Third Response (SHORT VERSION) to Gerry Soliman – A Brief Note on Discerning the Canon

Moses striking the Rock while Aaron standing on his side wearing a Mitre

*******

Gerry Soliman’s “response” to me also contains the following answer to one of my responses, which is one of the strangest and weirdest attempts at Protestant apologetics that I’ve ever seen. I have put Mr. Soliman’s text in blue and red, my answer is in bold black.

This is the SHORT VERSION. I have a second, LONG VERSION of my response, which I can post when necessary.

A Variant of the White Question

#13 - How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

Mr. Palad's Response: They had access to the inspired voice of a continuous stream of patriarchs and prophets, ending with John the Baptist. We can also point to the Seat of Moses (a reference to the teaching authority of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin).

Comment: Unfortunately for Mr. Palad, he does not get the implication of the question. Roman Catholics claim that they know the books that belongs in the Bible because their infallible magisterium tells them so. But for the Jews who were born years before Christ how did they know that Kings or Isaiah were Scripture when there is no Catholic Church at that time? In fairness Mr. Palad's response is somewhat accurate which the Jews can inquire from the High Priest and Sanhedrin. But is Mr. Palad actually saying that Old Testament authorities were infallible like the claim he gives for the Church of Rome? If so, what is his basis? Can he actually present credible historical data that the Old Testament High Priest, Sanhedrin, patriarchs, and prophets claimed infallibility or were recognized as infallible? If it was possible for the Old Testament Jews to rightly identify the Scriptures without an aid of an infallible authority, then infallibility for the church is out of the question.

Mr. Soliman, in his crusade against the papacy, sets up an argument that openly questions the infallibility of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets. This is a horrendous blasphemy that no real Evangelical would even countenance. If the patriarchs and prophets are not infallible, then what is the point of considering the Old Testament to be God’s infallible Word???

In addition, apart from the question of the infallibility of the Prophets and Patriarchs, if we are to grant the correctness Mr. Soliman’s argument that the Jews were capable of discerning Scriptures on their own without any authority then this should greatly hurt the Protestant position. The Old Testament Jews, for instance, accepted the Books of Tobit, Judith, the 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, as we can see from the pre-Christian “Septuagint” Bible. If – according to Mr. Soliman – the Old Testament Jews were capable of pointing out which books are inspired, then why do the Protestants keep rejecting the verdict of the Old Testament Jews, and accept instead the reduced “Canon” of Scriptures codified by some of the Rabbis of post-Temple Judaism, who had rejected Christ and the Apostles and had anathemized the Christians?

Be it an Old Testament Jew or a New Testament Christian, they have fellowship with God. Through this fellowship, they developed a relationship with God which made them know the character of God. And since they know God, they can recognize his words and tell if they are Scriptures:

You know, I think a lot of Protestants will shout this down as heresy. Are you stating that the Old Testament Jews and the New Testament Christians are on an equal plane, and have the same fellowship and relationship with God, and had the same knowledge of God? This flies in the face of all Biblical and apostolic teaching, and makes the Death of the Savior and the very Gospel itself unnecessary.

It should also be obvious that to appeal to the special situation of the Jews who lived prior to Our Lord’s life, ministry, and saving Passion, in order to debunk what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the way by which spiritual certainty is accessible to the men of the time AFTER the Ascension of Our Lord, is extremely foolish, and implicitly denies the distinction between the Old and New Testaments.

Enough said.

When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice. John 10:4-5 NIV

Thank you for citing this verse, which also powerfully points out – if you didn’t notice – the need for the sheep to follow the shepherd. In the Catholic Church, the Holy Father is our Pastor, who stands as the representative of, and by the authority of, Christ the Good Shepherd. The same cannot be said of the Protestants, who by no stretch of the imagination can be seen as a single sheepfold following a single shepherd.

Second Response to Gerry Soliman: On Private Interpretation by Carlos Antonio Palad

Codex Amiantinus

According to Mr. Soliman, I contradict what the American Catholic Truth Society says about private interpretation.

Here is the relevant part of his post. I have put his words in blue, my response is in bold black.

Private Interpretation

#11 - If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

Mr. Palad's Response: The absence of “private interpretation” is not the same as the “exclusion of the individual”. The individual must always choose and must always use his mind – but for an individual to make a choice does not mean that he is therefore using “private interpretation”.

Private interpretation is simply the arrogant assumption that any individual can decide, without reference to any other authority, which Christian doctrines are right or wrong, and which Scriptural interpretations are correct or not. This is the reason why so many persons who founded various Protestant churches felt entitled to declare all other churches to be in one error or another, and they alone having the most perfect key to scriptures. This is the reason why many Protestant preachers have the temerity and arrogance to contradict even the Apostolic Fathers, who themselves were taught by the Apostles, and had known the very people who knew Christ in person. Some European Protestants have even condemned St. Luke and St. James for their Catholic tendencies!

However, it is possible for an individual to choose to believe in a particular Church without falling into the trap of “private interpretation”. Such an individual, rejecting the Protestant neglect of history and taking the Lord at His word that He will never abandon the Church, and that the gates of Hades shall never prevail against the Church, will realize that – if Jesus is no liar – then there has always been a Church that has kept His teaching pure and unadulterated, and that it is his (the person’s) task to approach that Church which has kept this teaching unchanged and intact. Such a person will NOT decide what is right and what is wrong entirely on his authority, and will not dream of overruling the early Church. Rather, he will endeavor to understand what the early Church overwhelmingly taught, then taking this to be true (without subjecting it to his judgment), trying to find out which modern Church has managed to keep all that the generality of the early Church taught. In all this, of course, he must be prayerful and invoke divine grace and guidance.

Comment: This reminded me of the discussion I had with Fr. Abe Arganiosa a month ago on private interpretation (see here). You will note that like Fr. Abe, Mr. Palad contradicts their international counterparts who agree that a private element (which include private interpretation) is involved when an individual decides which church or doctrine is true. Let's quote once again the American Catholic Truth Society:

That being said, of course there is a private element, as there is in all decision-making. The Church is not saying there can be no private element, but just that the private element has a different place in doctrinal decisions than it does in other decisions. What is clear is that despite the private element, the Catholic system provides something that sola scriptura doesn't: You see, both we and Prots start with an initially private judgment... they believe Scripture alone, we believe Scripture + Tradition + Church. There is indeed a private element. But in the Catholic system, it gives us access to an infallible interpreter. This does not mean that the private element suddenly disappears. But it means that it is not alone. The the kind of private judgment the Church has historically condemned is: whatever I say goes. Sola scripturists, on the other hand, cannot get away from the "private interpretor" for they are truly not left with "Scriptures Alone" but Scriptures and their interpretation of them. They cannot separate the individual (private) interpretation here without naming another "interpretor" and they are quite careful not to do this.

When an individual is engaged in a decision making process, he most certainly cannot avoid analyzing the data that will be presented to him. This analysis will eventually lead into an interpretation which is private since it was made by the individual himself.

CAP RESPONSE: Once again, Mr. Soliman reads without first nailing down the nuances.

There is absolutely no contradiction between what I said and what American Catholic Truth Society says. On the contrary, we agree on all points.

First and foremost, I clearly defined what I mean by personal interpretation:

Private interpretation is simply the arrogant assumption that any individual can decide, without reference to any other authority, which Christian doctrines are right or wrong, and which Scriptural interpretations are correct or not

The ACTS says:

The kind of private judgment the Church has historically condemned is: whatever I say goes.

In this, both ACTS and I are in full agreement. Neither I nor any serious Catholic apologist has denied that an individual has a role in the process of discerning the truth, for the simple reason that it is an obvious truth.

Furthermore, although I do not use the term “private element” I clearly state that the individual must use his mind, and that it is his task to approach the true Church. By the way, “private element” is not the same as “private interpretation”.

In part of his response to me, Mr. Soliman writes:

When an individual is engaged in a decision making process, he most certainly cannot avoid analyzing the data that will be presented to him. This analysis will eventually lead into an interpretation which is private since it was made by the individual himself.

To this I reply: I said this too. I CLEARLY state that “the individual must always choose and must always use his mind.” However, the use of one’s mind and the exercise of one’s capacity to analyse data is not the same as considering one’s mind and thought to be superior to any other authority, which is what Protestant-style private interpretation often does. The Church believes in the exercise of one’s mind, BUT humbly guided by the teachings of the Fathers and of the historic Church.

It is only a Protestant caricature that denial of private interpretation = denial of the use of one’s mind. On the contrary, one of the reasons why we Catholics deny the Protestant practice of private interpretation is precisely to protect the vast heritage of historic Christian faith and doctrine – a powerful heritage of insight and learning (among many other things) that cannot be surpassed – versus the whims and ignorance of arrogant individuals who think that they have all the light. If anything, it is the Catholic position that renders due respect to the capacities of the human mind, guided by natural reason and the light of the Holy Spirit.

************ ********* *****

In the third paragraph of Mr. Palad's answer he says:

Such an individual, rejecting the Protestant neglect of history and taking the Lord at His word that He will never abandon the Church, and that the gates of Hades shall never prevail against the Church, will realize that – if Jesus is no liar – then there has always been a Church that has kept His teaching pure and unadulterated, and that it is his (the person’s) task to approach that Church which has kept this teaching unchanged and intact.

This prompts me to ask the following questions:

1. With respect to history, is the historian credible or even unbiased? Did that historian make reference to an independent source and not from the mouth of the Vatican ?

Two misconceptions here:

1) If it comes from the mouth of the Vatican == false, biased. This is the fallacy called “poisoning the wells of discourse”, which makes all discussion impossible because one party (the Protestant, in this case) considers that the other party (the Catholic) is full of lies and does not believe in truthfulness.

2) Catholics only make use of Catholic historians. This is news to me. On the contrary, Catholic historians make use of vast amounts of non-Catholic historical works and sources and scholarship, and non-Catholic historians have access to all the great libraries of Catholicism (the Vatican library, for instance). As a Catholic, I feel great pride at the enormous works of historical scholarship that the Catholic Church has generated through the centuries, compared to which the Evangelicals have very little.

2. What if, after doing Mr. Palad's suggestions, the person chooses the Eastern Orthodox instead? Would Mr. Palad say that the person did not use private interpretation?

It depends on the individual case, but it is conceivable that he did not use private interpretation. Still, he is wrong. One can go wrong even without private interpretation, and the Church has never denied that an individual can still go wrong even with all the lights and guidance provided to him. Just think of Judas. He was guided by Our Lord Jesus himself and yet he sinned greatly, rebelled against Christ, and fell from grace. Does that make Our Lord Jesus “un-infallible”?

3. On the subject of keeping the teachings of Christ, what if the person comes across a Roman Catholic figure in history who has a different view with Rome's teachings such as Jerome who did not believe the Apocryphal books are inspired, Tertullian who does not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Augustine who does not have a final say that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18? Would he not depend on your Magisterium to explain these inconsistencies?

Two answers, pertaining to different aspects of this question:

A) The question reflects a typically Protestant approach to apologetics: trying to construct doctrine out of this or that verse of Scripture, now applied to the teachings of the Fathers. The Catholic approach is different, solidly structured as it is upon first principles. The fact is that one can always cherrypick what one wishes to hear from the vast storehouse of the Fathers, whose writings run into hundreds of thick volumes in tiny print. If some misuse the Bible in order to sustain all sorts of different and strange doctrines, then how much more the teachings of the Fathers?

Pitting one Father against another is futile, just as the perpetual game of fighting Bible verse versus Bible verse, which is what passes for apologetics in too many areas.

The question to ask, when faced by the differences among the Fathers, is: “what authority did the Fathers themselves acknowledge, to whom did they submit themselves”? The historical fact is that the Fathers acknowledged the authority of the 1) Ecumenical Councils and 2) the Church, especially the sentences of the See of Rome . Another question to ask is: “and who declared the Fathers to be Fathers in the first place”? Again, the question leads to: the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church, led by the Bishop of Rome .

If one truly considers the Fathers to be effective witnesses to the teaching of the Ancient Church , then one should – logically – submit to the authorities to which the Fathers themselves submitted.

Therefore, when an inquirer runs to the Magisterium for safe teaching when faced by the differences among the Fathers, he is not committing a fallacy of any shape or form. He is merely following through his reverence for the teaching of the Fathers to its logical conclusion.

B) Any informed Catholic knows that there are some inconsistencies between the individual Fathers and Doctors of the Church. However, this is not much of a problem given that the Church has never taught the doctrinal infallibility of any given Doctor or Father of the Church. The problem of “inconsistency” would be real only if there is an inconsistency between two dogmas. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that no dogma is ever proclaimed by the Church without first exhausting all discussions and without first parsing all viewpoints and arguments. Only when the Church has reached a practical unanimity of minds, and only when it is really necessary, does it proclaim something as dogma.

4. How about if he comes across the historical account where Galileo was punished by the pope for telling that the Earth revolves around the Sun? How about the Inquisition? The selling of indulgences that paved way for the Reformation?

Ho hum. I think I can retell all these stories in detail, every lurid and salacious turn of the story included. I’ve got news for Mr. Soliman: Catholicism never taught that its members can’t commit horrible sins. Another bit of news: Catholic historians often tell these stories, with as much if not more indignation than some non-Catholic historians. No other Church has opened itself up to self-examination as much as the Catholic Church has. No other Church has practiced self-criticism as much as the Catholic Church with regards to the weakness of her members. The numerous “apologies” uttered by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI bear witness to this.

What the Church has taught is that, despite the terrible human frailties and sins of the individual members of the Church and even of the hierarchy, the Church will not corrupt the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. The heliocentric- geocentric controversy, the Inquisition, the selling of indulgences (which was condemned by the Council of Trent), etc. all bear witness to the terrible weaknesses and sinfulness of some members of the hierarchy, but never touched the purity of the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

Overall what Mr. Palad is telling us here is that do not use private interpretation, instead use the standard set forth by his church to tell that the Church of Rome is the true church. Or simply put it, just accept our teachings without questioning.

Well, the mere fact that I am discussing these things with Mr. Soliman – as have countless Catholic apologists with other Protestants – should tell him that it is slanderous for him to say that we Catholics believe in acceptance without questioning. The Church has always spared no effort to explain her teachings to all comers.

First Response to Gerry Soliman: On the Canon of Scripture by Carlos Antonio Palad

Book of Kells

The following has come to my attention:

http://solutions- finder.blogspot. com/2010/ 03/evaluating- responses- of-carlos- antonio.html

In it, Mr. Gerry Soliman (a.k.a Rodimus) tries to refute what I said in answering Questions 1-17 as earlier posted by “Milesawayman”.

In a nutshell, Mr. Soliman declares that I committed the following mistakes:

1) In Mr. Soliman’s words: “While it is true that Trent was organized to combat the Protestant position of the canon, it isn't true that the council of Trent merely reiterated the canonical status of the seven books of the Deuterocanonicals. Trent never made reference to the African Councils of Hippo and Carthage and recognized the books which these councils have declared to be inspired.”

2) Mr. Soliman says that the New Catholic Encyclopedia refutes me:

“An entry of the New Catholic Encyclopedia refutes Mr. Palad's response:

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent ...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).”

3) Mr. Soliman also cites as proof against the Catholic position, the fact that (according to the source he cites) the Council of Trent “removed” Esdras 1 from the Bible, which, according to Mr. Soliman’s source, was part of the Catholic Bible until 1546. This – according to Mr. Soliman – is proof that the Catholic Canon was indeed formed only at the Council of Trent in 1546.

Regarding Mr. Soliman’s first point, I respond: for a position to be reiterated does not mean that all the precedents for it have to be cited and repeated, for that would be an enormous waste of time and paper. What is important is that the newest iteration of a particular position repeats the contents of previous precedents. The Council of Trent was, and is, justly renowned for the brevity of its Decrees, which focus on proclaiming the core content of the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, and not on enumerating the documentary proofs for these (that was – and is --- the task of Catholic theologians, historians and apologists). It is true that the Council of Trent, in its Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures (April 8, 1546), does not cite the Council of Hippo, or the Third Council of Carthage, or even the Epistle of Pope Innocent I. For that matter, this Decree does not cite anything, since it focuses on enumerating the Books of the Bible. Nevertheless, this does not matter, for the aforementioned Canon of the Council of Trent regarding the contents of Sacred Scripture merely repeats – without addition or subtraction – what Carthage III (following the Council of Hippo in 393) and Innocent I actually proclaimed as the Canon of Scripture. It is in this sense that Trent reiterates the teaching of Carthage . Quibble as Mr. Soliman might about words and semantics, the essential truth of the matter under discussion is unassailable: the Biblical Canon proclaimed by Trent is identical with that of Hippo, Carthage III and the Epistle of Innocent I.

Furthermore, the actual Decree of April 8, 1546 declares that the 73 books of the Bible are the books “received by the Council”; these are the books that the Council “receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence” and notes that the “written books” have been transmitted “from hand to hand”. Towards the end of the Decree, we read: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church…let him be anathema.” All these point out an obvious fact: the Council of Trent, far from inventing the Catholic Canon of Scriptures, is merely repeating what the Catholic Church had taught and received from the Fathers as the Canon of Scripture – the Canon that had been listed down in Hippo, Carthage III and by Innocent I.

For Mr. Soliman’s benefit, I will point him to the following essays:

On the Third Council of Carthage : http://www.bible- researcher. com/carthage. html

On Pope Innocent I and the Bible: http://www.bible- researcher. com/innocent. html

Although the nomenclature of Carthage III and Innocent I differ from the Council of Trent, they denote exactly the same 46 books currently listed in Catholic Bibles.

Innocent I and Carthage III both list 44 books for the Old Testament. However, it should be kept in mind that Baruch and Lamentations were incorporated as part of Jeremiah in early Bibles, thus what used to be counted as one book is now counted by everyone as three. (I would like to refer Mr. Soliman to the article "Baruch" in the Oxford Bible Commentary published in 2001, p. 700)

This having been noted, Mr. Soliman can find no comfort in these Canons, for, aside from Baruch, it clearly lists as part of the Scriptures all the other 6 OT books that the Protestants relegate to Apocrypha. (The essays that I link to, note that Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus – often called Sirach nowadays – are part of the “five books of Solomon”, while both Canons explicitly list the two Maccabees, Judith and Tobit. As for Baruch, I have already explained this.)

Regarding Mr. Soliman’s second point, I respond: There is no contradiction between what I wrote and what the New Catholic Encyclopedia says. Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled”, the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon. Finally, in 1546, the Catholic Church, faced by Martin Luther’s attacks and the innovations proposed by some scholars of the day, decided to close the Canon of Scripture once and for all. This does not mean that the Catholic Church “invented” the Canon of Scripture only in 1546, or that the Catholic Canon of Scripture was formed quite late in the day; it simply means that in 1546, the Catholic Church finally decided to end all discussion regarding the contents of Canon of Scripture, the Canon that it the Western Church had already been using anyway for more than 1,100 years.

Lest Mr. Soliman try to make hay out of the fact that the New Catholic Enyclopedia speaks of the “uncertainty” that persisted down to Trent’s day, this is easy to explain: precisely because none of the Canons of Scripture prior to 1546 had dogmatic force, there were still scholars who felt entitled to have serious questions about which books should be part of the Canon of Scripture. After all, there were no anathemas against them. In this sense there was uncertainty. But this does not erase an equally solid fact: the reality of the stability of the Biblical Canon in the Western Church from Carthage III to Trent , that even the questions of scholars was not able to deform.

The Council of Trent was simply the Church’s way of declaring: “All right, folks, we’ve been discussing this Canon of Scripture of more than a thousand years and no one has shown that there’s anything wrong with this Canon, therefore we are closing this discussion and we’re going to declare this Canon as the sole binding one from now until the end of time”.

Regarding Mr. Soliman’s third point, I respond: Esdras 1 (Esdras 3 in Latin) was never considered by Rome or the Western Church as part of the Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture as listed by Carthage III and by Pope Innocent I does not contain it (refer to my response to Mr. Soliman’s third point). As such, we must qualify what is meant when Mr. Soliman’s source declares that Trent “removed” Esdras 1 from the Bible.

Trent “removed” Esdras 1 in the sense that, in 1546, Trent closed the doors on any further discussion of what books are considered by the Catholic Church as part of the Bible. It is, therefore, more accurate to say that Trent “excluded” Esdras 1 from the Bible.

It would be inaccurate to say that Trent “removed” Esdras 1 if by that word is meant that, prior to 1546, Esdras 1 was part of the Canon of Scripture officially received by the Catholic Church. Carthage III does not have it. Innocent I does not mention it. Copies of the Vulgate may have had it, but neither St. Jerome ’s opinions (he who made the Vulgate translation) nor the vicissitudes of the late ancient and medieval publishing history of the Vulgata, ever constituted a witness to canonicity of Scriptures in the Catholic Church.

(To avoid confusion, it should be kept in mind that what modern-day English speakers refer to as “Esdras 1” is known as “Esdras 3” in Latin and in pre-1965 English Catholic usage, while what is called “Esdras 1” in the Vulgate and in Latin decrees, and in pre-1965 Catholic English translations of the Bible, refers in fact to what we now call the Book of Ezra.)

In yet another sense, it is inaccurate to say that Trent “removed” Esdras 1 “from the Bible”. Yes, Trent excluded Esdras 1 from the Canon of Scripture; however, Pope Clement VIII, in a non-dogmatic and purely disciplinary decree, asked that Esdras 1 and 2 (Esdras 3 and 4 in Latin) be included in editions of the Latin Vulgate, not as part of the Canon of the Bible, but as appendices, due to their historical significance and importance. Indeed, many Latin Vulgates published down to the early 20th century contain these two books as appendices.

It is interesting to note that, at present, only the Orthodox accept Esdras 1 as part of the Bible. Even here, the Orthodox are (as is so frequently the case) not united. Some Orthodox accept Esdras 1, but not Esdras 2; others accept both; and others reject both. The Orthodox Churches have no fixed Canon of Scripture to this very day.

THE FLAWED CONDOM by American Life League (ALL) www.all.org

The Madonna and Child with young St. John and St. Elizabeth by Titian

*******

THE FLAWED CONDOM

By American Life League (ALL) http://www.all.org/

Released October 12, 2005

Condom effectiveness

Condoms have always posed a great use-effectiveness problem. The FDA requires contraceptive manufacturers to list the typical rate of pregnancy for one year of use. For male condoms the FDA says the rate is 14 percent.1 In other words, over a span of a year, for every 100 typical couples using condoms, 14 will become pregnant. But this rate is based on birth prevention, not disease prevention.

This distinction is critical when safety and protection are honestly considered and evaluated. For example, a woman's window of fertility is about 7 days out of an average 28-day cycle. Infections such as HIV/AIDS, however, can occur every day. This means that there are at least four times as many days during which disease can be transmitted compared to the amount of time for possible fertilization - the simple transmission of a sperm into an egg.

Some claim that condoms will cut down on the spread of many sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. However, a July 20, 2001 report from the National Institutes of Health, Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, concluded that scientific evidence does not support condom use as a means to prevent infections of genital herpes (HSV), human papillomavirus, chlamydia, syphilis, chanchroid, and trichomonas (pages 20, 26, 17, 23, 21, 18 respectively) . There is evidence of protection for men against gonorrhea, but not women (p.16).

The NIH report did say that consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by about 85 percent (p.14). But that is not very good for a uniformly fatal disease. Keep in mind that the other diseases listed above may also be fatal. For instance, HPV can lead to cervical cancer which kills more American women each year than HIV disease.2 The NIH study did not address other potentially fatal diseases such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C.

Condom permeability

The width of the head of a normal human sperm is 2.5 to 3.5 microns,3 but viruses are much smaller. In a 1998 article in Rubber Plastics News, C. M. Roland of the Naval Research Laboratory Chemistry Division and M. J. Schroeder of the U.S. Naval Academy Department of Chemistry stated the following:

“The defining feature of viruses is their diminutive size. For example, the AIDS virus is only 0.15 microns, and the hepatitis B virus is even smaller. Given the presence in rubber of intrinsic defects two orders of magnitude larger in size, the ability of a condom or surgical glove to prevent transmission of viral particles is problematic.”4

Roland and Schroeder tested samples of rubber taken from two commercial latex condoms, one about 50 microns thick and the other about 90 microns thick. In both cases, they found that more than one million particles having a diameter of 0.1 microns passed through a square centimeter of condom latex within 30 minutes and, during the same time span, ten times larger particles of 1 micron in diameter passed through at a rate of about 1000 per square centimeter.5

Condom breakage and slippage

In a 1999 study published in Family Planning Perspectives, Karen Davis and Susan Weller note that in several in vivo [real life] trials to measure condom failure due to slippage and breakage, rates have varied from 0.5 to 6.7 percent for breakage and 0.1 to 16.6 percent for slippage.6

Condom + spermicide

On August 4, 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a strong warning against the use of the spermicide, nonoxynol-9, regarding HIV. From 1996 to May, 2000 a study was conducted in Africa in which nearly 1,000 HIV-negative female prostitutes were enrolled. All were counseled to use a condom consistently and correctly and were asked to also use a vaginal gel each time they had intercourse. Half the women got a placebo gel and the other half got N-9. Researchers found that those who used the N-9 gel had become infected with HIV at about a 50 percent higher rate than those who used the placebo gel.7 Despite this CDC warning in 2000, Planned Parenthood Federation of America was advertising on its web site, in 2002, that, “Some Planned Parenthood condoms are coated with the spermicide nonoxynol-9.”8

Condom cover-up

On the issue of condom use, however, the CDC has been less than forthright according to a national group of doctors. Just a few days after the NIH released the study referenced above that exposed the truth about condom ineffectiveness, The Physicians Consortium, which has some 2,000 members nationwide, sent a letter, dated July 23, 2001, to President George Bush calling for the resignation of the CDC chief Dr. Jeffery Koplan. The letter said the CDC “has misled millions of women into believing that condoms provide safety... Despite the billions of dollars used to promote a ‘safe sex’ health policy, the CDC lacks clinical research to back its claims.”9

The next day, a coalition representing 10,000 doctors, including the Catholic Medical Association, Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D., and former Congressman Tom Coburn, M.D.,10 accused the CDC of routinely breaking federal laws requiring it to dispense accurate information on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs. By improperly promoting condom use, “the CDC has failed in its primary duty to protect public health,” said Dr. John Diggs, a member of the executive committee of the Physicians Consortium.11 Diggs also stated, “This has all the earmarks of a good old-fashioned medical cover-up.”12

The condom's biggest flaw

The condom’s biggest flaw is that those using it to prevent the conception of another human being are offending God. God intends that sexual intercourse should take place only between a man married to a woman. If people follow God’s plan for human sexuality there would be no problem with sexually transmitted diseases. Furthermore, each and every act of marital intercourse must be both unitive and open to procreation. Any action, including condom use, which has as its purpose to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. Those married couples who, for just reasons and not by selfish motivation, wish to space the births of their children, can avail themselves of the morally acceptable natural methods of birth regulation which are based upon self-observation and the use of infertile periods. (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2368-2370).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. U.S Food and Drug Administration - Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Guidance for Industry - Uniform Contraceptive Labeling, July 23, 1998, p. 5.

2. Centers For Disease Control web page, visited on 2/11/02, stated that about 4,100 women would die from cervical cancer in 2002. The CDC's National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 12, October 9, 2001, p. 14 stated that 14,370 people died from HIV disease in 2000. The White House's web page, visited on 2/11/02, stated that 15% of AIDS deaths were female. Thus, about 2,156 women can be projected to die from HIV disease in 2002.

3. A micron is one millionth of a meter. Sperm width from Parastie, S., “The Importance of Sperm Morphology in the Evaluation of Male Infertility,” viewed at the Hopitaux Universitaires de Geneve web site at on 2/13/02. Parastie is citing the World Health Organization' s 1992 WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction.

4. Roland, C.M., and Schroeder, M.J., “Intrinsic defect effects on NR permeability,” Rubber & Plastics News, Jan. 12, 1998, p. 15.

5. Ibid.

6. Davis, Karen R., and Weller, Susan C., “The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV,” Family Planning Perspectives, November/December 1999, pp. 272-279.

7. Gayle, H.D., CDC's Director for National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, in a “Dear Colleague” letter dated August 4, 2000.

8. Planned Parenthood Federation of America web page visited on 2/12/02.

9. Zwillich,T., “Conservative Docs, Lawmakers Attack CDC on Condoms,” Reuters, July 24, 2001.

10. The Physicians Consortium, “10,000 physicians to ask for resignation of CDC director, end of cover-up,” press release of July 23, 2001.

11. Zwillich, T., op. cit.

12. The Physicians Consortium, op. cit.

Knights of Columbus rallying against 'immoral' Philippines contraception campaign

Ang Mahal Na Birhen at ang Sanggol na Jesus

Manila, Philippines, March 21 (CNA/EWTN News) .- Knights of Columbus in the Philippines are preparing to rally against the government's pro-contraceptive campaign as lawmakers debate population control programs that promote condoms and birth control pills. One organizer said the program is "an immoral and misguided weapon."

Last year thousands of knights filled the streets of major cities from Luzon to Mindanao. This year, protest organizers expect participation to be higher, the CBCPNews reports.

"We challenge the government to redefine its attitude to contraceptives," said Alonzo Tan, the Knights of Columbus' Luzon Deputy, whose group is organizing a rally in Manila.

He said he expected between five and six thousand protesters to march on this morning, though the size is still "difficult to say."

The "Walk for Life" will begin with a 6 a.m. Mass at San Agustin Church, presided over by Bishop of Cubao Honesto Ongtioco.

Simultaneous rallies will be held by Knights and their allies in other cities.

The Philippines' Department of Health has been advocating contraceptives and condoms to stop unwanted pregnancies and to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.

"Like what others are saying, we believe that there's no such thing as safe sex," Tan added, according to CBCPNews.

"Widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms is an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against AIDS."

The Knights of Columbus is a Christian fraternal and charitable order founded in the United States in the late nineteenth century. It has 250,000 members in the Philippines and over 1.7 million members worldwide.

THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF FEASTS!

All Saints Icon of Trier Treves

*******

Hi Fr. Abe. With the fiesta season at hand, we cannot help but to reason, that these are traditions which invites participation and cooperation of folks in a certain locality. This is also a healthy way of fostering camaraderie. But with the overspending at times of certain sectors in celebrating these events, could we say that these are still relevant especially so ,done in honoring the feast days of our saints.

This was brought one time of a fellow catechist.

Hope to hear your comments soon. Thanks and God bless

bro john

Dear Bro. John,

[With the fiesta season at hand, we cannot help but to reason, that these are traditions which invites participation and cooperation of folks in a certain locality. This is also a healthy way of fostering camaraderie. But with the overspending at times of certain sectors in celebrating these events, could we say that these are still relevant especially so ,done in honoring the feast days of our saints.]

That Catechist view of the Feasts of the Church is very shallow and cheap. He is thinking that we have feasts merely because of local traditions which means they are merely human traditions and also he is presupposing that the main purpose of Feasts is merely for attaining a healthy camaraderie. NO, NO, NO. These are superficial reasons for Feasts: WE HAVE FEASTS BECAUSE GOD ORDERED US TO DO SO. FEASTS ARE BIBLICAL MANNERS OF WORSHIPPING GOD AND THANKING HIM FOR HIS GRACES AND THIS IS A SACRED DUTY FULFILLED BY THE PATRIARCHS, PROPHETS, APOSTLES, AND ANGELS. The Lord Jesus Himself attended Feasts and fulfilled these wonderful celebration for the Glory of the Father.

Let us visit the Bible concerning Feasts:

Gen 19:3 "And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat." [All passages from King James Version unless specified otherwise]

Here, Abraham provided a feast for the Angels. Thus, honoring Angels with Feast is an ancient custom way back the time of Abraham and is Biblical.

Gen 21:8 "And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned."

The Feast can also be offered for human persons like what Abraham did for his son Isaac. That is why we offer a feast for the Baptism of the Child, for the birthdays of family members, for Anniversaries, etc. This is further supported by Gen 26:30 and Gen 29:22. In both honoring Angels and Men, having feasts is Biblical and a very good practice.

Then God Himself requested it:

Ex 5:1 "And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness."

When God ordered Moses to speak to Pharaoh the First Demand is TO HAVE A FEAST FOR THE LORD. The freedom from slavery is only secondary. That is how important a Feast is:

Ex 10:9 "And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto the LORD. "

Holding a Feast is a MUST. Only the evil Pharaoh refuses to do the feast but the good Pharaoh offered it:

Gen 40:20 "And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants."

The good Pharaoh who became the loving sovereign of Joseph the Dreamer was offering a feast for his servants.

HAVING FEAST IS A PERPETUAL STATUTE FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD! This is proclaimed by the Sacred Scriptures:

Ex 12:14 "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever."

The celebration of Feast must be upheld by the People of God forever. It is perpetual ordinance. How come the enemies of the Catholic Faith are so angry at Feasts? They are disobedient to God. In fact God even declared that Feast should be celebrated at least 3 times a year:

Ex 23:14 "Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year."

That is why we have obligatory Feasts throught the year, at least we have 3: THE FEAST OF THE LORD'S RESURRECTION, THE FEAST OF THE LORD'S INCARNATION AND THE FEAST OF OUR PATRON SAINT.

Also the Feasts of the Lord must be a Holy Convocation that is why we gather in a Holy Mass to worship God together during the Feasts:

Lev 23:2 "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts."

And it must be proclaimed in various seasons:

Lev 23:4 "These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons."

Neh 8:18 "Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner."

For that reason we have Feasts on January to December, in all seasons. Year in and year out we celebrate feasts unto the Lord and His servants the saints and His holy angels.

The prophecies is that on the Messianic Kingdom feasts shall be celebrated:

Psalm 42:4 "holy day" [KJV and "pilgrim feast" [New King James Version]; "keeping festival" [English Standard Version]

INDEED, THE LORD JESUS ATTENDED AND CELEBRATED FEASTS:

Lk 5:29 "And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them."

Jn 4:45 "Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast."

Jn 12:12 "On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem"

Jesus came to Jerusalem to attend a feast.

Jn 10:22-23 "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch."

The reason why Jesus celebrated the Feast because it was an opportunity and an occasion to worship God:

Jn 12:20 "And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast..."

Thus the Apostles reminded us to keep the Feasts:

1 Cor 5:8 "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

That is why every Mass is a Feast because it is the Feast of the Unleavened Bread which becomes the Body of Christ.

Jud 1:12 "These are they who are hidden rocks in your love–feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots"

NOW THAT WE HAVE PROVEN THAT THE CELEBRATION OF VARIOUS FEASTS ARE BIBLICAL AND DIVINE IN ORIGIN LET US ANSWER THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST EXTRAVAGANCE:

The Lord is asking us to Feast according to our capacity. If we can kill a pig or a cow then let us do so but if we are poor a piece of chicken or pork is enough. If poorer still a piece of cheese and bread is enough as long as we are worshipping God and honoring Him and His holy people. The Catholic Church never teaches to do extravagance it is the disobedient people who are doing so by their excessive drinking and too much food. But, it is disobedient to God to abolish feasts. We have to correct the mistakes and maintain the blessings of Feasts.

The Station of the Cross in The Shrine of Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Quezon City

Jesus is Condemned to Death

This is part of the collection of photos I have taken from the Shrine of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel in Quezon City. The photos are self-explanatory and they are popular Biblical images. So there is no need for me to provide explanation picture per picture. Instead, I invite the readers to reflect on each.

Jesus is Burdened with His Cross

Jesus Falls the First Time Jesus Meets His Blessed Mother

Simon of Cyrene Helps Jesus Carry His Cross

Veronica Wipes the Face of Jesus

Jesus Falls the Second Time

Jesus Consoles the Women of Jerusalem

Jesus Falls the Third Time

Jesus is Stripped of His Garments

Jesus Nailed to the Cross

Jesus Died on the Cross

Jesus was Taken Down from the Cross

Jesus Laid In the Tomb

The Resurrection of Jesus

WE HONOR ST. JOSEPH, THE HUSBAND OF MARY AND FOSTER FATHER OF THE LORD

The Holy Family

Today the Philippines honors ST. JOSEPH, THE HUSBAND OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AND FOSTER FATHER OF THE LORD... UNIVERSAL PROTECTOR OF THE CHURCH. In this great Solemnity we do not only venerate the memory of JOSEPH THE JUST but also asking for his intercession to Defend and Protect the Families of the... World, especially the Philippines against the Anti-Life forces: Abortions, Contraceptions, Euthanasia, Divorces, Same-Sex Marriage...

What is the Difference between the Catholic's AD ORIENTEM Worship and Ang Dating Daan's "Pagsamba sa Silangan"?

The Lord Jesus engulfed by light as He ascends into heaven

*******

Tito said...

Hello,Father Abe, I have a question. What is the distinction between ADD's worship facing the sun and our ad orientem tradition?

March 18, 2010 12:50 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

Dear Tito,

O they are very far from each other. He, he, he... Actually the ADD is not kneeling in front of the East but a "Tuwad sa Harap ng Silangan" which is very different from our AD ORIENTEM worship.

First, The Ad Orientem is focused on Christ as the Light of our Life. Because for us Jesus is our God and He is our Light. When we pray to the East it symbolizes and manifests our essential doctrine of Jesus'Divinity, that Christ as THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. The problem with ADD is that Christ is NOT their GOD! He is not the focus of their worship.

Second, Our AD ORIENTEM is not literally facing the East. It means facing the Altar of Christ. Thus, we face the ALTAR, THE TABERNACLE, THE SANCTUARY OF GOD IN OUR TEMPLES OF WORSHIPS. Wether it faces the North or the South or the West it is still AD ORIENTEM because Christ is the "Easter" of our Life. He is the Sun of Righteousness for us.

Third, The ADDs are doing the 'TUWAD' manner of worship. Their heads are on ground while their butts or asses are on top. So they are practically showing God their ASSES and in turn present the same to their companions at their back or those after them. Very immoral and disrespectful. Ours is kneeling instead which is the Biblical manner of worship.

March 18, 2010 10:43 AM