To see others...

"The man whose heart was hardened by wealth went to Rabbi Eisig. The Rabbi said to him: ''Look out of the window, and tell me what you see in the street.' 'I see people walking up and down .' Then he gave him a looking glass: 'Look in this and tell me what you see.' The man replied: 'I see myself.' 'So you do not see others anymore? Consider that the window and the mirror are both made of glass; but, since the mirror has a coating of silver, you only see yourself in it, while you can see others through the transparent glass of the window. I am very sorry to have to compare you to these two kinds of glass. When you were poor, you saw others and had compassion on them; but being covered with wealth, you see only yourself. It would be much the best thing for you to scrape off the silver coating so that you can again see other people.'"


- Jean de Menasce


Visited mom at therapy today as I do every day.  Mom's roommate is an elderly lady named Martha.  Martha's husband, also a veteran, died many years ago and is buried in Baldwinville. As mom and I talk, I always include Martha in the conversation.  Perhaps because I can appreciate the pain of feeling excluded or left out.  The three of us kid and joke and it's obvious that this brings her joy - her face lights up and radiates happiness.  I offer to get Martha a cup of coffee or cocoa when I get mom one.

These are little things.  But the difference we can make in a person's life is something we will never fully appreciate in this one,  only in eternity.

"By this will men know that you are My disciples.  That you have love for one another."

Meditation here.

Look who's calling the kettle black....

As noted here, "President Obama lamented the rancorous, divided state of U.S. politics in a wide-ranging interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson.

In the unusual discussion, Obama revealed some of his longstanding frustrations with politics while asking the Iowa author questions about her family, her Christian faith and her writings.

'How do you reconcile the idea of faith being really important to you and you caring a lot about taking faith seriously with the fact that, at least in our democracy and our civic discourse, it seems as if folks who take religion the most seriously sometimes are also those who are suspicious of those not like them?' Obama asked during the interview, which was published Monday in the New York Review of Books."

Rather than addressing the serious and substantive criticisms – or just plain concerns – directed at his policies, Obama has chosen time and again to dismiss his critics by painting them as dishonest, emotionally unstable or simply obstinate.  His fiercest criticism has been directed at those who are actually committed toward their religious beliefs, especially Christians.

Remember when he asserted that Americans who disapprove of homosexuality are clinging to worn arguments and old attitudes. Clearly no one has ever gifted Obama with a copy of Dale Carnegie's best-selling book.

Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).

Obama accuses people of faith with sincere and deeply held religious beliefs as being "suspicious of others." This from the same POTUS whose administration authorized a document entitled the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon," which was issued to the Department of Homeland Security. In this lexicon, the Obama administration defined pro-life advocates as follows: "A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently anti-abortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities."

Religious belief isn't the reason why we lack civil discourse in our politics.  The root behind such incivility is fanaticism; The fanaticism which seeks to demonize the other, as Obama frequently does.  See here for example.

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation. It cannot be asserted too strongly or repeated too often that those the Nazis made use of in their camps - techniques for degrading their victims in their own eyes, for making mud and filth of them - and those which Soviet propagandists use to discredit their adversaries, are not essentially different though we should, in fairness, add that sadism, properly so called, is not to be found in the Russian camps." (pp. 135-136, 149).

Marcel explains that, "In fact, the greatest merit of the critical spirit is that it tends to cure fanaticism, and it is logical enough that in our own fanatical times the critical spirit should tend to disappear, should no longer even be paid lip service as a value."

It is obvious that President Obama is no fan of the critical spirit but has, rather, succumbed to ideological fanaticism and the techniques of degradation.

He is the one suffering from suspiciousness of others.  To the point of anti-religious paranoia.

"A new religion that welcomes all the others, as long as they submit to it."

Years ago I warned that Masonic forces were preparing the masses for a new religion which would overtake Christianity and abolish the Ten Commandments.  And now this.

The article describes, "believers of a new religion in which the Earth is the center and the horizon. A new religion that welcomes all the others, as long as they submit to it.”

This is the Satanic order being prepared for us. In an article published in Polish in Panorama and written by Dr. J. Coleman, an Intelligence officer, Dr. Coleman is quoted as having said that, "The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, in some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan."

The signs of the Times are emerging. But only for those whose eyes are still open through prayer.

Chilean priests demand resignation of Bishop alleged to have covered up for sexual abuser

The Associated Press is reporting that:

"A group of Chilean priests on Thursday demanded for the resignation of a bishop, accusing him of covering up for a prominent priest who sexually abused altar boys.

The priests and deacons in the southern city of Osorno made their request to Ivo Scapalo, the papal nuncio in Chile. They said newly appointed bishop Juan Barros Madrid covered up for the Rev. Fernando Karadima.

Victims have said Karadima began abusing them at his residence at the Sacred Heart of Jesus church in Santiago about 20 years ago, when they were between 14 and 17 years old."

Not long ago, speaking to a papal audience, Pope Francis  asked people to think about how they approach the Mass and what difference it makes in their lives and the lives of their parishes.

Do you go to Mass because it's a habit or a time to see your friends? the pope asked. "Or is it something more?"

"When we go to Mass, we find ourselves with all sorts of people," the pope said. "Does the Eucharist we celebrate lead me to consider all of them as brothers and sisters? Does it increase my ability to rejoice when they do and to weep with those who weep?"

Pope Francis told those present that, "it's not enough to say one loves Jesus; it must be shown in love for those he loved."

There are many who view Pope Francis' decision to appoint Rev. Robert J. Geisinger to be his chief prosecutor of serious church law violations, including child sexual abuse to be utterly insensitive and even despicable. See here. This because the Jesuit was himself one of several Catholic officials who allowed a notorious abusive priest to remain in ministry for years after learning of his long history of sexual abuses, legal documents show.

It's not enough to say that one loves Jesus.  Our love must be shown in love for those He loves.  Amen Pope Francis. Perhaps you could set the example here by offering more than lip service to the victims of sexual abuse?

Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their contempt for the American people

The New Orleans Advocate reports:

"NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq."

Jesse Walker, at his Hit and Run Blog, recalls a story which some of us conservatives remember all too well. He notes that, "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on [March 25, 2008, that] she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

In her speech, Clinton had claimed: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Lying to promote one's own image and to manipulate others.  And this from two individuals who spend their lives in the pursuit of influencing public opinion.

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

But fanaticism is precisely what we find in the Democratic Party and those liberals who pretty much dominate every corner of the mainstream media which long ago buried any remains of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

This is nothing less than a moral tragedy. When communicating with others, we all have certain responsibilities.  For example, we all have a responsibility to submit ourselves to truth when communicating.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, “As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God.  Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed.  Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good.  But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth.  The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.”

This is exactly what Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have shown.  They care not so much for the common good as they do for their own good and their desire to control and manipulate others.

I thank you Lord that I am not like these others.....

I thank you Lord that I'm not like those members of the Curia who feel immortal, immune or indispensable and who do not criticize themselves.  I thank you Lord that I'm not part of that sick body which has become spiritually and mentally hardened. I thank you that I don't have spiritual Alzheimer’s and that I haven't forgotten my encounter with the Lord.  I thank you that I do not on the here and now succumb to my passions, whims and manias.  I thank you that I have not become enslaved to idols built with my own hands like the rotten idolatrous Curia.

I thank you that I am not boastful and arrogant and that I do not make my vestments or title the primary objective of life.

I thank you that I don't live a double life and that I haven't succumbed to the rotten fruit of hypocrisy that is typical of mediocre and progressive spiritual emptiness that academic degrees cannot fill.

I thank you Lord that, unlike the filth around me, I haven't abandoned pastoral service while limiting myself to bureaucratic work, losing contact with reality and concrete people.

I thank you Lord that, unlike the spiritual degenerates around me, I haven't committed the terrorism of gossip; that I haven't become a cowardly piece of human refuse who, not having the courage to speak directly, talks behind people’s backs.

I thank you that I haven't given myself to careerism and opportunism like the egocentric power hungry filth which surrounds me.

I thank you that I am not indifferent to others or jealous or cunning, except when I want to fire them for expressing a different viewpoint.

I thank you that I do not have a funereal face like the gloomy and sterile personalities which surround me since theatrical severity and sterile pessimism are often symptoms of fear and insecurity.

I thank you that I am always polite, serene, enthusiastic and happy and that I transmit joy wherever I go, even while castigate others as useless hypocrites who have no worth.

I thank you Lord that I do not seek to fill an existential emptiness in my heart by accumulating material goods so that I'll have the illusion of security.

I thank you Lord that, unlike the diseased members of the Curia, I haven't become a cancer that threatens the harmony of the body and causes so much bad — scandals — especially to our younger brothers.

I thank you Lord that I do not even seek worldly profit and showing off (even while posing for media photographs or making much of the fact that I pay my own bills). I thank you Lord that I don't represent myself as being more capable than others even as I ridicule priests who came before me and who cherished reverence for the Eucharist.

I thank you Lord that, unlike the useless putrid chaff which surrounds me, I am holy and righteous and without blemish.

Amen.

Luke 18:11

Entertaining a distorted notion of forgiveness, some demand a license to perpetrate wrongs on others...

"..Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over.”b 9* And Jesus said to him, “Today salvationc has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. 10* d For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” (Luke 19: 8, 9).


So many people today, including sadly those who profess to be Catholic, possess a distorted notion of the Christian spirit of forgiveness.  There are those, for example, who want nothing less than a license to perpetrate wrongs on others while demanding forgiveness from those they have offended without first repenting of their wrongdoing.

But where there are bonds of friendship or love, as D. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains, "..it is strictly required by the logos of the relationship that our partner shall recognize and regret the wrong he has done to us....Most certainly we must forgive him..but here we must desire that he recognize and repent of his wrong, not merely for his own good but for the sake of our relationship itself - of the restoration of that intimate union of hearts which essentially demands the clearing up of all misunderstandings and the healing of all disharmonies.."

We can never achieve true peace by ignoring objective evils.  Dr. von Hildebrand explains that, "the attitude of rancorous enmity is not the only antithesis to the Christian spirit of forgiveness.  Another attitude opposed to it is that of simply ignoring the wrong inflicted upon us, as though nothing had happened.  This aberration may result from laziness, from faintness of heart, or from a sickly, mawkish clinging to outward peace.  We hold our comfort too dear to fight it out with our aggressor; or again, we feel terrified at the thought of any tension or hostility, and fear lest a sharp reaction on our part should exasperate the adversary; or perhaps we yield just out of respect for the abstract idol of peace.  This is  akind of behavior far remote from the genuine love of peace or from a genuine spirit of forgiveness.  It can never achieve the true harmony of peace, but at best a superficial cloaking of enmity, a mood of false joviality which drags our souls towards the peripheral...Also, people who behave thus fail to consider the moral damage that their supineness is likely to inflict on others.  It is very often necessary to draw a person's attention to the wrong he has done to us - in fact, necessary for his own good.  To pass over it in silence may easily encourage him in his bad dispositions."

This used to be understood by nearly all Christians.  But today, ignorance of the Scriptures has infected even many of our clergy.  In the Gospel of Luke, Our Lord says, ",,if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." (Lk 17: 3, 4).

If he repents.  The word "if" in this sentence makes this a conditional statement.  Those of you who have studied philosophy or mathematics know that a conditional statement is often used to assert a connection of some sort between the antecedent and consequent.  For example, an equation which states "if X = 5 and Y = 3, then X times Y = 15 represents a conditional statement.  When Jesus says, "If your brother sins [against you] and if he repents, forgive him," He is saying that authentic reconciliation involves, first of all, repentance for wrongs committed. 

Reconciliation is not possible otherwise.  Only what Dr. von Hildebrand so eloquently refers to as a "superficial cloaking of enmity."  As Christians, we are called to an authentic Christian spirit of forgiveness.  We are not called to live a lie.  While we must always forgive those who have wronged us, glossing over wrongs committed or pretending they never happened is not the road toward authentic reconciliation.

A new form of atheism....have we succumbed to it?

"I had a little tea party this afternoon at three.
Twas very small - three guests in all - just I, myself and me.
Myself ate all the sandwiches, while I drank all the tea.
Twas also I who ate the pie, and passed the cake to me."

                                   - Author unknown.


In his January 19th audience with workers and leaders of Catholic charities and members of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, Pope Benedict XVI warned that while there is "a growing consensus today about the inalienable dignity of the human being" and people's interdependence and responsibilities toward others, there are also many "dark spots" that are obscuring God's plan.

The Holy Father warned of a new form of atheism which views people as independent and autonomous with happiness lying solely in realizing one's own self.  Here the Pope is referring to those who are crippled by the sin of selfishness, a sin as old as humanity which has taken deep root in the heart of "modern man."  As Archbishop Fulton John Sheen reminded us, "Selfishness does not mean that there is not to be a proper love of self.  Our Blessed Lord told us: 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' (Mt 19: 19).  God made 'self' the standard by which the neighbor is to be loved.  This could not be, if love of self did not have a legitimate basis.  Selfishness, is the love of the wrong self; that is, the self that is indifferent to the feeling and the interest and the safety of others.  People are not selfish because they wish to earn enough to raise a family, but they are selfish if they consult only their own gains regardless of the losses that they may bring on others." (Essay entitled Selfishness).

The Lord Jesus has put us here on earth to serve Him and not ourselves.  Many today, and sadly even within the Church, have succumbed to a philosophy of self-indulgence which is often indicative of pride and may even represent a failure to trust in the Lord, a practical atheism which renders others invisible and irrelevant.

Damien Fisher, writing for The Gardner News, relates the story of Vietnam veteran Jesse Stallings, a soldier who became invisible and irrelevant to those around him who should have welcomed him.  Mr. Fisher writes, "Jesse Stallings served in Vietnam, and then came home to a difficult life.  His trouble coming back and becoming part of society again was partly because of the negative attitudes many had about the Vietnam War, and by extension, the men who fought it.  Mr. Stallings' troubles also stemmed from post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition not widely understood at the time, and not well-treated either...Mr. Stallings was proud to put on his uniform to march in the parade in Fitchburg, one of the first in the region to welcome Vietnam vets....But his long hair and beard did not mesh with how the other, older veterans wanted him to look.  He was sent away.  Dejected after leaving the parade ground, Mr. Stallings went home and killed himself." (MVOC opens new Winchendon campus, January 26-27 edition of The Gardner News).

Have we become so self-indulgent that others have practically become invisible to us?  We can answer this question only through honest self-examination.  Hence the need for frequent sacramental confession.  Self-deception is so very easy.  As Saint Francis de Sales noted, "Self-love is cunning; it pushes and insinuates itself into everything, while making us believe it is not there at all."

If we wish to deepen our relationship with the Lord Jesus and to be of genuine service to Him, then we must struggle against self-deception and be completely honest with ourselves, petitioning the Lord to reveal to us our hidden motives and attachments.  And then we must, with the help of His grace (without which nothing is possible), reorder our priorities.

Related meditation here.

On reverence in prayer and toward others...

Recently I was approached just prior to Holy Mass and asked to lead a public Rosary.  I agreed.  And in the middle of reciting a decade, I was interrupted by another parishioner who began to lead the prayer.  I simply followed along silently for the rest of the Rosary.  What is so disturbing about this is not that I was cut off (I'm quite content with praying the Rosary quietly, something I do every day and before every Holy Mass).

No, what is disturbing is the attitude of irreverence which this reveals.  Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "Reverence in its primitive form is not only the basis of every religion, and, above all, of the receptiveness to the Lumen Christi, to the word of God; but it is also a constitutive element of faith, hope, and love of God.  Complete, fully ripened reverence is a component of a true relationship with God and specifically with the God of Revelation." 

In addition, reverence is the basis of all true personality.  Again Dr. Hildebrand explains: "The significance of reverence for the full personality can easily be grasped.  The greatest natural endowment, the greatest latitude of talents and capacities can never lead to true personality if reverence is lacking.  For the latter is the basis of the second essential component of personality, the perceiving of values, an organic contact with the world of values, and - most ultimate of all - the dying to oneself, the preparation of inner room for Christ.  The man without reverence is necessarily flat and limited.  This lack is an essential mark of stupidity.  Even he whose mind is obdurate and helpless, but who possesses reverence, does not manifest that offensive, tactlessly persistent stupidity of which it is said that 'even the gods struggle against it in vain.'" (Liturgy and Personality, pp. 50-51).

Because lack of reverence may have two roots, Dr. Hildebrand notes that, "..there are two different types of men who lack reverence: the arrogant person and the senseless, blunt one.  The root of the first is to be found in pride.  The man who lacks reverence because of pride and arrogance approaches everything with conceit and presumption, imagines that he knows everything, that he sees through everything.  He is interested in the world only insofar as it serves his self-glorification, insofar as it enhances his own importance...He thinks himself always greater than that which is not himself.  The world holds no mystery for him.  He treats everything tactlessly, with easy familiarity, and everything seems to him to be at his disposal.  To his insolent, conceited gaze, to his despotic approach, the world is sealed, silent, stripped of all mystery, deprived of all depth, flat and limited to one dimension.  He stands in desolate emptiness, blind to all the values and secrets of being, circling endlessly around himself...

There is however another form of irreverence, one which is born of concupiscence.  The concupiscent man is interested in the world only as a means of procuring pleasure for himself.  His is a dominating position in the face of being - not because he wills domination as such but because he wants to use being   for his pleasure.  He, too, circles around in the narrowness of his own self.  He does not face the world with arrogance and conceit but with a blunt stupidity.  Stubbornly imprisoned in his own self, he violates being, and seeing it only from the outside, he thus misses its true meaning.  To this type of irreverent man the world also refuses to disclose its breadth, height, and depth, its richness of values and mysteries." (Liturgy and Personality, pp. 49-50).

And so, this parishioner approached the most holy mysteries of the Rosary with irreverence.  The need to be "in control," to dominate the prayer in effect, undermined any reverence for objective value.  St. Louis de Montfort assures us that, "A single Hail Mary said properly [in other words, with reverence] is worth more than a hundred and fifty said badly." (The Secret of the Rosary, Forty-first Rose).

In his Forty-fourth Rose, St. Montfort explains that one fault, "commonly committed in saying the Rosary is to have no intention other than that of getting it over with as quickly as possible.  This is because so many look upon the Rosary as a burden, which weighs heavily upon them when it has not been said...It is sad to see how most people say the Rosary.  They say it astonishingly fast, slipping over part of the words.  We could not possibly expect anyone, even the most important person, to think that a slipshod address of this kind was a compliment, and yet we imagine that Jesus and Mary will be honored by it!"  In his Forty-fifth Rose, St. Montfort says simply, "I would like to add that the Rosary ought to be said reverently.."

All around us, we are witnessing a world which has succumbed to pride and arrogance.  The result is that so many desire to control everyone and every thing around them - including conversation (tell me with a straight face that you haven't experienced this).  This is characteristic of the irreverent man.  As Catholic Christians, we are called to put on the new man.  The Catholic formed by the Liturgy and by the authentic spirit of the Rosary will be reverent toward his neighbor.  He will not treat his neighbor as an obstacle to be smashed down or dominated.  Not if he expects his prayer to have any value.  Not if he expects his prayers to be answered.

A question for Cardinal Sean O'Malley

Your Eminence, as one who was excluded from Catholic schools (even though my parents were cradle Catholics entirely loyal to the Magisterium of the Church who always lived a sacramental life), I find it strange that you now claim that no categories of children have ever been excluded from Catholic schools.  One of your very own Blog readers has admitted otherwise in my previous Blog post dealing with this subject.

But my question doesn't pertain to my being excluded from Catholic schools.  Rather, it has to do with the words Our Lord Jesus spoke in the sixth chapter of Matthew, verse 24: "No one can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and mammon."  Now, mammon can represent either money or any other created thing which stands in the way of a total commitment to the Lord Jesus.

My question: By allowing children of homosexual households into Catholic schools, are you not thereby inviting violence and disorder?  After all, how can these children be expected to serve two masters?  Will they not come to hate the one and love the other?  Will they not be devoted to one while despising the other?  Either these children will come to fully embrace Catholic teaching and thereby be set in opposition to their parents illicit sexual behavior, or [and this is the far more likely scenario given that children tend to love their parents or guardians], they will come to despise the Church while condoning intrinsically disordered behavior which have they grown accustom to being exposed to.

Was Our Lord wrong Your Eminence?  Can a kingdom divided against itself (Mark 3:24) really stand?  Can children of homosexual households really be expected to serve two masters?  I apologize if my questions are difficult.  A hazard from studying philosophy.

The Catholic Free Press buys into homosexual agitprop

The word "homophobia" is employed by homosexual activists as a semantic weapon in the cultural war. Arthur Evans, co-founder of Gay Activist Alliance (GAA), explains how the homosexual movement came up with the word homophobia to characterize their opposition:

"By good fortune, George Weinberg, a straight psychologist who had long been a friend of our community, regularly attended GAA meetings. Watching with fascination our zap and the media responses, he came up with the word we had been struggling for - 'homophobia,' meaning the irrational fear of loving someone of the same sex....The invention of the word 'homophobia' is an example of how theory can be rooted in practice. The word didn't come from an arm-chair academic viewing the movement at a distance....Instead, it came from personal interactions among active, thinking people who acknowledged a shared value: the transformation of society for the better." (Arthur Evans, "The Logic of Homophobia," see here).

George Weinberg thereby classified moral opposition to homosexuality as a phobia: "I would never consider a patient healthy unless he had overcome his prejudice against homosexuality." (Quoted in Jack Nichols, "George Weinberg, Ph.D - Badpuppy's February Interview," see here).

For the homosexual activist, moral opposition to homosexuality is a "phobia." Even a mental illness. The use of the word "homophobia" as a semantic weapon is now being employed by The Catholic Free Press, the official newspaper of the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts. In an article entitled "How are we doing in this life" (February 19th edition of the newspaper), Diane Boover writes, "...racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia all show our tendency as human beings to diminish the other for reasons each individual deems justifiable."

There you have it. Those of us who are morally opposed to homosexuality are "homophobes" who are attempting to "diminish the other." Small wonder that when I wrote Bishop Robert McManus recently and expressed my interest in the Diocesan priesthood, I received no response. Apparently I am a "homophobe." And so are those at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10).

And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).

When the Bishop neglected to answer my letter was he diminishing me? Or is it considered "acceptable" to discriminate against orthodox heterosexual men who feel called to the ministerial priesthood?

Related reading here.

To See Others: A Meditation

"The man whose heart was hardened by wealth went to Rabbi Eisig. The Rabbi said to him: ''Look out of the window, and tell me what you see in the street.' 'I see people walking up and down .' Then he gave him a looking glass: 'Look in this and tell me what you see.' The man replied: 'I see myself.' 'So you do not see others anymore? Consider that the window and the mirror are both made of glass; but, since the mirror has a coating of silver, you only see yourself in it, while you can see others through the transparent glass of the window. I am very sorry to have to compare you to these two kinds of glass. When you were poor, you saw others and had compassion on them; but being covered with wealth, you see only yourself. It would be much the best thing for you to scrape off the silver coating so that you can again see other people.'"

- Jean de Menasce

Scripture: Luke 16: 19-25