shrine now wish to share with others.

Returning now to the issue of the status of the former Archdiocesan Shrines having now become Diocesan by virtue of the ensuing division of the Archdiocese of Manila into several other independent Dioceses, let me say how I wish that the status of our Shrine of the Good Shepherd were not changed nor diminished to a mere Diocesan Shrine all because of our separation from Manila, but were instead maintained and enhanced by declaring it as a Metropolitan Shrine. As such the Good News of Jesus being truly the Good Shepherd for us, powerfully and miraculously capable of transforming us and many others besides into persons and leaders with the heart of a shepherd, is spread to all the ends of the Metropolitan or Province of Manila and to even reach finally far beyond them. Needless to say, this spirituality and devotion that rests on the Good News of Jesus Himself as the Good Shepherd is better enhanced and promoted by a shrine not diminished in status but rather sustained in its being a place of encounter with God for more people, certainly not limited to the People of God of the Diocese of Novaliches but inclusive of the whole Metropolitan or Province of Manila and finally extending beyond it. It cannot be gainsaid that the diminishment of the status of the Shrine of the Good Shepherd resulting thus from the separation of the Diocese of Novaliches, a Daughter-Church of the Metropolitan Manila, could be a big loss to Mother-Church that is Manila as well as to her several other Daughter Churches: Parañaque, Caloocan, Pasig, and Cubao. In the same way, the separation or better, the coming to their own, of these other Dioceses and Manila vis-à-vis our own Diocese of Novaliches results in a great loss for us of those other Archdiocesan Shrines that used to be part of our consciousness as the Faithful Sons and Daughters of Manila. Inevitable as it may be, taking a much broader and flexible approach to the Shrines could have mitigated that sense of loss and even helped instead in the maintenance and the eventual flowering of the spiritualities and devotions that have had already begun to take shape among our people in and through those shrines.

Conclusion: Exploring Some Possible
Legal-Canonical Support

My reflections now turn to the possibility of exploring the provisions of Canon Law that could help address the current status of the former Archdiocesan Shrines. Is there a room for transforming Archdiocesan Shrines to Metropolitan Shrines instead of effectively or practically reducing them to Diocesan Shrines following the creation/separation of the new Dioceses? Also for reasons outside of Canon Law, namely, for theological, pastoral, and spiritual-devotional considerations, can a move be made supported by provisions of Canon Law that former Archdiocesan Shrines be upgraded automatically into Metropolitan Shrines and so keep thereby the flames of their true significance burning brightly and warmly within them, all for the benefit of the People of God now spread near and far in those places, territories, or dioceses beyond their Arche (Origin) or Metro-politan (Mother) Church? The benefits of this possibility are enormous and not only for Manila in this particular case but also in some other cases, perhaps in some other places, later on. The benefits include the prevention of the ensuing confusion and diminishment of interest in or of devotion of the people with their former Archdiocesan Shrines. Moreover, the sense of communion among the Churches would be enhanced and promoted rather than that of separation of, or even of ensuing competition among, the Churches which used to belong together originally as one family or one ecclesial body.

To help revisit the status of the former-Archdiocesan-now-Diocesan Shrines and possibly effect their renaming as Metropolitan Shrines the individual support and the common agreement of the Metropolitan-Archbishop of Manila and his Suffragan Bishops is certainly important and necessary. While the intensity and extent of the devotion to that which the Shrine represents is the first and foremost consideration when it comes to determining the true significance and importance of the Shrine and while indeed such a devotion is not necessarily diminished with the change of the status of the Shrine from Archdiocesan to Diocesan, one should however not forget that those aforementioned Shrines were more a product of a religious commitment than a popular demand. They were more or less established canonically to fulfill a devotional purpose rather than recognized officially as already fulfilling such a purpose. From there, however, development has proceeded and those Shrines have delivered and continue to deliver. Still, I believe that the most basic and urgent reason for us to revisit the status of the former Archdiocesan Shrines and possibly revaluate their importance and significance by so renaming them as Metropolitan Shrines is to enable all of us, the People of God now spread in the various territories in and around Manila, to properly reclaim and adequately appreciate the former Archdiocesan Shrines as truly part of our religious and spiritual inheritance and forms that common ecclesial patrimony that demands our common responsibility. Their original establishment was meant to serve all—the People of God now spread throughout the vast area of Greater Manila—from Muntinlupa to Lagro, from Rosario to Monumento, from Tipas to Kamias. Crisscrossing these sections we do find the former Archdiocesan Shrines not just as monuments to an era but also as living and dynamic witnesses to and welcoming places of encounter with God and oases for prayerful reunions of the Faithful of the original See of Manila. In those places, they all, nay, we all can come to quench our spiritual thirsts and constantly renew and reaffirm our communion of life and love with God and with one another.