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.

One Angry Lady

The Office of the Parañaque City Mayor, circulated a Memorandum of City Administrator Noli R. Aldip entitled “Unauthorized Collection of Fees by Homeowners”, enjoining “homeowners and the public to report any collection of fees not authorized by law to the proper authorities in order that appropriate criminal charge could be filed.”

Atty. Veny Cruz writes in reaction to this Memo (slightly edited):

The Memo has driven me to disgust and near dispair. It shows not only the ignorance of the law, but total ignorance of legislative processes.

It relies on a Committee Report of the House of Representatives several Congresses ago. To the uninitiated, Congress’ only power is to legislate. Enact laws, that is. Committee hearings are only in aid of legislation. They can compel witnesses yes, but otherwise there is nothing to the hearings, only to find out if there is need of legislation.

That Committee Report was never reported out on the floor of that Congress and never went farther than that. The thing is when the term of that Congress expired, that report died with it. In practice, if somebody wanted it seriously to become a law, it should have been re-filed. It never was.

In any case, just so the public may know, that report was occasioned by the noisy complaint of a congressman whose commercial vehicle was charged entry fees. You know how these blathering Congressmen are. He has been quiet after that. I went to the hearings myself.

Finally, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which implements Presidential Decree 957 has put it in its Rules on the Registration and Supervision of Homeowners Associations – that homeowners associations can indeed charge tolls, fees for the use of its roads for as long as the association is the one maintaining it and the same are not turned over to the local government concerned.

Which is exactly the case in BF Homes.

As to the matter of consent of all the homeowners, the fees we charge comply with that. Remember that BF Homes is all of 765 has; about 12,000 homeowners, over 64,000 actual residents. How in heaven’s name can you get a physical majority of that for every regulation we make? That is why, in our administrative structure, United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI) is divided into 15 sectors, each sector composed of homeowners associations. The duly elected sectoral chairman automatically sits as directors of UBFHAI and it is they, the Board that passes the resolutions on the fees, etc. The local presidents/homeowners are accordingly informed of this. This system has been in place for all of 17 years and officially sanctioned by the HLURB. It is by the way, the only one of its kind in the country, but yes, officially recognized.

But I guess, all these are beyond the comprehension of the city administrator and the one he serves. His intelligent understanding is also beyond our concern. We cannot help him out of it except by the letters we send. Read my lips.

The question of fees raised by the city is actually the same question raised by the noisy group of businessmen who have the mayor's ear since time immemorial, including a certain attorney who by the way was the one assiduously following up his informer's fee in the garnishment of UBFHAI funds. They have filed cases in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, intervened in the Court of Appeals in our nullification case of the zoning ordinance and when the Parañaque case was dismissed, they went to the HLURB, which also dismissed it on grounds of forum shopping. Now that they have nowhere to go, they go to the mayor's office, but that is a dead end. Just so you see the inanity of all these. The mayor and his administrator are not aware of what they did in the past and are acting on their say so. Let them all stew in their own juices.

Homeowners Fight Back

BF Homes Parañaque homeowners are engaged in a courageous fight against the local government officials to keep the residential character of their neighborhood which is threatened urban greed. City officials, developers, and opportunists want to construct physical structures for the benefit of business. Homeowners oppose this move since this will mean more and more space will be devoted to working and making money and less space to living and nurturing life.

The conflict is of residents protecting their living spaces against the depredations of those who want to use the community and its resources mainly as instruments of profit. All of us are in the same sinking boat being steered by market forces led by our city officials, developers and opportunists into the sea of unbridled commercialism.

It bears repeating that BF Homes Parañaque is a private subdivision and the rights vested in homeowners under PD-957 such as the right to enjoy and the entitlement to the promises of the developer (BFHI), i.e., the right to live in a residential neighborhood, a condition written into and annotated in our titles as notice to the world devolve on and can be exercised by UBFHAI as the duly recognized representative of all homeowners. PD-957 has not been repealed by the Local Government Code (R.A. 7160); therefore, we can enforce our own guidelines which are not contrary to law over and above mayors or building permits.

When Parañaque Mayor Jun Bernabe forcibly opened the access roads of the subdivision, homeowners challenged the validity of Ordinance 00-15(672), asserting that homeowners are the beneficial owners of the roads and open spaces privately titled to the developer, having paid for them when they purchased their properties. As such, the local government cannot simply take over private property without due process.

It will be recalled that the 8th Division of the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated March 27, 2006, issued an injunctive relief, the dispositive portion of which is as follows:

“UBFHAI has continuously administered, regulated and maintained the use of the private roads inside the BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision even employing security guards to man their major gates, issuing passes and tickets for entry into the subdivision for certain purposes and charging fees set by the association. As owners or administrators of private roads, appellants are entitled to continue to enjoy exclusive access therein for their own protection and security and to regulate its use by non-residents within the limits prescribed by law and administrative rules. Appellants have sufficiently shown that the ordinance directing the opening of the subdivision gates has actually caused them injury due to the unmitigated flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrians, and proliferation of crimes that threatened the security of their private homes and properties. Precisely, the law has tasked the owner or developer to initiate the organization of a homeowners’ association for the purpose of promoting and protecting their mutual interest and assist in their community development.”

By virtue of the March 27, 2006, Resolution, the appellate court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated March 30, 2006, restraining “the City Mayor of Parañaque, its Sanggunuiang Panglunsod and the Philippine National Police, and all other persons acting for and in your behalf… from enforcing the assailed Ordinance No. 00-15 (672), Series of 2000.”

In a letter to Parañaque Mayor Jun Bernabe dated April 17, 2006, the Association cited incidents in violation of the injunctive writ, i.e., the posting of civil security units or guards back at the gates on orders of the mayor, and the refusal to issue posting permits to any United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI) security agency as a means of indirectly controlling the subdivision’s access gates. Having put “these acts of direct and indirect violations of a legal and lawful writ”, the Association is seeking “appropriate sanctions against you”, the letter continued.

The mayor is misinformed when he insists that the Writ is lifted with the filing of the motion for reconsideration in the appellate court. Any student of law knows that a Writ is in force from issuance and service thereof until lifted by the issuing or higher court. The mayor has thrown all caution to the wind and risks contempt of court by his personal presence at the gates, ordering the Association guards to allow full and untrammeled access by the general public to the subdivision’s roads and by posting civil security units at the gates in violation of the Writ.

UBFHAI is determined to strictly screen incoming and exiting vehicles and pedestrians in accordance with the Integrated Security Program (ISP). The Association deployed volunteers to ensure that movements of vehicles, pedestrian and goods are legitimate and will not prejudice the homeowners.

The attempt of about 20 SWAT operatives to intimidate and “invite” the civilian guards to the police station for “investigation” is a waste of taxpayers’ money. There is no law that prohibits the Association from employing or availing of the services of volunteers to man its gates. Whether they are homeowners or not, therefore, is of no consequence.

Detractors are resorting to slogans and propaganda, demanding an investigation of the Association president, claiming that Association funds are being “illegally” collected and disbursed. Slogans persuade people without appealing to reason. It’s scary because we have to critically discriminate which slogans and emotional appeals are true and right and proper and which are not.

Undoubtedly, the legal expenditures are high since the Association’s Board of Directors resolved to engage the best legal councils the Association can afford in its defense. Illegal? Nonsense.

And, according to “praise” releases in the national and local media, the mayor is asking motorists to report “harassment” at the gates so that appropriate criminal charges could be filed. (Applause sound effect.) This is a good spin, but who’s going to fall for it? Homeowners are not prevented from entering the subdivision even if they do not have stickers. All they will be asked for is proof of residency and they will be waved through.

Access to the Elizalde and Tirona gates is limited to pre-screened vehicles, i.e., vehicles of residents with “Red stickers” and their guests with “Green stickers”. Security will screen vehicles without vehicular “stickers” at the other 6 gates, allowing vehicles of residents without vehicular “stickers” to pass after showing proof of residency or when the vehicle owners are residents of BF Homes. Vehicle and pedestrian screening will undoubtedly cause inconvenience but this is the price we all have to pay in exchange for our peace of mind.

The mayor is throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, so to speak, at the homeowners for a persistent minority of commercial owners, businessmen and opportunists in a futile attempt to open the privately titled subdivision roads of the subdivision. Indeed, BF Homes Parañaque residents are special. For they have the distinction of having been chosen by the mighty businessman-mayor of Parañaque to be fed to his constituents!

Making Moral Decision

Today, as parents, we know that it’s a moral jungle out there. We fear for our children’s safety, their survival, and their very souls. Body, soul, and spirit are all threatened; health, happiness, and holiness are very difficult to maintain.

“These days, no one really commits a crime, does someone wrong, or sins. Everyone who’s gone beyond the norm of acceptable and honorable behavior is not guilty but dysfunctional, with neuroses and childhood trauma used to explain sociopathic behavior and personal evil. This is in line with current thinking on “sin” and human frailty.”

In the current thinking, remorse is becoming obsolete and excuses just about cover all misdeeds. Almost every wrong action can be stripped of consequences, along with the need for feelings of remorse.

What is the cause of this deplorable state of affairs? It seems we have lost our sense of what’s “wrong” and what’s “right.” There are no more moral absolutes. Peter Kreeft explains:

We no longer like to talk about moral laws, values, and about moral absolutes. This may seem unimportant, but it is momentous. For laws are objectively real; they come from above us and command us. The formula for a moral law is “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not.” But values have no such strong bite, not absolute demand. They suggest something subjective, not objective: “my” values or “your” values or “society’s” values. Values come from us; laws come to us. We invent values, but we are under laws. Values are nice ideals to aspire to if we wish; laws tell us what we ought to do whether we like it or not. But we do like to talk about morality, a morality without absolutes. But a morality without absolutes is not morality at all. Morality means something different from doing what we please, or what we calculate will turn out all right or what works; morality means doing what we ought to do. Morality is not optional, like a “value,” but obligatory, like a law. A morality without laws and obligations is simply confusion, like a triangle without angles.

How do most of us decide what to do and what not to do, what to say and what not to say, most of the time? By three standards: (1) social fads and fashions, others’ expectations, peer pressure, “everybody’s don’t it”; (2) our feelings (“it can’t be wrong if it feels so right”)’ and (3) our desire for the easiest, most pleasant, least troublesome life. I think most of use these three standards far more often than the standard of good and evil, right and wrong, in deciding what to do. If we’re asked why we did something, how often do we answer, “Because it was right”?

Even our popular guides and teachers won’t use words like “right” and “wrong.” They use sociological gobbledygook and psychobabble like “appropriate behavior” or acceptable behavior” instead of plain moral common sense.

Very often we have to determine “black and white” in a world of “grays”: making choices for everyday moral decisions. Choosing is hard because it means discriminating, refusing, saying no to one path as we say yes to the other.

Moral choices are choices between what is really, objectively right and what is really objectively wrong. According to Thomas Aquinas, there are three parts to morality, and all three parts must be good for any act to be morally good. The three are [1] the objective act itself, [2] the subjective motive, and [3] the situation, or circumstances.

Moral laws can help us with the first part. They define which kinds of acts are good or bad, not because of our motive or intention, but because of the act itself.

The second factor in determining morality is the intention, or motive. The first factor, the nature of the act itself, is objective; the second factor, the intention, is subjective. We must always have good intentions, just as we must always do good things. Hate, greed, lust, envy, sloth, wrath, pride or despair are absolutely wrong motives, just as murder, theft, etc. are absolutely wrong deeds.

In addition to these two absolute factors, there is the third factor, which is relative: the situation, or circumstances. These are endlessly changing, and we have to make up our minds how best apply the moral absolutes to relative situations. For instance, charity to the poor may mean giving a tramp money for food, but in another situation it may mean refusing him money because he’d use it on alcohol. Or charity to the poor may mean contributing to a large charitable organization, or electing certain political candidate.

All three factors must be morally right for the act to be right. If you do the wrong thing, it is wrong, even if your motive is sincere. Perhaps Hitler was sincere in his desire to “improve” the world. But what he did was wrong. You can be sincere and insane.

If you do the right thing for the wrong reason, it is also wrong, just as wrong as doing the wrong thing for the right reason. Giving money away only to avoid paying taxes, for instance, is doing a morally good thing but not for a morally good reason.

Finally, the circumstances must also be right. If any one of these three factors is wrong, the act is wrong; if all three are right, the act is right.

There is a strong double standard in most of our society, especially the media. If any one dares to suggest that adultery is wrong, that person is labeled a fanatic of some sort. But if the same person were to denounce political corruption, he would be considered enlightened and responsible. If anyone dares to call promiscuity “promiscuity” instead of a “sexually active lifestyle,” he is immediately labeled narrow-minded.

We do not tolerate inside trading by stockbrokers but we tolerate extra-marital affairs. We do not tolerate graft and corruption but we tolerate adultery. Apparently, we are very serious about money and very loose about sex. Money is holy but sex is secular, money is worthy of respect but sex is a mere medium of exchange. In other words, we treat money like sex and sex like money. This explains why morally bankrupt individuals are voted into office.

We are too tolerant of injustice and oppression and greed and lust and other forms of selfishness. We have to learn to discriminate, to hate not the self but the selfishness, not the sinner but the sin.

Rejecting the "Da Vinci Code"

Why Does Sony Fear Free Publicity?

Source: http://www.tfp.org/davincicode/why_does_sony_fear_publicity.htm

“Don’t protest, you’re just giving them free publicity!”

That is the advice that the anti-blasphemy protester must often endure when organizing protests in front of theaters.

The conventional wisdom is that controversy generates interest. And interest will in turn only fuel ticket sales. The best thing a Catholic can do in face of a blasphemous movie is to ignore it. Don’t go. Do nothing.

Thus, the TFP massive protests in front of theaters and especially its current efforts to organize 1,000 protests against The Da Vinci Code movie are at best well-intentioned but counter-productive.

Indeed if the free publicity mantra were true, then film producers should be fanning the controversy, welcoming the protests and laughing all the way from the box office to the bank.

However, as the release date for The Da Vinci Code nears, no one seems to be laughing.

Reputation Management

The web site of Sitrick & Co. is crisp and professional. As one of the nation’s leading public relations firms, it is best known for its communications work in “sensitive situations” and for “reputation management.”

“The old saw of no publicity is bad publicity no longer applies,” warns Allan Mayer of Sitrick and Company, one of the leading Hollywood damage-control experts. He should know. As head of the firm’s entertainment division, he has seen plenty of cases where controversy has ruined the careers of many a star. [1]

Described by Variety as “Hollywood’s most prominent crisis specialists,” it is no coincidence that Sony pictures has hired Sitrick & Co. to handle the sensitive controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code movie. Films perceived as blasphemous are serious business.

As the Wall Street Journal article “Da Vinci Damage Control” notes, Sony is doing everything possible to avert backlash from religious groups. “Sony is particularly concerned about appearing insensitive to religious beliefs,” the Journal’s Hollywood Report observed.[2]

As the May 19 release date approaches, Sony is pulling out the stops in its public relations offensive, hoping to deflect critics who protest the film’s central premise that Christ married to Mary Magdalene, its rewriting of early Church history and its Machiavellian depiction of the Catholic Church. In this case, “free publicity” generated by potential protesters is a crisis, not an opportunity. Hired specialists are on the scene to avoid a false move that could jeopardize the filmmaker’s reputation.

Trying to Dialogue

Not only has Sony contracted Hollywood’s most able spinmeisters, but it has also hired a second firm, Grace Hill Media, a media firm which specializes in courting Christian audiences.

Grace Hill Media, a Hollywood firm headed by Jonathan Bock has been given the unenviable task of dealing with those Christians who oppose the book’s thesis. The firm will employ methods which some opponents believe will try to blunt protesters’ opposition.

Dialogue is the key word. In fact, Grace Hill has even gone to the point of having Sony set up its own opposition web site where protesters can vent their opinions. The site, thedavincidialogue.com, is hardly convincing, although its developers certainly spent a lot of time and resources to find a panel of religious “experts” to discuss The Da Vinci Code. However, with essay titles like “Why Christians Ought to See the Movie,” it is not difficult to perceive a not-so-hidden agenda — especially since none of the “experts” have been allowed to see the movie yet.

For a site that offers to “dialogue” with Christians, it curiously offers no mechanisms whereby offended Christians can send their concerns directly to Sony Pictures. Instead, there is a discussion forum that takes one to a distastefully named HollywoodJesus.com site where a few Christians have taken up the challenge to fence with non-believers.

In a patronizing tone, protesters are also invited to put down their signs and pray to gain new insights into the film. “Praying about The Da Vinci Code is less about the book’s brouhaha and the film’s frenzy,” the site’s “Hollywood Prayer Network” section claims, “and more about those doing the praying. It’s about us. Through prayer, we gain wisdom, grace, strength and insight.”[3]

Avoiding the B-word

Throughout the controversy, Sony has steered clear of the term “blasphemy,” preferring to turn the matter into a kind of cultural event, a fictional thriller or an historic commentary.

Catholic screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi believes Sony’s “discussion” of the film is actually steering the debate away from the content of the movie. She heads a company called Act One which trains Christian artists for film-industry work, because she believes that Christians are fair game in Hollywood.

“We’re all arguing now about what cultural engagement means,” she said, “and no one’s talking about the movie. That’s brilliant strategy from Sony’s perspective. They’ve got us off their tail, because now we’re all fighting each other. Genius — I wish I’d thought of it.”[4]

Indeed it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine what the film is all about. At the same time Sony downplays the movie as a fictional thriller, it has put up a web site to “educate people” about theological and historical issues connected to the film.

In a case of having your cake and eating it, film promoters proclaim it is all just fiction, while its author, Dan Brown, insists all the louder that the novel has historical sources. On an opening page of the bestseller, Mr. Brown unabashedly writes, “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

In a confusing atmosphere of “dialogue” and pseudo-scholarly opinions, the debate is being sidetracked. Promoters are staying away from the very serious charge of blasphemy and asking protesters to do likewise.

This is a strange dialogue where one side is being asked to give in on everything and the other gives up nothing at all.

Effective Protest

Blasphemy! That is the word that the filmmakers fear. It is the only word that sufficiently describes the offense given to Christians in what they perceive as a brutal “insensitivity to religious beliefs.” It is the only word that addresses the central issue of how the massive promotion of a work can be seen as both insulting and offending to God, Himself.

Blasphemy is by its nature the gravest sin that may be committed against religion. In the contempt expressed in blasphemy is the implication that God is contemptible. In publicly portraying God falsely there is the implication of attributing to God that which does not belong to Him or deny Him that which is His.

In a work that so blatantly denies to Christ His very Divinity, it is no wonder there are protests against The DaVinci Code.

And that is why anti-blasphemy protests are so effective. It returns the debate to where it belongs. It reveals before the public just how onerous the offense being committed is.

And that is why promoters must have recourse to “reputation management” and damage control specialists to shift the terms of the debate. Indeed, when art attaches itself to blasphemy, no amount of publicity, free or otherwise, can remove the stigma of the offense.

Making a Moral Decision

Those who claim protests are free publicity cannot point to any case where blasphemy protests have helped a film, play or exhibit. Such protests turn what would normally be for moviegoers a night of entertainment into a moral decision. More often than not, blasphemous works experience an initial notoriety and die ignominiously.

At the 96^th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Museums (AAM) in Dallas, museum professionals held a special workshop about dealing with protests.

Journalist and panel member Hollis Walker bluntly told the audience to consider blasphemy protests “no-win situations.” Their best policy is defense and damage control.

“At the very beginning, if you see something like this erupting, my best advice to you is to go hire the best public relations crisis consultant you can find,” she stressed, “because the internal public relations and marketing people at museums are not equipped to deal with this kind of issue.”[5]

It appears Sony is following such advice. It remains to be seen if they can brave the storm.

Meanwhile, anti-blasphemy protests will be held at theaters all over the country. Protesters will be proclaiming that blasphemy is not entertainment and they will be asking each moviegoer to make a moral decision.

If protesting is free publicity, Sony will certainly be paying for it.

Notes:

[1] Chris Jones, “When is bad publicity a bad career move?”Chicago Tribune, Feb. 8, 2004.

[2] John Lippman, “Da Vinci Damage Control,” The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 17, 2006.

[3] http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/pray.cfm

[4] Bill Fentum, “Christians Wrestle With The Da Vinci Code,” United Methodist Reporter, Mar. 27, 2006.

[5] Taken from tapes 02446-0901 and 02446-0902 of the talk “Our Lady of Controversy: The Cyber Arte Exhibition at the Museum of International Folk Art,” recorded at the Association of American Museum’s Annual Meeting & Museum Expo 2002. Tapes were produced by Chesapeake Audio/Video Communications, Inc. Elkridge, Maryland, 2002.