An Englishman’s Faith in the Filipino People

This is another email that is going the rounds. It deserves a reprint.

These days, it’s so fashionable to give in to the belief that this country is hopeless, that it’s catch as catch can and the devil take the hindmost. But every once in a while, a story comes along that stands out because it highlights the best in every Filipino – the traits that we sometimes forget we have and that others have to see in us before we even remember that they exist.

Then you realize we are only hopeless if we think we are. And we can actually do something to improve the lives of people around us if we set our minds to it.

Many have heard the story of Dylan Wilks, the rich young Englishman who started a life of improving the plight of poor homeless Filipinos by selling his BMW to build cheap houses for 80 families. But few people know what really led Wilks to doing what he did two years ago.

Now Wilks has settled in Manila where he has become one of the most prominent endorsers of everything good in the “Pinoy”. He was recently interviewed by Bo Sanchez of Kerygma magazine, the alternative Christian glossy which is published by Shepherd’s Voice.

Nowadays, when every politician seems to be talking about how to save the poor and the country without really doing anything, it is nice to hear from somebody who is actually doing anything; it’s nice to hear from someone who has dedicated his life to doing just that – one household at a time.

Dylan Wilks was born to a poor family, but at the age of 20, he started a computer games company that made him a millionaire. Soon Dylan operated in nine countries and ran his own TV channel.

Then, at the age of 25, he sold his company for a multi-million British pounds and became the ninth richest person in Great Britain under the age of 30.

But one night, while lying in bed he became distressed by a nagging question that wouldn’t let him sleep. “God, why am I rich?”

He asked if there was a reason for his immense wealth. Ironically, he felt terribly empty inside. This despite his ability to have any kind of pleasure he wanted. He had just bought himself a brand-new Ferrari and took one holiday after another. But he was discovering that pleasure is like fire – it constantly needed more fuel to keep it going. And he realized he would never be happy in the path he was taking.

One day, a Filipina friend visited him. She said she felt guilty going there because her plane fare could have built two homes for the poor.

That made Dylan pause. How could you build two houses for that measly amount? He decided to investigate.

In January 2003 he visited the Philippines. And for three hours Gawad Kalinga Director, Tony Meloto brought Dylan Wilks to GK different villages for the poor. With his own eyes he saw something that would change his life forever.

Bo: What did you see that day?

Dylan: More than newly built houses I saw transformed lives. We were entering rather dangerous slums, breeding ground for thieves and kidnappers ... yet in the middle of that was an oasis ... the Gawad Kalinga village. I saw people smiling, men working … children laughing … I’ve seen many other projects in South East Asia and across the world … and I’ve never seen anything like GK. This was different. This really worked.

Bo: So what did you do after your trip?

Dylan: I went back to England and saw my BMW parked in the garage and realized I could build 80 homes with it and affect the lives of 600 people. I saw the faces of the children I could help. I called up Tony Meloto and told him I was donating $100,000 to Gawad Kalinga and asked him if that was okay.

Bo: What did Tony say?

Dylan: He said “No, I don’t want your money.”

Bo: Only Tony can say something like that. (Laughs.)

Dylan: He said if I was seriously thinking of helping the poor, I should go back to the Philippines. So two months later, I had sold my BMW and flew to Manila. In June of that year, I made a decision to stay in the Philippines and work for Gawad Kalinga for seven more years.

Bo: Wow.

Dylan: I’ve decided to invest in the poor of the Philippines. Not in stock or bonds. If I can help in uplifting the poor of this country I can say that I spent my life well.

Bo: I presume your family wasn’t too crazy about that decision.

Dylan: No! They thought I was brainwashed by a religious cult! (Laughs.) So my mother came and spied on me. But she was soon convinced of the beautiful work we were doing and went back home and told my sister about it. And my sister said, “Oh no, they brainwashed you too.!” (Laughs.) But today, all of them support what I do.

Bo: You’ve made a decision to give up your wealth for the Filipino poor.

Dylan: I don’t see it as a sacrifice. When you give charity out of pity, you feel pain parting with your money. But when you give charity because you love, you don’t feel that pain. You only feel the joy of giving to someone you love. That’s what I feel.

Bo: I hear you built an entire village for GK in Bulacan.

Dylan: I don’t see it as my village. I just provided the materials. Architects, engineers, volunteers gave their labor. Together, we built 63 houses for the poor.

Bo: Amazing. What else do you do?

Dylan: I go around the world telling everyone that Filipinos are heroic. Because I work with them every day ... the volunteers of GK.

Bo: What do you see in the Filipino that we take for granted?

Dylan: You’re hardworking. You’re always laughing, always eating, always singing. Even in your problems. You’re loyal and honest. Sure, there are exceptions, but generally, that’s been my experience. And you have the “bayanihan” spirit. The pyramids of Egypt are beautiful but they were built by slavery. GK villages are more beautiful because they’re made through the “bayanihan” spirit of the Filipino people. It’s especially this “bayanihan” and love of family and community that makes the Filipino more valuable than gold. If you take a golden nugget and kick it on the floor for 400 years, afterwards you won’t see much gold, just mud. This was what happened to the Filipino … for 400 years you were slaves and then your suffered under dictatorship and corruption. This is where the crab mentality came from. I don’t think it’s a natural Filipino quality because every day I see gold under the surface of ordinary Filipinos. If we wipe away the mud by bringing hope and being brothers to one another in “bayanihan”… the gold will shine through and the world will see it.

Bo: Let me get personal here. I hear that you don’t only love the Filipinos, but you’ve fallen for a particular Filipina.

Dylan: (Smiles.) Two months ago, I married Anna Meloto, the eldest daughter of Tony Meloto. She grew up with the GK work so we’re totally one in our mission. And yes, I’ll be having Filipino children. The best way I can secure a future for my kids is to continue to help raise this country from poverty. Instead of building high walls in an exclusive subdivision to protect us from thieves and kidnappers, I will go to the breeding ground of thieves and kidnappers and help transform their lives.

Bo: Thank you for this interview. You don’t know how much you inspired me.

Dylan: Thank you for being our partner in GK. I read Kerygma every month and I’m happy to see GK stories in every issue.

Bo: It’s our privilege to tell the world about it and ask others to join the miracle.

Dylan: To me, GK isn’t just Gawad Kalinga. It is a part of “God’s Kingdom” in this world. Thank you.

“Turning towards the Lord”

By Malcolm Ranjith

Fr. Michael Lang’s book “Turning towards the Lord” – which is now being published in Italy – traces the Church’s reasons and practices, since the first centuries, relating to the direction of liturgical prayer.

The book’s objective and lucid approach will certainly make it a helpful tool for those who want to deepen their understanding on the subject. It demonstrates how the orientation of liturgical prayer as established by postconciliar reforms does not reflect the Council documents, a surprising fact.

In fact, in the preface to the book Benedict XVI, writing when he was still the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asserts:

“To the ordinary churchgoer, the two most obvious effects of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council seem to be the disappearance of Latin and the turning of the altars towards the people. Those who read the relevant texts will be astonished to learn that neither is in fact found in the decrees of the Council. The use of the vernacular is certainly permitted, especially fro the Liturgy of the Word, but the preceding general rule of the Council text says, ‘Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36.1). There is nothing in the Council text about turning altars towards the people; that point is raised only in postconciliar instructions.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium did not call for foolhardy attitudes in this area, but for an objective and deliberate implementation of the reform. Furthermore, liturgical reform did not begin only after Vatican Council II, but had already been in motion to some extent since the time of Pius X. Both in the process of reform preceding the Council and after it, as the Council itself intended, liturgical changes were supposed to emerge organically, and not in sudden haste. But, unfortunately, not everything went as it should have. And now some are speaking of corrections, or of a reform of the reform.

Leaving aside this reform of the reform, Fr. Lang’s book can be considered a catalyst for further improvement in the current liturgical practice of the Church. Maybe this is the reason why, in the preface, the pope expresses his hope for attentive, objective, and passionate study of this topic. In his view, we must be able to see the positive value in what happened in the past, and listen to everyone, including those who do not agree with us, without becoming partisans labeled as “preconciliar” or “postconciliar,” “conservative” or “progressive.” Objectivity is the key. Benedict XVI affirms this when he says: “The quest is to be achieved, not by condemning one another, but by carefully listening to the internal guidance of the liturgy itself.”

And the Church has always understood that its liturgical life must be oriented toward the Lord, and brings with it a profoundly mystical atmosphere. It is in this reality that we must find the answers. For this reason, instead of a spirit of “free fall” that leaves everything to creativity and innovation without roots or depth, we must bring ourselves into harmony with the orientation mentioned above, and bring it to full blossom.

The pope affirms the importance of this dimension when he says that the natural direction of liturgical prayer is “versus Deum, per Jesum Christum [toward God, through Jesus Christ],” even if the priest does in fact face the people. It is not so much a question of form as of substance.

Fr. Lang’s book shows how throughout its history the Church has understood the importance of always directing its prayer toward the Lord, in terms of both content and gesture.

In order to grasp the profoundly spiritual and practical value of the Church’s liturgical life, we need not only a spirit of scientific or theological-historical research, but above all an attitude of meditation, prayer, and silence. Those who study the historical journey of the liturgy and strive to contribute to its progress must place themselves in a posture of humbly listening to the evolution of the Church’s liturgical traditions down through the centuries, and of the important role of the magisterium. They must also pay attention to the gradual development of these traditions within the ecclesial community, and arm themselves with a spirit of intense prayer and adoration of the Lord. This is because what happens in the Church’s celebrations of praise is not simply an earthly and human reality. And if these mystical aspects are not betrayed, everything will become a source of edification rather than disorientation and confusion. Arbitrariness, haste, and emotional excitement should have no place in this search. The conciliar constitution on the sacred liturgy affirms this point when it says:

“That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remains open to legitimate progress. Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).

This is why this same conciliar constitution offers clear and stringent norms on who is truly competent to make decisions on liturgical innovations, asserting, among other things, that “therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22).

This great sense of reverence toward what is being celebrated stems not only from the fact of the centrality of the liturgy in the Church’s life, affirmed by the principle “lex credendi, lex orandi,” but also from the conviction that the liturgy is not a purely human act, but a reflection of what is happening, as Sacrosanctum Concilium itself says, “in that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims.”

The liturgy is also that which is given as a gift to the community of the Church, the bride of Christ and the heavenly Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, which are sometimes well-intentioned, there are priests and bishops who introduce every sort of experiment and change, diminishing the sense of the sacred and mystical nature of what is depicted in the Church’s liturgical celebrations. The temptation to become the leading actors in the divine mysteries, and to seek to control even the action of the Lord, is strong in a culture that divinizes man. In some countries, the situation is or is becoming truly dramatic. Every trace of the sacred often disappears in these so-called “liturgies.”

The liturgy is not what man decides it is, but what the Lord brings about within him: an attitude of adoration toward his Creator and Lord, liberating him from his slavery. If the liturgy loses its mystical and heavenly dimension, what will help man to free himself from the mud of egoism and slavery? If the Church does not insist upon the mystical and profoundly spiritual dimensions of life and the celebration of life, who will? Is this not our duty to a world that is closed off within itself, becoming disoriented, insecure, locked in its own prison? If man presumes to understand everything that the Lord does, then it is not God who judges history, but man himself. Is this not the ancient idolatry denounced by the prophets?

The Church, which must reflect the constant presence of Christ in the world, is placed at the service of humanity in order to help it to free itself from the prison of being closed in on itself, to discover its vocation to the fullness of life in the Lord, and to open itself to the joyous embrace of the infinite. Its intimate communion with its Spouse, which is reflected and nourished above all in its liturgical life, becomes the powerful manifestation of the infinite freedom that humanity always has the possibility of reaching through it.

For this reason, preserving and enriching the spiritual mysticism of the liturgy is no longer an option for us, but a duty. If the world falls into the pit of human self-sufficiency, thus becoming more thirsty for the infinite, the Church cannot help but offer the liturgy, because in Christ humanity is raised up into the divine presence. It is not by lowering itself to superficiality that the liturgy will motivate us to reflect the values of the infinite to the world, but by affirming these mystical and divine dimensions more and more. Today more than ever, this becomes a reflection of the prophetic role of the Church as well.

Thank you, Fr. Lang, for this book which will help us to turn our gaze ever more toward the Lord.

(Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don is the newly appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments).

Injunctive Relief Update

United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI) President Celso Reyes informed the association members in an open letter what transpired in the hearing of the Motion for Reconsideration of the Preliminary Injunction against Parañaque City. His statement follows [slightly edited for brevity]:

We went to the 10 May hearing with our counsel the Siguion Reyna Monticello Ongsiako Law Office and the Law Firm of Jacinto, Wui, Magtanong, and Uy, who are officially representing the Association in the case. They were prepared to argue on the merits of the injunction and why it should not be lifted. Instead, we were treated to something else.

Justice Martin Villarama, Chairman of the 8th Division, opened the hearing with the disclosure that Atty. Romeo Robiso went to see him in his chambers [office]. He informed those present in Court that he admitted him (Robiso) only because he was a former co-professor in the MLQU. [It is unethical to entertain a party to a case in private without the presence of the other party]. He also disclosed that Mrs. Elbinias, wife of a retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, also came to see him in his chambers. They (Robiso and Mrs. Elbinias) were then directed to tell the people in the courtroom what they told him exactly in his chambers.

Atty. Robiso thus disclosed that he went to see the justice with copies of the letters circulating in BF and an alleged voucher for P2 Million because of the perception that the amount went to the Court of Appeals. Mrs. Elbinias is a resident of Tahanan Village where Mayor Bernabe also resides.

The undersigned was then asked to comment on what Atty. Robiso and Mrs. Elbinias said. He explained that the voucher, a photocopy, is not the same as the original in our file, that the P2 Million check was issued to him upon authority of the Board for the injunction secured on 27 October 2005; that it was paid to the Siguion Reyna Law Office according to the contract signed with them in September 2005 and duly receipted; that the Association actually spent more than P2 Million in lawyers’ fees. The Siguion Reyna Law Firm confirmed to the Court that they received the amount of P2 Million as fees under our contract.

We were asked if P2 Million was an ordinary expense for the Association. We said it was an extraordinary expense for an extraordinary situation where our gates were opened, our deposits garnished by the BIR and our source of funds drying up, such that in December, we had to let go of most of our staff and moved operations to one room. We also told the Court we found out that the directors who circulated those letters were involved with the opening of the roads and the garnishment of our funds.

It became apparent that the letters were not the only subject of those strange visits, because the undersigned was also asked if he has a house in Ayala Alabang (none), if he is a customs broker (no, but he owns a customs brokerage), how long has been President, matters personal and of no relation to the injunction, tending only to cast aspersion on his reputation.

Atty. Robiso was directed by the Court to prepare an executive summary of what transpired in that hearing and to cause its distribution to all residents of BF Homes within 10 days from date. The Court wanted it known by all in no uncertain terms that none of the justices in the Division received anything or any amount in connection with the Injunction. Indeed, none of them did, but those letters and flyers from its phantom sources caused far ranging damage to both the Court and UBFHAI.

Our lawyers have filed Oppositions to both Motions for Reconsideration and with respondents’ manifestation in Court that they were not filing any reply, the matters were considered submitted for resolution. We have likewise filed a motion to cite Mayor Florencio Bernabe, Jr. and the Parañaque Police in contempt for openly defying the injunction (his guards are still at the gates), which will be resolved by the Court as soon as all responsive pleadings are filed.

As member associations of UBFHAI, and further to your concerns aired in the Presidents Meeting of 22 April 2006, we owe you this information, without pre-empting the report of Atty. Romeo Robiso who was directed by the Court of Appeals to circulate to all the people in BF Homes.

Finally, your Board is pleased to inform that the garnishment of funds, lawyers’ fees and the expenses we had to shoulder in connection with the opening of our roads in August 2005 notwithstanding, the restricted funds of the Association [construction bonds, deposits], which is intact to this day, was never touched. Other administrations had to borrow from those funds towards the end of the year.

Your Board assures that it has not stopped working on the returning control of our Parañaque and Las Piñas gates within the bounds of law, at the same time it is closely attending to the incipient water problem and the turn-over of the water system to us or to the MWSS. We have a standing Motion for Execution Pending Appeal in the HLURB for the turnover of the water system to UBFHAI.

We shall keep you posted on further developments on all matters relating our lives in BF Homes. God bless.

The Da Vinci Code

The blasphemous book and the showing of the movie The Da Vinci Code highlight the transition of the Catholic Church’s focus on social engagement and lay empowerment from one more concerned with Catholic identity and evangelization.

Prior to Vatican II, the book and the movie The Da Vinci Code would have been banned outright by the Catholic Church. Thomas A. Droleskey explains [condensed and edited for brevity]:

As bad as The Da Vinci Code is in its book and cinematic forms, there would not have been much need sixty or seventy years ago for an elaborate series of explanations, no less books and pamphlets, to teach Catholics why such a collection of blasphemous lies must not be patronized in any form by any Catholic for any reason. Bishops would have instructed their priests to command the faithful to boycott such a book and/or motion picture. They spoke but the word and their sheep listened, taking to the streets if they had to do so. Most, although not all, Catholics would do as they were instructed by their shepherds without a moment’s hesitation. And that would have been the end of The Da Vinci Code at that time.

Today, sadly, we see more than a handful of bishops and priests praising motion pictures promoting perversity. And even those bishops who do try on occasion to oppose the evils of popular culture find that few of their sheep, “liberated” by all of the errors of conciliarism and its many mutations, will follow their advice. Why should we be shocked to find that Catholics have bought The Da Vinci Code as a book and find it credible when the truths of the Faith are under attack in almost every Catholic school and college and university here and around the world? Why should we be shocked that Catholics will spend their money to purchase tickets to watch The Da Vinci Code as a motion pictures when conciliarism teaches them to accept the joys of “healthy secularity” and pluralism?

Christ came to announce a kingdom. A kingdom is a hierarchical structure. A kingdom is not a democracy. Christ never asked any advice from the Apostles; never argued with them or with anyone. He was the Master and he taught, and men must either accept His teaching or reject it: there was no place for argument about it.

There is widespread disobedience in the Church today. At some point, someone is going to need to say, “Hey, guys, we have a problem here and it needs FIXING.”

Promises, promises

During the electoral campaign of the last election, a candidate for mayor of Parañaque promised, if elected, to resolve the water problem of BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision and respect the will of the majority on the question of the commercialization and opening of the subdivision roads to the general public.

BF Homes enclaves [association members of United BF Homeowners Association, Inc. (UBFHAI)] officials responded by asking their members for a favorable vote and tirelessly campaigned for new voters registration and, during the election, provided transportation for voters without vehicles. The result was that 60% (instead of the usual less than 10%) of registered BF Homes voters turned out to vote.

Following his assumption into office, Mayor Jun Bernabe opened the roads of the subdivision to the general public in utter disregard of the sentiments of the residents and his electoral promise to abide by the will of the majority. In a classic case of too little, too late, he has, on second thought, “created a water crisis committee to find immediate and long-term solutions to the chronic water supply shortage in BF Homes Subdivision and other communities in the city.”

“Although water supply is a national government concern, we are taking the lead in finding ways to alleviate the water supply problems and needs of our constituents in the city,” Bernabe said.

The committee will initially focus on mitigating the water supply shortage in BF Homes, the city’s largest private subdivision with close to l2,000 households.

”The present estimate is that only 25 to 30 percent of the total households in BF are getting regular water supply from the subdivision’s water supply system. The majority are forced to buy their daily water supply from private water tankers,” Bernabe said.

The membership of the committee is composed, naturally, of his business cronies and obedient cohorts instead of UBFHAI, the sole representative of all local subdivisions (enclaves) and homeowners in BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision. Consequently, except as an aid for re-election in the upcoming election in May of next year, nothing really is expected of this committee but hot air.

This is not unlike his electoral promise when he first ran as mayor. Like that old refrain, it’s “lovelier the second time around.” The resolution of the waterless subdivision makes for a good electoral campaign and the residents fall for this kind of gimmick. The incumbent mayor, it must be conceded, is unlike the other politicians when it comes to personal honor of keeping one’s word. He has, after all, created a water crisis committee to look into the problem even if “water supply [of his constituents] is a national government concern”. Never mind that his term of office is almost over.

This reminds me of that time when the “Hyatt 10” sang praises for the President and former Social Welfare Secretary Dinky Soliman, on behalf of the Cabinet, handed her flowers. A few days later during that infamous “Black Friday” of July 8, the “Hyatt 10” turned around and asked her to resign. Reminiscent of the promise of Senate President Frank Drilon for GMA to transfer Malacañang to Iloilo in the wake of the political turmoil in Metro Manila, but later joined others in calling for her ouster.

Unlike animals, man lives by intellect and will and thus he lives not just for the moment but also binds himself to his future by his promises.

Without promises there could be no stable society. Nothing human holds together without this glue – the very glue that is becoming unglued today. I mean the individual promise-keeping. There is no sense of personal honor of keeping one’s word anymore. We have become a society of Pontius Pilates, washing our hands of responsibilities as he did. Yet a man who does not keep his promises is not a man; he is a weasel.

I Will Confess Him Before My Father in Heaven

As the movie “The Da Vinci Code” opens in theaters, let us stand up and defend our Lord when He is mocked and blasphemed. Let us boycott this blasphemous and abominable film distorting the life of Our Savior.

Our Lord said: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 10:32-33)

We believers are being presented with an opportunity to face the lions for our Catholic Faith. If you can call yourself a “practicing Catholic,” now is the time to stop practicing and start performing. Hopefully, faithful Catholics will take full advantage of Our Lord’s offer and, confessing Him before men, receive His invaluable support before the throne of the Heavenly Father.

Boycott the movie “The Da Vinci Code”!

Prophecies of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich

By: Richard M. Friend

Anne Catherine Emmerich was born to poor but pious German peasants on 8 September 1774 at Flamsche, diocese of Munster, Westphalia, Germany. She was a very pious child who suffered with poor health, but who received visions and prophesies; they were so common that she thought all children could see the Child Jesus and the souls in Purgatory. She was able to diagnose illness and recommend cures, and to see a person’s sins.

Anne entered the Augustinian convent at Agnetenberg, Dulmen, Germany in 1802. Though her health was poor, her enthusiasm for the religious life was great, and she either energized her sisters, or put them off badly. Given to going into religious ecstacies in church, her cell, or while working.

The convent was closed by government order in 1812, and Anne moved in with a poor widow. Her health failed, and instead of working as a servant, in 1813 she became a patient. Her visions and prophesies increased, and later that year she received the stigmata with wounds on her hands and feet, her head from the crown of thorns, and crosses on her chest, and the gift of inedia, living off nothing but Holy Communion for the rest of her life. She tried to hide the wounds, but word leaked out, and her vicar-general instituted a lengthy and detailed investigation; it was determined to be genuine.

Anne died on 9 February 1824 at Dulmen, Germany; due to rumors that her body had been stolen, her grave was opened six weeks after her death; the body was found incorrupt; relics translated to Holy Cross Church, Dulmen, Germany on 15 February 1975.

Her Cause for Canonization was formally introduced on 14 November 1892. Due to accusations about her vow of chastity, the investigation was halted on 30 November 1928. However, the accusations were proven false, and the investigation resumed on 18 May 1973. Venerated 24 April 2001 by Pope John Paul II; Beatified 3 October 2004 by Pope John Paul II; decree of beatification miracle promulgated on 7 July 2003. [Source: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintafb.htm]

Prophecies of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich

June 1, 1821. “I have had indescribable visions on the state of the Church both in general and particular. I saw the Church Militant under the symbol of a city like the heavenly Jerusalem, though it was still on earth. In it were streets, palaces, and gardens through which I wandered and saw processions composed entirely of bishops. I recognized the interior state of each. I saw their thoughts issuing from their mouths under the form of pictures. Their religious transgressions were represented by external deformities: for instance, there were some whose head seemed to be only a misty cloud; others were lame or paralytic; others sleeping or reeling. Once I saw a mitre floating in the air and a hand out of a dark cloud trying repeatedly, but vainly, to seize it. Under the mitre I beheld many persons not unknown to me, bearing on their shoulders amid tears and lamentation, crosses of all kinds – among them walked myself. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head. Others had only a head, their bodies and their hearts were like thick vapors. Some were lame; others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering. I think I saw almost all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. I also saw the Holy Father very prayerful and God-fearing, his figure perfect, though worn out by old age and manifold sufferings, his head sunk on his breast as if in sleep. He often fainted away and seemed to be dying. I often saw him supported by apparitions during his prayer, and then his head was upright. When it sank upon his breast, then were the minds of many turned quickly here and there; that is, viewing things in a worldly light. When the hand out of the cloud tried to seize the mitre, I saw the Church of our country in a miserable state to which the learned young school-master had especially contributed. Protestantism was in the ascendancy and religion was falling to utter decay. I saw the majority of the clergy, dazzled by the false show of the young fellow, furthering the work of destruction, and in particular taking part in it through vanity and ignorance. He will see his error only when it will be too late to retrieve it. The misery under him will be great. Many simple-minded, enlightened men, and especially the school-master, are praying for the removal of this pastor. I saw, at the most, only four ecclesiastics in the whole country steadfast and faithful. These visions were so frightful that I came near crying out. I see in the future religion falling so low that it will be practiced only here and there in farm-houses and in families protected by God during the horrors of war.” (The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, volume 2, page 310-311).

Commentary by Yves Dupont, Catholic author, offered a possible interpretation of the vision in his book “Catholic Prophesy.” His quote of Blessed Emmerich’s vision differs slightly from the words quoted in the book “The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich.” Where the words differ, the quote from the “The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich” immediately follows in parenthesis.

“The symbolism ... may be interpreted in a number of ways: ‘heads like fog’ (only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head) may mean errors of thinking. ‘Heads only, no bodies and no hearts’ (only a head, their bodies and their hearts were like thick vapors) may mean high intellect, but divorced from reality and with no charity. ‘Lame’ may mean performance of duty in a half-hearted way although knowledge of what should be done is not impaired. ‘Asleep’ (sleeping) may denote an unawareness of the vital problems which are facing the Church. “Staggering (reeling)” may mean that the burden of responsibility is too heavy.

The second paragraph (the vision of seeing all the bishops of the world in a procession) may refer to an ecumenical council. Few bishops are sound. The pope is holy, but old and tired. His head is swaying; he hesitates. He falls asleep; he fails to grasp the really important issues of the day. The others are very much concerned with the world. Meanwhile, Protestantism is penetrating into the Catholic Church. Like those bishops who have only a head, many priests are more interested in knowledge than in charity, but it is a false knowledge, worldly-wise, overlooking the essentials, similar to the knowledge of young school-teachers who have been taught facts instead of principles, science instead of philosophy. As a result of all this, Faith will fall very low. But the Faith will survive in a few families which God will protect during the coming disasters.” (Yves Dupont, Catholic Prophesy, page 69).

Commentary by Richard M. Friend: The book “Catholic Prophesy” was published in 1970, five years after the close of the Second Vatican Council. While Dupont’s interpretation of the first part of the vision regarding the interior state of the bishops is very logical and seems entirely plausible, it is surprising that he missed considering the possibility that the procession of the bishops of the world may refer to the ecumenical council of Vatican II.

We, of course, from our vantage point looking back at history, have the advantage of hindsight that Dupont did not have. When the book was published, the memory of the Second Vatican Council was fresh. The year before, in 1969, Pope Paul VI had just issued his Apostolic Constitution promulgating the new order of the Mass, effectively derogating the use of the Classical Roman Rite that had been used by the Church for over 1500 years and which had been codified by Pope St. Pius V in his bull Quo Primum at the Council of Trent.

There are other ways to interpret this particular part of vision:

(1) The ecumenical council being referred to may in fact be a future ecumenical council, as posited by Dupont. However, prophecies of other visionaries indicate that there would only be one more ecumenical council in the future, a super council that would occur after the Great Chastisement has come to pass. Therefore, if the vision indeed actually refers to an ecumenical council, then it must be none other than the Second Vatican Council. By the time the council got under way, Pope John XXIII was old, tired, and worn-out; in fact he died during the council! He has since been beatified, and so the description of a prayerful and God-fearing pope having heavenly apparitions while in prayer seems apt.

(2) Another possibility is that the vision refers to the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II because of the similarities in the late pope’s physical condition with the description of the old and worn-out pope in the Emmerich’s vision. However, there was no ecumenical council where all the bishops of the world were present during the pontificate of the late pope. While there were numerous synods of bishops which were attended by numerous bishops during the late pope’s pontificate, not all of the world’s bishops were present at the same time.

Remember well these words of Saint Nicholas of Flue and then ask yourselves if they do apply to our own times: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

September 12, 1820. “I saw a fantastic, odd-looking church being built. The choir was in three parts, each raised some steps above the last; and under it was deep vault full of fog. On the first platform of the choir was a seat; on the second, a basin of water; on the third, a table. I saw no angel helping in the construction, but numbers of the most violent planetary spirits dragging all sorts of things into the vault where persons in little ecclesiastical mantles received them and deposited them in their various places. Nothing was brought from above; all came from the earth and the dark regions, all was built up by the planetary spirits. The water alone seemed to have something holy about it. I saw an enormous number of instruments brought into the church, and many persons, even children, had different tools, as if trying to make something; but all was obscure, absurd, dead! Division and destruction reigned everywhere. Nearby, I saw another church, shining and rich with graces from on high, angels ascending and descending. In it were life and increase, tepidity and dissipation; and yet it was like a tree full of sap compared with the other which was like a chest of lifeless institutions. The former was like a bird on the wing; the latter a paper dragon, its tail adorned with ribands and writings, dragging over a stubble-filed. I saw that many of the instruments in the new church, such as spears and darts, were meant to be used against the living Church. Everyone dragged in something different, clubs, rods, pumps, cudgels, puppets, mirrors, trumpets, horns, bellows – all sorts of things. In the cave below (the sacristy) some people kneaded bread, but nothing came of it; it would not rise. The men in the little mantles brought wood to the steps of the pulpit to make fire. They puffed and blew and labored hard, but the fire would not burn; all they produced was smoke and fumes. Then they broke a hole in the roof and ran up a pipe, but the smoke would not rise, and the whole place became black and suffocating. Some blew the horn so violently that the tears streamed from their eyes. All in this church belonged to the earth, returned to the earth; all was dead, the work of human skill, a church of the latest style, a church of mans invention like the new heterodox church in Rome.” (The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, volume 2, page 283).

April, 1823. “They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights; Evangelicals, Catholics and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise.” (The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, volume 2, page 353).

April 12, 1820. “I have had another vision on the great tribulation everywhere reigning. It seemed as if something were exacted of the clergy, something that could not be granted. I saw many aged priests, some of them Franciscans, and one in particular, a very old man, weeping bitterly and mingling their tears with those of others younger than themselves. I saw others, tepid souls, willingly acceding to conditions hurtful to religion. The old faithful in their distress submitted to the interdict and closed their churches. Numbers of their parishioners joined them; and so, two parties were formed, a good one and a bad one.” (The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, volume 2, page 331).

January 27, 1822. “There has been a thanksgiving in the spiritual church. It was filled with glory, and a magnificent throne stood in the middle of it. Paul, Augustine, and other converted saints figured conspicuously. It was a feast in the Church Triumphant, a thanksgiving for a great, though still future grace, something like a future consecration. It referred to the conversion of a man whom I saw of slight figure and tolerably young, who was one day to be Pope. I saw him below in the church among other pious men; he had been connected with the good old priest whose death I saw the other day in Rome. I saw many Christians returning to the bosom of the Church, entering though the walls. That Pope will be strict. He will remove from him lukewarm, tepid bishops – but it will be long time before this happens. All whose prayers have been instrumental in obtaining this grace were present in the church. I see also those men eminent in prayer who I so often see. The young man was already in Orders and it seemed as if he were receiving some new dignity. He is not Roman, though an Italian from a place not far from Rome. I think he is of a pious noble family. He travels sometimes. But before his time there will be many struggles.” (The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, volume 2, page 344).

Debunking “The Da Vinci Code”*

Source: http://tfp.org/davincicode/ The Da Vinci Code is a murder mystery suspense novel taking place in Paris, and London. The story is built around Facts that reveal the hidden identity of Jesus. Why the Big Deal? While most murder, mystery novels would not cause much of a stir, the difference here is about the claims in the very first pages of this book. Prior to the prologue, the book makes a claim of fact. Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code claims these facts. Does Dan Brown believe the facts? Dan Brown was interviewed by Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show, who asked, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Brown responded, “Absolutely all of it. Obviously Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies—all of that is historical fact. The Da Vinci Code Plot. The Da Vinci Code begins with the death of Jacques Sauniere, curator of the Louvre in Paris, by an assassin who later turns out to be huge albino monk named Silas, who is part of Opus Dei. While dying, Sauniere manages to leave a cryptic message on the museum floor. He writes the name Robert Langdon. Robert Langdon is a Harvard professor in Paris giving a talk at the American University. Landon’s name on the floor makes him suspect number one for French police. Paris police captain Bezu Fache, suspects Langdon is the Jacques Sauniere’s murderer, and he brings Langdon to the crime scene. Later, at the crime scene, agent Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer and the secret estranged granddaughter of Jacques Sauniere, arrives, knowing they suspect Robert Langdon, she helps him escape from the Paris police. After escaping from police, they begin a journey searching for meaning behind her grandfather’s final message, racing to find “Secret documents” before the Catholic Church destroys them. While hiding in the Louvre, before their escape, Robert Langdon explains to Sophie about Leonardo Da Vinci, painter of the Mona Lisa, how he was secretly part of an organization The Priory of Sion is a secret organization responsible for preserving the truth about the “Real Jesus.” (Page 113). The Church wanted to eliminate the “Sacred Feminine” the Goddess aspect, and maintain a patriarchal system (Page 46,116). Professor Langdon informs Sophie, But Leonardo Da Vinci in his artwork preserved the “Sacred Feminine” or Goddess worship (Page 113). Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Boticelli were all Grand Masters in the Priory of Sion they were responsible for preserving the “True” identity of Jesus to be released in the future (Page 113). During their escapes from the museum, Professor Langdon explains to Sophie about the so-called “Holy Grail” documents, the Sangreal, found under the Temple-Mount by Godefroi de Bouillon in 1099 when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem. These documents Brown claims reveal the “Holy Grail” is not a chalice cup used at the last supper but Mary Magdalene herself, who preserved Jesus’ royal family line before he died on the cross. The organization founded by succeeding knights known as the “Knights Templar” was given unlimited powers by Popes, and they lived in Solomon’s Stables under the Temple mount site. Brown claims they found thousands of documents proving Jesus’ real identity and his relationship with Mary Magdalene, these documents made them very powerful, to the point where the Pope Clement V and France’s King Philippe IV destroyed them and confiscated their property on Friday 13, October 1307. These documents, known as the Sangreal escaped destruction and are in hiding, with only the Priory of Sion having knowledge of their location. Robert and Sophie find refuge in the estate of Royal British historian, Sir Leigh Teabing, he confirms the words of Landon, and adds the following to the innocent Sophie. Teabing continues… “The Bible is a product of man my dear. Not God” (Page 231). “More then 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a few were chosen” (Page 231). Constantine…held a gathering known as the council of Nicea…(325 A.D.) Until that moment in history Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet…not the Son of God (Page 233). “Fortunately for historians…Some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950’s hidden in a cave near Qumran…and of course the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hamadi”…(Page 234) “I shan’t bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene’s union….Magdalene was recast as a whore in order to erase evidence of her powerful family ties” (Pages 247, 249). They leave the Teabing’s Estate and head toward England on Teabing personal jet, evading French Police…On the Jet Sophie explains why she was estranged from her Grandfather… Sophie explains to Robert Langdon how she came one day to surprise her grandfather at his country estate…and found him in the center of the room, surrounded by people, having sexual intercourse… Langdon calms her and explains…“Hieros Gamos…it means sacred marriage. Physical union with the female remained the sole means...man...can achieve gnosis.” (Pages 308-309). Teabing, Sophie and Professor Langdon arrive in England and fail to find the thousand’s of pages of evidence…proving Jesus’ true identity…But Langdon explains to Sophie about faith and religion… “The New Testament is based on fabrications…every faith is…based on fabrications…Jesus was not born of a literal virgin birth…Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical” (Pages 341-342). The Story behind the Story of Brown’s assault on Christianity in the novel, The Da Vinci Code raises several questions that need to be answered. 1. Is the book accurate? The Book is filled with historical and factual errors. Here are just a few to make the point. If this book is wrong on such minor points why would anybody trust it for eternal issues? · Brown’s Error: The book claims there are 666 panes of glass on the pyramid outside the Louvre. The Museum says there are 673 (Page 21). · Brown’s Error: The book claims the Olympics were held for Venus in 8-year cycles but they were actually held for Zeus in 4-year cycles (Page 36). · Brown’ Error: Mona Lisa is an androgynous portrait representing the fusing of male and Female (Page 120). However, Mona Lisa is a young Florentine woman who in 1495 married the well-known figure, Francesco del Giocondo, and thus came to be known as “La Gioconda.” This is confirmed by the discovery of documentation in Florence, Italy archives. She had five children and two became nuns. · Brown’s Error: Sir Isaac Newton was a secret Goddess Worshipper. Yet it is well known that he was a devout Christian who wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel and Revelation and calculated the physical return of Christ between the years 2000 and 2050. · Brown’s Error: The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950’s and included the Gospels. History clearly show that these scrolls were found in 1948 and there were no Gospels found there. · Brown’s Error: The Gnostic Gospel, The Gospel of Philip was not written in Aramaic as The Da Vinci Code implies but in Coptic, translated from Greek (Page 246). 2. “The Priority of Sion” and the “Les Dossier Secret”. The first point we need to address, is the very foundation of this book, the claim of fact on “Fact” page. The book claims too very important facts. These two facts are the basis behind the whole book. They are the very foundation this book is built upon. First the existence of this secret organization known as the Priory of Sion, an organization dating back to the year 1099 entrusted with keeping the documents about Jesus’ preserved to be released at a later date. Secondly, the discovery of Les Dossier Secret parchments in 1975 at the Bibliotheque Nationale. These documents detail the membership in the Priory of Sion identifying Leonardo ad Vinci, Isaac Newton and others. They are the Grandmasters involved in preserving these secret documents. Dan Brown relies on a 1982 publication, Holy Blood, Holy Grail as the source of information on the Priory of Sion. The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail depended on documents provided to them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who was jailed for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion, taking from a nearby mountain. Their club dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. He started a second Priory of Sion in the early 1960’s and tried to establish himself as the King of France. Throughout the 1960’s and the 1970’s Plantard created a series of documents “proving” the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include – (surprise!) Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendents of the line of Jesus and Mary. In 1993, Plantard’s name came up in light of a political scandal involving a close friend of then French president Francois Mitternad. Plantard had, in one of his lists of the Priory of Sion, listed Roger-Patrice Pelat as a Grand master. When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme. The court ordered a search of Plantard’s house, which revealed further documents that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. The judge gave Plantard a stern warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank. The whole basis of The Da Vinci Code is based on a hoax created by Pierre Plantard. At this point, there is really no purpose to continue to a program about The Da Vinci Code because the basis of the Facts has been proven to be entirely false. If we put aside these facts let us now continue to answer the other charges made by Brown’s characters. Professor Langdon and British Royal Historian Leigh Teabing. 3. Were the Gnostic Gospels Part of Christianity? On the acknowledgments page, Dan Brown thanks those who helped him complete this book, one of those mentioned is the Gnostic Society Library. The Da Vinci Code champions the Gnostic Gospels, their view of Christianity, their sexual orgies and claims “Orthodox” Christianity stole Jesus from the original Gnostic followers. What are the Gnostics and the Gnostic Gospels? The word Gnostic is derived from the Greek word Gnosos meaning “To Know”. Gnostics believed that salvation was attained through the attaining knowledge. After Christianity started to spread throughout the Greek and Roman worlds, Pagan ideas and theology began to fall out of favor. Acts 19 is a great example of when people began to burn the sorcery scrolls in public and stopped buying statues of the temple goddess Artemis in about 54 A.D. where Paul was preaching. 18 And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds. 19 Also, many of those who had practiced magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them, and it totaled fifty thousand pieces of silver. Acts 19:18-20 This scene was repeated throughout the Greek and Roman worlds, one way pagans tried to combat the growing Christian faith was to incorporate Greek pagan mystery rites into Judea-Christian package. We see these warnings to the churches in Revelation, especially Pergamum and Thyatira. In Thyatira, we have a so called prophetess, who is teaching sexual immorality and idol practices. This would be one of the many proto-Gnostic movements that would eventually spread throughout the Christian world. The Gnostics took on familiar names and terminology but with much different theology. They believed there was an unknown All-Father, and Mother God. This goddess was referred to as Sophia. They believed all souls originally lived in a spiritual realm of light, the Pleroma, until they were imprisoned in physical bodies on the earth. Flesh and all matter were viewed as intrinsically evil. Gnostic “Salvation” equated liberation of the soul from the body – the freeing of the inner spirit from the confines of matter. Such liberation could only be achieved through “Gnosis” which brought about the detachment from the evil world (similar to Buddhism). To achieve this enlightenment, one needed to know the truth about God, (All-Father), himself and life. Ancient Gnostics preached two gods, a good deity of light and an evil deity of darkness. The good deity (The Principle, or All-Father) was seen as the epitome of love. This God was responsible for creating the other god. This evil god, the demiurge, is the one who created the physical world, He is the God of the Old Testament. This evil God of the Jews, who favored the Jews, seeks to impede human souls from returning to God and returning to the Divine. The good God is utterly removed from the world, he is unknowable. But through sexual intercourse, the bridal chamber, man can return to the Plemoria and become one with the Divine. The All-Father, however, did send a Redeemer – Jesus. But the Gnostic Jesus, unlike the Jesus of the Bible, was not a Savior who died form sins. He was the bringer of “Gnosis”. According to many Gnostics he was a completely spiritual being separate from the flesh, because he was really projecting a phantom body. The mission of the Gnostic Jesus was to: (1) Reveal the truth about our “Former State” – a state that people have forgotten and point the way back to God; (2) Release the divine spark of light imprisoned in matter. The quickest way to have the Gnostic teaching accepted by the masses was to attach the names of Apostles to their writings. Hence the names Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Mary were used to gain acceptance for the Gnostic teachings. The earliest dates for these Gnostic works date from the early 2nd and 3rd century. In December 1945, near the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi, a peasant came across scrolls and texts, dating back to the fourth century. They included poems, myths, mysticism and what some call the “Secret Gospels”. The texts reject the Genesis account of creation, the Creator God is mocked as a blind fool. He is called the Demiurge, the lesser God. 4. Who was Mary Magdalene? One particularly troubling theme kept recurring in the [Gnostic] gospels. Mary Magdalene…More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ (The Da Vinci Code, page 244). The Gospel of Philip says that “‘the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?”’…As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion in those days, literally meant spouse (The Da Vinci Code, page 246). The basis Brown uses for this claim is the Gnostic Gospels, specifically the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Phillip, neither contain any mention of Jesus’ marriage to Mary, nor do any of the Gnostic Gospels. Brown’s argument for Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene tries to infer that Jesus married Mary from a line in the Gospel of Philip. The Da Vinci Code would have us believe the Jesus and Mary Magdalene were participants in these sex-rites of the Gnostics. The Jesus of The Da Vinci Code is the Gnostic Jesus. Mary Magdalene was part of a group of women who were followers of Christ along with the disciples. She was a witness to his resurrection and healing but nowhere in the Gospels is any marriage even hinted at in the slightest. Jesus healed Mary Magdalene of demonic possession, the idea that Mary was the harlot of Luke 7:36-50 is only made because Mary Magdalene is mentioned in Luke chapter 8, following the story of the adulterous women in Luke 7:36-50. But adulterous women of Luke 7 is not noted for demonic possession but for adultery, she is told, “Go and sin no more”, there is no mention of demonic possession, therefore Mary Magdalene is not the same women. Mary was just part of a group that followed Jesus and witnessed his works, death and resurrection. Mary witnessed both the death and resurrection of Christ, and was one of many witnesses. Mary stood along side Jesus’ mother at the cross. She was the first person to see Christ resurrected from the tomb. Mary is seen as part of a group of women that includes Mary the mother of Jesus. Christ ministry was not limited to just men but all people, including women. Mary is a perfect example of the grace of Christ. She was a women possessed by seven demons, who was forgiven and made an integral part of Church. Her name is included in all the Gospels. She is witnesses of the crucifixion and resurrection, as well as the power of spiritual healing. 5. Did Constantine and the Church turn Jesus into a God? Constantine…held a gathering known as the council of Nicea…(325 A.D.)…Until that moment in history Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet…not the Son of God…Jesus’ establishment as the ‘Son of God’ was…a relatively close vote (Page 233). The nature of the Messiah was not based on what Peter or the Disciples wanted but what was foretold in the Old Testament, which predated both Peter and the Church. The Council of Nicea 325 A.D. was not a close vote, and was not about the Gnostic Gospels. Our friend Sir Leigh Teabing, the British historian really missed history class. Fact: The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) was not a close vote, 300 bishops from throughout the Empire arrived to discuss the Arius, teaching that the Son was created, and therefore not God incarnate, the vote was 300 to 2…not close at all. Arius did not believe the Son was mortal but the first of creation. 6. Is the Bible from God? This is charge often made about the Bible, by those who are not familiar with its words, the Bible unlike any other book has the fingerprints of God. We can all proclaim what happened today and what happened yesterday, but we can’t foretell what is coming tomorrow or even a thousand years from now. We are limited by our nature. This is what separates the Bible from any other book written by man, which claims divine authorship. The Bible reveals events thousands of years before they happen as proof of its divine origin. Conclusion on The Da Vinci Code · Salvation is available to those who come to Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible. · The Jesus of The Da Vinci Code is the Gnostic Jesus, another Jesus. · The Da Vinci Code claiming to be a novel, is plainly a veiled attack on Christianity. · The book is built on a hoax created by Pierre Plantard, a convicted embezzler, pro-Nazi, anti-Semite. The book is filled with factual and historical errors which are either intentional or irresponsible scholarship. *Condensed from the book “Debunking The Da Vinci Code” by Phil Karayan

Boycott "The Da Vinci Code"

Within this month, novelist Dan Brown’s fiction-thriller movie The Da Vinci Code will be shown nationwide, a movie that demonizes the divinity of the Christ as having allegedly married Mary Magdalene; having borne children with her who are supposedly living in France; portraying Opus Dei as villains in the payroll of the Church.

Archbishop Angelo Amato, the number two official in the Vatican doctrinal office, which was headed by Pope Benedict until his election last year, addressing a Catholic conference in Rome, said: “I hope that you will boycott the film.” In his address to the group, Amato said Christians should be more willing “to reject lies and gratuitous defamation.” He said that if “such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust they would have justly provoked a world uprising.”

He added: “Instead, if they are directed against the Church and Christians, they remain unpunished.” Amato suggested that Catholics around the world should launch organized protests against the The Da Vinci Code film just as some had done in 1988 to protest against Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ. http://www.sabcnews.com/world/europe/0,2172,126503,00.html]

We cannot remain naïve and complacent about the possible harmful effects it would have on the average Catholic moviegoer.

More than their usual intrusion in the realm of politics like the latest pastoral letters of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines where they lambasted the people’s initiative for Charter Change, the good bishops should now launched organized protests against this outrightly blasphemous movie.