Jemy Gatdula on Contraception: Some Notes – Part I

I believe it helpful to write some notes on the article of Jemy Gatdula since it raised important points which are similar to mine. In fact, the first time I read Jemy’s article, I have the impression that he “plagiarized” many of my ideas. I am glad that someone from the pro-life group in the caliber of Jemy is giving an extra mile to study the topic on contraception and not like other pro-lifer who are stuck on their illusory belief of being champions of orthodoxy.

First, Jemy claimed that the Church’s teaching on Contraception applies only within marriage. He said:

Contraception is a kind of behavior whose context is the conjugal life of a married couple. So we are not talking about sexual relations of two unmarried persons because then we would talking instead of fornication or adultery.

This does not mean, of course, that Jemy is saying that use of contraceptives outside marriage is morally good. His point only is that the infallible definition, particularly, the one made by Pope Paul VI in Humane Vitae 14, was only limited to marriage.

Now, this statement of Jemy, who is a reputed pro-lifer and even called by Fr. Abe Arganiosa as an “expert in Natural Law,” is indeed worth noting. What is more worth noting is that he made this statement even after the CDF clarification of the words of Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World.

Ramon Gitamondoc criticized my interpretation of the CDF’s statement. For him, the CDF’s words were crystal clear and straightforward in saying that contraception, as intrinsically evil, also apply outside marriage. He was cuing on the CDF’s words: “The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought.”

If this line really means what Ramon Gitamondoc thinks; and if this line is a glaring proof of his position that the CDF’s position is a simple and direct affirmation that contraception is illicit in all circumstances including every cases outside marriage, then it is a total mystery that Jemy Gatdula failed to grasp this. Moreover, it is also a grand mystery that Jimmy Akin failed to grasp this “simple” point of the CDF. If that is the simple point of the CDF, then what just happened to Jemy Gatdula and Jimmy Akin? (Click here for Jimmy Akin's recent view on Contraception.) Why weren’t they able to get the point of the CDF if it was really simple, clear and straightforward as Ramon thinks? Did a legion of diabolical entities took complete possession of them so as to successfully lead them to unhesitatingly deny, reject, and insult even that “clear,” “simple,” and “straightforward” teaching of the CDF? Have been my mind so totally darkened so as not to see the simple things which Ramon Gitamondoc had seen? Or is Ramon only not insufficiently equipped in philosophy and moral theology so that he failed to see what we have seen?

I’d like to recall here that before the CDF’s clarificatory statement was released, Jimmy Akin had the same position with Ramon Gitamondoc and many other Filipino Apologists. I even made two or three articles against Jimmy Akin where I argued that my position is actually being supported by the Pope’s statements. I criticized the position of Jimmy Akin and Dr. Janet Smith, and argued that their interpretation of the Pope’s words is simplistic and wrong. They have interpreted the Pope in the same way Ramon Gitamondoc does. I am not sure whether Jimmy has read some of my posts, but it seems to me that my articles are gaining some accomplishment.

Their interpretation was in fact quite predictable. It was easy for me to anticipate their explanations of the Pope’s words since I was trained in the same tradition of scholastic-natural law moral reasoning which they were using. I can still clearly recall how the articles of Jimmy and Janet became a hit for having staunchly defended the traditional understanding. However, the scholastic-natural law theory, which was the standard framework of moral theory before Vatican II is actually not the position of St. Thomas Aquinas. Rather it is the natural law version of the scholastic Jesuit priest, Francisco Suarez. Contemporary Catholic theologians like Luke Gormally, Romanus Cessario, O.P., Janet Smith, Steven Long,   Karl H. Peschke, S.V.D.  still held this theory.

The latest document of the International Theological Commission on natural law, which was not translated in English, exclusively maintained the traditional Suarezian understanding. Hence, it is not strange that its publication was stopped. On the other hand, Veritatis Splendor proposed a different version of the natural law – a version developed by Germain Grisez. Grisez, who is one of the authors of the “minority report” produced during Pope Paul VI’s “birth control commission” and a major contributing author in the drafting of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, said:

Are moral principles laws of human nature? Until recently, the view that they are was common in classical moral theology and scholastic philosophy, and it is still held by some Catholic theologians and philosophers trained in the older approach. It was developed by Francisco Suarez, S.J., and became dominant in the seventeenth century. Though actually quite different from St. Thomas' understanding of natural law, many believed it to be his position.*19 It can be called "scholastic natural-law theory," to distinguish it from the more adequate account of natural law….

But scholastic natural-law theory must be rejected….

It is a sign of the basic flaw in scholastic natural-law theory that it provided only question-begging arguments for specific norms of Christian morality. Against contraception, for instance, it argued that this practice perverts the generative faculty by using it while frustrating its natural power to initiate new life. In reply, people reasonably note that perverting faculties in this sense cannot always be wrong--no one objects to the use of earplugs or chewing sugarless gum. As people chew sugarless gum for the pleasure of chewing, apart from nutrition, why should they not also engage in sexual activity for some human purpose such as celebrating marital unity, while excluding other purposes which at the moment cannot appropriately be pursued? [Germain Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, Chicago (Illinois: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983), chap. 4, question F.]

(Going back to Jimmy Akin)

Bro. Ramon should not forget that Jimmy Akin has many times articulated and defended the “conservative” interpretation of the Pope’s words, using the classical scholastic-natural law version, far better than him. As a matter of fact, almost all the explanations and arguments of Ramon Gitamondoc (in his reply to me here) were taken from Jimmy Akin or were first said by Jimmy Akin. But the big question is, why did Jimmy suddenly changed his position? After the CDF released their clarificatory statement, we have now a completely different Jimmy Akin. It was not difficult for me to think that his 180 degrees change of position was primarily due to the CDF’s statement because I assumed that he found no difficulty in interpreting correctly the CDF’s document.

Obviously, Ramon had a difficulty interpreting correctly the CDF’s words. The last people (which include a priest and a lawyer) who argued against me on the correct interpretation of the book of Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, were proven wrong. Now Ramon Gitamondoc is challenging my interpretation. Well, I’d like to remind him that he is not in the position to teach me, since, although he is a respected apologist, philosophy and theology are still not part of his expertise. My advice to Ramon is to read again the CDF’s statement, always keeping in mind that every statement must be interpreted in relation to the whole.

What about Jemy? Why did he still claimed, in spite of the CDF’s clarification, that the Church’s teaching on contraception applies only within marriage? And please note that he was allowed by Fr. Ces Magsino to have his opinion aired in a Catholic program.

I don’t mean to offend Ramon, but the CDF’s document was intended for general readers. Hence, one does not actually need to be an expert on the matter to understand correctly what they were saying.

Before I leave this first point, I’d like to add that after the CDF’s clarificatory statement was released, many commentators from abroad actually saw from the CDF’s statements the vindication of Fr. Martin Rhonheimer’s views on contraception. Apparently, those who think otherwise seem to be having a problem with comprehension. What is interesting further is that the natural law held by Jemy Gatdula in his article is that of Fr. RHoneheimer even though it was not completely faithful to Fr. Rhoneheimer and has a little combination with the notion of natural law proposed by Germain Grisez.

“Not Contraception but Fornication or Adultery”

The next thing which I’d like to do here is to comment on the second sentence of Jemy’s statement: “So we are not talking about sexual relations of two unmarried persons because then we would talking instead of fornication or adultery.”

To understand this point of Jemy, we must first have an accurate understanding of the notion of “moral object.”

During our sketchy debate in the CFD San Carlos Facebook page, Ramon Gitamondoc argued that since the moral object of contraception is already infallibly defined by the Magisterium as intrinsically evil, then it includes all circumstances outside marriage (the same elementary reasoning is used by Ronald Conte on his blog). I did not fully respond to this point of Ramon since, obviously, it manifests that he doesn’t understand well the meaning of the “moral object.” I always feel lazy (aside from being frustrated) to debate about something when I still have to explain many things.

But here, I will give a brief explanation of the “moral object”. The moral object is that which defines the act and places it in a different moral species. In HV 14, the Church defined the moral object of the kind of contraception which is intrinsically evil. But the definition of the object is limited to marriage. Hence the act of contraception which the Church has so far defined as intrinsically evil is only those within marriage. Even if one can find one or two Church documents which talk of the wrongness of some acts of contraception outside marriage, still the point is that what was so far definitively defined by the Church is only that which is within marriage. The moral object cannot go beyond itself. What is intrinsically evil is not contraception itself or contraception in general, but the moral object. Ramon Gitamondoc knows this. He said that the object of contraception is intrinsically evil. However, he doesn’t know what exactly the moral object of contraception is.

This moral object which HV defined is what the CDF meant by the “moral norm concerning contraception.” The CDF said: “This norm belongs to the tradition of the Church and was summarized succinctly by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 14 of his encyclical letter "Humanae Vitae".”

In other words, the norm prohibiting contraception is the specific moral norm defined in HV 14. In proposing this norm, HV needs to define the moral object so that we can know which specific act is really intrinsically evil. The Church cannot just say contraception is intrinsically evil; although in many instances where the purpose is simply catechetical and exhortative, the Church has many times uttered the simple line: “contraception is intrinsically evil.” However, since we are doing theological analysis, the proper distinctions and clarifications should be made.

The moral object is always specific or always specified. It must identify the exact definition. Now since, the definition of the moral object as intrinsically evil is within the context of marriage, the act of contraception which is intrinsically evil is within marriage only. The reason for this is because the concept “intrinsically malum” is always attached to the moral object. It is the moral object which is intrinsically evil.

So Ramon is wrong to think that all circumstances should be included since the object is intrinsically evil. His error lies on his insufficient understanding of the concept “intrinsically evil” and “moral object.” For him, if an act is intrinsically evil, then there are no circumstances exempted. Well, partly, Ramon is correct, intrinsically evil means all circumstances are evil, but this is true only if the circumstances being referred to fall within the definition of the moral object.

A common understanding of the concept “intrinsically evil” goes like this: if an act is intrinsically evil, then no intention or circumstance can make it good. They may diminish the evil of the act, but they cannot remove it because the act is per se evil. Well this is true. However, many failed to understand it fully. What it fully means is this: it is true that no intention and circumstance can make an intrinsically evil act good, but what is meant by intention and circumstances here are only those which fall under the definition of the moral object. Those circumstances which are outside what is delineated by the moral object are out of the question. They neither can be called as exemptions, since, in the first place, they are not included since they belong to a completely different case.

So for instance, we don’t simply say “killing is intrinsically evil.” Rather, we specify that which is intrinsically evil. Hence we say: “Direct killing of an innocent person is intrinsically evil.” Two elements were added to morally specify the act or to define the moral object, namely, “direct,” and “innocent.” Whatever circumstance and intention, no matter how good, which fall under this specifically defined moral object cannot remove the evil of the act. For instance, if you directly kill a person who has done nothing in order to take his property which you intend to give to the poor, your act still is evil. But in a circumstance where the government imposes death penalty and directly kills a criminal, this act does not fall under the norm: “direct killing of an innocent person is intrinsically evil” because the circumstance is not a circumstance within that norm but is outside it since the moral object specifies killing an innocent. Or in a circumstance were you kill an innocent indirectly as in the case of removing an ectopic embryo, then you are not violating the norm because the circumstance is that the act was done indirectly while the moral object specifies killing directly.

If the moral object is evil, then it cannot be directly willed either as an end or as a means. All circumstances and intention, no matter how good, which fall under the definition of the moral object cannot make the act good. But, if the circumstance is already outside the moral object, it’s a different thing since it is not covered anymore by the moral object.  But uses of contraceptives outside marriage are not covered by the moral object of contraception as defined by HV 14. Hence, when Pope Benedict talks about responsibility in using a condom in prostitution, the CDF correctly explained that "the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. This norm belongs to the tradition of the Church and was summarized succinctly by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 14 of his encyclical letter "Humanae Vitae." Rather, the CDF continues, “the Holy Father refers to the completely different case of prostitution.” It was a completely different case – meaning to say, its object is different, hence, having a different moral species.

Thus, the Pope was not making any exemption to the norm (the norm infallibly defined in HV 14 as intrinsically evil). The case of use of contraceptives in prostitution is different – it is not an exception to the norm found in HV 14, but is rather a completely different case as the CDF said – a case with a completely different moral object, hence, belonging to a moral species different from the moral species of the use of contraceptives within marriage.

Thus, the CDF was correct to say that the words of the Pope “do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church.” The Pope is not saying that the traditional norm of the church concerning contraception as defined in HV 14 is now to be modified – that it now admits exemption. This is not what the Pope is saying. And this is the kind of interpretation which the CDF wanted to correct when it says: "Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church.”

This is how we should interpret these words of the CDF! And I bet Jimmy Akin and Jemy Gatdula are now beginning to see all of these, which explains their change of opinion. I earnestly hope that grace will lead Ramon Gitamondoc, national president of Catholic Faith Defenders group, to do the same.

--------

For a Related post:

A Reply to Ramon Gitamondoc


.

The Catholic Teaching on Predestination and Reprobation

Contrary to the impressions of many, Catholic theology actually has the doctrines of Predestination and Reprobation.

Predestination in Catholic understanding (at least how Thomists interpret the diverse declarations of the Church) means that God determined the number of those who will be saved, and only those who were determined (the elect) will be saved and nothing else, without regard to their future merit. Men were predestined to heaven not because God foresaw that they persevered in the cooperation with His grace, but that they were able to perseveringly cooperate because God predestined them. No addition and no subtraction will ever happen. Hence, God does not only foreknew who actually will be saved, but He Himself positively decreed that they alone will be saved.

Reprobation is consequent to the concept of Predestination. One must distinguish between positive reprobation and negative reprobation. The former, which is not the Catholic notion of reprobation, means that God positively decreed certain men to hell. It is tantamount to saying that God created these men for hell. The latter is the Catholic position. Negative reprobation merely implies God’s absolute and immutable will not to grant that which is necessary (efficacious grace) to attain heaven. In other words, those who were reprobated are those who were not predestined to eternal bliss, or that God immutably decreed from eternity their exclusion from salvation (heaven). This is the position of St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and all Thomists. Calvin has the same concept of predestination with the Catholic Church, but differs in his concept of reprobation. His is positive reprobation. However, it is certainly arguable that Calvin merely advocated negative reprobation.

God thus eternally decree who are those who will be saved, and in consequence also decree eternally who are those who will not. God from eternity, that is, before all ages, determined those who are excluded from heaven.

Hence, there are two Catholic dogmas with regards to this.

One is the dogma of predestination:

God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (De fide.) [Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 242.]

And the second is the dogma of reprobation:

God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain mean, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (De fide.) [Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 245.]

In St. Thomas’ own words, “but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good---namely, eternal life---He is said to hate or reprobated them.” (S.Th, I. Q23, A3) However, He did not positively or directly will that they be damned in hell.

Should we then blame God for those who suffer in hell? The answer is no! This is because God is not the cause of the sins of those who were already reprobated. God did not predestined the reprobates to sin, hence we cannot impute the guilt to God. The reprobates themselves are guilty because of their own sins which they committed out of their own free will, and thus they justly merit hell. St Thomas explained:

But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way the word of the prophet is true - namely, Destruction is thy own, O Israel. (S.Th, I, Q23, A3, Reply to Obj.2)

And on his reply to objection three, he continued:

Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his FREE WILL. Hence, it is rightly imputed to him as guilt. (S.Th. I, Q23, A3 Reply to Obj.3)

Thus, there is no such thing as predestination to evil and sin, but that God decreed from all eternity to inflict the penalty of damnation for the sin of final impenitence, a sin which He foresaw and in no way caused but merely permitted.

Certainly there is inequality here, should we say then that this unfair? It appears to be! But who can say? Here lies then the mystery. The Catholic Encyclopedia gave the following explanation:

In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination "hidden mystery". That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice. The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil. Could we gain a glimpse at the reasons of this inequality, we should at once hold the key to the solution of the mystery itself. Why is it that this child is baptized, but not the child of the neighbour? Why is it that Peter the Apostle rose again after his fall and persevered till his death, while Judas Iscariot, his fellow-Apostle, hanged himself and thus frustrated his salvation? Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully co-operated with the grace of conversion offered him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas? To all these and similar questions the only reasonable reply is the word of St. Augustine (loc. cit., 21): "Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei" (the judgments of God are inscrutable). [Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm]

What could be the reason for this kind of predestination?

Ans: Perhaps it is because God saw (foreknew) that if he allow the attainment of salvation solely to man’s free cooperation with His grace, only few achieve salvation because only few are able to cooperate to the very end. Hence, mercy moved Him, instead, to predestine a definite number of men to heaven – a number which is very much greater than those who will be saved if he chooses other option than positively determining those who will be saved. Love therefore is the motive of predestination.

Strictly speaking, the speculative foundation of predestination lies in the absolute supernaturality of salvation. Salvation or perseverance in grace belongs to the category of the supernatural, hence it transcends the natural order. This means that salvation can be willed by God alone and can never be achieved through any human means.

As Ludwig Ott puts it:

“Without the special help of God [grace of perseverance] the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification” (De fide).

…For “while the ability to persevere is, on the ground of God’s universal desire for salvation, the prerogative of all the justified, actual perseverance is the lot of the predestined only.” [Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 231-232]

Many saints, like St. Louis de Montfort have taught that love and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Eucharist, and obedience to the Pope are signs of predestination. In addition, I personally believed that those who innocently suffer from poverty, injustices, calamities, abuses, etc., in them too are the sure signs of predestination. Jesus himself said: “Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Theological Controversies

Some Theologians, especially the Molinists, argue against St. Augustine, St. Thomas and the Thomists, that the logical consequence of negative Reprobation is actually the same with the positive Reprobation of Calvin and of the heretical Predestinarians. The Thomists, however, would reply that the canons of the diverse Councils of the Church unequivocally favored their position.

For further reading:

Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P. 

A Tiptoe Through Tulip by James Akin

Freewill and Predestination by Peter Kreef

Did Atty. Marwil Llasos Apologized to me? Hypocrisy, Dishonesty and Betrayal

In the year 2009, Fr. Abe Arganiosa and Atty. Llasos confronted me in the Apologia forum and accused me of denying the titlte, “Mother of God” and the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The confrontation came to a point where Marwil Llasos consolidated all their accusations in an article which he posted on his blog. Satisfied with the achievement of Atty. Llasos, Fr. Abe posted Llasos’ article on his own blog.

The article of M. Llasos became providential since it gave me the opportunity to reply to all their accusations. And so I wrote my reply to them. Eventually, it became the last as it concluded the debates between them and me. It was the last because after I posted it in my blog, Atty. Llasos emailed and asked me to delete my post, promising that he will delete his post (in his blog) which contained his accusations against me, and that he will make a public apology too. As a Christian, I did not doubt the sincerity of Atty. Llasos, and so I immediately deleted my post.

As I have easily demonstrated in my article below (you can read the original article by browsing down), and as what Atty. Llasos had already admitted, their accusations have no basis and were only a result of their failure to comprehend well the book of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

However, recently, some CFD members especially Fr. Abe Arganiosa too, strongly denied that Atty. Marwil Llasos apologized to me. Fr. Abe is still spreading that I was deleted from the Apologia forum because his and Atty. Llasos’ accusations were proven to be true. They are claiming two things: 1) that Marwil Llasos was only sorry for the decision of the DFF officers to delete me from the forum, 2) and that Marwil Llasos never apologized that he accused me of heresy. Jub Albastro said that all of these are true since, according to him, Atty. Llasos, texted him.

I opened once again the e-mails of Atty. Llasos and read them. But I cannot see any instance where he said that he was only sorry that I was deleted from the forum. Instead, he really apologized to me for the accusations he made. He admitted that it was a mistake on his part. Here are his words taken from his email, dated 19 March, 2009:

Dear Bro. Red:

PAX ET BONUM!

…After I’ve read your article, although I am stung by your words, I am nevertheless happy to note that we are ONE in defending Mary’s title of Mother of God. We are also ONE in believing the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity…

…I am also sorry for not always understanding you correctly. Forgive me for misjudging you. Please understand that I have my own weaknesses and difficulties. Just like you, I am struggling with my faith and trying as much as I can to know my faith and defend it.

 My zeal to defend the honor of the Blessed Mother made me overreact sometimes. Would you forgive for having done so at your expense?...

Your intention, as you said, is only to provide an explanation on your behalf, so that others can refer to it before entertaining negative speculations about your orthodoxy. You have already achieved that. I am glad that, just like anybody else, you are concerned with your orthodoxy. Having now known that you do not deny any of the Marian dogmas like the Mother of God and Perpetual Virginity, I am relieved. I am sorry for having misunderstood your presentation.

P.S. I will publish this in my blog and in Apologia. I hope that this will suffice as the apology you demanded.

In his second email, dated 20 March, 2009, this is what he said:

Dear Bro. Red:

Count me as your worthy ally in defending the Blessed Mother. We have a lot of enemies outside already. Sometimes we get overwhelmed by the attacks.

Please pray for my vocation as a secular Franciscan. I am now on formation. I learned so much about the virtue of humility which sometimes elude us as apologists. Your article achieved its purpose tremendously which offer an introspection on how have I been as a son of Mary.

Note that I made explicit my intention for writing the article. I said that “this [article] serves as a challenge to him to sustain his accusations, and if he cannot justify them, then I demand from him to publish an apology in his blog and in Apologia.” My intention, therefore, was to defend my orthodoxy and to prove that the accusations of Fr. Abe and Atty Llasos are wrong and that there accusations were only a result of their failure to interpret correctly Dr. Ludwig Ott’s book.

As we can see from his e-mail, Atty. Llasos admitted that I have achieved my purpose “tremendously.” He wasn’t able to defend his accusations, and so he promised that he will delete his article in his blog and that he will make a public apology.

I note with great sadness that it was only Bro. Marwil Llasos who apologized. Being a priest and the one who first made the false accusations, Fr. Abe should be the one to give us the example of humility; instead it was Atty. Llasos who only apologized and admitted his mistakes.

What is more outrageous is that Fr. Abe and Jub Alabastro are now claiming that no such apology was ever made by Marwil Llasos!

What Fr. Abe Arganiosa and Jub Alabastro have done is really completely outrageous. I just can’t imagine that they, who are into this holy apostolate of Apologetics, can swear their lies in front of their many brothers in the apostolate!!

It is for this reason that I am posting this article again. I am not that really optimistic that by doing this, I’ll be able to convince people that it was Fr. Abe’s camp who are wrong. This article is just for keeping it a public record. And although, I am not expecting that people will be concerned to read this, this will serve as a constant testimony to the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and pride of these people.

I ask forgiveness if I have to involve Atty. Llasos’ name again. He should understand that it is my duty to defend my reputation. Marwil Llasos too had the responsibility to make clear what he really said.

Here is the article:

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

‘F’ defends himself from the False, Misguided, Misleading and

Shallow Accusations of Bro. Marwil Llasos.

[Note: Atty. Llasos is using the name “F” to refer to me. “Fr. A” refers to Fr. Abe Arganiosa.]

After I have sent my last defense, with the comments of several apologists, I have really thought of forgetting everything regarding what have transpired between me and Father Abe. All the while, I thought that Father Abe and those who were involved have admitted their mistakes, at least in silence. Although I did not received any sorry from them, nor did I hear that a public apology has been made, I was willing to keep everything in my heart in order to end it at once; however, I learned recently that Bro. Marwil had posted, in his blog, the article he made against me. It caused a stir in me, nonetheless, I decided to ignore it for peace' sake.

Yet several days later, I was shocked to know that Fr. Abe posted Bro. Marwil’s entire article in his blog. That made me decide to make a reply, since I perceived it as an open challenged from Fr. Abe and Bro Mars, given the fact that their blogs were open to the public. On my part, I consider it a moral obligation to defend myself.

Albeit, Bro Mars hid my real name, yet, still it gave impression, to all of those who knew that it was me who is being referred to, that what Bro. Mars have written there are all true! However, to the best of my knowledge, all the accusations raised by Bro. Mars there are completely false, misguided, and misleading!

Nonetheless, I thank Bro. Marwil for giving me this opportunity to make a complete defense of myself, since, his article contains, I assume, all those points that the apologia people were complaining about.

I did not write this reply in order to open anew a dispute with Bro. Marwil. I am aware of the desire of all for a peaceful reconciliation. My intention here is only to provide an explanation on my behalf, so that others can refer to it before entertaining negative speculations about my orthodoxy.

Bro. Marwil’s recklessness and levity, in spite of the seriousness of his accusations in his article, reveals his overestimation of himself and his underestimation of others. So this serves as a challenge to him to sustain his accusations, and if he cannot justify them, then I demand from him to publish an apology in his blog and in Apologia.

This reply contains strong remarks, but I do not mean to offend Bro. Marwil here. It is only because his false accusations and misrepresentation of my positions on several matters were so numerous that it made me sick; so I deemed to write this reply with such severity, so that, hopefully, he will realize the gravity of his offense.

I did not change the name of Bro. Marwil since he posted publicly his accusations against me on his blog. Therefore, by doing so, he assumes the risk that if ever I make a reply, anyone is allowed to know that I am addressing it to him.

Bro. Marwil’s words are in blue. They are direct quotations from his article. My responses were written in black.

-------

While F’s heretical views may be refuted (as have been done by some members of this group, including Fr. A), what I find appalling is his disrespect, if not contempt, to an ordained minister of God. I am referring to F's unwarranted attacks on Fr. A This we cannot allow.

Where did I attack Father Abe? What post? What article? I hope you haven’t forgotten that in all cases I merely defended myself. It is your camp who made the accusations first, and that I should defend myself, is a moral obligation which behooves me to do. You are claiming that some members of your group have refuted my “heretical” views, what were those heretical views??? And who are they who have refuted me??? Let us see then if you really have refuted me.

F’s heresies are alarming. First, he denied Mary’s title of Mother of God. That made him a Nestorian heretic. Instead of immediately recanting his Nestorian belief, he tarried until the opposition was already overwhelming. He went at great lengths justifying his proffered formula that Mary should best be called “Mother of Jesus our God” instead of what the Council Fathers decreed at Ephesus : Theotokos. Fortunately, F recanted – grudgingly.

Did I deny the title of our Blessed Mother Mary as Mother of God??? Or was it only a product of your imagination? In fact towards the end of my post, I defended the expression “Mother of God.” Is the phrase, “Mary mother of Jesus, our God,” an expression of a Nestorian belief??? You’re amazing!!! I think sir this reveals your irresponsibility. Your accusation is heavy. Please be aware that you are committing a grave injustice to a fellow Catholic. I think I deserve an apology from you! Here is what I said in that post regarding Theotokos.

If not for the Nestorian heresy, for me, it would have been better that the formula, "Mother of God," never came to be. Yet of course we cannot undermine the fact of Divine Providence for allowing Nestorious' Heresy.

What I said is that “if not for the Nestorain heresy, it would have been better that the formula “Mother of God” never came to be. That is hypothetical, it is not a denial. I said “it would have been better…” not “it is better.” It appears to me that you do not understand the difference between these two.

Every one of us knew that a particular dogmatic formula arises out of a struggle from a disturbing heresy. But before a heresy arises, the faithful already has implicit faith, say, in the Divine maternity of Mary. This means that, though, the formula “Mother of God” has not yet been officially canonized, it doesn’t mean that the faithful did not believe the fact that Mary bore a Divine Person. And that the Church was still content with similar expressions like “Mary, mother of Jesus our God,” until it became insufficient, at the advent of the Nestorian challenge, so that the expression, “Mother of God,” became necessary, and eventually, was dogmatically formulated. The phrase, “mother of Jesus, our God,” would have been better, if and only if, the Nestorian heresy did not happen, but because Nestorianism did really happen, then that phrase is not better than the phrase “Mother of God.”

And as I have immediately said: “Yet of course we cannot undermine the fact of Divine Providence for allowing Nestorious’ heresy,” this means that the formulation of the title, “Mother of God,” was not a mere accident of history, but really willed by God. Therefore my preference of the formula "Mother of Jesus our God" over "Mother of God," is merely on the premise which I already made, viz., “if not for the Nestorian heresy.” But because there is in fact a Nestorian Heresy, then there is no more reason that the formula "Mother of Jesus our God" be preferred. I think that is very obvious, and yet you don’t have an eye to see that.

I hope you are aware of the gravity of what you have just done against me. Accusing others of heresy in the public is not a simple thing. The damage it may incur is not just something that you can easily undo. It is something that you must be very very careful of and that you must weigh everything and consider everything before doing it! But in this case, you have revealed how irresponsible and indiscreet you are. That is very alarming!

He went at great lengths justifying his proffered formula that Mary should best be called “Mother of Jesus our God”

Where did I say that Mary should be best called “Mother of Jesus our God?” My statements go this far only:

First, if not for the Nestorian heresy (hypothetical), the expression "Mother of Jesus, our God" would have been better; because it already sufficiently expresses the sublime truth of Mary’s Divine Maternity (Theotokos) or the fact that Mary conceived, not just a mere human person but, a Divine Person, and that there was no pastoral need to formulate another expression (especially if it is undeniably subject to common misunderstanding) if it is not necessitated by a greater good, viz., to end the heresy of Nestorianism.

Second, I am in fact saying that the expression, "Mother of God," is the best, given the actual historical circumstances, that is, because there is in fact the Nestorian Heresy.

Here is another paragraph from my post.

I am asserting on the merely logical ground, for the fact that Providence (God willing that the title "Mother of God" should be the one to be used) makes us acknowledge that though logically, on account of their being both theologically correct so that the two formulas can either be used, the formula "Mother of God" in Gods infinite wisdom however is more fitting given the historical circumstances.

I think this paragraph of mine is a beautiful and a fully Catholic expression of two truths, viz., first, "Mother of God" and "Mother of Jesus, our God" are both theologically correct, and second,  that “the formula "Mother of God" in God’s infinite wisdom however is more fitting given the historical circumstances.” The historical circumstances are the disturbances brought about by the Nestorian challenge.

You have to consider the context of my post. I did not open this topic in order to solely introduce the other expression, over the traditional formula, in order to sow doubt, or question, or deny the latter, and or for the sake of curious discussion only. My post was occasioned in order to correct the unreasonable and unjust reactions, which that participant in your apologetics class received from some people in apologia. I tried to explain that there is nothing wrong, theologically, in the expression “Mary mother of Jesus, our God,” and that his question was a valid one.

But they cannot accept the fact that they have been corrected by a new-comer, like me; instead of humbly accepting their mistakes, they concocted false conclusions from my post. And because I reacted and tried to defend myself from their irrational reactions, I was branded as proud.

That made him a Nestorian heretic.

What??? the formula "Mother of Jesus our God," a Nestorian heresy??? Are you kidding? Summoning my theological might, still I cannot comprehend how the expression, "Mother of Jesus our God," becomes a Nestorian heresy.

Sir, you have another reason to apologize here. In response to your accusation that I am a Nestorian heretic, I will just quote an entire paragraph from that post of mine.

The formula "Mother of Jesus, our God" is theologically accurate because unlike Nestorious' it doesn't admit of a twofold person in Christ. Nestorious' formula is "Mother of Jesus" or "Mother of Christ," such formulas admits of the possibility of an interpretation which assigns Mary merely of being the mother of Jesus who is a human person with a human nature. This is precisely the error of Nestorious, for him the being conceived by Mary is a human person with a human nature, and the Logos who is a divine person with a divine nature merely dwells in the child of Mary while he is still in her womb. Now, this Nestorian error is taken away with the added qualification "our God" in the formula "Mother of Jesus, our God".

In fact we cannot even say, that that participant in your apologetics class, who first asked the question: why should we not use the formula “Mother of Jesus, our God” instead of “Mother of God,” was denying the latter expression. He raised that question, because he simply sees nothing wrong with the former, and therefore his question is valid. He knew that the two formulas express one truth, viz., the fact that what Mary conceived in her womb is a Divine Person, yet on the other hand, he was aware of the fact that the expression “Mother of God,” is subject easily to misunderstanding compared to the more elaborate expression “Mother of Jesus, our God.”

And my answer to his question is yes, he is quite correct in thinking that the two formula expresses one truth, and that compared to “Mother of Jesus, our God,” “Mother of God” is more easily misunderstood and often is subjected to cynicism even by Catholics. However the reason why there was a need to choose the former is because of the need of the time, that is, in order to respond to the Nestorian challenge. The expression “Mother of God” is the best in this actual circumstance, for it best opposes any Nestorianizing tendencies. Nonetheless, if Nestorianism did not occur, then the expression “Mother of Jesus, our God” would have been better enough, since it already affirms, in the uncompromising sense, a Marian truth which the faithful already grasped, believed, and have lived its truth through personal devotions.

What do we really affirm when we say “Mary is the Mother of God”? We actually affirm a truth no more than what the expression “Mother of Jesus, our God” affirms, namely, that Mary conceived and bore the Second Divine person and not just a mere human person. Anyone who accepts the expression “Mary mother of Jesus, our God,” accepts the truth that her Son is a Divine Person, and therefore accepts the expression “Mother of God”; and no Nestorian will ever accept that. The object of our faith is the content of the expression and not the expression itself. How can you then say that I deny that title??? Your accusation is very very far from the truth!

The object of our devotion is not the title, but the concrete person (the Blessed Virgin Mary). We are devoted to Mary under the title “Mother of God,” not because of the title itself, but because of the fact that our Lady is a mother of, not just a human person, but a divine Person. Theologically and devotionally, it makes no difference whether we use “Mother of Jesus, our God” or “Mother of God” since the two professes the same truth. Our devotion to the truth that Mary is a mother of the Second divine Person of the Trinity, will not be diminished by using either of the two. Nonetheless, the two expressions makes difference if we are to consider them, not only in themselves, but on the condition of the time, that is, without the Nestorian Heresy, “Mary mother of Jesus, our God” would have been better enough; but with the Nestorian Heresy, “Mother of God,” not only the better, but is even necessary. 

Fortunately, F recanted – grudgingly.

I cannot remember any moment of having recanted. And recanted from what??? From the “errors” you have falsely charged to me??? No way. To tell you the truth, the manner of your reaction and the level of your comments reflects not of expertise in Mariology, but of shallowness. You have width, but lacks of depth.

And – ooops, he did again! This time he questioned the in partu virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What disgusted me most was the way in which he justified his denial of this aspect of the dogma of perpetual virginity. As Fr. A ably demonstrated, F. went to the extent of falsifying or misrepresenting Ludwig Ott just to lend credence to his clearly erroneous view. For questioning Mary’s perpetual virginity, specifically Mary’s virginity in partu, F is clearly in league with the heresiarch Helvidius.

Ooops, you’re doing your false accusations again! I think I am the one who has the right to be disgusted here.  Your failure to see the erroneous analysis of Fr. Abe regarding Ott’s book is indeed disgusting (allow me to borrow your word). If only you have understood Ott’s book correctly, you could have advised Fr. A to moderate his tone and I would have been saved from the false charges. Honestly, I was disgusted (borrowing your word again) that no one in Apologia was able to detect Fr. A’s erroneous interpretation of Ott’s book, so that I have to seek help from others. I was expecting to hear from Carlos and you for help, or at least for some remarks that would tone down Fr. A’s reactions, yet I was frustrated.

Fr. A misrepresented me, just as you misrepresented me now, thinking that I deceptively cloak my own doubts to the “miraculous birth” by attributing it to Ott. And that was the cause of his strange reaction. It was natural for him to think that I tried to deceive the people in apologia because he did not see that Ott was actually considering the position of Dr. Mitterer as something that may be true, and that the Fathers were wrong. What is more saddening is that instead of telling me that I merely failed to understand what I read, he rather put into question my moral integrity, by accusing me of dishonesty. It would have been better if he charges me of poor comprehension, or of not having understood well what I read, or of ignorance, than question my honesty.

If you can understand very well Ott’s book, he affirmed that the in partu virginity is a Dogma of faith (based on the general teaching = ordinary Universal teaching), yet for him, the point of “miraculous birth,” that is, that the hymen and womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary was not impaired, was not asserted by the dogma, and that it is an open question. Thus, to give justice to Ott, he was not denying the dogmatic status of in partu virginity; he was only questioning the interpretation (by the Fathers and schoolmen/scholastic theologians including St. Thomas) that it means a non-impairment of her hymen and womb (miraculous birth).

I did not deny nor question the in partu virginity, neither did I deny nor question the interpretation of in partu virginity as a non-impairment of her hymen and womb. It was Ott who is denying it, and you would not believe me because you cannot see it by yourself. And because you failed to see Ott’s position, you unreasonably concluded that it was me who is questioning the doctrine. How pathetic! (just borrowing another expression from someone in apologia.)

In spite of the fact that I explicitly said in my post that I believe the traditional understanding (miraculous birth) of the in partu virginity, yet you passed judgment on my subjected state, and speculated that my intention was really to deny the in partu virginity. When the authorities of the Church accuse a person of heresy, they would not pretend to pass judgment on the subjective intention of the author, rather, they judges based on the objective sense of the author’s works. It is a basic principle of morality not to pass judgment on the subjective part of the person, but purely on the objective wrongfulness of what he had committed. Yet on your part, you acted more than the authorities of the Church! Please, let God alone do what belongs solely to His part.

This was the opening of my post:

While I believe the traditional understanding of the virginity of Mary during her [sic] birth, I would like to open, if you like, that Ludiwg Ott clearly suggested that the understanding by Fathers and the Schoolmen in general, that the virginity during birth means a non-opening of the womb and non-breaking of the hymen, may not be correct.

Therefore the objective sense of my statements was to present the denial of Ott, and to asked your (and Fr. A’s) opinion and comment about it, since I esteemed your experience and expertise on Mariology. The only thing that I objectively denied in that post was the claim that there is scriptural proof for the “miraculous birth,” and I will prove that later.

Hence, I declare and deplore that what we have here is actually an unfortunate victim of charges arising from a reading-comprehension failure. Again this is another reason to for Atty. Marwil to apologize!

As Fr. A ably demonstrated, F went to the extent of falsifying or misrepresenting Ludwig Ott just to lend credence to his clearly erroneous view.

You should be ashamed of yourself! Read again my post. Here is the first paragraph of it:

Dear father and bro. mars,

While I believe the traditional understanding of the virginity of Mary during her birth, I would like to open, if you like, that Ludiwg Ott clearly sugested that the understanding by Fathers and the Schoolmen in general, that the virginity during birth means a non-opening of the womb and non-breaking of the hymen, may not be correct.

Dave Armstrong’s article is more than enough to prove my interpretation of Ott. Dave goes to the point of saying that Ott “appears to deny (or, consider less plausible or likely) the miraculous nature of the birth as traditionally understood.”

Robert Sungenis’ interpretation is that “Ott is saying that, based on the flawed definition of virginity, the Fathers who held to a miraculous birth (and Aquinas) are incorrect, and were merely making a theological speculation without having any evidence from Apostolic testimony.”

In the complete emails of Dave and Robert, they made comments, in agreement with Mitterer and Ott, that the question of “miraculous birth” or “virgin birth” is still an open issue and not definitively part of the in partu virginity of Mary. I am not saying here that they are correct in saying that, what I am I saying only is that they agree with my interpretation of Ott’s book, hence, Fr. A’s and your accusation that I falsify and misrepresent Ott is ridiculous.

John Salza, on the other hand, interpreted Ott, saying that he was extremely disappointed “to learn that Ott is questioning the miraculous birth of Jesus,” and that Ott “cave in the god of science.”

James Likoudis on his part said that “Ott was shaken by A. Mitterer's article which led him to question whether the teaching of the Fathers represented definitive Catholic doctrine. He did this despite the testimonies he himself adduced in favor of the Virgin Birth being miraculous and no physical impairment of the Blessed Virgin.”

However, in an email to Fr. A, (after Fr. A verified from Likoudis himself the email) Likoudis gives an interpretation which departed all the more from Fr. A’s case. Likoudis said:

In my next E-mail I will forward the response that I had sent to Hector wherein you will see that Ott left an unfortunate ambiguity in his treatment of Mary's physical virginity in giving birth to the God-man. He left open the possibility that though the Virgin Birth was indeed miraculous, her virginity did not necessarily mean that the hymen remained intact. The Fathers might have been wrong. He mistakenly gave too much deference to A. Mitterer's study which did much harm, and was NOT in conformity with the Church's doctrinal Tradition on the matter.

You and your friends were quite correct in rejecting Red's errors. God bless you!

In the first email, Likoudis was content only in saying that Ott was shaken and wavered. But now he is more explicit; Ott did not only wavered, but gave too much deference to A. Mitterer.

However, Fr. A interpreted this email of Likoudis in the following manner:

The response from Bro. James Likoudis. He blames Dr. Ott for leaving 'Ambiguity' and a possibility of wrong interpretations of the Dogma. But, he didn't attribute the position of Mitterer to Dr. Ott.

JAMES LIKOUDIS UPHELD OUR POSITION IN CORRECTING YOUR ERRORS.

I swear, I cannot understand how Fr. A could say that Likoudis didn’t attribute the position of Mitterer to Dr. Ott. The word “deference” used by Likoudis is certainly heavier than “attribute”. “Deference” means a respectful yielding to the opinion of others, or with reverence, submission, and veneration. But for Likoudis, Ott did not only gave deference, but gave too much deference to Mitterer.

Even if we grant that Fr. A is correct in interpreting Likoudis, viz., that Likoudis did not attribute Mitterer’s position to Ott; however, neither did I attributed the position of Mitterer to Ott, for the truth is that, it was Ott’s own error. As Dave said, it was Ott who denied the traditional understanding – he was not presenting the denial of Mitterer (although of course Miterrer denied it in his own book). In the flow of Ott’s discussion in the book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, as Sungenis said, it was he who is saying that “the Fathers who held to a miraculous birth (and Aquinas) are incorrect,” and not Mitterer. It was Ott, Salza said, who “is questioning the miraculous birth of Jesus,” and that he merely “cave” in Mitterer’s “god of science.” Of course, Ott’s coming to a point of questioning the miraculous manner of the birth, may be because he was influenced by Mitterer’s work, prior to his writing of the book (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma), however, at least, in the way that he discussed the dogma of virginitas in partu, he was speaking, primarily, of his own assessment of the dogma, and that his mentioning of the name of Mitterer was only secondary, as what I have said in my email to apologia. Here are my statements:

By merely enclosing in parenthesis and mentioning in passing the name of A. Mitterer after the sentence, it is clear that Ott said these statements to speak of himself, that is, what he thinks to be plausible. He mentioned the above remarks, appealing on the authority of A. Mitterer, and not in order to tell us that A. Mitterer is a heretic, but to open a discussion for the possibility of this point. Hence, father Abe, please forgive me, for no matter how I stretch my mind, I cannot see any sense wherein Ott’s statement could possibly be understood as that A. Mitterer’s statement is a heresy, just as you what have said in your post.

He appealed to Mitterer, as part of his argument, only in order to justify his prior statement (in the first paragraph), viz., that “the dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained,” thus, Ott was actually speaking of his own position, and not of Mittrer’s, albeit they may have the same or similar position.

Now what was the reason why Likoudis made the statement: “You and your friends were quite correct in rejecting Red's errors,” which led Fr. A to say that “JAMES LIKOUDIS UPHELD OUR POSITION IN CORRECTING YOUR ERRORS”? We can understand this by looking at Fr. A’s first email to James. Here is it:

Dear Bro. James,

Grace and Peace!

Brother, I am a Catholic priest in the Philippines. A member of Defensores Fidei Foundation which is one of the leading apologetic groups in the country. The past week there was an intense debate in our Apologia Forum concerning the Virginity During Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Of course during the exchanges I explained and argued for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Together with Atty. Marwil Llasos a prominent apologist here in the Philippines we were on the same side defending the traditional de fide statement that "Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity."

However, we received a post from Redentor de la Rosa claiming that Dr. Ott argued or suggested that "the understanding by Fathers and the Schoolmen in general, that the virginity during birth means a non-opening of the womb and non-breaking of the hymen, may not be correct." And he added two other statements which he claimed to be from Dr. Ott". Here is his full e-mail:

Father A might not be aware of it, but he actually made a serious unfairness and injustice against me. In his opening email, he gave the information that there “was an intense debate in our Apologia Forum concerning the Virginity During Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary;” and that in this debate, he and Bro. Marwil are in the side of defending the traditional belief (virgin birth). We all know that there is no debate without two parties in opposite claims, therefore by saying that he and Bro. Marwil are on the traditional side, he mislead James into thinking that I was on the opposite side, against whom he and Bro. Marwil were debating with.

He misleads James all the more in the manner that he introduced his second paragraph, he said:

However, we received a post from Redentor de la Rosa claiming that Dr. Ott argued or suggested that "the understanding by Fathers and the Schoolmen in general, that the virginity during birth means a non-opening of the womb and non-breaking of the hymen, may not be correct." And he added two other statements which he claimed to be from Dr. Ott".

This gave James the impression that in defense of “my position”, which he already thought as that of denial of the “traditional de fide statement,” I quoted Dr. Ott as support. So what was registered in James mind were actually these: (1) I was debating against Fr. A and Bro. Marwil, (2) Fr. A and Bro. Marwil were defending the “traditional de fide statement.” (3) Therefore, I am the one who was denying the “traditional de fide statement”. (4) I quoted Dr. Ott to support my denial. But we all know that these were not what really transpired in Apologia!

Because James held the “traditional de fide statement;” and that for him, to deny it is certainly an error, he told Fr. A that “You and your friends were quite correct in rejecting Red's errors.” The error that was in mind, as he erroneously thought due to the misleading presentation of Fr. A, is my denial of the virginal birth, and not whether I have correctly interpreted Ott’s position. It is clear from his email that he understood Ott as really denying the virginal birth, in agreement or deference to Mitterer. Thus, he agreed to my statement that “Dr. Ott argued or suggested that "the understanding by Fathers and the Schoolmen in general, that the virginity during birth means a non-opening of the womb and non-breaking of the hymen, may not be correct."” However, he still commended Fr. A, saying: “You and your friends were quite correct in rejecting Red's errors.” He did not say that Fr. A and “his friends” were quite correct for rejecting my interpretation of Ott, because it was erroneous. James is not that stupid to also fail to grasp the real position of Dr. Ott. Rather he said that I am wrong for denying the virginal birth. But God knows that I never denied the virgin birth! James was only led into thinking that I deny it, because of the misrepresentation of Fr. A!!!

I know that Fr. A did not do it in purpose, and I can’t believe that he can do it.  But I hope now that he realizes what the real implication of his email to James was.

-----------

Bro. Alexis Bugnulo moderated his comment on Ott after Fr. A communicated to him. Nonetheless, there is a line in Bugnulo’s email that is still disturbing for Fr. A. Bro Bugnulo said:

Yes, I agree that Dr. Ott does present the matter as you have said, and that if he seems to do otherwise, it is only because the English translation by using ( ) marks, does not clearly indicate that the preceding text is a summation of the author ctid within those marks.

The English translation seems to do otherwise… Well as far as I know, we were reading only the English translation and nothing else. Therefore Bro. Bugnulo actually affirmed his first interpretation of Ott wherein he said that Ott “certainly seems to be casting doubt on the authenticity of the Fathers, basing his argument on an allegedly scientific notion of virginity.”  And I think if Bro. Bugnulo knew that four other famous apologists interpreted Ott in the same way as he did, he will not change his position. Further, the initial and spontaneous comments of Bro. Bugnulo regarding the true position of Ott, which is parallel to the other four apologists, is something, and speaks with weight, notwithstanding the fact that he moderated afterwards.

This failure of Fr. A (and Bro. Marwil and the DFF officers in apologia) to correctly interpret what they read is a serious error in itself, and becomes all the more serious because it has caused them to accuse someone of heresy; and considering the fact also that it marred the person’s reputation. Such mistake is substantial and indeed deplorable!

Now, let us go to the second paragraph of my first post:

His argument relies on the ground that the opening of the womb and hymen seems to express more the divine motherhood of Mary, hence making it more fitting that there is a physical breach in Mary. Just as Jesus retained his wounds in order to express His humanity and victory over death, it may be argued also that Mary experienced them in order to express her true motherhood of God.

Let us compare this to Ott’s own words in page 205. In the second paragraph, he said:

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfillment of the sex act (“sex-act virginity”) and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed (“seed-act virginity”) (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand its rupture seems to belong to complete natural motherhood.

In saying that the “rapture [of the hymen] seems to belong to complete natural motherhood,” Ott never had in mind of any kind of motherhood lesser than Mary’s divine motherhood. What he was referring to “natural motherhood” is nothing less and nothing more than the divine motherhood of our Lady. Indeed, we can truly say that Mary’s motherhood is divine motherhood, for the pure reason that his motherhood (to Jesus) is a natural motherhood, and not as some sort of “spiritual motherhood” or “mystical motherhood,” or motherhood taken in the metaphorical sense. Our Lady’s motherhood to us is merely a spiritual motherhood, precisely because it is not a natural motherhood. Mary is truly the mother of God because she is the natural mother of Jesus – the Second divine Person of God! While Mary gave birth to us in the supernatural order (order of grace), she gave birth to Jesus in the natural order (order of nature). The flesh of Jesus and his blood is Mary’s own flesh and blood; that is what natural motherhood means. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

Mary co-operated in the formation of Christ's body as every other mother co-operates in the formation of the body of her child, since otherwise Christ could not be said to be born of Mary just as Eve cannot be said to be born of Adam.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains, that the only way that the true divine motherhood of Mary is guaranteed, is by establishing the fact that Mary is truly the natural mother of Jesus. The pregnancy of Mary is not a myth, not an illusion, or a mere show as the Gnostics and Docetists would claim, but a true natural pregnancy. Fr. Abe and Bro. Marwil, unfortunately, failed to grasp all of these.

Thus, the opening of the womb and injury to hymen, for Ott, belongs to the integrity of natural motherhood = divine motherhood. Rather than degrading the fact of motherhood, Ott perceived that the rapture of the hymen completes (expresses it more) the idea of motherhood, and consequently, the divine motherhood of Mary. For Ott, it is integral to a true/natural, hence divine, motherhood of Mary, just as breastfeeding Jesus, doesn’t degrade our Lady’s physical integrity (although breastfeeding would really cause physical deformation in Mary, or “magiging losyang”) but completes (or expresses more) her being a mother of Jesus. The experience of the rapture is not degrading, but is fitting (“expresses her true motherhood of God”), that is what Ott is trying to say. The dignity/integrity/completeness of the Mother of God, demands (fittingness) the natural process of birth, rather than demanding a miraculous process of birth, as Ott himself said in the third paragraph (page 205):

It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.

The parallel which I made regarding Jesus’ retention of his wounds (“Just as Jesus retained his wounds in order to express His humanity and victory over death”), obviously is my own, and not from Ott. We may grant without conceding that this example might be wrong, and Ott himself may not even agree with the use of it to illustrate his point, nonetheless, the point which I am illustrating with an incorrect (granting for the sake of argument) parallelism, is the real point of Ott. Therefore, what I claimed about Ott’s position, contrary to the accusation of Fr. A, is really what Ott’s true position, viz., that the rapture of the hymen and opening of the womb expresses more her divine motherhood as it is part of the integrity or of the completeness of natural (real) motherhood in general.

The failure of Fr. A to see this is due to his uncritical arbitrariness to understand the word “natural” as synonymous to the word “materialistic” with a pejorative sense. Thus he was actually imposing meanings to what he read, rather than take the objective sense according to the author’s mind. And Bro. Marwil’s failure to grasp this also, is due to his uncritical arbitrariness to parrot whatever Fr. A would say.

  

The decision to expel F from the group is in accord with St. Paul ’s admonition: “He who is a heretic, after a first or second admonition, reject!” (Titus 3:10). F had all the opportunity to retract his errors and retrace his steps, but his pride, I believe, stood in the way. It is not yet too late for him to repent, though. And I ask God to flood F with His grace. I offer my prayers to the Blessed Virgin in reparation for F’s blasphemous remarks against Our Blessed Mother, Virgo Castissima.

I think you and your camp are the ones who need to retract from the false charges you made against me. I am thankful for your concern, I admit that it really came from a sincere heart, nonetheless, we have a case here of an unfortunate, scandalizing and blasphemous misjudgment on your part. It is blasphemous because you have falsely accused and damaged the name of others in the name of our Lady.

The problem I can see in you and some people in Apologia is that, just because I refuse to admit what you forced to me for admission, you immediately call me proud. Thus, I can perceive here, from your group, a sense of self-righteousness and presumption. I hope that you have learned now your lesson.

How many Marian dogmas are there?

 

As F would have it, the Mary’s virginitas ante partum, in partu and post partum should be treated as three separate dogmas. So how many Marian dogma’s would there be? 4 + 3 = 7? If F would count the Marian dogmas, it would appear –

 

1.      Divine Maternity

2.      Perpetual Virginity

3.      Virginitas ante partum

4.      Virginitas in partu

5.      Virginitas post partum

6.      Immaculate Conception

7.      The Assumption

Again Bro. Marwil’s irresponsibility and mediocrity, as a scholar, is being manifested here. He was so solicitous to provide accusations against me, and yet so irresponsible in reading the posts that were already made regarding this issue. It’s either Bro. Marwil doesn’t know how to count or he is irresponsible enough so that he misrepresented again my position. Let me quote what I have written there.

In a website with the title: The Roman Catholic Church dogmas, Doctrine of Salvation, Catholic Apologetics, a list of dogmas were listed there which was taken from the book by Ott. Under the heading “The Mother of the Redeemer” the author wrote the following:

IV. The Mother of the Redeemer

1.       Mary is truly the Mother of God.

2.       Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.
Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

3.       Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man.

4.       Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.

5.       After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.

6.       Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

The author separated, just as what Ott did, the three dogmas in # 3, 4, and 5.

Click this links please:

http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IV-Mother

So there are actually only 6 dogmas and not seven. Fr. Joseph K. Horn, in his website, listed “254 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith,” and 6 dogmas under the Blessed Virgin Mary:

The 254 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith

1.       God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty,

      by the natural light of reason from created things.

2.       God’s existence is not merely an object of natural rational  

      knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith.

3.       God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.

.

.

.

.

.

102. Mary is truly the Mother of God.

103. Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin.

104. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man.

105. Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity.

106. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin.

107. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.

Visit the link below, and click the sub-title “Dogmas and Doctrines”.   http://holyjoe.net/contents.htm

Fr. A made admission of this already in favor of me. Here is his email posted in apologia, Tuesday, January 6, 2009 6:42 PM.

We can say that the Dogma is One but the Church provided 3 distinct but interrelated Dogmatic Definitions. Let us also credit R because he saw 3 De Fides, one after each definition.

Fr. A

Fr. A made this admission after he read the book of Ott. According to Fr. A, there are “3 distinct but interrelated Dogmatic Definitions” and that there are “3 De Fides.” Bro. Marwil did admit also that each of them (Virginitas ante partum, in partu, and post partum) are de fide. Bro. Marwil said:

Levity aside, there are just Four Marian dogmas. Virginitas ante partum, in partu and post partum, while each of which are de fide, are mere components or facets of the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Hence, he admitted that they are 3 de fides, yet he still counts them as one dogma! This is my first time to encounter an author saying that de fide could mean other or less than dogma. 3 distinct Persons but one God is indeed a mystery, but 3 distinct Dogmatic Definitions or 3 De Fides but one Dogma is mysterious. Again, it’s either Bro. Marwil doesn’t know how to count, or he doesn’t know what de fide and dogma means.

  

You and I know that there is such a thing as the proposed Fifth Marian Dogma – Mary as Mediatrix, Co-redemptrix and Advocate of the People of God. If Red is right, then the proposed dogma would be the Eighth.

Yes I know it also, that is what we are usually told; and that exactly is the problem that you have to resolve. I already provided an evidence (and you admitted it) that the three are three de fides, and since you are the one who is accusing me of error, it is your burden to resolve why is it called fifth and not seventh, rather than merely contrast or juxtapose them, and then conclude, without any reason, that it proves your point.

Obviously, I am merely resting on the authority of Ott for separating the three (ante partum, in partu, and post partum) into three de fides. And I am not saying that Ott could not be wrong. However, Bro. Marwil should show that to us by providing evidence.

You’re even wrong again in construing that Mediatrix, Co-redemptrix and Advocate are proposed as one Dogma. The three are related but are formally distinct. If two or three things are formally distinct, they cannot be contained in one [dogmatic] definition only. Secondly, establishing the truth of one, say Mediatrix, will not necessarily establish the truth of the other, e.g., Co-redemptrix. Thus precisely, the development of the doctrine of Co-redemptrix moves slowly than that of Mediatrix, because of the difficulty of its (Co-redemptrix) thesis and the lack of agreement on its precise meaning. You should understand this basic rule of theology, or Mariology in particular, since you are claiming that you are a knight of Mary. 

Marian scholar, Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins states: “It is the Catholic Church’s perennial belief in the three facets of this mystery which immediately touch upon the role of Our Lady that is the specific object fact that she was a virgin before (ante partum), during (in partu) and after the birth of Christ (post partum)” [Msgr. Arthur Burton Calkins, Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, in Mariology: A guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Mark I. Miravalle, ed. (Goleta: CA, Queenship Publishing, 2007) p. 277]

Where’s the beef??? Yes they are three facets (“three components,” “three steps” or “three phases” whatever you like) of the mystery of the perpetual virginity of our Lady as Msgr. Calkins has said. But these three facets, steps, etc., are three de fides also, therefore three dogmas. That is not a brainer.

 F’s comments revolved around the difficulty of how Mary’s virginity could remain intact in childbirth.

You really don’t understand what you are reading. There is no difficulty in that; and I did not make any comments against our Blessed Mother Mary’s virginity. It was Ott who is commenting against the interpretation of in partu virginity as “miraculous birth.” And even though he commented against it, I don’t think that he had any difficulty on how the “miraculous birth” could happen. Even Miterrer, who denied it, will not say that our Lady’s in partu virginity is difficult to comprehend. Ott and Mitterer, together with Robert Sungenis and Dave Armstrong, denied it, not because they found it difficult to believe, but because, according to their honest and sincere assessment of the official documents, there was no clear statement of it. As Ott himself said, quoting St. Augustine, God’s omnipotence could do it. But the question Ott was precisely raising is whether God really did it.

There are countless things that are far miraculous, that God have done, than the preservation of our Lady’s virginity intact, during childbirth. You see, how easily you fall into assuming many things that you think I have said or thought of, yet in reality, I have not. I tell you, if you’re not aware of it, you actually have a more active imagination than reason. In fact, just because Ott and Mitterer questioned the miraculous birth, doesn’t mean that they doubted it, out of a difficulty in believing things that goes beyond nature. They have believed the transubstantiation which is far more miraculous than the miraculous birth, so your attempt to give the impression that those who are and who might be questioning the miraculous birth, have less faith than you are, is malicious.

  

As is F’s wont, he quoted theologians who question, if not assail, Our Blessed Mother’s in partu virginity. All of us are aware of what stripe F’s favorite theologians are – modernists, liberals and materialists. These are the destructive termites in the house of God.

What??? My favorite theologians are – modernists, liberals and materialists??? Where did I ever quote, with agreement, a modernist, liberal and materialist theologian??? Who’s that theologian? Can you name one??? Your imagination is again at work here. When Tomas Borromeo reacted to one of my post because he thought that my mentioning of the name of Fr. Charles Curran was to present him as an authority, I replied to him saying that he misinterpreted my post for I mentioned Fr. Curran’s name only in order to give information that this is one of his (Fr. Curran) heresies. Yet I didn’t even get a sorry from him, considering that his words were harsh – he just kept silent.

Well, I did quote Ott, and Ott did question the interpretation of Our Lady’s in partu virginity as a miraculous birth. And I quoted him, without agreeing with him, as was very explicit in my post. Rather, I upheld the position of the Fathers.

While I believe the traditional understanding of the virginity of Mary during her birth, I would like to open, if you like, that Ludiwg Ott clearly sugested that the understanding by Fathers and the Schoolmen in general, that the virginity during birth means a non-opening of the womb and non-breaking of the hymen, may not be correct.

And as I have said in my defense of myself after the accusations where made:

I never insinuate that Ludwig Ott is right. I merely opened it, and addressed it specifically to you father and to Bro. Mars, thinking that, owing to your experience, you have more knowledge about it and thus may put in a better context the “whys” and “whos” of this opinion.

But your intellectual myopia led you to accuse me of falsifying Ott, and speculated that I am the one who is questioning the Blessed Mother’s in partu virginity. And now that we know that your accusations were mere product of your failure to understand correctly Ott’s true drift of mind, I hope you will humbly admit your mistake! You claimed that I am proud and hence telling us that you are humble. I hope then that you will prove that to us.

Ott, said that the second dogma “merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained,” and I do not have the necessary information yet to argue against him. That was the reason also why I opened it in Apologia – to open a discussion wherein Bro. Marwil and Fr. A can enlighten us, and can comment on that claim of Ott. I was expecting from Fr. A and Bro. Marwil something like the comments of Salza, Likoudis, and Bro. Bugnulo. The three understood what they read, and so they advised me not to believe in Ott, but to hold firm to the teaching of the Fathers. But the reactions of Fr. A and Bro. Marwil were completely unexpected. Amazing indeed!

I wish to state that the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is a datum of Divine Revelation; hence, it must be studied using the tools of theology and not gynecology. I mentioned in my previous post that “those who cannot accept Mary’s virginity in partu are thinking in purely human terms. They are trying to explain away the mystery by way of their limited human understanding.

If you don’t know, the tools of theology include gynecology or biology in general. Theology employs both speculative and positive sciences. That is why many doctrines of the Church vitally rest on a proper biological or gynecological precision. Many medieval thinkers including St. Thomas Aquinas erred in their teaching regarding abortion due to a primitive biology. When the Fathers of the Church asserted a miraculous birth, they were asserting a biological fact and not merely a theological fact. The virgin birth is not a mere theologomenon, something that is true only in theology or has theological significance only, but not in history. If the biological or materialist explanation is not correct, then it is a theological error also. Although it is miraculous and hence supernatural, it doesn’t mean that it is not anymore materialistic. Thus, I do not see any reason why you separate the two. And a mystery doesn’t mean that it is not to be explained in human terms. If a theological question is also a biological question, then there is no way to explain it but through biology. All miracles are of course supernatural, but the miracle in the “miraculous birth” is not a spiritual miracle or a miracle of grace (like conversion, enlightenment, redemption, the Immaculate Conception, etc.,), but a biological one or a miracle of nature, as commonly called. Do not confuse spiritual with supernatural.

-------------------- End of first Part