The column by Constance Scrafield-Danby, entitled "Time to admit fallibility", (Oct. 22) is, ironically, so wrong in so many ways that it cannot go unchallenged. Simply put, the article is poorly reasoned and factually incorrect.

While the author is entitled to her opinion she does enjoy a means of expressing that opinion in a way that can influence others. In light of that fact the errors and weaknesses contained in that article must be exposed.

Let me state clearly that I am not defending, in any way, the Bishop in question. I am upset and sickened by what this man did. However others, such as the author in question, are using this situation to espouse their own views in a way that is neither logical nor accurate. Nor am I defending celibacy here. A far better job of that was done by Fr. Raymond D'Souza in a National Post article, "Why Priests don't have kids," published Aug, 27, 2009.

The article itself is a poorly constructed "strawman" argument. The author has presented the issue of celibacy in such a way so as to render it easy to take apart and show how her opinion is correct. To accomplish this she presents information that is either inaccurate or incomplete.

Then, having obtained the reader's confidence in her reasoning, she proceeds to criticize what she's really after: the Papal position against the use of condoms in fighting HIV/ AIDS. I will also show that her position is incorrect, but let us return to the first half of the article which deals with celibacy.

Along with constructing a straw man argument the author also incorrectly argues from the particular to the universal. In short, she argues that since some priests have problems with celibacy, all priests have problems with celibacy, and thus celibacy should be abandoned. That is equivalent to saying that since some parents abuse their children all parents abuse their children, and thus we should abandon parenthood. The fallacy should be obvious.

Furthermore, the author refers to a priest quoted by CBC Radio One who calls celibacy an "unnatural life the Church imposes upon its priests..." This is a contradiction. A discipline freely chosen cannot be one that is imposed. No one forces someone to become a priest, and all priests know quite well what is being asked of them well before the day of ordination.

We now turn our attention to historical and factual inaccuracies. Firstly, the accusation that St. Paul was a misogynist is an "ad hominem" or "against the man (person)" argument. It tries to undermine the credibility of the person by attacking their personal character. This accusation of misogyny has been laid against him in modern times but it does not hold up under close examination. It's too simplistic.

St. Paul was a man of his times. Women did not enjoy equality with men and Paul was raised in a patriarchal society, but he was also a man who had a profound conversion experience. All his writings have to be understood in that context. He saw, for example, that baptism in Christ was the great equalizer (see Galatians 3:27-8). He worked alongside, praised and supported women in teaching and preaching. Where he did not support women the cause was usually due to local problems and abuses.

Are St. Paul's writings controversial? Indeed, both in the first century and now, but the controversy does not arise from some politically correct ideological interpretation that is evident in Ms. Scrafield-Danby's article. It arises because it is a challenge to all, men and women, to go beyond the wounded relationships experienced as a result of the Fall and to see their perfection as human beings in their submission to Christ Jesus. More can be said but I am limited in space.

Perhaps my greatest contention with the article in question is the gross error evidenced in the presentation of Christian Dogma. It brings into question the author's theological competence. The author writes that "according to dogma, Jesus was sent by God to be a human amongst humans." This part is correct.

What is gravely incorrect is the second part: "His Son was, in part, God's way of coming to understand what he created, to feel our pain, know our dilemmas and understand our lusts." This is both a logical and theological fallacy.

By definition God is perfect. God (understood as a communion of three Divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) cannot be lacking in any way. For God to need some understanding regarding those he created would contradict the logical definition of God as "all knowing".

This is theologically incorrect in that Jesus did not come so that God could understand suffering but rather so that human beings could truly understand the meaning of suffering. Jesus also came to transform suffering from something tragic to something salvific. By his suffering, death and resurrection Jesus turned the ultimate defeat into the great victory over sin.

Jesus is a Divine Person, the Son of God (Logos), that St. John so beautifully described at the beginning of his gospel. While Jesus, in his humanity, "grew in wisdom and in stature" (Lk. 2:52), in his Divinity was a perfect understanding of all creation, for he was its creator, as the Apostle's Creed states "though him (the Son) all things were made." This error in Dogma is just another example, along with the one's laid out above, of the erroneousness of this author's opinion. Yet there is even more.

If this article is any indication then this author lacks a certain depth to her reasoning. She writes that "our physical life includes sexual activity and it would be hard to understand our humanity without sexual knowledge." This comment is either woefully superficial or grossly arrogant. Physical life may include sexual activity, but it is not a necessity. Many men and women have expressed a profound understanding of our humanity while having remained virgins. Great spiritual writers and mystics such as Sts. Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Frances de Sales are but a few who express an unrivalled understanding of human life and dignity. I would also dare anyone to show me how their lives as celibates and virgins had deprived Pope John Paul II or Mother Teresa of a profound understanding of humanity. In fact, it is often the virgin and the celibate who understands better than the rest of us what true humanity is.

Finally, we get to the real point that Ms. Scrafield-Danby wants to make. Her first half of the article was, as I said, a straw-man argument that she could set up and dismantle so that she could justify what she really wanted to criticize: Pope Benedict's stance on condoms. Really, we were set up so that we'd buy her criticism of the Pope without thinking about it critically.

So, let's ask a very simple question. Is the Pope right or wrong? Is there any evidence or scholarly secular support for the Holy Father's position?

A 2002 Report by USAID entitled "What happened in Uganda" explains in detail the factors that contributed to the decrease of AIDS infection rates from a high of 15% in 1991 to 5% in 2001. The key contributing factors were the emphasis on abstinence and fidelity rather than condoms (though they were certainly available). Naturally there are many alternate suggestions to explain this decrease but the report deals with them and space prevents me from elaborating.

In Botswana the abstinence program was all but abandoned in 1993 and the focus was directed towards condoms. According to the secular AIDS charity AVERT, "Successful social marketing and subsidisation have substantially increased condom use in Botswana. Population Services International (PSI) has helped to promote the 'Lovers Plus' condom since 1993 and the 'Care' female condom since 2002. One of PSI's key strategies for marketing condoms has been peer education, which has been conducted in a variety of settings such as fairs and festivals, shopping malls, workplaces and bars."

AVERT continues: "In 2003 the Government of Botswana, with funding and technical support from ACHAP, launched an extensive condom distribution and marketing campaign, providing for the installation of 10,500 condom dispensers in traditional and non-traditional outlets throughout the country. Millions of condoms have been procured for free distribution."

The emphasis on condoms has seen the infection rate in Botswana go from 13% in 1995 to 24% in 2008. Enough said.

Does the Pope have any support from secular experts?

Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies seems to be one such supporter. In an interview with National Review Online on March 19, 2009, following comments made by Pope Benedict regarding the ineffectiveness of condoms, Green stated that "The pope is correct or to put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments." He stresses that "condoms have been proven to not be effective at the 'level of population.'"

As I said at the outset, Ms. Scrafield- Danby is certainly entitled to her opinion, but I hope it has been made evidently clear that her opinion is based more on ideological bias than it is on logical and factual reasoning. Her argumentation is flawed, relying as it does on logical fallacies, her theological (dogmatic) understanding of God is erroneous, her scriptural interpretation is too simplistic and her criticism of Pope Benedict's position is refuted by statistical data and expert opinion.

Ms. Scrafield-Danby is right, it is "Time to admit fallability". Hers.

Dennis Buonafede , B.A., S.T.B., B.Ed.,

M.Div. Brampton