Our Relationship With God

In the last post we read father Blasick’s homily for the beginning of Lent that speaks of our relationship with God on a personal level. Many of us today (not all), although we believe we're faithful to the teachings of our Christian faith choose what teachings we are willing to follow. We often see the church as an institution that is nothing more than an organization created by man. Some believe that it is not necessary to follow all of the guidance of the church in matters of faith and morality. There are even others who separate from the church and follow their own way of believing what God will be satisfied with assuming what is pleasing to them will be acceptable to God. They fail to realize that the church was in fact founded by Jesus Christ. He Himself empowered it with the authority to teach what He taught and for His church to guide His faithful. Yes, the Catholic Church presents to His faithful followers the teachings of Jesus Christ and not just some general rules a group of man made up on a whim.

As Jesus stated in Revelations,…

Lent–The Spiritual Preparation by The Faithful For The Resurrection of Christ

A homily written and presented during mass on ASH WEDNESDAY February 18th, 2015 by Fr. George Blasick, C.Ss.R.

Father Blasick is an ordained Catholic priest of the order of the “Congregation Of The Most Holy Redeemer”, better known today as the “Redemptorist Fathers” founded by St. Alphonsus Liguori .

"Take care you are not like the hypocrites who come to church a few times per year, making the ashen cross (upon the forehead) more valuable than a good confession of sins and the reception of My Body and Blood; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. Do not do this so that others will see you and call you My disciple. Amen, I say to you, for those who value much the little things and neglect the larger ones, they have already received their reward. But to those who use this day as a beginning -- to give alms in secret, to pray often, to fast with hidden appearance, and to celebrate My Sacraments worthily - these my Father who sees in secret will repay you."
 

Could these be words which Christ directs toward us? I believe so, even if some might say that they sound judgmental. However, keep this in mind: Christ was making a judgment of character in today's gospel, while speaking to His disciples. There are sinners, there are saints-in-the-making, and then there are the hypocrites who place themselves comfortably in the middle. Where are we?
 

In the book of Revelation, our Lord says to the Church in Laodicea:
 

"I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth" (Rev 3: 15-16).
 

We have no problem whatsoever with Jesus saying this stuff about "those people" centuries ago, about those in 1st Century Palestine and to the seven churches in first three chapter of Revelation. However, let no one dare say that about us, in any fashion! After all, what we want and need, more than anything else, is a Jesus of love and mercy!
 

Yet, we must not kid ourselves: we are just as sinful in this age as they were then. We can easily turn a blind eye by saying, "What is most important is that I have a relationship with Jesus!" Really? I ask this in reply to such simplistic thinking: what KIND of relationship? The devil has a relationship with Jesus, and it is a very bad one! So does every angel, good and fallen, and so does every human being as well. What is the DESCRIPTION of your relationship? Is it Scriptural or subjective? Holy or sinful? Good or bad? Real or imaginary? Sacrificial or self-deceptive?
 

Another protest might be, "But I'm a good person!" Perhaps, by human standards you are, but Ash Wednesday and Lent are about assessing ourselves by DIVINE standards. Are you a HOLY person? Are you striving to become a saint? Or do you still allow for spiritual mediocrity in your life--a mediocrity that will get you nowhere fast, which never really challenges you toward conversion (of life), and which allows for complacency and sloth?
 

Yes, we are called to relationship with Jesus, but that relationship needs to be a RIGHT relationship, a holy relationship+ as Jesus teaches us in the gospels, thru His Apostolic Church. That is the real challenge of this day, that symbol, this Lenten season: to allow Christ to transform EVERYTHING in our lives. "Behold, now is a very acceptable time; behold now is the day of salvation." May we all hear His voice today and harden not our lukewarm hearts.

A Tale of Two Churches

The following article was published by Zenit.org and is the exclusive property thereof, but we at Seeking Divine Mercy felt this article more than worthy to be presented here with credit given according to the author and publisher. For additional articles of interest, please visit Zenit.org

_______________________________________________________

American Law Is Officially Telling Its Citizens What Values to Hold and How to Think, Warns Cardinal George

By Francis Cardinal George

CHICAGO, September 16, 2014 (Zenit.org) - Once upon a time there was a church founded on God’s entering into human history in order to give humanity a path to eternal life and happiness with him. The Savior that God sent, his only-begotten Son, did not write a book but founded a community, a church, upon the witness and ministry of twelve apostles. He sent this church the gift of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of love between Father and Son, the Spirit of the truth that God had revealed about himself and humanity by breaking into the history of human sinfulness.

This Church, a hierarchical communion, continued through history, living among different peoples and cultures, filled with sinners, but always guided in the essentials of her life and teaching by the Holy Spirit. She called herself “Catholic” because her purpose was to preach a universal faith and a universal morality, encompassing all peoples and cultures. This claim often invited conflict with the ruling classes of many countries. About 1,800 years into her often stormy history, this church found herself as a very small group in a new country in Eastern North America that promised to respect all religions because the State would not be confessional; it would not try to play the role of a religion.

This Church knew that it was far from socially acceptable in this new country. One of the reasons the country was established was to protest the king of England’s permitting the public celebration of the Catholic Mass on the soil of the British Empire in the newly conquered Catholic territories of Canada. He had betrayed his coronation oath to combat Catholicism, defined as “America’s greatest enemy,” and protect Protestantism, bringing the pure religion of the colonists into danger and giving them the moral right to revolt and reject his rule.

Nonetheless, many Catholics in the American colonies thought their life might be better in the new country than under a regime whose ruling class had penalized and persecuted them since the mid-16th century. They made this new country their own and served her loyally. The social history was often contentious, but the State basically kept its promise to protect all religions and not become a rival to them, a fake church. Until recent years.

There was always a quasi-religious element in the public creed of the country. It lived off the myth of human progress, which had little place for dependence on divine providence. It tended to exploit the religiosity of the ordinary people by using religious language to co-opt them into the purposes of the ruling class. Forms of anti-Catholicism were part of its social DNA. It had encouraged its citizens to think of themselves as the creators of world history and the managers of nature, so that no source of truth outside of themselves needed to be consulted to check their collective purposes and desires. But it had never explicitly taken upon itself the mantle of a religion and officially told its citizens what they must personally think or what “values” they must personalize in order to deserve to be part of the country. Until recent years.

In recent years, society has brought social and legislative approval to all types of sexual relationships that used to be considered “sinful.” Since the biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations, the Church’s teaching on these issues is now evidence of intolerance for what the civil law upholds and even imposes. What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval. The “ruling class,” those who shape public opinion in politics, in education, in communications, in entertainment, is using the civil law to impose its own form of morality on everyone. We are told that, even in marriage itself, there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family. Nevertheless, those who do not conform to the official religion, we are warned, place their citizenship in danger.

When the recent case about religious objection to one provision of the Health Care Act was decided against the State religion, the Huffington Post (June 30, 2014) raised “concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen.” This is not the voice of the nativists who first fought against Catholic immigration in the 1830s. Nor is it the voice of those who burned convents and churches in Boston and Philadelphia a decade later. Neither is it the voice of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s and 1850s, nor of the Ku Klux Klan, which burned crosses before Catholic churches in the Midwest after the civil war. It is a voice more sophisticated than that of the American Protective Association, whose members promised never to vote for a Catholic for public office. This is, rather, the self-righteous voice of some members of the American establishment today who regard themselves as “progressive” and “enlightened.”

The inevitable result is a crisis of belief for many Catholics. Throughout history, when Catholics and other believers in revealed religion have been forced to choose between being taught by God or instructed by politicians, professors, editors of major newspapers and entertainers, many have opted to go along with the powers that be. This reduces a great tension in their lives, although it also brings with it the worship of a false god. It takes no moral courage to conform to government and social pressure. It takes a deep faith to “swim against the tide,” as Pope Francis recently encouraged young people to do at last summer’s World Youth Day.

Swimming against the tide means limiting one’s access to positions of prestige and power in society. It means that those who choose to live by the Catholic faith will not be welcomed as political candidates to national office, will not sit on editorial boards of major newspapers, will not be at home on most university faculties, will not have successful careers as actors and entertainers. Nor will their children, who will also be suspect. Since all public institutions, no matter who owns or operates them, will be agents of the government and conform their activities to the demands of the official religion, the practice of medicine and law will become more difficult for faithful Catholics. It already means in some States that those who run businesses must conform their activities to the official religion or be fined, as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law.

A reader of the tale of two churches, an outside observer, might note that American civil law has done much to weaken and destroy what is the basic unit of every human society, the family. With the weakening of the internal restraints that healthy family life teaches, the State will need to impose more and more external restraints on everyone’s activities. An outside observer might also note that the official religion’s imposing whatever its proponents currently desire on all citizens and even on the world at large inevitably generates resentment. An outside observer might point out that class plays a large role in determining the tenets of the official State religion. “Same-sex marriage,” as a case in point, is not an issue for the poor or those on the margins of society.

How does the tale end? We don’t know. The actual situation is, of course, far more complex than a story plot, and there are many actors and characters, even among the ruling class, who do not want their beloved country to transform itself into a fake church. It would be wrong to lose hope, since there are so many good and faithful people.

Catholics do know, with the certainty of faith, that, when Christ returns in glory to judge the living and the dead, the Church, in some recognizable shape or form that is both Catholic and Apostolic, will be there to meet him. There is no such divine guarantee for any country, culture or society of this or any age.

Cardinal Francis George is the Archbishop of Chicago.

As a closing note by the producers of this website, Seeking Divine Mercy, No doubt as unwavering as the Words of Jesus Christ are; as unwavering as is the Covenant Jesus made with His Church, She WILL be here to meet with Him “until the end of days”. No other source can sustain over her. SeekingDivineMercy.org

"Killing Jesus" - A Commentary on the book co-authored by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard

In the book “Killing Jesus” the authors invest a great deal of effort into separating Jesus’ divinity from His humanity in an attempt to come up with an account of the events and issues leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion and the motivation of those who took His human life. Though other reviews of this book are available including the one posted previously by adjunct professor of theology, David G. Bonagura, Jr., this commentary is intended to offer a brief but critical observation that can not be overlooked when it comes to the methodology used by the authors in presenting their opinions in the book, “Killing Jesus”.

In fact, separating Jesus Divinity from His humanity only creates a distorted account of Jesus as to who He was on earth; His life, His death, and His resurrection.

St. Jerome once said, "I interpret as I should, following the command of Christ: 'Search the Scriptures,' and 'Seek and you shall find.' For if, as Paul says, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and if the man who does not know Scripture does not know the power and wisdom of God, then ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."

The attempt to remove the Divine being of Jesus from His human form leaves only a human body without the principle attributes that make up each person for who they are. Without our minds or our spirits, we are a dead carcass. It is the mind and the spirit of each individual that motivates the body. A person’s choices are made through consciousness based in thought and rooted in knowledge. Jesus possessed the mind of God and He clearly knew who He was and His intent. His human body was motivated by His divinity and therefore His divinity can not be separated from His humanity. In these motivating factors rests the reasons for all He did and said during His human life. Without acknowledging who He was there is no factual way of analyzing or depicting Him, all that remains is a human body. Ignorance to scripture is in fact ignorance of who Jesus Christ was and is and no factual account can be made without knowing the subject as completely as possible.

Christians know throughout scripture that from the very moment Jesus was born, there were those such as Herod who sought to have Him executed. The reasons for His enemies wanting to kill Jesus varied slightly throughout His life but centered on the pride and power each of His adversaries attempted to retain. They did not believe He could be the Messiah, He did not fit the preconceived idea of how the Messiah would appear or the power He would project to gain for them the freedom they desired. Since infancy He would require protection from those who would have Him killed.  But to suggest His crucifixion was motivated primarily as a result of His overturning the tax tables in the temple is a drastic misconception ignoring many facts rooted in the records of both the Old And New Testaments pertinent to the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is True God and true man. We know this from the gospels:  “…though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians CH2: vs6-11)

 As an example of the lack of scriptural knowledge needed to understand who Jesus was while on this earth we can consider a recent airing of Bill O'Reilly's program, "The Factor". Recently a controversy arose that probably everyone has become familiar with to some degree; That is the controversy over the statements of Phil Robertson of the show “Duck Dynasty”. Although Mr. Robertson's presentation was crude to say the least, he expressed his Christian faith and referred to scripture when he mentioned certain life styles as being sinful and living such life styles would according to scripture result in a person’s loss of salvation and their damnation. The actual verse Phil Robertson was referring to in his scriptural reference was the following: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians CH6: vs9-10)

During the same comments, Mr. Robertson also referenced partial quotes from another passage being Romans CH1: vs20-32: “Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they (sinners) have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

 During the airing of his program, Mr. O’Reilly chose to do a segment on this controversy but with great caution, seemingly in opposition to Phil Robertson’s scripture references and chose to quote one biblical verse for his audience. That being; "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. 2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Matthew CH1: vs1-2)

This contradiction created by one person (in this case Bill O’Reilly) trying to contradict or disprove a scripture verse that another person (in this case Phil Robertson) has made reference to is a common error of those who are not as familiar with scripture as they should be, and quoting scripture out of context. Scripture does not conflict with itself, but all scripture works together to teach the word of God. Therefore someone has to be misunderstanding the verses they are quoting. How do these passages interrelate in their teachings? The passage telling one not to judge others does not mean we are not to judge the actions of others whether sinful or not as Bill O’Reilly implied. It is a warning against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one's own faults. What we are not to do is judge the soul of anyone personally which Mr. Robertson did not do. He spoke of the sinful acts of others in general as is stated in scripture. The further proof of possessing a proper judgment is in the following final passage:

“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst." (1 Corinthians CH5: vs9-13)

Why the authors of “Killing Jesus” chose to ignore the divinity and mind of Jesus for who He was according to all the historic content of scripture, I can not say. I can not say why Bill O’Reilly chose to present himself as having worthy knowledge of scripture to take a position quoting scripture to contradict scripture during his coverage of the controversy that arose from the comments of Phil Robertson. What I can say is, it would have been more advantageous and accurate to refer to the full person of Jesus Christ in his book "Killing Jesus", and also to invite theologians on his program to discuss the Phil Robertson controversy rather than present his illinformed position by attempting to invalidate scripture with scripture.

Of course, these are my opinions, but for those who do not like what scripture has to say in regard to today's social permissiveness but realize scripture is the inspired word of God, realize the following; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews CH13: v8) He does not change to suite the popular opinions of any era in society.

Speaking of "Killing Jesus"

A Review by David G. Bonagura, Jr. Adjunct Professor of theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary, New York.

The quest for the “historical Jesus” – the supposed man beneath the accouterments of faith – rages unabated today, three centuries after the first of these now countless attempts appeared in book form. Since then, volumes have come and gone, all claiming to have found the “real Jesus,” through each author’s supposedly objective and faith-free interpretation of the epic events that occurred in Palestine two millennia ago. Yet this Jesus has still not been found. Instead, in these volumes, as Pope Benedict XVI explained in his own book about Jesus, we find “photographs of their authors and the ideals they hold.”

"Killing Jesus", by cable-news anchorman Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, is the latest such book to land on the best-seller lists. The authors explain that theirs “is not a religious book.” It is rather “an accurate account of not only how Jesus died, but also the way he lived and how his message has affected the world.” But in pushing the “Christ of faith” to the margins along with faith-conscious interpretations of Jesus’ words and deeds, we are left with the Gospel according to Bill O’Reilly – a dramatic political conflict between the leading religious and civic authorities of the first century, which had consequences for the whole world.

The greatest strength of Killing Jesus is its vivid descriptions of the physical and social backdrop to the stories told in the canonical Gospels. The landscapes of Nazareth, Capernaum, Jerusalem and its Temple are colorfully depicted, as are the complex social and political relationships between leading personalities and groups. The practical elements of domestic and ritual lifestyles underlying the Biblical accounts are also explained in detail, including the preparations for Passover in Jerusalem, where Jesus “sees the hundreds of temporary clay ovens that have been constructed in order that each pilgrim will have a place to roast his Passover sacrifice. . . .He hears the bleat of sheep as shepherds and their flocks clog the narrow streets, just down from the hills after lambing season.”

O’Reilly and Dugard thus provide a composition of place for all the major events in Jesus’ life: his baptism in the Jordan, his overturning of the money tables in the Temple, and above all, the intricate details of his Passion, from the type of flagellates with which Jesus was scourged to the “pleural and pericardial fluid. . .mixed with a torrent of blood,” that flowed from Jesus’ pierced side on the cross.

But if the book excels in physical and political descriptions, it’s wanting in historical interpretation. Time and again O’Reilly and Dugard present conjectures as facts and perform psychoanalysis on men whose motives remain unknown. The interpretation of ancient history, even after you’ve looked at the primary sources, requires careful discernment and reconstruction. Yet in Killing Jesus historical circumspection is often sacrificed in favor of a more sensational narrative.

Historical indiscretions appear in two forms. First, there are oversimplifications or even distortions of complicated facts, generally relegated to footnotes, including the dating and naming of Christmas and the timing of Jesus’ final Passover celebration. Second, unknown attitudes and motives are presented as facts without qualification in the narrative. At the last supper, for example, the authors declare that “Jesus is having trouble focusing on his final message to the disciples.” Really?

The greatest overreach, however, comes in the overly long account of the life of Julius Caesar, which outdoes the already garnished account by Plutarch, where Brutus’ stabbing of Caesar is deemed “an act of emasculation” against the dictator who refused to acknowledge Brutus as his progeny.

Fortunately, the account of the deeds and travels of Jesus of Nazareth is more reliable. O’Reilly and Dugard’s narrative closely follows St. John’s chronology of a ministry spanning three years, interspersed with certain events told by the Synoptics. The dialogues recounted between Jesus and his contemporaries are taken directly from the Bible with little embellishment, with the impassioned exchanges between Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Jewish Temple authorities featured as the heart of the narrative, which leads ultimately to Jesus’ death.

But here the authors’ disavowal of faith leads them to conclude that money – not claims about God or Judaism – is the real reason the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus killed. In interrupting the money flow by overturning the tables in the Temple, “Jesus has committed a grave offense,” and Annas, father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas, desires to eliminate Jesus as “a cautionary tale for anyone who considers challenging the authority of the Temple courts.”

In the Gospel according to Bill O’Reilly, then, the trial of Jesus for blasphemy – a religious charge if there ever was one – is ultimately a front for protecting the position of the high priest’s family and the Temple’s money supply from a God-centered rabbi who spent three years preaching the Kingdom of God while insinuating that he was God’s Son. 

The historical Jesus remains undiscovered in Killing Jesus, and for good reason. By removing faith from the history, the authors have also removed much of the evidence for a comprehensive understanding of Jesus. O’Reilly notes that “[t]he Pharisees believe in miracles but not in Jesus.” Perhaps someday history will believe in faith and not only in itself.

 David G. Bonagura, Jr. Adjunct Professor of theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary, New York.

A Response to Rachel Held Evans CNN Article, “Why millennials are leaving the church”.

A Response to Rachel Held Evans Article, “Why millennials are leaving the church”.

Written by Thomas W. Bigham

The following is in response to an article written by Rachel Held Evans titled, “Why millennials are leaving the church”, published in CNN’s “Belief Blog” on July 27th, 2013. As the author has offered her valued insight both honestly and directly, such deserves the same in addressing her points of issue.

 

The following excerpts from her article and this writer’s accompanying responses will attempt to briefly address those concerns as they have been raised. I respond as a lay person and practicing Catholic. My responses are not to be construed as an official response of the Roman Catholic Church or any affiliation thereof, but specifically as one who had been separated for many years from all organized religion. It was only after the realization of my own errors and the pursuit of a deeper knowledge and understanding of Christianity that I had returned through the guidance of scripture to the Catholic faith.

 

Rachel Held Evans, Excerpt  #1:

“Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. – precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.”

 

Response: I would only comment here that a number of changes over the last few centuries and even more so over the last few decades have caused many sincere Christians from various denominations to voice their concerns questioning the guidance of the faith they had followed. Jesus Christ did not adapt His teachings or His presentation to be more accommodating or acceptable to more people. He did not accept the opinions of others in determining the “best approach” for the biggest return, and he certainly did not conform to society’s popular opinions - and neither should His Church if it truly presents His teachings faithfully. Likewise, the Catholic Church has retained the consistency of His teachings for 2000 years even in the darkest of times, regardless of any particular era’s fluctuating social or moral standards. In fact, just as today, there were times throughout history the Catholic Church struggled in direct opposition to popular opinion. As was said, the Church can not care about what is “cool” or popular, especially when popularity infringes upon the truth and guidance provided to the faithful.    

 continued

Catholicism – What is “the Fullness of Christianity"?

 

Many non-Catholic Christians have at times asked what is meant when one speaks of the fullness of Christian teachings in Catholicism and how can the Catholic faith claim to possess this fullness. For those who know the history and lineage of the Holy Bible, it is recognized the Bible’s origin is the Catholic Church. The many versions today and the alterations that are contained in those versions range from a subtle difference to a major redefining of what was intended in the original volumes dependant on the founder of the particular system of beliefs that took it for his or her own use while promoting their own assumptions of what it teaches. But the common factor among the majority of protestant denominations is the assumption that any person can read verses from scripture and determine what it means to them personally. Those verses that conflict with either the individual’s personal interpretation or the system of beliefs of their denomination are routinely disregarded as though holding no significance and this is a common practice.

 

The reason the Catholic faith is referred to as the fullness of the teachings of Christ or of Christianity is because in Catholicism, no verse is disregarded. The bible can, when kept in its entirety offer its own confirmation as to the accurate interpretation from one verse as compared to another. No verse in scripture is to be considered insignificant or to be disregarded, but all to be recognized as the “Inspired Word of God”. The practice of reading one verse or passage and self interpreting it while disregarding other verses or passages that conflict with ones self interpretation is misguided as scripture does not conflict with itself. When a person concludes through their own interpretation that a particular verse means one thing but opposes or conflicts with something else in scripture, it is a flawed interpretation. This is not to say there are parts of scripture that can speak to us personally but scripture in its entirety brings forth the intended teachings of Christ, not the intended opinions or desired wishes of others. By discovering we have interpreted a verse that does conflict with another verse, we should immediately go back and reconsider what the first verse is intending to tell us.

 

In Catholicism, all scripture is valid and to selectively choose to interpret some verses to support what seems more flexible or suitable to us and disregard those that conflict with our opinions, is to diminish the very intent and validity of all scripture, as there is nothing to validate our own choice in passages or verses with our personal interpretations as more valid than that of the verses we disregard.

 

An example of the many losses Christians suffer due to the disregard of parts of scripture in Protestantism as apposed to the true relationship one can embrace in understanding Christ's teachings in their fullness, one can reflect on the existence today of over thirty thousand non-Catholic denominations, all teaching or proclaiming various differences in their systems of belief. Yet according to scripture we are told; “God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship (solidarity) of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” (1 Corinthians CH1: vs9-10). As the source of the Holy Bible and the one Church founded by Christ to teach and guide the faithful until the consumation of the world, it stands to reason that the fullness of Christianity can be found within her.

 

Let us consider the totality of scripture and its origin that we may be guided by the Holy Spirit in truth and not misled by false direction.

 

American Secularism

“For what can be known about God is evident to them (His people), because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans CH1: vs19-32)


Our nation clearly suffers the effects of our own abandonment of God and morality as it was first established according to the principles of faith of our forefathers. These are the motivating forces that lead us to the founding of our country. We can not be so foolish to believe we are in a relationship with God if we live opposing His teachings or kiss Him on the cheek while betraying His passion on the cross. But we can turn our country around and return to those principles by rediscovering our faith and begin living it once again while teaching our children of God and morality, but only by such a revitalization of faith will we recover. It takes only recognition of what we have become as a people over the last 50 years; what we have abandoned, to realize why we suffer today and the responsibility we have to out children in providing them the knowledge to live a life in a relationship with God rather than the meaningless pursuit of what will never fulfill or give purpose without Him.

 

Ending The Mass Slaughter of The Innocent

If we are to seek a relationship with our children by shielding them from the need to make an effort or the reality of failure to believe there is only success; or we believe we can establish a relationship with them mainly by taking them to a firing range to teach them how to shoot a firearm, or misguide them into believing everything they do is praiseworthy with nothing to be considered improper or lacking or insufficient, they will be greatly disappointed, aggravated and even subject to hostile actions once having entered the real world. They will find their efforts will at times be judged and they will be found lacking when compared to others; they will loose in competition; their belief they are entitled to equal shares in life’s rewards is false and they are not due what is not earned, and few people show respect for those who have no respect for themselves.

 

Do we hide the score so no team looses or do we teach them winning and loosing is the result of training and effort. Do we have the mindset to take our children to the firing range or some other misguided form of activity to build a relationship with them or do we take them to Sunday services and teach them of God, love and respect for self and for others including human life?

If we want to ever see an end to these mass slaughters of innocent people including our children in their class rooms, we must first accept the rise of such events comes from a lack of parental guidance in teaching faith morality and the love of God to our children. We live with a social mentality of irrational permissiveness supportive of unbridled abortions to the millions. We support same sex marriages against what is proper by science, nature and God in a nation with man made or no moral values. A nation that supports the taking of human life as deemed convenient most commonly to eliminate the responsibility of raising an unplanned child conceived in the casual and often careless acts we choose to amuse ourselves by.

The answer to these mass murders is not in gun control laws that only serve to restrict the law abiding. We must turn back to Christ, teaching our children faith and love of God; teaching them respect for self and respect for others and respect for human life as created by God. None of those who committed such horrendous acts of mass violence were raised in a family living their faith and attending worship services. None were raised living with God in their lives and none had self respect let alone respect for others. But most if not all found themselves alone and unfamiliar with God and often it seems they believed they were denied something they believed they were entitled to but did not receive yet had not been earned.

Euthanasia and Catholicism

What Is the Church's Teaching on Euthanasia?

 

by Fr. William Saunders

An article appearing in CatholicCulture.org

Pope Pius XII, who witnessed and condemned the eugenics and euthanasia programs of the Nazis, was the first to explicate clearly this moral problem and provide guidance. In 1980, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its Declaration on Euthanasia which further clarified this guidance especially in light of the increasing complexity of life-support systems and the promotion of euthanasia as a valid means of ending life. The new Catechism (No. 2276-2279) provides a succinct explanation of our Catholic teaching on this subject.

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
 

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
 

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
 

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
 

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Before addressing the issue of euthanasia, we must first remember that the Catholic Church holds as sacred both the dignity of each individual person and the gift of life. Therefore,

American Duplicity - Prayers of Convenience

“Do I lie to myself to see things as I want to? If I do, how then can I possibly identify and achieve the best for myself in life? How well would I do if I were to test my own level of honesty with my self and can I accept the answers?” What am I responsible for and do I control the course of my life?” How do I show self-respect to warrant respect from others? How do I justify my prayer requests of God without living according to His Word? Ten years ago the time came for me to ask such questions of myself. I lived a very secular life as so many people do today and believed “all that mattered was to live life in a manner “I considered” good and God would be satisfied with my choices”.

Today these are questions each and every person should be asking of them self not only as a part of this current American society, but as one of the many people responsible for the direction in values our society takes. Yes, we as individuals through the choices we make and the ideologies we support form our society when those principles are supported by the majority. But when the majority determines what notions will be adopted basing those notions on self gratification and willful ignorance to learn truth, the result has and always will be self destruction of that society.

It does not take a professional investigator to recognize today’s American society consists of an overwhelming number of people who publically choose to be ignorant to truth so as to retain or promote their ideologies regardless of how uninformed or misinformed they may be. They like what they believe and prefer to believe things as they do and are unwilling to accept anything different. They clearly and boldly profess this ignorance most commonly by holding the palm of their hand up to the face of any person who speaks words other than those they want to hear, or by flat out cutting off the other person in midsentence advising, “I don’t want to hear it”.They will associate mostly with politically and morally likeminded people to avoid hearing anything contradictory to what they believe and they believe what they do because it is more convenient to the way they wish to live or the self-gratifications they pursue.

The sad fact is, a vast number of Americans do not recognize the truth today. We have rejected morality and replaced it with a false sense of righteousness called “political correctness”. We do not abide in the commands of God and go further to create a stumbling block to others in their path to faith by misleading them into believing they may live the lifestyle they wish even though it may be in opposition to God’s commands.

And many no longer know how or when to feel embarrassed or to know shame to the point of publically supporting such distortions as those not only opposed to God, but science and nature as well. Same sex relationships and marriages, and unrestricted abortion mislabeled as “woman’s reproductive rights”. Let’s be honest. A woman expresses her reproductive rights when she willingly chooses to refrain or engage in the physical act of procreation. Once another human being has been conceived, a third life exists with its own unalienable rights bestowed by God alone. If we can feel the sorrow and outrage for a pregnant woman who is assaulted and as a result miscarries loosing her child, and in some states criminally charge the criminal, we can not claim that unborn child any less a human life because it is the victim of an un-wanting parent. Yes sin exists and political correctness is a perversity of God’s moral virtues created by man. Supporting and promoting those perversities is as much a matter of sin as the acts they promote. Yet, when we suffer the loss of lives by mass murderers such as the innocent children in New Town or several other public shootings all over our country, we stop broken hearted and in shock to pray, then many go back to the lives they lived never giving thought to the fact that those who committed these acts grew up with the void of never having been taught of God or faith by their parents. Some still insist they have a relationship with God even though they do not follow His commands.

1 John CH2: 3 The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his command ments. 4 whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: 6 whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.

In response to Jennifer's comments in the previous post...

Thank you, Jennifer, for your thoughtful insight. I agree totally with your opinion. I also believe there are two issues expressed in the views you have revealed here.

One; that in an effort to understand why men commit evil, rape or any other crime of violence in our society, we through our so determined professionals in their various fields of psychology have too often taken these theories (which is what they are) and turned them into excuses for such violent acts. In my opinion, this is inexcusable.

It may be a benefit to understand why a person commits such acts but in most cases it does not excuse the act itself as there are many people who suffered comparable past conditions in their lifetimes but did not resort to such violent acts and even some who because of their past similar experiences became more guarded against such acts.

Secondly, I believe those people including juveniles who are prone to the thoughts of committing rape and other violent acts have in recent years become increasingly more influenced to go through with those acts because of the abandonment of morality and permissiveness in our society today.
Since the era of the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, those now of the age group in their 50s and 60s can recall the general bonding within families and the union that existed in the family practice of faith and morality. For most, that bonding no longer exists – there is a void. Many born during subsequent generations, those children of more recent years have experienced the increased separation and lack of family bonding by the abandonment of parental teaching in faith and morality and many carried it further with their own children. Due to the many from that era who became parents during those earlier years after separating from the practice of faith and the subsequent failure of parents to teach their children faith and morality, there grew an increase in sexual relations outside of marriage and promiscuity, a lack of value in the commitment in relationships, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and continues now as shown by the disregard for the true understanding of the value of marriage as we attempt to redefine it to suit same sex relationships - something defined as distorted in its essence by nature, science and faith.

It is clear to those who once knew the union and bonding of families through the practice of faith and morality that the abandonment of that family teaching and practice has led many of today’s younger women and men to a complete lack of recognition of self-respect as well as respect toward others which leads to one person’s infringement upon another and in some cases in extreme and vile ways. This in turn leads to diminished respect for life itself, hence the popularity today for unrestricted abortion rights.

Without appearing to place blame on one gender or the other, it is fact that it has always been the female who has had the greatest influence in society in the practice of moral virtues and the male who has had the responsibility to see to honor and protect the virtues of the female. In today’s society, both sides are responsible for the results of the lack of respect to self and others in this regard. Both sides have suffered loss.

It is rational to recognize the more freely open a woman is in the engagement of sexual relationships separate of true commitment, the less her virtues and his respect becomes an influence. Many men today do not see women as they once have; that is to say, due respect for moral virtues. Men certainly suffer their own lack of respect and moral virtues as a result of their lack of the same practice of faith and morality as once taught in the family setting. Many of these men have little to no self respect or respect toward others or even life itself in extreme cases because they themselves knew no true faith in God or moral teaching.

As a result of all of this, we see a society on the verge of financial collapse due to mankind’s extreme greed and carelessness at the highest levels of the corporate ladder and witness a society suffering a rapidly growing number of personal assaults as well as both juveniles and adults committing murder against their domestic partners, parents, strangers and even children in mass crimes. Our society has abandoned God and morality and in its place attempts to manufacture its own form of moral code calling it “political correctness”, which is a failed attempt to recognize human rights as something created by man rather than as that which is written in every man’s heart by our Creator and can not be rewritten. 

Do not be shocked to see the increase in these mass crimes when there is no expression of respect for self or others practiced in our society. But pray that those who do practice good will toward others will pursue the source of that good will and return to faith and morality realizing without God in our culture, we can not be the nation we once were.

A Lost Society?

There are many viewpoints, in fact arguments people offer in an attempt to justify the permissiveness of our society today, such as the “woman’s right to choose” or what has more recently been relabeled "a woman's reproductive rights". A tireless effort to retain the so determined legal validity of abortion, fought for more intently than our right to practice our faith even according to the constitution which supposedly provides us our freedom of speech. In reality, our permissiveness has become a quest in this country to justify and legalize immorality in general for nothing more than individual conveniences to a point of perverting the American culture that before this period thrived as one nation under God - but no more. IT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS within the scope of our Government’s authority to determine what moral values may be dispensed with or at what age a human life has no value beyond that which God determines and instills within each of us. The principles of God and morality were our foundation as a nation.When the foundation of any structure is removed, the structure weakens and will collapse.

 

Morality is not limited only to those who do believe in God. But we are going to pass beyond all the arguments and opinions and view points of the “most intelligent minds” of our day, our supreme court justices for example, and speak the truth of it all regardless of who’s "side" anyone might be on. I have to ask, do we not realize that a mentality of a society that denies the humanity of a preborn infant would certainly spawn the same mentality that raises children who commit mass murder of their classmates, or adults who commit mass murder on the most innocent children in their classrooms? Acceptance of legalized mass murder in the killing of millions of preborn children due most commonly to carelessness and the lack of self respect and self control can not breed healthy relationships, respect for life or respect for self let alone generate any kind of Christian love the majority of this society claims as a foundation of their faith. How many of us reelected a president who has refused to support the legalization of required medical intervention for infants born alive after a failed abortion determining it was better to leave them to die?

The time has long past...

A Merry and Blessed Christmas to All

Within a couple of days we will once again celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. After 25 years living a very worldly and secular life, and having been blessed to awaken to the reality of Him, I can say in all honesty I no longer have cares for anything more than to see even one person who has been separated from Christ as I was find their way back to Him. I can loudly say, I love Jesus Christ above all else and through that love have found the fulfillment I never found in any other person or achievement in life, and I wish you and everyone the openness of heart to one day understand this joyful gift of fulfillment as I have come to know.

A very Merry and Blessed Christmas to everyone and may the light of Christ lead us all.

"Closed Communion" - Why?

“Closed Communion”

Why the Catholic Church does not offer the Eucharist unconditionally

 

"Closed Communion" is a general term more commonly used by many Protestant born faiths describing the position of the Catholic Church in regard to the dispensation of the consecrated Eucharist. In recognition of the true presence of Jesus Christ, the safeguarding of the consecrated Eucharist is and has always been of paramount importance not directed against any particular non-Catholic faith. It certainly should not be taken as limited toward Protestant Christians alone by any means.  In the sense that some non-Catholics consider themselves baptized Christians in faith and readily provide their version of communion to anyone openly regardless of faith beliefs, they do not comprehend why they are not considered entitled to receive communion within the Catholic faith. However, It should also be said the vast majority of Protestant denominations do not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in any communion as Jesus declared in scripture. Here we offer insight into the relationship between the Eucharist and the Catholic faithful as it has always existed.

 

Neither the Church during any period in history nor scripture supports the dispensation of the consecrated Eucharist openly without regard as to the faith-beliefs of those who may receive Him. In reading the ancient texts of the “apostolic fathers” the Eucharist has always been available only to those confirmed in their faith and in acceptance of the proclamations of Christ as the apostles themselves accepted and taught. Anyone who did not accept the consecrated bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ was not confirmed in their faith. In fact for a person to reject acceptance of His presence was considered heretical according to the ancient Christian texts. Such faith must include the unquestioning trust in the word of Christ. To “believe in” or “accept” Jesus Christ means to accept and obey His teachings and to live accordingly (Hebrews CH5: v9). Therefore it is only rational that the Catholic Church would maintain its position for all time and not begin openly offering the Eucharist to those who chose to depart from such serious elements of faith, let alone those who would deny the essence of the Eucharist. These circumstances would be considered more grave than dispensing the Body and Blood of Christ to those who had never been educated in the faith at all.

 

The significance of the protection provided the consecrated Eucharist in Catholicism can only be understood by those who recognize its “Sacramental nature”1 as was discussed in the previous chapter. As the Catholic Church bears the responsibility through the commission of Christ to preach His word and provide the means that all men may attain salvation in obedience [(Matthew CH28: vs18-20), (Hebrews CH13: v17), (James CH3: v1), (Luke CH10: v16)] and providing them His sacramental gifts, it also remains sincerely concerned for those who deny the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. It further seeks to enlighten those who through lack of teaching do not know the severity of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily (1 Corinthians Chapter 11; v23-29).

 

The Eucharist, The Core and life of Christianity

Who will walk away…? Who will accept without questioning?

 

The mystery of the Eucharist has always been a test of faith and a reflection of the depth of our relationship with and trust in God’s Word, even for those who walked away from Jesus as spoken of in scripture. This is first attested to in the Bible passage of “John CH6: vs51-66”. However, in its very essence, the Eucharist is the lifeblood of Christianity. Without it there is no New Covenant because the New Covenant is sealed in the Body and Blood of Christ. If we claim to be a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ, it can not be conditional or selective based on what we are willing to accept.

Our Lord was and remains well aware of those who would not trust in His word (John CH6; v64). That is not to say we must understand everything, no one can know the mind of God. But we must accept with trust in faith. As Christians we acknowledge God as the Creator of all things from nothing and Jesus Christ as God incarnate or “in the flesh”, made man. If we say we accept this how difficult can it be for God to consecrate or “set apart” the bread and wine as an extension of His very being; to spiritually take up bread as He took up human flesh or to take up wine as He took up blood, the life force of the body. Both bread and wine, as does man, come from the earth as forms of life. In this case by His word it becomes HIS flesh and HIS Blood and sustenance for our soul.

 

Divinity of Jesus

Jesus expressed His Divine authority over all creation. He did so by His word in the raising of the dead and the healing of the sick just as He raised Lazarus from the dead. We as true Christians accept these things in faith. He made the blind see, the lepers clean and the crippled walk by His word and we accept these things in faith. He commanded the demons to enter the swine and destroyed them, tamed storms, winds, rough seas, and made trees flourish or wither and die by His word. We accept these things in faith without question but we can not and will never comprehend them in our human nature. Jesus also expressed His humanity as in the tears of love and sorrow He shed over Lazarus’ death, His sadness of the sins of man, His affection toward children, His anger in the temple, and His frustration with those who slept during His suffrage in the Garden, and His sacrificing Himself for His love of man.

As Christians we are to accept these things in faith and our expression of that faith is in our trust without questioning His word. Yet there remain some who continue to deny Jesus’ proclamation of the Eucharist with no less justification than any other miracle we claim to accept. The faith of the apostles was confirmed in their unquestioning trust and acceptance of His word when Jesus asked them, “Will you also leave me” (John CH6; vs67-69). Again, we are not required to comprehend all matters of faith, only to accept, trusting in the Word of Christ.

 

One Nation Under God?

"One Nation Under God", but are we still?

Our nation is formed upon the principles of God and Christianity and we as a people claim to be predominantly Christian. Our constitution was formed to protect all religions and especially the faith of our people; the Christian faith. If you doubt it look at the murals in the capitol building and see the depictions including the cross of Christ in them. When our constitution is used by the faithless to infringe on our practice of faith, it is due to our silence to that abuse and our separation from God that allows it to be used in such a manner and it is only by our returning to God that will save this country from the eminent collapse we are facing if we remain absent of his word and morality. For those who spoof this and believe God is only loving and does not demand we live a code of charity and love without infringing on the faith and God given rights of others, they will not change or return to Him until they personally suffer the great losses a life without true faith spawns.... or the loss of the greatest country known to the world now weakened and cripple both morally, financially and in exceptionalism as it was born and previously flourished. One day their children will ask their parents, "what happened that we do not have the same freedom and opportunities that you had?" What will we tell them? We wanted free things in stead of freedom and voted for those who would give to us in exchange for the opportunity to prosper to our greatest desires and potentials?

Atheist Billboards Attacking Christianity

For years now American Christians have been standing by silently while being attacked verbally and sued in civil courts at every opportunity by some, not all, atheist groups who claim they are sickened by our display of anything that represents the cross of Christ. It does not matter where the cross may be, even if they learn of one displayed in the desert they want it removed. They claim such depictions of the cross are a violation of their constitutional rights and should not be displayed anywhere in the public eye.

In comparison to other nations we are a nation formed only a short time ago, but undeniably founded under the principles of God’s law and moral virtues as our Creator (Declaration of Independence). History states as a country we are and virtually always have been predominantly Christian forming this country accordingly. It is true however, that many of us have become soft in the way we live and in presenting our Christian values. But we failed until now to realize that because of this display of softness we have become apparent soft targets for those atheist groups bent on attacking and destroying what remains of Christianity in the United States of America.

Today however, the hatred of the atheist groups who attack Christianity has turned against themselves by their own hands by showing in their own billboard advertisements that we as Christians do have the right to display the cross of Christ publically under the same constitutional rights they publically display their billboards defaming not only what the cross symbolizes, but what we believe in our faith.

Jesus Christ taught us when we are struck on the cheek to turn the other cheek. He did not mean for us to seek to be struck again, but to stand peacefully but firmly in our faith. It is time to stand for our Christian beliefs. Be proud to stand for Christ.

Please pass this on that others may realize it is the same rights these atheist groups display their sentiments and symbols publically on billboards and even try to sue us by that allows us to display the cross just as freely. If you are a Christian I ask you display the cross somewhere, even on the back window of your car. Use two pieces of tape to form it if you wish to. Let others know you are not ashamed to be Christian.

Who's Instigating Hatred?

A Christian organization known as the "Family Research Council" or FNC located in Washington D.C. was targeted August 15th, 2012, by a single gunman who allegedly resented their ideologies and non-acceptance of same-sex marriage because they promote the biblical principles of family and mirriage. The gunman had fifteen Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in a carry bag which also contained additional fully loaded clips or magazines to reload his gun should he get that far along in his intended shooting spree. By the grace of God, he was however, intercepted by the building manager who after being shot in the arm was still able to disarm and subdue the gunman until the police arrived. The FNC organization is a Christian non-profit group that supports family life and values and the biblical and historical definition of marriage as it has always been defined; that is as a union sealed by God between one man and one woman only throughout man's recorded history and in scripture.

Only a couple of weeks ago in a seemingly unrelated incident, 

A Prison Mentor’s Reflections

(This blog is written by a Christian volunteer who has been mentoring at a Federal Women’s prison for approximately five years through the Life Connections Program, a faith based organization bringing the message of faith and hope to those anticipating release. It is the reflection at the close of a single evening.) 

This evening, as I drove home from the prison after an hour of mentoring with the light of a full moon and listening to Andrea Bocelli singing Ave Maria, I could feel God's presence all around me. I told the Lord I was tired as I usually am after an intense hour of dialogue with a prisoner.  Emotions run high.  But knowing God was with me, I told Him I had missed that feeling of closeness with Him on occasion this week, mostly due to my wandering mind; not being focused on Him and letting other things invade my space.  Prison mentoring brings me back to center.  My inmate is grateful for my presence; it gives her chance to vent, share, cry, and wish for freedom, privacy, and time alone with her Lord.  We on the outside have freedom. We are not locked up and no, we have committed no crime for sure.  All they want is to know that someone cares; someone from the outside; someone who can bring the outside inside with a message of hope and of God’s love.  We get so caught up in our own petty worries and fears that we really do not realize those who are trapped behind bars, admittedly through their own fault, but never the less still are looking from behind bars for a glimpse of freedom, while we look from the outside through the bars with freedom at our side. When the sound of the gate closes as we enter or leave, there is a large "bang". When entering the prison we are subjected to the usual security measures similar to the airports; pat downs, metal detectors and hands being stamped for our safety and God forbid, we become involved in a prison riot. We realize we cannot leave unless granted permission with an escort to take us back out of the confines of the unit.  Freedom is precious.  The slamming of the gate is a reminder of just how precious it is.  It is a sound that resonates throughout the room and one a person never forgets or gets used to.  

We all tend to get caught up in the moment but I realize every time I enter those prison gates, how grateful I am for that freedom which God has blessed me with and all of us with.  I wonder sometimes how the early martyrs felt when the gate slammed behind them.  When their freedom was extinguished because of their faith, did the sound of the gate, the dark of the dungeon, the loss of light and separation from loved ones cause them anxiety, fear, doubt and pain?  

When walking through Mamertine Prison in Rome where St. Peter was imprisoned for some months awaiting his death, I pondered all the feelings he must have had.  Interestingly enough, he converted almost all the guards who watched over him. 

I have been asked many times “how can you go to the prison?”  I could never do what you do”, they say.  Of course I remind them of Mathew’s passage in chapter 25: 35-36 “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.” (NAB)  I continue to tell them, it is a “calling” that I cannot ignore. 

I read an article recently that said “Each year, more than 700,000 individuals are released from state and federal prison.  Another 9 million cycle through local jails.  When reentry fails, the costs—both societal and economic—are high.  Statistics indicate that more than two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested within 3 years of their release and half are re-incarcerated.” (Taken from Reentry in Brief, a product of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council) 

I hope I can, at the very least, bring the light of God's love to those I mentor.  If I can even save one soul for Christ out of all I interact with or at the very least keep one inmate from returning to prison, I will feel some sense of accomplishment.  I do not ask for God's glory, just his love and strength to do this which gives me the confidence and courage I need to show the outside to those on the inside. To soften the "bang" of the gate a little and give hope to the hopeless, love to the loveless and the love and peace of Christ to all who desire it........ I continue to thank my Lord and Savior for this opportunity.

 JRB (A Contributor to SDM)