A Discussion With A Pro-RH Bill Supporter
By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso
“The walls on all sides of both the inner and the outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers”. 1 Kings 6:29
While the people of God are wandering in the desert God ordered Moses to create an image of a bronze serpent. (Num.21:8-9)
What can we learn from this? It basically tells us that there are two kinds of images. Images that were prohibited by God such as the pagan deities (we do not see any pagan images inside the Church). And the images of saints and angels in which God did not prohibited.
Nowhere in Catholic teaching ever teach nor encourage the worship of images of idols or saints.
We do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) that is why in the Holy Eucharist the center of the worship ceremony is Jesus Christ not Mary and the saints. However, the Bible also says that The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15-16) henceforth if we want to know more about Christ and become close to Christ we have to heed the teachings of the true Church for faith comes from what is heard (Rom.10:17). May God Bless you.
[Eucharists are now are interfered basically for POLITICAL STATEMENTS made by and for the CBCP. Where is the SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND STATE? If the Catholic Church can’t even respect that then might as well TAX the Church.]
The separation of the Church and the State does not entail absolute separation rather, the Church nor the state will not interfere in matters that are purely political or religious. Thus in the Constitution the state is prohibited from espousing or favoring a specific religion. However, it does not prohibits the cooperation of the state and the Church. When the Legislative branch of the state interfered in matters pertaining to morality they are the ones who is violating the separation of the state and the Church because they are imposing a law which is contrary to the moral beliefs of the Filipino people. Remind you that even in our constitution religious beliefs are being respected, thus obliging any person to act contrary to his belief is unconstitutional. There are provisions in the RH BILL that violates the fundamental right of a person. And this fundamental right is protected by our 1987 constitution and that is the right to exercise ones religious belief.
[Its already gone and long since the time of the DAMASO’S and the Hypocrisy. Even Oscar Cruz calling out “Civil Disobedience” what you want you get what you don’t want you interfere with.]
Yes Damaso is long gone because clergies nowadays espouses the example of Fr. Florentino, civil disobedience is justifiable and is an inalienable right of a person if such laws that were implemented are detrimental to his life, dignity and morality. It was through civil disobedience that the Negros were freed from slavery.
Civil Obedience on behalf of the Church is NEVER and i repeat NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You make use of the members of your congregation as PAWNS for the CBCP’S own interest. Then after that the CBCP will make make a say on the Issue which makes the line between the Separation between the Church and State has gone Blurry.
” There are provisions in the RH BILL that violates the fundamental right of a person. And this fundamental right is protected by our 1987 constitution and that is the right to exercise ones religious belief. ”
Again this is never ever forcing itself on everyone, EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE AND THIS WAS GIVEN TO THEM. Di pinagpipilit ito sa mga tao kung magpaparticipate sila, specially when it came to Sex Education which for me is a need these days, KULANG ang guidance ng parents sa mga teenagers lately and it lead to more frequent teenage pregnancy. We were all teenagers once and don’t try to be a saint that curiosity never best us in many ways.
DAYS OF DAMASO Long gone? RUMOR MONGERING, SCANDALS THAT WERE SHUN. Dream on.
Art.III Sec.1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of Law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Isn’t it true that an aborted infant is deprived of his life and liberty? When a fetus or a zygote is aborted due to the use of pills and IUD are they not depriving such a person of his life and liberty? I cannot think of what to call a person who disagrees with this obvious truth. Clearly this is violation of a person’s fundamental right. Furthermore, the Constitution also protects another fundamental right, the freedom of religion.
Art.III Sec.5 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for exercise of civil or political rights.
When health professionals under the penalty of law are coerce to teach or educate his client in using artificial contraception even if it is against his religious belief are they violating his fundamental right? Employers are force to distribute contraceptive pills to their employees even if it is against their religious conviction are they not violating his fundamental right? Are they not forcing these faithful to betray their own conscience for the sake of their so called law?
[There was no clause in forcing the RH Bill on Everyone, and Contraception was already available in the market long ago, it only helps on providing sufficient contraceptives on part of the mass that can’t afford it.]
There is a clause in H.B 4244 (Consolidated version) which forcing the RH BILL to everyone. H.B 4244 Sec.21 forces employers to provide reproductive health services. And by reproductive health services it includes the distribution of contraception. If such an act is contrary to the religious belief of the employer are they not violating his fundamental right as protected by the Constitution?
Aside from the employers, health care professionals faithful to their belief are also coerce to betray their conscience.
H.B 4244 Sec.28: Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall:
(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health, including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods;
under this section a health professional who refuses to educate his client on how to use artificial contraception will be liable to the law even if it is against his religious belief to teach and spread the use of these contraceptive measures. Isn’t it clear that this law prevents the individual from freely exercising his religious belief? And under the precepts of our Constitution is it not clear that hindering the individual from exercising his religious belief is a violation of his fundamental right as stated in the constitution?
[ Then you would be making the case on why not spend the Bill on helping people improve on their livelihood? The Government has already a lot of those and still it may be or not justifiable for the cost and the corruption that may happen within the Government.]
The government lacks the funds for education and health care, how many times have we heard that we lack books, chairs and classrooms for our public schools? What about the government hospitals? If not for Japan under the JPEPA agreement the Southern Philippines Medical Center in Davao City will not have the funds for renovating its buildings. And government hospitals lack sophisticated instruments, supplies and man power, you know why? Because they lack funds!
[Civil Obedience on behalf of the Church is NEVER and i repeat NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You make use of the members of your congregation as PAWNS for the CBCP’S own interest. Then after that the CBCP will make make a say on the Issue which makes the line between the Separation between the Church and State has gone Blurry.]
And by whose authority do you say that civil disobedience in behalf of the Church is never justifiable? You might have forgotten your history class. Who was that person who initiated the People Power that ousted a dictator? It was Cardinal Sin! It was this person who called people through radio veritas to go out in the streets! People Power is an example of civil disobedience! Who where there in the front line facing the tanks with flowers and rosaries? It was the priests, nuns and believers!
[Again this is never ever forcing itself on everyone, EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE AND THIS WAS GIVEN TO THEM. Di pinagpipilit ito sa mga tao kung magpaparticipate sila, specially when it came to Sex Education which for me is a need these days, KULANG ang guidance ng parents sa mga teenagers lately and it lead to more frequent teenage pregnancy. We were all teenagers once and don’t try to be a saint that curiosity never best us in many ways.]
Section 21 and 28 of H.B 4244 (consolidated version) clearly forces an individual to act against his religious convictions and against his conscience. Sex education for elementary and high school students is not appropriate because they don’t have the maturity of an adult to know what is right and what is wrong. We are all teenagers once and we all passed in the state of curiosity however if one’s curiosity is guided to know which one is wrong and which one is not then such an exercise of curiosity is blameless.
The Fr. Florentino nowadays out numbered those of Damaso. Why focus your attention to the Damasos and not on the Florentinos?
By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso
The most common objection raised by fundamentalists on our Catholic faith is the use of images inside the Church. At first they would innocently ask a Catholic why they have images inside the Church, then they would open up their Bible to Exodus 20:5 and say the Bible explicitly prohibit images so why do you have it inside your church? The implication is simple that the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible because it has images of saints inside the Church. A Catholic who knows nothing about his faith would get confuse with such a witty question from a fundamentalist friend. So, how do we respond to this kind of argument? The key in answering this objection is properly understanding the passage that was quoted by the fundamentalist.
“You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not carved idols for yourselves in shape of anything in the sky above or on earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down to them or worship them.” Exodus 20:3-5
For a fundamentalist reading this passage the only thing that he sees are the words “you shall not carve images, do not bow down to them and you shall not have other gods” and completely disregarding the rest of the passage. When using this passage fundamentalist would want you to believe that God is absolutely forbidding the creation of all kinds of images and Catholics are not only creating what was forbidden but also worships the images of saints. It’s time for us to interpret this passage correctly, first and foremost this passage do not absolutely forbid the creation of all types and kinds of images what was forbidden in this passage are the images of idols or the gods and goddesses of pagans. The pagans have gods and goddesses in the sky above, earth below and water beneath the earth and these are the very images that were forbidden by God. The non-absoluteness of the prohibition in the creation of images is evident by God’s own command in the creation of the images of Cherubims.
“Make two Cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory fastening them so that the cherub springs directly from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other , but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory.”Exodus 25:18-20
|Ark of the Covenant with statue of Cherubim|
Aside from the Ark of the Covenant God also ordered the creation of various images inside the temple, not to represent himself by these images but rather serves as aid in worship.
“Two winged creatures were made of olive wood and placed in the Most Holy Place, each one 15 feet tall. Both were of the same size and shape. Each had two wings, each wing 7½ feet long, so that the distance from one wing tip to the other was 15 feet. They were placed side by side in the Most Holy Place, so that two of their outstretched wings touched each other in the middle of the room, and the other two wings touched the walls. The two winged creatures were covered with gold. The walls of the main room and of the inner room were all decorated with carved figures of winged creatures, palm trees, and flowers. Even the floor was covered with gold. A double door made of olive wood was set in place at the entrance of the Most Holy Place; the top of the doorway was a pointed arch. The doors were decorated with carved figures of winged creatures, palm trees, and flowers. The doors, the winged creatures, and the palm trees were covered with gold. For the entrance to the main room a rectangular door frame of olive wood was made. There were two folding doors made of pine and decorated with carved figures of winged creatures, palm trees, and flowers, which were evenly covered with gold.” 1 Kings 6:23-35
God created with body and soul, therefore in worshiping God we not only worship him with our soul but also use our body to worship him. That is the very reason why all our senses our engage in worshiping Him in the Holy Eucharist. The various postures, sacred music, incense and images inside the Church are employed for this reason, to engage the whole person in worshiping God. The worship in the Old Testament are almost synonymous to the manner we worship God in the Holy Eucharist, they too have incense, images in the temple, various postures and sacred music.
“All the signs in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the Holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the “cloud of witnesses” who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in the sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man “in the image of God,” finally transfigured “into his likeness,” who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who are recapitulated in Christ: Following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on the streets. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1161
|St. Pio (Padre Pio)|
I once had a discussion with a Fundamentalist regarding the images inside our Church, since he was very assertive in his belief that Catholics are violating the Scripture I ask him a simple question; Why do you think Catholics have images inside the Church? Surprisingly he did not know the very reason why we Catholics have images inside our Church. The objections of Fundamentalists on our use of images stems not from the proper understanding of the Bible but from the misconceptions that they heard from the preachings of their pastors. We have to correct these misconceptions in order to prevent Catholics from falling away from their faith and also to win back the lost.
Anwering RH BILL Advocates
By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso
The following are the counter arguments for the top 6 arguments used by RH BILL advocates to spread their lies and poison the minds of innocent Filipinos.
Argument # 1: The Philippines is overpopulated
The battle cry of proponents of RH BILL and its principal sponsors both in congress and the senate is that the Philippines is already overpopulated and this is the root cause of poverty. Their battle cry will be vindicated if the Philippines is truly overpopulated. The projected population of the Philippines in 2010 is 94.01M1 and according to the advocates of RH BILL we are dangerously overpopulated and sooner or later our country will be plunged into irreversible poverty. The assumption that we are overpopulated is entirely baseless, their only evidence for their belief that we are overpopulated is the numerical value of our population other than that is simply false assumptions. They keep on telling people through mass media that we are overpopulated yet they did not provide us with any parameters for knowing that we are truly overpopulated. Demographically we are not overpopulated since our population growth rate is steadily declining and there are still a lot of uninhabited spaces for us to live in. The National Statistics Office noted that since 1995 up to 2025 our population growth rate is plunging from 2.32% to 1.4%2 aside from that our total fertility rate is also going down from 3.7 in 1998 to 1.5 in 2025 3just enough to replace the population. These two statistical indicators prove that our population is declining, but how do we explain the latest statistical data that shows the growth of our population from 94 million in the year 2000 to 97 million in the year 2012? The increase in our population is the effect of the increase in growth rate 10 or 20 years ago. The declining growth and fertility rate of the recent statistical data will have its effect 10 to 20 years from now. Basing on these statistics the idea that we are overpopulated is far from reality. They only make use of the overpopulation argument in order to make it appear that there is a need to control the population, but in reality we are not overpopulated and overpopulation is a myth!
Argument # 2: Population spawns poverty
The basic logic behind this argument is that as our population increases it will also increase the poverty rate of our country, in other words the causative factor of poverty is population. Furthermore, they also argued that in order to combat poverty we must control our population. Although the intention of our lawmakers in confronting the problem of poverty is good yet they are throwing a wrong solution to a real problem. Population control is not a solution to poverty, common sense tells us that there can also be poverty in a small population. Population is not our enemy as a matter of fact it is the reason why our economy is still intact in the ongoing global crisis. Economist Bernardo M. Villegas, Ph.d wrote “Lessons are being learned from the ongoing global crisis. One of them is that a large and young population can partly insulate a country from ill effects of global recession.1” In a global perspective population has no relation with poverty, there are countries that has even greater population than us, yet, they are more progressive and has less population in poverty compared with us. The following figures prove my point.
|Comparison of Population|
|Comparison of Poverty rate|
Basing on these statistical data it tells us that there is no correlation between population and poverty. As we have seen the first four countries namely China, India, United States of America and Japan have a higher population compared to Philippines. However, looking at its poverty percentage Philippines has a higher poverty rate compared with the other countries. This data proves two things, an increase in population has no connection with poverty and an increase in population can bolster economic growth. Clearly the arguments used by proponents of RH BILL cannot hold water upon close scrutiny.
There is a principle in medicine “treat the cause not the symptoms”, treating the symptoms of a disease will only temporarily alleviate the person’s discomfort. But, once the effect medicine runs out the symptoms will reappear again. The same principle applies in preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. “Unwanted pregnancy” is a symptom of disease called promiscuity, once you treat promiscuity there will no longer be “unwanted pregnancies”. Human being becomes “unwanted” if they are a result of illicit affair and promiscuity. Thus, in order to prevent “unwanted pregnancy” we must exhaust all possible means to prevent promiscuity and illicit affairs. Teaching the youth how to use through sex education how to use various artificial contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases will only make it worst because you are not condoning promiscuity but encouraging it. Telling the youth to use condoms to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is tantamount in saying that it is not wrong to engage in premarital sex as long as you don’t get pregnant and will protect yourself from diseases. Premarital sex is wrong not only for moral reason but because it is contrary to our nature as human beings. Sex outside of marriage and for the purpose of gratification rather than the transmission of life is a perverse act. Dr. Sigmund Freud wrote “It is a characteristic common to all the perversions, that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual act is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently.2”Freud argued that a sexual act becomes perverse if its aim is no longer reproduction but gratification. In teaching the youth how to avoid pregnancy and attain gratification by the use of artificial contraception proponents of the RH BILL are teaching them how to become perverts.
Argument # 4: Promotion of condom use can lessen the cases of H.I.V infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.
The department of health June 2012 report stated that, “Sexual contact was the most common mode of HIV transmission, accounting for 94% of all reported AIDS cases.1” With this given fact the proponents of the RH BILL proposed the promotion of condom in order to prevent the transmission of HIV (the virus the causes AIDS). Though their intention in preventing the spread of HIV is good, however they are using a wrong solution to a real problem. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) admits that condom use cannot eliminate or prevent the transmission of HIV, it can only reduce the risk of transmission. The CDC reported “Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner.2” Notice that the CDC said that it can only reduce the risk of transmission but it will never totally prevent its transmission thus even if condom is use consistently and correctly there is always the possibility of transmission. With this problem on hand the CDC concede that the most effective way to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV is through abstinence and monogamous relationship; “The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.
3” Most people who are infected with sexually transmitted diseases are those who are living a promiscuous lifestyle like those who engage into premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexual acts and having ,multiple sexual partners. The only solution in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV is to avoid a promiscuous lifestyle.
Argument # 5: Promotion of contraception will decrease maternal death rate
This is another laughable argument used by proponents of RH BILL, they argued that preventing pregnancy will considerably decrease maternal death rate. Let’s us get our facts straight, according to the Department of Health the top 10 mortality rate in the Philippines are a.) Diseases of the heart, b.) Diseases of the vascular system, c.) Malignant neoplasms, d.) Accidents, e.) Pneumonia, f.) Tuberculosis, g.) Chronic lower respiratory diseases, h.) Diabetic mellitus, i.) Certain conditions originating in perinatal period and j.) Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis.1 Perinatal period is defined as a period immediately before and after birth. The perinatal period is defined in diverse ways. Depending on the definition, it starts at the 20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth.2 The Department of Health noted that the top 5 causes of maternal death are a.) Complications related to pregnancy occurring in the course of labor, delivery and puerperium, b.) Hypertension complicating pregnancy (Eclampsia), c.) Post-partum hemorrhage, d.) Pregnancy with abortive outcome and e.) Hemorrhage in early pregnancy.3 Every pregnant mother is at risk in developing either one of this complications, thus the best way to prevent and reduce the risk of having these complications is not to prevent pregnancy that as if pregnancy by itself is a disease. Improving our health care system especially health centers and additional special trainings for health professionals can considerably reduce maternal death rate because we are now more prepared in prevention and management of perinatal complications. To follow the logic of proponents of RH BILL it would be like saying “Let’s not send poor children to school so that we will not have shortage on classrooms!”.
Argument #6: The RH BILL do not espouse abortion
Pro-life advocates are often accused of being deceivers and liars for exposing the hidden agenda of RH BILL which is abortion. Admittedly there is a provision in the RH BILL that explicitly state that abortion is still illegal, but why do we still keep on insisting that the RH BILL is promoting abortion? It’s because it classified the pill and I.U.D under the ambiguous term essential medicine. The Pill is both contraceptive and abortifacient, the Pill works in four ways a.) It suppresses ovulation, b.) It alters cervical mucus to help block sperm entering the cervix, c.) It alters the lining of the womb to prevent nidation (imbedding or implantation) and d.) It alters the movement of fallopian tubes, delaying the passage of ovum, reducing the possibility of fertilization.1 The 3rd effect of the pill which is the prevention of implantation is no contraception but abortifacient. Life begins at conception and what is prevented from being implanted in the womb or uterus is a fertilized egg which is already a human being. If not implanted the fertilized egg will die which is also tantamount to abortion. The Intrauterine Device (IUD) also acts in the same way it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg because it makes the womb or uterus not conducive for implantation. Possibly this is the reason why they classified these abortifacients as essential medicines so that it will no longer be questioned by the public.
THESE ARE THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENTS USED BY PROPONENTS OF THE RH BILL IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THEIR POSITION. BUT EVIDENTLY UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY THEIR ARGMENTS CANNOT HOLD WATER.
Evangelical Pastor’s Lies And Deceptions Part V “Immaculate Conception”
By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso
I am not yet done in exposing Pastor Ballesteros’ false accusations against the Catholic Church as written in his book Important Questions and Answers. This time we’ll tackle his opposition to the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Upon reading his book Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any explanation for his opposition to this God given truth. He chose to simply cite two biblical passages that he thinks contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. What Pastor Ballesteros trying to do is to leave the interpretation of these passages to his readers. But that is a big NO NO in knowing the meaning or interpretation of a given passage, the scriptures condemns private interpretation.
Know this well no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation, since no prophecy comes from human decision for it was men moved by the Holy Spirit who spoke. 2 Peter 1:20-21
Since the Sacred Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefore it must also be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And this is the task of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church alone is the infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scripture (Mt.16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). But Pastor Ballesteros violated this fundamental principle of Scriptural interpretation he wanted his readers to simply interpret on their own the passages he cited that appears to contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. The first Scriptural passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Like 1:46-48 which says;
And Mary said, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults God my savior! Lk.1:46-47
Although Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any argument using the passage but basing on experience most Protestants would argue that since Mary admitted that she needs a savior therefore Mary is not Immaculate as what Catholics believed but she too is a sinner like us. With this kind of reasoning protestants are missing the point of this passage. Notice that Mary claimed Christ as her savior even before Christ died on the cross. Mary was redeemed in a most perfect and special way she was preserved free from all stain of sin. Another passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Rom.3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23
There are two interesting points that I can see in this passage. Consulting the Greek text the word that was used for “all” is “pantes” which describes a large number of people however it allows exemptions from “all” and that would be Jesus Christ and Mary. If St. Paul meant that each and every person without exemptions he could have use a more strict and restrictive Greek word which is “hapas”. But that is not the case St. Paul is trying to say that sin is universal, but universality of sin does not mean everyone has sinned, we have Jesus and Mary who have not commit any sin. Just as we say that the Catholic Church is universal but not everyone is Catholic. Now we turn our focus to the phrase fall short of the glory of God the Scriptures testified that there are only two people who falls not short of God’s glory and that is Jesus and Mary. In John 1:14 it says The Word was made flesh he lived among us and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth. Co-relatively Mary too was called full of grace, Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, Rejoice!, full of grace the Lord is with you”. Very clearly the passages that Pastor Ballesteros used did not contradict the Marian dogma of Immaculate Conception rather it brings to light the biblical soundness of this dogma.
The Church do not teach that Mary’s sinlessness is by her own doing when the dogma of Immaculate Conception was defined by the Pope it was clear that Mary’s preservation from sin is a privilege granted by God in view of the anticipatory merits of Christ on the cross.
Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus
Everything God created is good (1 Timothy 4:4), when God created the first Adam the material (soil) that he used is pure and without blemish. In like manner the new Adam (Christ) was formed from pure and without blemish womb of Mary the new Eve. In Gen.3:15, God in the beginning of time already foreordained that Mary will always be in enmity with the devil, because Mary like God’s first creation was pure and without blemish. In the letter of Paul to the Hebrews it was stated that Christ shared the very flesh and very blood of Mary (Heb.2:14) and this flesh and blood that he took and soon offered to the cross is without blemish (Heb.9:14). Granting that Mary is with sin how can Christ offer an unblemished sacrifice of flesh and blood on the cross if the very flesh and very blood of Christ came from a defiled person? Thus God must have preserved Mary from all stain of original sin for her to give Christ a pure and unblemished flesh and blood to be sacrificed on the cross and redeem mankind.