Our Readers' Opinions
August 24, 2007

Mr. Rogers huffing, puffing


EDITOR: After reading the response to “Sword of Illogic” in the Searchlight of Friday, July 13th 2007, the following comments came to mind: Does Mr Rogers really believe that the Anti-Christ, spirit or otherwise encourages faith in Christ and avoidance of sin? If he does, it continues to amuse me. The fact that Pope Benedict the XVI and his predecessor encourage faith in Christ and avoidance of sin is not my opinion, it is a matter documented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994).{{more}} The Catechism is a first hand source of knowledge on the Catholic Church, a source I would dearly love Mr Rogers to read. It is such a shame that he places more store in second hand sources of knowledge about the Church. The second hand sources he frequents are misleading, and they are causing him to be judgmental and slanderous.

Mr Rogers in his response claims that there exists a Papal ten commandments, which differs from the commandments as they are found in the Bible in that they omit the commandment against idolatry. Quite to the contrary however, in the Catechism there is a whole section devoted to the Ten Commandments. The section, which spans from page 445 to page 524, deals extensively with Idolatry on page 463. Anyone who has ever referenced to the Catechism knows that there is no such thing as the Papal ten commandments, and that the Church neither allows nor encourages idolatry. Being conscientious enough to track down first hand information could prevent such gross inaccuracy; I certainly hope Mr Rogers and the Editor of the News will take note. Mr Rogers also claims, “Pope John Paul declared that we must obtain salvation through Mary”. I am sure that Mr Rogers is a responsible individual and can therefore produce a reference from a first hand source such as an Encyclical letter, a speech made by John Paul II or the Catechism so as to verify the above accusation.

Mr Rogers goes to yet another second hand source to support his defamation of the Popes by publishing an excerpt that claims Pope Pius V and all other Popes make themselves equal with God. Madam Editor, you could imagine my surprise when I found the excerpt in question word for word, including references in a “yahoo answers” article. Mr Rogers seems to be unaware that presenting other peoples work as his own is called plagiarism. Had he gone to a first hand source such as the Catechism or a Catholic Priest he would found that none of the 265 Popes have ever brought themselves equal with God nor do the faithful see them as such. Page 204 of the Catechism in paragraphs 880 – 883 clearly outlines the Popes’ position in the hierarchy of the Church as Chief Pastor and Successor of Peter who has final Earthly authority in matters of faith and morals. With regard to the quote, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”, (Mt16: 18) since it is Jesus who is speaking these words to Peter it is very difficult to see how anyone could think that these words are directed at Jesus. Mr Rogers seems to be entertaining the idea that Jesus was talking to himself; this is simply hilarious.

On the matter of Peters’ wife, it is true that Peter was married, but throughout the rest of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles and various Epistles we see no evidence he ever went back to her once he had begun his apostolate. Mr Rogers also omits the fact that Jesus himself had no wife because the Church is his Bride. The reason the Popes and Religious of the Catholic Church remain celibate and unmarried is to allow them to remain totally dedicated to service of God so as to emulate Jesus’ example. How easy would it be for a married person with family to pick up and go to war torn regions such as Dafur to minister to the faithful, or into the worst Ghettos in the US or Jamaica to work with Drug Addicts and Gangs? How easy would it be for a married person with family to live each day with little or no salary whilst he or she takes care of Aids Victims and Lepers in the poorest cities in the World? One may not conclude that because he cannot conceive of a reason for a thing, that a reason does not exist. Madam Editor, the rest of Mr Rogers’ huffing and puffing is simply not worth responding to.