(From sunstar.com.ph/pampanga)
Tantingco: Saving heritage churches
By Robby Tantingco
Peanut Gallery
FOR many years now, church cultural workers have been struggling to save old churches and going around the country to educate people on the importance of preserving these edifices.
I've been privileged to work with the best of them, including Professor Regalado Trota Jose, who gave a summer course at Holy Angels University (HAU) not too long ago, and some committee members of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), which sponsors the biennial convention of church cultural workers.
Arroyo Watch: Sun.Star blog on President Arroyo
I know their difficulties and the kind of personal sacrifices they make, and many times I feel sorry for them because they are so undermanned and so under-appreciated, sometimes even by the very Church whose property they are protecting.
But last week, we were all caught flat-footed by the news that Pope Benedict XVI and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had signed a treaty that aims to preserve heritage churches in the country, during the President's visit to the Vatican not too long ago.
The bilateral agreement was ratified last week by the Papal Nuncio and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Tasked to implement the provisions of the treaty are the CBCP and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA).
This is exactly what church cultural workers have long been praying for. I join them in celebrating their victory, and I'd like to give a toast especially to Professor Jose, whose presence we shall miss in the work ahead because he has decided to retire to a monastery.
I hope that like Ambeth Ocampo and Gang Gomez (a.k.a. Dom Martin de Jesus, OSB), who by the way are both Kapampangans, Professor Jose will find a way to continue serving our cultural advocacy.
Even as you read this, old churches throughout the country are being torn down, renovated or replaced with modern structures.
There is nothing wrong with purposeful renovation; churches that are leaking, crumbling or getting perennially flooded should in fact really be renovated or rebuilt, because there's no point in preserving the antiquity of a building at the expense of the convenience and safety of the churchgoers.
What should be regulated or controlled are the renovations being done by parishes that have no specific or urgent purpose except to make their church look a little better or more modern.
Sometimes they do it because they use the renovation of the church as the excuse for raising funds. Sometimes the parish priest simply wants to leave his legacy and personal imprint for his congregation to remember him by, before he moves on to his next assignment.
In these instances, it's better to let the old church stay old. No modern architecture can match the classic elegance of heritage churches. We are being foolish when we impose passing trends in architectural design on a church that has withstood centuries of countless changing styles and climes.
Technically, churches are owned by the archdiocese, not by the residents of the parish. This, however, should not be taken to mean that the parish priest is the owner of the church and therefore can do anything he pleases.
The church owner is the institution the priest represents, which is the archdiocese; therefore he should get the owner's permission before he can touch it.
Meanwhile, the parishioners -- even if they are technically not the owner of the church -- have a moral claim to it, because they (or their ancestors) are the church's builders, users and keepers.
The priest, who is assigned to the parish only for a maximum of six years, should consult them before undertaking any renovation.
I am emphasizing the role of the priests in the preservation of heritage churches because aside from wars, natural calamities, thieves and antique dealers, it is the priests who do a lot of damage to churches.
Some of them do it with the best intentions and are only ill-advised; others rightfully put the safety and convenience of their parishioners above heritage preservation.
If it comes to choosing between preserving an antique church and making the church safe for the churchgoers, the first thing to do is look for a win-win situation, where you achieve one without sacrificing the other.
If that is not possible, I can understand why a priest would allow the renovation of a church at the expense of its heritage value.
We Kapampangans have some of the country's most impressive colonial churches, because we were pampered by the Spaniards and also because our artisans and craftsmen were the best.
I have read many historical accounts of churches in Cebu and Ilocos being built by Kapampangan carvers and carpenters, and even today, the works of ecclesiastical artists from Pampanga like Willy Layug (of Betis), Tom Joven (of Bacolor), Nick Lugue (of Apalit), Jeric Canlas (of Mexico), Ely Mangalindan (of Sasmuan), Eddie Miclat (of San Luis), can be found in churches and private altars all over the Philippines.
Tourists marvel at the beautiful churches in Pampanga (like Betis, San Luis, Lubao, Apalit, Sta. Ana, Candaba, Sta. Rita, Minalin, Angeles, Bacolor), not realizing that these have been renovated or restored in recent times.
When I saw the old photographs of how they looked in the 1800s, I thought how infinitely richer we would be now had we prevented all the alterations made along the way.
But there's no use crying over spilt milk. Let us just try our best to preserve whatever has remained of them.