Reflection on the Controversial Exhibit by CCP Trustee, Fray Paulo Casurao

CONGREGATIO S. FRANCESCO PEREGRINORUM
(PILGRIM BROTHERS OF ST. FRANCIS)

THE MODERATOR GENERAL

REFLECTION REGARDING THE CONTROVERSIAL EXHIBIT “KULO”AT THE CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES

I am writing this reflection as a response to Dr. Florangel Braid’s observations on the forum which occurred shortly after the CCP Executive Board Meeting on Friday, August 5, 2011, convened by Dr. Raul Sunico, CCP President, to discuss the brewing controversy spawned by the exhibit KULO, and also to reiterate some points I raised during the said meeting.

Present in that meeting were Dr. Raul Sunico, CCP President, Mrs. Emily Abrera, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the Trustees Dr. Florangel Braid, Mrs. Isabel Caro Wilson, Ms. Nedy Tantoco, Ms. Carol Espiritu, and myself. I was provided a copy of Mr. Nick Lizaso’s letter of objection to the exhibit and Mr. Antonio Yap’s email with the same objection. Mr. Nick Lizaso called me earlier to remind me to put his objection on record, which I did, at least, two times during the deliberations. To my recollection, there were six trustees who were opposed to the exhibit: Dr. Raul Sunico, Ms. Nedy Tantoco, Mrs. Isabel Caro Wilson, and I, who were present, and Mr. Nick Lizaso and Mr. Antonio Yap, who sent their objections by email. Those who were in favor of the exhibit were CCP Chairman Emily Abrera, Dr. Florangel Braid, and Ms. Carol Espiritu.

At the end of the meeting, the presiding office, Chairman Abrera, said she was not calling for a vote, but only to consult with the board members, and that the exhibit could not be closed due to the contract that provided for the use of the venue until the third week of August.

Of course heated exchanges were made during the board meeting. I, for one, restated my own expression of freedom of speech, which I sent by email at the very start of the uproar occasioned by the exhibit, in an equally dramatic fashion: May the families of those who rejoice in the insult against heaven be cursed for seven generations and may their households be consumed with misery for the same length of time. I added that it should not disturb those who do not share my faith and should it ever happen, they can shrug it off as mere coincidence, since the connection cannot be proven empirically.

The Plenitude of Life - John 10:10

I subscribe to the Liberal Humanism of Pope John Paul II, of revered memory, specifically with regards to culture and the arts. The gospel passage “…they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly,” has always been the reference of my involvement in cultural work since the 1970s as we battled Martial Law through theater and all through the years, even as a founder of one of the first arts councils affiliated to the CCP from 1988 onwards. That the CCP has accorded us, the Ibabao Arts Council of Calbayog, Inc. the PILAK HONOR in 2004 is a distinct recognition of our enduring work in the cultural transformation of our country. I believe this is also the principal reason why I was appointed to the CCP Board of Trustees in 2009.

The freedom that must come from this frame of reference is the freedom of expression with an important caveat - it must not harm others. That freedom is based on one preeminent task, as secular humanism would passionately argue - the founding of a just and peaceful society.

I submit, therefore, that the exhibit “KULO” is an incendiary attack against Christian Faith, as whole, and the Catholic Church, in particular. As all art exhibits are founded on the so-called creative intent of the artists, the counter-discourse cannot be dismissed by the claim to the so-called freedom of expression and hide behind the perceived constitutional guarantees, for the freedom of religion is also a paramount guarantee of a civilized constitution. The unjust vexations suffered by Christians, Catholics in particular, occasioned by the exhibit at government-funded Cultural Center of the Philippines might even give the wrong impression that the ruling political powers have let loose their hounds against the Catholic Church.

Into the “Devil’s Labyrinth”

In the debate that ensued during the CCP Executive Board Meeting, I asked the presiding officer, whether she would allow an exhibit that would feature a frame of the president treated in the same way at the debauched face of Jesus Christ in the exhibit. She answered that the President Benigno Aquino’s effigy has been burned in the street. I said that I am not referring to anywhere else but the CCP. I asked the question again whether she would allow an exhibit, at the CCP, of the President’s image being defaced in the same manner. Yes, she said. Then, I wondered aloud: How would the Aquino family feel if there was an exhibit at the CCP that defaced Cory Aquino?

When the officer in-charge of the Visual Arts was invited in, I asked her if she would have allowed another exhibit, God forbid, that blasphemed the revered Islamic prophet. She could not answer. She found the question difficult to answer; but, she seemed not to have any qualms about giving permission to an exhibit that mocked Christianity.

It was suggested that the exhibit also referred to the National Hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, who was a UST student and who attacked religious institutions. I protested that Rizal never hurled an insult at God. He was not expelled by the Dominicans from the university. To connect the exhibit to him is to abuse and dishonor his memory.

When Ms. Espiritu wanted to dismiss the voices of protest as coming only from the Catholics, I told her that no God-fearing Christian will not consider the exhibit offensive - Catholic or not. I hastened to remind her that the CCP is funded by taxes which Catholics also pay. A trustee retorted that the Bishops do not pay taxes. I argued that millions of Catholics like me pay taxes, directly or indirectly. At that point, I realized that the debate was pointless, even as Dr. Braid and I concluded that the debate at large on the matter should continue. I felt that the prejudice by some trustees against the Catholic Church precluded any further discussion.

Aftermath: You Reap What You Sow

If we argue for freedom of expression by allowing the “blasphemous” exhibit at the CCP, do we have the right to deprive those who were aggrieved or maligned by it to express their indignation as passionately and as strongly as the artists by their “artistic expression.” Are we not guilty of bigotry, if we want the Catholics to shut up because they are just Catholics. Would such attitude invite the millions of Catholic faithful to take us to task?

It seems that it is now “open season” against the Church that paved the way for another Aquino to ascend the presidency via the much televised funeral where he was endorsed by his younger sister to the grieving nation. It is ironical that the Church that offered sanctuary to Mrs. Corazon Aquino, in life and in death, should be the object and subject of attack by those who want to curry favor with the presidential palace.

The tragedy is, that in allowing an exhibit that would occasion such repulsion, the more important discourse on Art and National Transformation, as Dr. Braid would suggest, or Culture and National Development as I would advocate, has been overshadowed along extemely “partisan” lines.

Dr. Florangel Braid, who holds my utmost respect, even wrote in her e-mail: “I was just wondering that while we are witnessing many abuses of human rights (on children, vulnerable minority groups, etc.), which certainly are more shocking, these holy defenders of our morals have gone out of their way to spew insult to "betrayers of public trust" like us who certainly had no malicious intent. They even showed distrust by saying that this may have been timed with the Reproductive Health and Divorce bills. Which is farthest from the mind of Karen and our board...(I just wanted to get this out of my system too). .”

The inference that the Church has been remiss in fighting for human rights is unfair and cannot be sustained, considering the broad-involvement and advocacy by Church people on social issues. Lay people and priests have lost their lives in standing up for their commitment against human rights violations and even in campaign to save forests. (I also want to get this out of my system, too).

The greater tragedy is the chasm between the Church that stood-up against Martial Law and the Liberals who would want the Church to gobble-up whatever is served to it. The recent abuses heaped upon the Church by the operatives of the “Liberal” agenda now encourages disengagement from cooperation with government and distance from greater dialogue with liberal humanism, which is an essential element in the pursuit of the so-called UN Millennium Development Goals.

UNESCO Director General Irina Bukova, during her address at the dinner in the San Agustin Church grounds, hosted by the NCCA and the ITI Philippine Center in her honor, reasoned for what she called as “New Humanism.” The “Kulo” affair hardly contributes to this cause.

Redress of Grievance

I concurred with the lawyer present that the matter should go to court, so as to define the limits to the constitutional guarantee on the freedom of expression. I also told the trustees present that I would counsel the Catholics to write to their House Representatives and the Senators to voice out their concern regarding such policies by the CCP, which is a government institution. Furthermore, I said I would to bring the matter to Civil Service Commission so that accountability by civil servants, in this case those in the CCP, could be determined.

Other recourses can include a boycott of companies and products that sponsor CCP programs and events. These recourses are more preferable to other more violent responses that the fanatic may have in mind.

On my part, I am tempted to take the challenge to every parish and in every church of the Catholic faith in this country and bring the discourse to the attention of every tax-paying Catholic to the Chair that our Catholic voices matter and that the President of this Republic would do well to continue securing the cooperation of everyone, Catholics included.

There is an intensified clamor for the CCP Chair and Board to resign. Perhaps, it is the more honorable and decent way to deflect the arrows that will be aimed at the Presidency; an institution we are duty-bound as citizens to uphold and preserve whether we sympathize with the current occupant or not.

Even if I was indignant and opposed the exhibit, I have no qualms about resigning my CCP seat since I also feel marginalized as an appointee of the past administration. I spend congregational money when I have to travel from Cebu to Manila and back to attend the monthly board meetings. I have refused the paltry honorarium given to trustees. I even refuse the food served during meetings, hoping that I might be able to contribute to the Outreach Division that have been apportioned an almost token budget. I have been slandered too as every man and woman of good will and dedication to the welfare of this country have been slandered and maligned by their mere association with the past president.

The CCP that I have served, largely for free, since 1988 as a cooperator and advocate from the regions, has taken from me an enormous amount of joy in recent memory.

Fra. Paolo Maria Diosdado Granados Casurao, CSFP
CCP Trustee

Chairman, Pasundayag Cultural Network
Chairman, Institute of Drama for the Development of Peoples
Executive Board Member, ITI International Monodrama Forum
Executive Board Member, ITI Philipne Center
Chairman, Dulaang Laksambayanan
Chairman, Alsa Balutan Monodrama Festival

Copy furnished:

The President of the Republic of the Philippines
The Senate of the Philippines
The House of Representatives
The Papal Nuncio
The Catholic Archbishop of Manila
The Catholic Archbishop of Cebu
The UNESCO Director General
The Franciscans at the United Nations
The Conferenza Francescana Internazionale
The Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines
/

"filthy rich Church" ???

Or is it filthy rich imagination?
/
More on the myth of the "filthy rich Church"
(reposted from The Catholic Position on the RH Bill)

Several weeks ago, the blog Adbokasiya published an interesting email thread / discussion regarding Elizabeth Angsioco's notorious screed on the Church's supposed wealth:

On the Church of the Poor Issue - further comments on the Church of the poor.

The thread includes the following intervention by Fr. Romeo Intengan S.J.

...just a very short initial reply for starters.

Pakipasa nga sa iba.

(1) The critics' article fails fails to distinguish between the significance of of stock holdings and bank holdings, on one hand, and annual available income from stocks and bank interest, on the other hand. Even if the Church owned, let us say, P200 B in stocks (not just the P35 B tallied by the critics, the rest of the wealth being conjecture), at a supposed rate of 10% a year from the stocks--I would say an optimistic figure--that would be P20 B. Think how much it costs to run all those thousands of parishes and schools, those dozens of hospitals, social action centers, and the like, especially at sufficient levels of quality. Then you will see that P20B is not enough, is a very modest amount, by any fair measure. Many of these, located in mission or poorer areas, are not supported by earnings and are subsidized by prosperous institutions and from the money of the Church in banks and stocks.

A large proportion of its income is used by the Church, through its institutions, to serve the poorest of the poor for free in remote areas where even the government cannot reach.

(2) It is not a fact that the Church is rich. The Church is not a monolith. There are perhaps five to ten prosperous dioceses and some twenty or thirty prosperous orders and congregations, but there are many more financially struggling ones. These critics ought to live for even just a week in any of the poorer majority of Church institutions and see what life there is like.

(3) The landholdings of Church institutions are quite moderate. The Church has hardly any farmland left, after the US colonial regime bought the friar lands, and after CARP. Do the critics begrudge the Church having churchyards and cemeteries, most of which are small and cramped? Do they want universities with cramped or no campuses? The Catholic Church does not even have the spare billions of pesos to own and run her own TV channel. Guess which religious group is rich enough to own TV networks? Not the Catholic Church. Instead of putting down what is already struggling, or damaging what is good, they should encourage the Church to raise the revenues to be able to serve the pastoral needs of the people.

One would think it more logical to encourage the State to improve the facilities of the public schools, rather than to scold to Church for having good facilities. In fact, the government recognizes the help of the Church in carrying the burden of filling the gap of public education, by helping private schools through the Fund for Assistance to Private Edcuation (FAPE).

(4) If the Church institutions sold all her stocks and gave away all the money they had in banks, the money raised for that one-time outlay would not be enough to make more than a small dent in the deficit of basic social services in this country. To claim otherwise would be to betray a ignorance of the dimensions of financing needed. It is the State alone, with its more than a trilliion pesos of annual tax income, that would have the capacity to close the gap in social services.

And after the Church sold all these, how would her institutions and works maintain themselves, considering that Filipino Catholics, on the average, contrary to the wrong impression given by the article, are not known for generous support of the Church ministries and pastors? Few Filipino Catholics practice tithing, and 3% support from their gross income would be a generous estimate, while the two richest non-Catholic churches in this country receive 15 to 20% of the gross income of her members.

(5) I agree that Church apparel could be simpler, but it would serve no good purpose to make this shoddy. Besides the sumptuous apparel of some clergy is worn only during liturgy, and on solemn occasions at that. The daily garb of the bishops is quite plain. To put together the images of bishops in sumptuous pontifical garb and a beggar in rags, as if this contrast was the normal, daily situation, is a cheap shot, good for hostile propaganda but far from reality.

(6) The Church is not "sitting on those billions." The latter phrase is another example of hostile caricature. These "billions" are invested in stocks or banks precisely to support the ministries, many of them gratuitous to the poorest of the poor, and the pastors. The Church is spending yearly the equivalent in goods and services of billions of pesos for the poor.

And please don't insult the poor. They are quite generous with what they have when they know it is for God or for God's holy purposes.

And as a matter of fact, one reason why the Catholic Church has not implemented Decree 118 of the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II), approved in 1991, and providing for tithing, is hesitation to burden the poor (while other religions expect their members, rich or poor, to tithe). That is why in the Philippines, the bulk of Church contributions comes from the middle class.

(7) Do you want the Church to be able to offer the high quality education and health care to all, and not just some of its members? Do you want the Church to be able to support its ministries? Then join my humble but urgent advocacy for the implementation of Decree 118 of PCP II on tithing. For as of now, contrary to what that figure-quoting but ultimately shallow article is trying to convey, the Church is not wealthy--it cannot even adequately finance the ministries it should give to its members. And this is true even if the money and property of the prosperous dioceses and orders were distributed equally among the Catholic institutions and circumscriptions.

Archie, SJ

Romeo J. Intengan, S.J.

Anne Rice: Out of Egypt and Out of Context

My reaction to Anne Rice renouncing Christianity is a bit late, although my extreme surprise and dismay remains fresh. When Rice announced her reverse-revert decision in her Facebook page last month, I was about halfway reading through the paperback edition of her fascinating novel "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt". On the first page, the venerable LA Times endorsed the book by saying:

"This is a straightforward tale set firmly - thanks to Rice's considerable strengths in research - in the geographic and historical context of the time...".

I am now wondering whether Anne Rice's "considerable strengths in research" was ever applied to 2,000+ years of Catholic tradition, to a point where she can put some historical context into the "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group" that she is renouncing. My, she has some choice, colorful adjectives for the Bride of Christ, even as she professes to "remain committed to Christ".

On Youtube, I have come across Fr. Barron comments on Anne Rice leaving Christianity.



Here, I take particular note of Fr Barron's reference (3:43 onwards) to St Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Saul of Tarsus was hounding Jesus' followers, yet Jesus said: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?".

I will pray for Anne Rice, and many like her who refuse to stay attached to the mystical vine, just because they refuse to 'historically contextualize' their personal thorns. I think the best reaction to Anne Rice's decision would be her very own words, written as a closing 'Note to the Paperback edition' where she partly says :

"..I realized that none of my theological or social questions really made any difference. I didn't have to know the answers to these questions precisely because God did. He was the God who made the Universe in which I existed...I didn't have to worry about the ultimate fate of my good atheistic friends, gay or straight, because He knew about them, and He was holding them in his hands. I didn't have to quake alone in terror at the thought of those who die untimely deaths from illness, or the countless millions destroyed in the horrors of war. He knew all about them. He had always been holding them in His hands."

I pray that Anne Rice allows God to continually hold her in His hands, because He really wants to embrace her.

I have more to say against Anne Rice's Facebook post, but at this point I only need to add just one more.

Dislike.
/

Attacking the Church

Catholics angry as church puts female ordination on par with sex abuse

Uh-oh. The liberal press is having a field day gain. One just has to read the headlines to get
an idea where the rest of the article spins. Just who are those 'Catholics' mentioned in the article who are
angry?

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, called the document "one of the most insulting and misogynistic pronouncements that the Vatican has made for a very long time.

Vivienne Hayes, the chief executive of the Women's Resource Centre, said the decision to raise women's ordination to the level of a serious crime was "appalling".

Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said: "We are sure that the vast majority of the general public will share in our abject horror at the Vatican's decision to categorise the ordination of women as an 'offence' in the same category as paedophilia – deemed to be one of the 'gravest offences a priest can commit'.

Barbara Doris of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (Snap) said it was tackling the issue the wrong way round. "Defrocking a predator, by definition, is too late," she said. "Severe harm has already been done.".

Oh you mean those 'Catholics'. I see.

Now let's see what the Vatican Document really says.

Modifications made in the Normae de gravioribus delictis

Norms

Delicta Graviora

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican has revised its procedures for handling priestly sex abuse cases, streamlining disciplinary measures, extending the statute of limitations and defining child pornography as an act of sexual abuse of a minor.

Vatican officials said the changes allow the church to deal with such abuse more rapidly and effectively, often through dismissal of the offending cleric from the priesthood.

As expected, the Vatican also updated its list of the "more grave crimes" against church law, called "delicta graviora," including for the first time the "attempted sacred ordination of a woman." In such an act, it said, the cleric and the woman involved are automatically excommunicated, and the cleric can also be dismissed from the priesthood.

Vatican officials emphasized that simply because women's ordination was treated in the same document as priestly sex abuse did not mean the two acts were somehow equivalent in the eyes of the church.

"There are two types of 'delicta graviora': those concerning the celebration of the sacraments, and those concerning morals. The two types are essentially different and their gravity is on different levels," said Msgr. Charles Scicluna, an official of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation.

Sexual abuse of a minor by a priest was added to the classification of "delicta graviora" in 2001, and at that time the Vatican established norms to govern the handling of such cases, which were reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The norms affect how church law treats sex abuse cases; civil law deals with the crime separately.

The latest revisions, approved by Pope Benedict XVI May 21 and released July 15, for the most part codify practices that have been implemented through special permissions granted over the last nine years and make them part of universal law.

The Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, said publication of the revisions "makes a great contribution to the clarity and certainty of law in this field, a field in which the church is today strongly committed to proceeding with rigor and transparency."

The norms on sexual abuse of minors by priests now stipulate:

-- The church law's statute of limitations on accusations of sexual abuse has been extended, from 10 years after the alleged victim's 18th birthday to 20 years. For several years, Vatican officials have been routinely granting exceptions to the 10-year statute of limitations. Exceptions to the 20-year limit will be possible, too, but the Vatican rejected a suggestion to do away with the statute of limitations altogether, sources said...

etc, etc...

So there. At any rate, attempted ordination of women is already covered in canon law. Canons #1024, 1381-84. It merits latae sententiae - automatic excommunication. 'Attempted ordination' is a proper word, because any action of women ordination is just that: an attempt.

Fr Z, again, is right on the button:

...Another thing you will perhaps will see in the press, secular and Catholic, are criticisms of the list of crimes. They may complain that, for example, trying to ordain a woman is not nearly as horrible as abusing a minor and it shouldn’t simply be lumped in with other sins, as if they all did they same damage. In a sense, they are right, especially from the perspective of the victim of abuse. But they are wrong from another perspective. Critics might assert that pouring the Precious Blood down the sink or selling a Host or pretending to ordain a woman is a "victimless" crime, bad to be sure but really not that bad. They are wrong. There are still victims: the whole Church suffers because all the crimes involved attack who and what the Church is.

The crimes do belong together when seen in the correct perspective. All of the crimes here involve sacred things...

...and...

It is patently false that the Church didn’t see the abuse of children as a crime.

It must also be remembered that the Church regards abuse of children as a grave sin, and a heinous crime for that matter. As such, it places the unrepentant offender in a state of mortal sin, having automatically severed his communion with the Body of Christ. So is attempted ordination of women. In this sense Fr Z is right: they all involve attacking the Church. Sadly, attacking the Church seems to be a trendy pastime, in oh so many ways.
/

On Masonry and the Catholic Church

Bishop: No politics in denying burial rites to Nantes

LUCENA CITY, Quezon, Philippines – (UPDATE) Bishop Emilio Marquez, head of the Diocese of Lucena, on Sunday, explained that the Church denial of Catholic burial rites for the late Quezon Gov. Rafael Nantes was in accordance with Vatican laws and was not motivated by politics.

In his homily during a mass at the Saint Ferdinand Cathedral here, Marquez revealed that Nantes was a “born again Christian” and a “Freemason” and thus, under the Church Code of Canon laws 1184 and 1185, Catholic burial rite was to be denied, "unless some signs of repentance before death have been shown.”...

“There is no politics in the decision of the Church. I just implemented the Church laws,” said the bishop, known here as an arch-critic of Nantes.

Marquez said the Diocese was forced to issue the clarification in order to dispel confusion and avoid any misunderstanding that might arise from the prohibition that the Church issued last week on the celebration of mass at Nantes wake at the Quezon Medical Convention Center here.

Marquez said: “The local Catholic church in the Diocese of Lucena mourns with the people of Quezon. The fact is we sent our condolences to the family of Governor Nantes immediately after we received the sad news of his tragic death.”

“We did not in any way forbid prayers for the eternal repose of his soul or to bless the mortal remains of the governor,” Marquez said...

Note, here are the texts of canons 1184 and 1185:

Can. 1184

§1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

So canons 1184 and 1185 already settles the issue.

But just for further reference on Masonic associations, here is the declaration of the Vatican CDF issued on November 1983 by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Note that this declaration has been specifically approved by the then reigning Roman Pontiff, John Paul II. It is the latest statement by the Church to date. I quote partly, with emphasis:

Declaration on Masonic Associations

...Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981..."

The aforementioned declaration thus follows:

Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons

On 19 July 1974 this Congregation wrote to some Episcopal Conferences a private letter concerning the interpretation of can 2335 of the Code of Canon Law which forbids Catholics, under the penalty of excommunication, to enroll in Masonic or other similar associations.

Since the said letter has become public and has given rise to erroneous and tendentious interpretations, this Congregation, without prejudice to the eventual norms of the new Code, issues the following confirmation and clarification:

1) the present canonical discipline remains in full force and has not been modified in any way;

2) consequently, neither the excommunication nor the other penalties envisaged have been abrogated;

3) what was said in the aforesaid letter as regards the interpretation to be given to the canon in question should be understood—as the Congregation intended—merely as a reminder of the general principles of interpretation of penal laws for the solution of the cases of individual persons which may be submitted to the judgment of ordinaries. It was not, however, the intention of the Congregation to permit Episcopal Conferences to issue public pronouncements by way of a judgment of a general character on the nature of Masonic associations, which would imply a derogation from the aforesaid norms.

Canon 2335 in the older version of the canon law reads as follows:

Persons joining associations of the Masonic sect or any others of the same kind which plot against the Church and legitimate civil authorities contract excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.

The current and revised 1983 version however, removed the previous provision an replaced it with Canon 1374, as follows:

A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

Following the promulgation of the new Code, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the (erstwhile) new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a new declaration:

(1) the new Canon 1374 has the same essential import as the old Canon 2335, and the fact that the "Masonic sect" is no longer explicitly named is irrelevant;
(2) the Church's negative judgment on Masonry remains unchanged, because the Masonic principles are irreconcilable with the Church's teaching ("earum principia semper iconciliabilia habita sunt cum Ecclesiae doctrina");
(3) Catholics who join the Masons are in the state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion; and
(4) no local ecclesiastical authority has competence to derogate from these judgments of the Sacred Congregation.

My further comment is that the rule on automatic excommunication of Freemasons seems to have been more open to situational considerations with the effect of the new canon law. To be more specific requires the explanation of a good canon lawyer. Secondly, I am of the opinion that there is no real issue with Mass being "denied" to Gov. Nantes. The prohibition was merely reiterated. There is nothing in the report that says it was even requested by the immediate family. Add the fact that Nantes is a "born-again Christian" -- specifically a Protestant who does not believe in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the first place, and has already disassociated himself by choice from the Catholic Church.

May the soul of the late Gov. Rafael Nantes rest in peace. Amen.
/

The True Church

A question from CatholicFriends:

Scripturally and logically speaking...

Why do you think your CHURCH is "the church, which is His body", as mentioned in Colossians 1:18, 24?

Why do you think your CHURCH is "the church, which is His body", as mentioned in Colossians 1:18, 24?
According to those who studied the Greek language, the English word CHURCH is EKKLESIA. The classical meaning is A CALLED OUT ASSEMBLY without reference to a particular religious group.

A LOCAL CHURCH is a mixed multitude of people, while "The church, which is His body" is a mixed multitude of JUSTIFIED people. The first is headed by a human pastor or minister, while the latter the HEAD IS CHRIST.

This is the big difference of YOUR CHURCH and the CHURCH of COLOSSIANS 1:18, 24

Therefore, there is no ORGANIZED CHURCH ON EARTH who could Scripturally claim being the TRUE CHURCH.

/
Janet,

Let me attempt, briefly. Actually it is quite coincidental that in yesterday's Gospel (Jn 21:15-19) we see Jesus asking Peter three times if he loved Him. We see then from Peter's as many affirmatives that Jesus instructed him just as forthrightly to "feed my lambs; tend my sheep; feed my sheep". It is very clear evidence from the Scriptures that Jesus specially anoints Peter towards a monumental task in leading His flock. Thus, when Jesus says "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18), we essay the biblical evidence that Christ instituted the Church along with Peter's primacy. Although the broader definition of the Church may include many senses, in this particular context we speak of the visible Church, composed of a community of believers, an ekklesia united under the love of Christ AND under the authority of lawful pastors that Jesus himself commissioned. We see that there is only one Church that traces its lineage from our current Pope Benedict XVI all the way to the first Pope -- St. Peter himself. From the time of the Early Church Fathers (those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background), it was clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter. The Holy Tradition of the "laying of the hands" found in the Scriptures manifests itself only in the Papal succession of the Holy Catholic Church -- in an unbroken tradition.

Thus based on Scriptures and the actual historical evidence, there can only be one decisive answer to the question of what is the true visible Church. However when we speak of the Church as the mystical body of Christ, we are speaking in a different sense that does not in any way negate the establishment of a visible Church with its pastoral leaders. For while we speak of a visible Church, it also has both visible and invisible boundaries. The Church, the mystical body of Christ, is also a mystery in this sense. Thus we do not claim that the Holy Catholic Church has a monopoly of the truth, but that it alone possesses the fullness of the Truth - that which has been faithfully handed down throughout generations as the deposit of faith. In all this we must remember that the fullness of truth carries '"the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Mat 16:19) that .."whatever you BIND on earth shall be BOUND in heaven, and what you unbind on earth shall be unbound in heaven.”.
/

Arrest the Pope!

The story originated from a call from British atheists Dawkins and Hitchens, as well as from a similar call in an article by a UN lawyer. Curiously, they called for an international trial based upon unfounded charges.

British atheists call for pope's arrest

UN Judge Says Pope Should be Prosecuted at International Criminal Court

I guess silliness knows no bounds in the current trend to smear the Pope with imagined charges. The fictional 'reporting' of New York Times and Associated Press is oh so typical. Dawkins and Hitchens, who pride themselves in idolizing empirical science, apparently are ready to abandon their facts-based 'ideology' when it comes to saying things about the Pope.

More on the Murphy Case

Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope

/

A Conversation with an Evangelical Protestant (2)

SOLA SCRIPTURA?

For the purposes of this thread, it is good to limit ourselves to the historical validity of Sola Scriptura vs. Tradition and Scriptures. Either approach must be based on sound theology, applicable at all time periods in history. It is good that we agree that Christ never left the Church. We can further debate on what the Church means and the keys to the Kingdom later on.

Sherlock Holmes used to say that when you have eliminated the all the impossible, whatever remains -- however absurd it may appear in one's own opinion -- must be the truth. Sola Scriptura is based on assumptions that call for the impossible. You ask: "How many Catholics study the bible? How many even have a bible?"

That is precisely my point. If one had the means and capability to acquire and study the bible, then certainly one would be seriously remiss if one did not do so. But what if the follower cannot afford to buy one? (don't be suprised that here in the Philippines, most people can't even afford to buy food) What if the follower is illiterate by force of circumstance?

Sola Scriptura is based on assumptions that call for the impossible. It presupposes many things. For one, the bible must be easily accessible. This is the major point I was emphasizing in my previous messages, that Sola Scriptura was largely contingent on the invention of the printing press. Secondly, it is premised on a high level of literacy. Take note that in medieval times, the flock was largely composed of illiterate peasants. How could they read, much less understand the bible? The same would be true for the underprivileged brethren in our modern times, and here we must recognize the irony of it all! especially when we consider the Scripture's preferential option for t he poor. Third, one must have the time, energy and the exceptional mental faculties that qualify for a cohesive reading and correct understanding of Scriptures. The bible contains 31,000++ verses. You have to read much if not all of it to get the context right. Not to mention that you must be able to process and distill the information very well. Now who and how many among those in the middle ages possess these qualities? Who and how many among us in these modern times as well?

Granted that the above three conditions are met (an incredible proposition at that), personal, unregulated interpretations tend towards chaotic divisions. God does not desire disunity in the Church. The global presence today of 30,000+ Christian denominations who disagree on essential doctrines attest to this fact. Contrast that with the Roman Catholic Church with a single and consistent belief system that has endured 2000++ years to this day.

Yes, the road is narrow and only a few will find it, but at the same time, scriptures also say that Jesus desired many to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If Jesus desires many to be saved, will He impose something that severely contradicts His own desire? Again, considering all of these, is Sola Scriptura justified, both theologically and historically?

You will be familiar with the disciple Philip who caught up with a certain court official who was reading a page from Isaiah with much confusion. (Acts 8).
Philip asked: "Do you understand what you are reading?" The answer was: ""How can I, unless someone instructs me?"
/

A Conversation with an Evangelical Protestant

My Protestant friend JDR raises the issue in our high school alumni groupmail that there are "differences between the bible and the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church as compiled by the Magisterium". He maintains there are a "thousand and one issues", and proceeds to list 10 of them. He concludes by saying: "The list goes on and on. Isn't it better to just drop the bible altogether than to claim belief in it as the word of God, claim allegiance to God and then diametrically oppose it?".

My response:

JDR,

The "thousand and one issues" - 10 of which you raise here, disingenuously implies a dichotomy between the Bible and the Roman Catholic Church. You know that we have already tackled some of those items (was it more than a year ago?). There is no dichotomy between Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, but there is an inextricable link between them. Catholics always say that Tradition serves Scriptures, and in no way contradicts them.

Your top ten list is obviously written from a Protestant perspective, just by the way they are framed: "the bible teaches..(whereas)...the RCC teaches...", which upfront tries to frame a dichotomy where there is none.

Let us take for example your first issue:

1) The bible teaches that grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6). RCC teaches that grace is merited by good works (2010, 2027).

The Catholic doctrine correctly understood is Faith AND Works, and not by good works (only). In fact the sections of CCC you cited states:

"2010. Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. "

"2027 No one can merit the in itial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."

Nowhere in those two sections is it stated that grace is merited by good works alone. Catholics just emphasize BOTH Faith AND Works, for in CCC 2029 it says further

"2029 If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me".

Surely that last one is biblical, is it not? (Mt 16:24).

The other nine issues in your list would be tackled in similar manner. Only a selective reading (or a selective misreading) of the Bible along with the Cathechism, would seem to show that there is a dichotomy between the Bible and Sacred Tradition. There is none.

As I have said in my previous post, these are old issues which have been already addressed as early as the 16th century. What you are doing is just revisiting the issues. We are only having a disagreement because Protestants individually interpret the bible without a central authority. The analogy goes like saying that all lawyers are free to personally interpret the Constitution and there is no need for the judiciary or the Supreme Court.

Bishop Fulton Sheen once said:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is of course, quite a different thing."
/
- WillyJ

Do we know what being a Catholic means?

Do we know what Catholics want?

The above title of Rina Jimenez-David's latest opinion piece in the Philippine Inquirer begs the question in a manner of speaking that what the majority 'Catholics' want, must surely be accorded superiority in the public sphere by weight of argument. If many of them want something, they must be right? Of course it goes without saying that it is a source of mystery as to what she means by the word 'Catholics'.

"One of the pending pieces of legislation in the House and the Senate is the Reproductive Health bill, now subject to the politics of brinkmanship as this Congress enters its dying days."

Just by her opening salvo, it is not difficult to predict where the rest of the column is leading to, going by her previous diatribes against the Catholic Church here, here, and here.

Again, she laments the involvement of the Church in the RH bill, going as far with an allegation that "there’s word that the Catholic hierarchy has talked to Arroyo and wrangled an agreement that in exchange for their continuing support, the President would prevent passage of the bill by talking to her congressional allies..". Never mind if it is plain hearsay because just after a few more sentences, Ms. David quickly reveals her foregone conclusion:

"And that’s our situation today: the greater good of citizens, but especially of women and children, held hostage to political accommodation and moralistic bullying".

In sum, Ms. David's idea of the Church's role is to flex political muscle and moralistic bullying at the expense of the 'greater good of citizens'. So, to Rina David, the Church is just a terrorist organization, being hostage-takers? But then again, it is another source of mystery as to what she understands by the word 'greater good of citizens', let alone the word 'moralistic'.

Ms. David now draws parallels with the health care debate in the United States. She devotes much of the rest of her column into extolling the advocacy of the US-based group "Catholics For Choice". This group, which calls themselves Catholics, advances the hotly-debated health care reform by the Obama administration. This group is also unabashedly pro-abortion, and that is why they label themselves as pro-choice Catholics: "for choice". That is, for choice of abortions. It's website states that: "Catholic support for legal abortion is grounded in core principles of Catholic theology, which respect the moral agency of all women". Apparently, this group has also invented its own catechism.

On a related note, Rhode Island Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has released an open letter to Congressman Patrick Kennedy, in response to the public statement of Congressman Kennedy that: “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues (read: abortion) does not make me any less of a Catholic” .

Here is an excerpt from Bishop Tobin's letter:

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially? In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic?

The same question may be directed to our own sari-sari-store 'Catholics'.

Back to Rina David's column. She concludes her piece by saying:

"On the way to the eventual passage of the RH bill, do we know the answers to the question: Do we know what Catholics want?".

Well Rina, first of all: Do you know what being a Catholic means?.
/

Of saints and "religious conservatives", again

R.O. takes exception to two columns which appeared in yesterday's Sunday edition of the Philippine Inquirer.

One such statement was made by Patricia Evangelista in her column piece "After Cory." I admire Evangelista’s bright, independent mind and steely courage. In that light, the opinion she gave last Sunday was vaguely amusing to me, considering she’s the granddaughter of Ninoy Aquino’s publicist, Mario Chanco, and is niece to two devoted lay Catholic leaders I know. But I was not amused by this:

"Saints are touched by the hand of God, they do no wrong, they are faultless, full of the light of heaven – but they belong behind glass cases, painted eyes lit by Christmas lights, of little use in a country where every man is a sinner because he lives."
...
The second one is made by columnist Michael Tan in Sunday Inquirer Magazine:

"Religious conservatives continue to label homosexuality as 'unnatural and sinful'," vehemently opposing any kind of gay rights legislation."

These two columnists, I observe, cease to surprise me anymore. I myself have taken exception to their writings in the past: here and here.

For one thing, Ms. Evangelista appears to me as a young, intelligent, creative and bold writer who is on an obsessive human justice crusade. Nothing wrong with that of course, at least until her obvious orientation eerily reminds me of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. In her recent column, she makes it no secret when she says:

"I write this to celebrate a hero, not a saint". A saint, she adds, "is of little use in a country where every man is a sinner because he lives".

Her creative writing must be due in large part to her being a wide reader, yet she probably did not read much of St. Thomas More, for starters.

Professor Michael Tan, on the other hand, makes a whooping "horrendous error of generalization and oversimplification" according to R.O.. I agree. My comments on the thread thus:
/
In fact the Catholic Catechism says in CCC 2357..."Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained...tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law." and in CCC 2358 ..."The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."...

Now to direct attention back to Prof Michael Tan's assailed statement:

"Religious conservatives continue to label homosexuality as 'unnatural and sinful'," vehemently opposing any kind of gay rights legislation".

It is clear that Mr Tan is indeed guilty of "generalization and oversimplification." as R.O. suggests. He never bothered to expound on an objective presentation of the "religious conservatives" position as is normally expected of an academician. If you notice even in the past articles of Mr. Tan, he is bound to use the general term "religious conservatives" in a somewhat derogatory manner. Notice further that the Catholic position above says "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided", so that leaves us in the dark likewise what Mr. Tan means by "conservatives...vehemently opposing any kind of gay rights legislation". Again, his readers should expect better.
/
So much so for "fearless views".

Cito Beltran’s Logic

Cito Beltran’s Logic

By Carlos Antonio Palad

In his column for the June 17, 2009 issue of The Philippine Star (“The great pumpkin”, p. 14), Cito Beltran writes about some of his impressions about the Netherlands and Europe in general; his pen ranges from pigeons as big as chickens to the zeal with which hidden wealth is denounced in the United Kingdom. In the finest tradition of Filipino self-deprecation, Mr. Beltran also uses his impressions to reflect in a generally unfavorable manner upon certain aspects of Philippine society.

Towards the end of his column, Mr. Beltran observes that after centuries of being devoutly Protestant, the Dutch are no longer a churchgoing people due to “various influences, war and disillusionment.” Yet he maintains that the Dutch people remain imbued with Biblical values in their daily conduct. Indeed, that he can’t resist comparing the formerly Protestant Dutch people with the still-Catholic Filipino people in order to make a point at the expense of the Catholic Church.

Mr. Beltran writes:

“Even the staunchest Dutch atheists end up stammering when I point out that their character and conduct reflect the core values of the very faith that they reject. In the many days I spend just walking around The Hague, it became clear that the respect, courtesy, work ethics, social conduct of ethnic Dutch people reflect biblical conduct.

They are not religious or pious but centuries of Protestantism has (sic) resulted in generations of people who are sensitive to others, responsible for themselves and for their surroundings.

In contrast, 400 years of being “the only Catholic Country” in Asia has produced a religious society but not necessarily one where people live in their lives based on biblical standards. In other words we do the talk but we don’t walk the walk.

Who was it that said, “one has faith that does not bear fruit, the other bears much fruit, but has no faith. Who then is better than the other”?

Thus saith Mr. Beltran, the self-proclaimed Born Again Christian.

First, we are astonished that someone who considers himself to be a Born Again Christian would consider it better to have no faith but have much fruit, than to have much faith and yet no fruit. Neither state is ideal, and surely even Born Again Christians consider both faith and good fruit to be essential to being Christian. However, since Born Again Christianity stands precisely on the embrace of faith alone as the path of salvation and the rejection of the view that good works -- good fruit -- have any bearing on one’s salvation, one would think that Mr. Beltran would still consider someone who has faith to be better than someone who has no faith at all.

On the other hand, we are elated that Mr. Beltran concedes that Filipino Catholics have faith – after all, that is something that many of his fellow Born Again Christians refuse to even concede. At least there is hope for us Catholics!

Second, according to Mr. Beltran, the “social conduct of ethnic Dutch people reflect biblical conduct” due to their Protestant past. Is Mr. Beltran aware that the Netherlands has gay marriage, euthanasia even of children, and some of the world’s most liberal abortion and drug laws? Does he consider these to be reflective of biblical conduct as well? Or is he just so dazzled by Holland’s economic prosperity and neatness and the social graces of its inhabitants that he could no longer see that moral aberrations have struck deep roots in that same country? Using Mr. Beltran’s line of reasoning, we must also consider Protestantism to be the source of the Dutch people’s acceptance of gay marriage, euthanasia, drug use, abortion, and the abandonment of church-going. After all, as Mr. Beltran declares, their social conduct is due to Protestant influence!

Mr. Beltran would like to attribute to Protestantism the virtues of the Dutch people while remaining silent on the moral situation of the Netherlands. Why then would he link Catholicism to the lack of biblical conduct among the Filipino people? By what standard of reasoning does he apportion praise and blame? How convenient for him to attribute the virtues of a formerly Protestant country to Protestantism, while attributing the vices of a still-Catholic country to Catholicism! We have a term for this: double standard. The fact is that no country is perfect, and Protestant and Catholic countries alike have their peculiar strengths and weaknesses, their singular virtues and vices.

Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism claims to be able to eradicate sin completely from this world, and by that same token no Christian society can ever be a perfect image of the particular form of Christianity that it by and large espouses. No Christian society will ever be free of blemishes, blemishes that should not always be blamed on the principles upon which that society stands, for no society exists that can perfectly replicate Christian principles.

Before we leave this topic behind, Mr. Beltran should be corrected on one important point: the Netherlands' positive attributes are not due entirely to Protestantism. It has had a Protestant royal family since the 16^th century, and until the 20^th century it had a Protestant majority, but Holland has always had a large Catholic minority, and the roots of its prosperity and work ethic go back to the high medieval ages – when Holland was still one of the most devoutly Catholic nations in the whole world.

/

Thanks, Carlos. You are spot on.

Jesus inside

Corpus Christi Sunday
June 14, 2009

"Take it; this is my body."
(Mk 14:12-16, 22-26)

The apostle John recounts in chapter 6 that Jesus said: "My flesh is really food and my blood is drink.", whereupon many of Jesus' followers said: "This language is very hard! Who can accept it?". Only in that narrative of John do we see an account of some followers of Jesus abandoning Him for theological reasons. If this abandonment was based on a simple misunderstanding, Jesus would certainly have assured them that He was speaking metaphorically. But Jesus did no such thing. On the contrary, He reiterates his hard teaching no less than four times ! (Jn 6:54-58)

Even today, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is much misunderstood by non-Catholics (and many Catholics as well). Jesus' physical and substantial presence in the Eucharist does not negate other types of spiritual presence. Rather, as Pope Paul VI reiterates in Mysterium Fidei, it is "real" in the fullest possible sense of the word. The writings of the early Fathers was further cited by Pope Paul VI in that document, all of whom assert the real presence in no uncertain terms. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, St. Ambrose... In fact the early church apologist St Justin Martyr (a permanent fixture in this site's sidebar) wrote: "......And this food is called among us Eukaristia...for not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation...". That was written in the year 150 AD.

Finally, the Council of Trent in its Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist (of 1551), defined the following tenets - which we see has always been the prevailing beliefs throughout Church history - as absolutely binding on all Catholics:


First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration of bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things...For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ and who treated of this most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this wonderful sacrament at the last supper, when, after blessing the bread and wine, He testified in clear and definite words that He gives them His own body and His own blood...But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation...There is, therefore, no room for doubt that all the faithful of Christ may, in accordance with a custom always received in the Catholic Church, give to this most holy sacrament in veneration the worship of [latria], which is due to the true God. Neither is it to be less adored for the reason that it was instituted by Christ the Lord in order to be received. For we believe that in it the same God is present of whom the eternal Father, when introducing Him into the world, says: And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the Magi, falling down, adored; who, finally, as the Scriptures testify, was adored by the Apostles in Galilee.
/
Amen.




From The Inside Out - by Hillsong united

...Everlasting, Your light will shine when all else fades,
Never ending, Your glory goes beyond all fame,
In my heart, in my soul, Lord I give you control,
Consume me from the inside out Lord,
Let justice and praise become my embrace,
To love You from the inside out...

Until the end of age

Sunday - June 7, 2009
Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity

Mat 28:16-20
..."Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
/
"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
In the Great Commission, Jesus directs His disciples to "Go and make disciples of all nations", and assures them that "I am with you always, until the end of the age". It was a commission that was destined to be fulfilled throughout the ages. In addition to this, we must remember from last Sunday's Gospel that Jesus promised "I will send you the Spirit of Truth" (Jn 15:26). In conjunction with these, we must also remember that Jesus promised "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it (my church)". (Mt 16:18). So, when some people claim that the church that Christ founded apostatized sometime after the death of the last apostle, they simply refuse to pay attention to Jesus' words. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church persists and will continue to persist to the end of days simply because Jesus said so, whether some people like it or not. We cannot just skip over some key verses in the scriptures, or else we will be in deep trouble.

To illustrate, there is this story of the preacher whose worn-out bible was missing some pages in the book of Genesis. One Sunday, he faced his congregation to read his text that was missing one page from the story of the great flood.
"Noah took unto himself a wife," he began, "and she was"...
- he turned the page to continue -
..."three hundred cubits long, fifty wide and thirty nigh."

On (In)Tolerance (2)

Father Jenkins C.S.C., the president of Notre Dame, delivered a glowing introduction to President Obama. A portion of that introduction goes:

"Mr. President: This is a principle we share.

As the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council wrote in their pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes: 'Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.' "

Too bad Fr. Jenkins conveniently omitted the immediately succeeding portions from the text of Gaudium et Spes, which reveals the full context of the passage. It goes:

This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions. God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.

Truth and goodness... love impels...to speak the saving truth to all men. When two ideas are diametrically opposed to each other, both cannot be true at the same time. Only one is. Some ideas are simply superior than others. We don’t treat all ideas as if they have the same merit, else we run into self-contradiction. We can not judge internal guilt, but we can and must judge actions based on its moral goodness. We treat persons with egality, but we treat ideas with objectivity. As Gaudium et Spes asserts: error always merits repudiation.

This is what the particular passage in Gaudium et Spes sets forth. This is the true principle that we, as disciples of Christ, must share
/
The full text of Fr. Jenkin's introduction may be found here.
Thanks JME.

A typhoon-proof vine

Fifth Sunday of Easter
May 10, 2009

...I am the vine, you are the branches...

(John 15:1-8)
/
Jesus' discourse on the vine and the branches presents a very rich allegory: faith, trials, communion, spiritual gifts, good works, a life-giving relationship, salvation. I once had a lively debate with a fundamentalist friend with his contention of "once saved, always saved". How can he reconcile this with Jesus' assertion that the branches that does not remain in the vine are gathered, thrown and burned? In the first place, if the branch was once connected, and then was broken off later (as it did not bear fruit), it was clear that the branch basked in God's graces at one time but did not elect to stay connected. The branch did not bear fruit - good works to my mind. This is another flash point, as fundamentalists reject the salvific value of good works: faith is enough. Catholics on the other hand say: faith AND good works. I remember he launched into a Pauline discourse to the effect that nothing can separate us from the love of God. Sure I say, but we retain the will to accept or reject God's grace. He insists that Jesus' death would have been meaningless if "faith only" was not enough. But it's ok, although our discussion goes on in circles, this fundamentalist guy remains my friend even as we exasperate each other. I pray he gets to swim across the Tiber sometime.



Speaking of vines, I have this peculiar vine in our garden that never fails to be a conversation piece with visitors. Funny thing is I don't even know the name of the plant, as I just inherited it from the previous owner. I transferred a sapling about two years ago and now it has grown to over 20 feet. Notice how it climbs up the wall with apparently no support except that its leaves seem to attach themselves tenaciously to the wall. Its round, flat leaves seem adapted to attaching to flat walls like there were an adhesive. It must also have a pretty sturdy stem underneath, as this part of the garden is buffeted by fairly strong winds. I think it is the collective strength of the leaves attached to a strong stem that makes the entire thing flourish in spite of the strong winds. That is why even many typhoons cannot strip this plant - the leaves provide strength to each other. Hmm, I think there's more to add to the allegory.

Angels and Demons and Clowns

"The idea that Copernicus was murdered by the Church is just too stupid for words."

So says John C. Wright , in his scathing review of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons.
Fact: Copernicus died quietly in bed at age 70 from a stroke, and his research was supported by Church officials; he even dedicated his masterwork to the Pope.

The joker is the same Dan Brown who wrote the Da Vinci Code, a work of fiction shot full of errors. Nevertheless on his webpage, Clown, (Brown, rather) claims that "Because my novels are so research-intensive, they take a couple of years to write".

Bull feathers.

By the way, John C. Wright is a well-known sci-fi writer who used to be an atheist but converted to Catholicism last year.
Check out his blog here- http://johncwright.livejournal.com/

Did God create evil?

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
- Isaiah 45:7 (King James Bible)

Based on the above passage, an acquiantance in a group mailing list concludes that: "apparently, God did create evil."
/
Well...

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. The KJV translation of this passage seems to present a semantic problem. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shalom, which has many meanings, mostly related to the well-being of individuals. The original Hebrew word Ra'ah translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity.

Here is the NAB version of Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Thus, when taken into account, the opposite of well-being (of peace in this context) is woe or calamity, not evil.

When biblical passages seem confusing, it is the bible reader's recourse to compare scriptures against scriptures, as the bible does not contradict itself. Thus, in Genesis 1:31, we read:

"God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good."

God is not the author of evil, but allows it because God created free will. Evil is borne out of man's abuse of free will. However, God does reward and punish on the basis of good and bad behavior. There has been instances in the bible where God does bring judgment and calamity (either directly or through human authorities) as a consequence for those who sin. Woe and calamity is the consequence of man's actions, but ultimately, God will judge all people.

As a further reference for Catholics, here is section 311 of the Cathechism:

/CCC 311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it./