Bro. Jubernson Alabastro of Catholic Faith Defender - Davao Defends John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI, looking at the world... Full of Hope and Serenity

Unmerciful Attack on Divine Mercy Sunday!

In Defense of Pope John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI

By: Jubernson I. Alabastro

Bishop Bruskewitz once said, “Controversies or polemics should not be discussed for their own sake, but as a necessary defense of the truth and an important safeguard for those who are endangered of intellectual, religious and moral deceptions.” My argument will operate under this principle. The rancor started on the front page of the Mindanao Daily Mirror last April 11, 2010, the feast of the Divine Mercy Sunday which is also the death Anniversary of the late Pope John Paul II, and a week after Easter. As we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord, we mourn the passion which the late Pontiff and Pope Benedict XVI underwent in the writing of Mr. Cesar Baldelomar. As the nails from the hands of Christ were removed, a nail in the coffin of the late Pontiff was hammered. The author exploded the bombshell of the sexual abuse scandals to fire his warning shot. Judging by the agenda presented in the rest of his article, one can’t help but wonder if the warning shot was done only to create a smoke screen, hoping to vindicate the past errors condemned by the present Pope and his late predecessor. Was justice the main concern of the author or the justification of these past errors?

Before I clear the air from the unholy incense of the sexual abuse scandals, let me tell you a little story that portrays the whole of this controversy. In the early 1900, G.K. Chesterton decided to play golf one day while inhaling the fumes of communism filling the air at that time. What made this game so unique was that the hole was located fifty to seventy decades later. As he made his swing he said, “the next great heresy would be an attack on morality, especially sexual morality. The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan.” It was a long shot indeed, but a hole in one! Decades later, we see the proliferation of pornography, the new birth of artificial contraceptives, and infidelity. As a result, divorce was on the rise, not only between couples, but between a priest and his wife, the Church.

To address the issue of the sexual abuse scandal, contrary to the reports of the popular media, the Church did take the appropriate actions regarding this issue. To resolve this case, it was left to the Bishop of a local diocese where the alleged abuser was assigned; and rightly so because this process is based on the trust and confidence that the centralized Papacy has on its managers to work on a solution. If there was any mismanagement that happened, it did not occur on the universal level, but on the local level where the hands on investigations and interactions by the Bishops were happening. When matters got worse, it was only then that the Vatican took control.

Now, the author mentioned supposed areas of considerations which if the Pope did allow, could contribute to the betterment of the Church. What are these? The often quelled discussions about women’s ordination, which Christ did not establish 2000 years ago, but by women who consumed feministicide 2000 years after; the view of modernist theologians who marry this age and get divorced on the next because their spouses are no longer “new”; and the famous consumption of artificial contraceptives by women so that when strike like a violin, they will produce no music. These main courses are nothing but recipes for destruction!

From the tree of knowledge of good and evil comes one of its poisoned fruit offered for desert, Liberation Theology. Why did the Church reject Liberation Theology? Because the foundation stone of its doctrine is not built on Christ, but on the false messiah, Karl Marx! It accommodates Communism’s philosophical and “theological” principles. Eric Voegelin, a German Philosopher, perfectly described this Communistic principle as “immanentizing the eschaton.” This form of theology, like Communism, does not deny heaven, but it wishes to relocate heaven in this world. We all know that heaven cannot vacate its permanent address. History has always proven that an attempt to create a heaven on earth only resulted to hell instead (i.e. World Wars, Concentration Camps, destructions etc.)

Let us ask ourselves, who is the rightful magisterium to infallibly interpret the dogma of Liberation Theology? Since most of its doctrines are not based on the Divine Revelation of Christ, but on the satanic temptation of Marx, it is not the Church who is going to interpret it, but the unholy trinity of me, myself and I, namely, the liberation theologian capitalizing on the poor. The liberator will say: “the poor, based on their status alone, should be the rightful holder of the keys to unravel the mysteries of revelation, and not the ruling class of the Magisterium.” When the Pope and Bishops will be overthrown from their teaching office, here’s the part where the liberator enters the scene and declares ex-cathedra, “of course, the poor will still be needing a voice; I am more than willing to volunteer myself.” Using the poor as an excuse is therefore a poor excuse! As we clearly see, its members are not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in the name of the trinitarian formula of Y-O-U, and then receiving the gifts of the seven spirits (Mat. 12:45,) dissenting rather than descending into the individual. This type of baptism produces a new man, not as a result of baptismal regeneration, but as a result of self-actualization. This supposed new theology is nothing but an old heresy.

G.K. Chesterton brilliantly defined heresy as the belief that a narrow portion of the truth is the whole truth. It was able to recognize that the cross burdens humanity. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is capable of holding a seemingly contrary view: the cross is a burden for our eternal rest (Rev. 14:13.) The horizontal part of the cross contradicts my “I,” my ego, detaching me from economic attachments for the sake of the Economy of Salvation; the horizontal part of the cross contradicts my “I,” preventing me from treating my wife like a prostitute, every time I allow her to take birth control pills for the reason that I neither believe in birth, nor in control, opening my eyes that pregnancy is not a sickness to be prevented by artificial methods, nor a disease to be cured by abortion; the horizontal part of the cross contradicts my “I,” making me so little that the Devil can’t see me, knowing that insisting on democracy in the Church for its own sake will only lead to the dictatorship of relativism and the exile of the truth. The balance provided by this paradox is how Christianity survived for centuries; it was a lesson taught by its Founder which cannot be imitated without one being converted. It was able to recognize that the problem lies on the “I,” the personal dimension of original sin rather than on its social dimension. Original sin has greatly damaged the free will of man that one cannot be saved from without (i.e. social, political & economic structures,) but from within (i.e. grace.)

The next lash received by the late Pontiff was the accusation of violating the Spirit of Vatican II. A maxim coming from an orthodox theologian elucidating this issue is worth pondering: “the spirit of Vatican II lies in its letter.” Let us then read one of the ABC’s of Vatican II, yet very essential in understanding all of the Church’s documents from A to Z. I am referring to 10 § 2 of Dei Verbum, Vatican II’s "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation." Who is the infallible interpreter of Scripture, Tradition, and the case at bar we are arguing, the Church’s documents? Is it the dissenting theologian? Let us see: "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome (Catechism of the Catholic Church #85.) It is absurd then to accuse the Pope of violating the Spirit of Vatican II, when his interpretation of the documents and the Bishops in communion with Him are the very Spirit of the Council itself! So quoting an author dissenting against magisterial teachings and treating him or her as if the rightful representative of that Spirit is not only unreliable and incomprehensible, but downright despicable! Authors and theologians acting more infallible than the Pope have no right to bind and loose the Church’s documents, much more the deposit of faith! Otherwise, that would tantamount to creating a church within the Church, creating another G.K.K (Ginagmayng Kabuang sa Katilimban) or what is known in English as another B.E.C (Basic Erroneous Community.) Tradition says, where Christ builds His Church, there the Devil builds his chapel. This is what the Church is preventing from happening. We must therefore conform our understanding to the Church’s authentic interpretation if we ought to be an authentic Catholic.

Mr. Baldelomar mentioned that he is a revert to the Catholic Church. Let me offer him a refresher course in Catechism: Religion comes from the latin word relagare meaning to bind. The Catholic Church is the true religion because Christ, its Head and Shepherd, intends to incorporate the entire human race into His One Body, the Church (Col. 1:18) so that there will be one flock to be led by one Shepherd (John 10:16.) When Christ ascended to heaven, He left this function to St. Peter, this is now the Office of the Papacy (John 21:17) The Oneness of the Church, which is an essential mark of the true religion, lies therefore in this Holy Office. Attempting to destroy this Holy Office is striking the Shepherd, dispersing the sheep of the flock (Mat. 26:31,) and exposing them to wolves! Should this treachery still be properly labeled as Catholicism?

The author said that it is painful for him to write his piece against the Pope; it is more painful for me to refute a fellow Catholic in order to defend the Pope who was attacked like a Protestant; and I assure Mr. Baldelomar that it is most painful for the Holy Father to sing a part of Freddie Aguilar’s song: “Anak ba’t ka nagkaganyan?” (Son, what happened to you?) Be not hopeless is what Pope Benedict XVI wishes to say to you, as well as to the perpetrators of sexual abuses and their victims, and be not afraid to be reconciled back to the forgiving arms of the Church, is the invitation of Pope John Paul II to you and to all sinners (myself included.) The Holy Mother Church longs for our renewal and hopes that we sing the last stanza: “Nagsisisi ka sa isip mo’y, nalaman mong, ika’y nagkamali.”(In your mind, you are regretting, knowing what you’ve done is wrong.)