St. Bernard on Using Knowledge as Charity and Wisdom

“There are people who only wish to know for the sake of knowing: this is base curiosity. Others wish to know in order that they themselves may be known: this is shameful vanity, and such people cannot escape the mockery of the satirical poet who said about their likes: ‘For you, knowing is nothing unless someone else knows that you know.’ Then there are those who acquire knowledge in order to re-sell it, and for example to make money or gain honours from it: their motive is distasteful. But some wish to know in order to edify: this is charity. Others in order to be edified: this is wisdom. Only those who belong to these last two categories do not misuse knowledge, since they only seek to understand in order to do good.” (St. Bernardus, Sermo XXXVI in Cantica, PL, CLXXXIII, 968.)

Fourth part of the mini-series on St. Bernard, the Saint of Love

The Blessed Virgin Mary is St. Bernard's Lady. Bernard was born and lived in the age of the great poets of Romance. He experienced an intense love of God and the Theotokos. In The Paradiso, as seen in the first of this series, Bernard takes Dante to the Beatific Vision. But, they encounter Our Lady, in the White Rose. The White Rose is the Perfect Love of God, and Mary is there at the center.

Can we not all spend time and let our longings for love center on Mary and Her Son? Today, I ask St. Bernard to lead us, as he led Dante in the poem, to Mary and through Mary to the Trinity. Remember all those medieval Christmas carols calling Mary the Rose. 

Beauty, grace, love...this is our Faith. This is our heritage through baptism. This is the goal of our short lives.

Be bold, like St. Bernard. Let your soul be led to Love, Who is Three Persons in One God.

God is The Rose. He is Love. On this vigil of the feast day of St. Bernard, open yourselves up to Love. Mary, Our Lady, guide us. Be not afraid.

Third part of the mini-series on the Saint of Love

from Sermons on The Song of Songs, 2

It would seem that this holy kiss was of necessity bestowed on the world for two reasons. Without it the faith of those who wavered would not have been strengthened, nor the desires of the fervent appeased. Moreover, this kiss is no other than the Mediator between God and man, himself a man, Christ Jesus, who with the Father and Holy Spirit lives and reigns as God for ever and ever. 

St. Bernard is a Doctor of the Church. This means that Holy Mother Church recommends his work for our reading list. His sermons and letters fill volumes and volumes of books.

I first discovered him a long time ago and was enraptured by his personal knowledge of Christ and his great response of love for Love. The sermons on The Song of Songs can only be called amazing. That a man would have such boldness to write of his love for Christ and Christ's love for him is only matched, if at all, by the writings of SS. Augustine and John of the Cross.

Where are the men today who show us and communicate the Love Who is a Person to us? Why do we not have examples of such in the recent years? Is it that men who are called by God have to be so macho as not to be able to receive Christ's Love? Think on this. The Church has chosen so many business types of priests and bishops that the poets are missing. Our present Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical on love, which I have written about here, comes close. But, the romantic age seems to be over and the language of love lost.

Here is St. Bernard. How wonderful are these bold words. The conscientious man of those days might repeat to himself: "Of what use to me the wordy effusions of the prophets? Rather let him who is the most handsome of the sons of men, let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth. No longer am I satisfied to listen to Moses, for he is a slow speaker and not able to speak well. Isaiah is a man of unclean lips, Jeremiah does not know how to speak, he is a child ; not one of the prophets makes an impact on me with his words. But he, the one whom they proclaim, let him speak to me, “let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth.” I have no desire that he should approach me in their person, or address me with their words, for they are “'a watery darkness, a dense cloud;” rather in his own person “let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth;” let him whose presence is full of love, from whom exquisite doctrines flow in streams, let him become “a spring inside me, welling up to eternal life.” Shall I not receive a richer infusion of grace from him whom the Father has anointed with the oil of gladness above all his rivals, provided that he will bestow on me the kiss of his mouth? For his living, active word is to me a kiss, not indeed an adhering of the lips that can sometimes belie a union of hearts, but an unreserved infusion of joys, a revealing of mysteries, a marvelous and indistinguishable mingling of the divine light with the enlightened mind, which, joined in truth to God, is one spirit with him. With good reason then I avoid trucking with visions and dreams; I want no part with parables and figures of speech; even the very beauty of the angels can only leave me wearied. For my Jesus utterly surpasses these in his majesty and splendor. Therefore I ask of him what I ask of neither man nor angel: that he kiss me with the kiss of his mouth.

Note how I do not presume that it is with his mouth I shall be kissed, for that constitutes the unique felicity and singular privilege of the human nature he assumed. No, in the consciousness of my lowliness I ask to be kissed with the kiss of his mouth, an experience shared by all who are in a position to say: “Indeed from his fullness we have, all of us, received.”

I know some monks today would be squirming in their stalls today if their abbot spoke like this. But, these are the words of experience, of a mystical union with God. And, as Garrigou-Lagrange writes, this experience is for all Catholics, not merely the great ones.

Do we believe that?

I must ask you to try to give your whole attention here. The mouth that kisses signifies the Word who assumes human nature; the nature assumed receives the kiss; the kiss however, that takes its being both from the giver and the receiver, is a person that is formed by both, none other than "the one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus." It is for this reason that none of the saints dared say: "let him kiss me with his mouth," but rather, "with the kiss of his mouth." In this way they paid tribute to that prerogative of Christ, on whom uniquely and in one sole instance the mouth of the word was pressed, that moment when the fullness of the divinity yielded itself to him as the life of his body. A fertile kiss therefore, a marvel of stupendous self-abasement that is not a mere pressing of mouth upon mouth; it is the uniting of God with man. Normally the touch of lip on lip is the sign of the loving embrace of hearts, but this conjoining of natures brings together the human and divine, shows God reconciling "to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven.'' "For he is the peace between us, and has made the two into one.'' This was the kiss for which just men yearned under the old dispensation, foreseeing as they did that in him they would "find happiness and a crown of rejoicing," because in him were hidden "all the jewels of wisdom and knowledge.' Hence their longing to taste that fullness of his.

Second part of the mini-series on St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Can you imagine in the cold and damp monastery of Clairvaux, in the refectory or monastery church, St. Bernard reading to his monks an exposition of The Song of Songs? I wonder at his audacity as well as his mystic insights. What must the monks have thought of his intense descriptions of the Love of Christ for each soul of the monk there in the twilight?

One of the sermons, Number 20, is called the "Three Qualities of Love". I would like to share part of this beautiful meditation with you. The saint begins with the realization that we are all called to love God and that we all fall short of doing this. But, this monk is on fire with real love.

Turn toward yourself, O God, this little that you have granted me to be; take from this miserable life, I beg you, the years that remain. In place of all that I lost in my evil way of living, O God, do not refuse a humble and penitent heart. My days have lengthened like a shadow and passed without fruits I cannot bring them back, but let it please you at least if I offer them to you in the bitterness of my soul. As for wisdom -- my every desire and intention is before you -- if there were any in me, I would keep it for you. But, God, you know my stupidity, unless perhaps it is wisdom for me to recognize it, and even this is your gift. Grant me more; not that I am ungrateful for this small gift, but that I am eager for what is lacking. For all these things, and as much as I am able, I love you.

He continues referring to the fact that Christ's suffering in His Passion is the great sign of His Love given freely.

As St John said: "Not that we had loved him, but that he first loved us." He loved us even before we existed, and in addition he loved us when we resisted him. According to the witness of St Paul: "Even when we were still his enemies we were reconciled to God through the blood of his Son." If he had not loved his enemies, he could not have had any friends, just as he would have had no one to love if he had not loved those who were not.

St. Bernard gives his monks and us three qualities of love: the first is that it is tender or sweet. We do not use this word so much in 2012. Tenderness means sweetness, a kindness and an appropriate compassion. Christ taking on our humanity in the Incarnation is the sign of sweet love for St. Bernard. Because of the Incarnation, men and women can have a loving relationship with Christ. Bernard calls Christ his Friend. But, He is also Lover. The tender concern of a lover is a sign of love.

The second is wisdom, like the wisdom with God has given us in Confirmation and perfected in prayer and fasting, as well as practising virtues. But it is also the wisdom of God to allow Christ to suffer and die for us. In the plan of God, the Passion is necessary. Bernard sees this, of course, as love and zeal.

The third characteristic of love is strength. We see this in the psalms, which the monks say and said then, daily. Love is as strong as death. Bernard writes:

He is the one who conquered all things, even death, and tricked the serpent, the seducer of the world, with a holy deception. He was more prudent than the one, more powerful than the other. He took to himself a true body but only the likeness of sin, giving a sweet consolation to weak men in the one and in the other hiding a trap to deceive the devil. To reconcile us to the Father he bravely suffered death and conquered it, pouring out his blood as the price of our redemption. His divine majesty would not have sought me in chains unless he had loved me so tenderly, but he added wisdom to his affection by which he deceived the serpent. Then he added patience with which to appease his divine Father who had been offended...So love the Lord your God with the full and deep affection of your heart, love him with your mind wholly awake and discreet, love him with all your strength, so much so that you would not even fear to die for love of him. As it is written: "For love is strong as death, jealousy is bitter as hell." Your affection for your Lord Jesus should be both tender and intimate, to oppose the sweet enticements of sensual life. Sweetness conquers sweetness as one nail drives out another. No less than this keep him as a strong light for your mind and a guide for your intellect, not only to avoid the deceits of heresy and to preserve the purity of your faith from their seductions, but also that you might carefully avoid an indiscreet and excessive vehemence in your conversation. Let your love be strong and constant, neither yielding to fear nor cowering at hard work. Let us love affectionately, discreetly, intensely. We know that the love of the heart, which we have said is affectionate, is sweet indeed, but liable to be led astray if it lacks the love of the soul. And the love of the soul is wise indeed, but fragile without that love which is called the love of strength.

We are all called to an intimate relationship with Christ, either through celibacy or marriage. Let us not be afraid of love. I like to think of myself in that cold chapter house listening to the warm words of the saint, looking out at the stones and grass, knowing that I, too, can return that Love for Love.

to be continued....

The Saint of Love--a mini-series

St. Bernard of Clairvaux is my favourite saint and Dante puts him high in heaven, Beatrice leaving Dante in the hands of the mystic saint. St. Bernard is, in my mind, the Saint of Love. He asks Mary, Queen and Mother, to allow Dante the Poet to see the Beatific Vision. I am placing the entire section of the Canto here.
Over the next two days, I shall look at St. Bernard's views on Love, Who is a Person.

Here are the verses from The Divine Comedy:

"O virgin mother, daughter of thy Son,
humble beyond all creatures and more exalted;
predestined turning point of God's intention;

Thy merit so ennobled human nature
that its divine Creator did not scorn
to make Himself the creature of His creature.

The Love that was rekindled in Thy womb
sends for the warmth of the eternal peace
within whose ray this flower has come to bloom.

Here to us, thou art the noon and scope
of Love revealed; and among mortal men,
the living fountain of eternal hope.

Lady, thou art so near God's reckonings
that who seeks grace and does not first seek thee
would have his wish fly upward without wings.

Not only does thy sweet benignity
flow out to all who beg, but oftentimes
thy charity arrives before the plea.

In thee is pity, in thee munificence,
in thee the tenderest heart, in thee unites
all that creation knows of excellence!

Now comes this man who from the final pit
of the universe up to this height has seen,
one by one, the three lives of the spirit.

He prays to thee in fervent supplication
for grace and strength, that he may raise his eyes
to the all-healing final revelation.

And I, who never more desired to see
the vision myself that I do that he may see It,
add my own prayer, and pray that it may be

enough to move you to dispel the trace
of every mortal shadow by thy prayers
and let him see revealed the Sum of Grace.

I pray the further, all-persuading Queen,
keep whole the natural bent of his affections
and of his powers after his eyes have seen.

Protect him from the stirrings of man's clay;
see how Beatrice and the blessed host
clasp reverent hands to join me as I pray."

The eyes that God reveres and loves the best
glowed on the speaker, making clear the joy
with which true prayer is heard by the most blest.

Those eyes turned then to the Eternal Ray,
through which, we must indeed believe, the eyes
of others do not find such ready way.

And I, who neared the goal of all my nature,
felt my soul, at the climax of its yearning,
suddenly, as it ought, grow calm with rapture.

Bernard then, smiling sweetly, gestured to me
to look up, but I had already become
within myself all he would have me be.

Little by little as my vision grew
it penetrated faintly through the aura
of the high lamp which in Itself is true.

What then I saw is more than tongue can say.
Our human speech is dark before the vision.
The ravished memory swoons and falls away.

As one who sees in dreams and wakes to find
the emotional impression of his vision
still powerful while its parts fade from his mind -

just such am I, having lost nearly all
the vision itself, while in my heart I feel
the sweetness of it yet distill and fall.

So, in the sun, the footprints fade from snow.
On the wild wind that bore the tumbling leaves
the Sybil's oracles were scattered so.

O Light Supreme who doth Thyself withdraw
so far above man's mortal understanding,
lend me again some glimpse of what I saw;

make Thou my tongue so eloquent it may
of all Thy glory speak a single clue
to those who follow me in the world's day;

for by returning to my memory
somewhat, and somewhat sounding in these verses,
Thou shalt show man more of Thy victory.

So dazzling was the splendor of that Ray,
that I must certainly have lost my senses
had I, but for an instant, turned away.

And so it was, as I recall, I could,
the better bear to look, until at last,
my Vision made one with the Eternal Good.

Oh grace abounding that had made me fit
to fix my eyes on the eternal light
until my vision was consumed in It!

I saw within Its depth how It conceives
all things in a single volume bound by Love,
of which the universe is the scattered leaves;

substance, accident, and their relation
so fused that all I say could do no more
than yield a glimpse of that bright revelation.

I think I saw the universal form
that binds these things, for as I speak these words
I feel my joy swell and my spirits warm.

Twenty-five centuries since Neptune saw
the Argo's keel have not moved all mankind,
recalling that adventure, to such awe

as I felt in an instant. My tranced being
stared fixed and motionless upon that vision,
even more fervent to see in the act of seeing.

Experiencing that Radiance, the spirit
is so indrawn it is impossible
even to think of ever turning from It.

For the good which is the will's ultimate object
is all subsumed in It; and, being removed,
all is defective which in It is perfect.

Now in my recollection of the rest
I have less power to speak than any infant
wetting its tongue yet at its mother's breast;

and not because that Living Radiance bore
more than one semblance, for It is unchanging
and is forever as it was before;

rather, as I grew worthier to see,
the more I looked, the more unchanging semblance
appeared to change with every change in me.

Within the depthless deep and clear existence
of that abyss of light three circles shown -
three in color, one in circumference;

the second from the first, rainbow from rainbow;
the third, an exhalation of pure fire
equally breathed forth by the other two.

But oh how much my words miss my conception,
which is itself so far from what I saw
than to call it feeble would be rank deception!

O Light Eternal fixed in Itself alone,
by Itself alone understood, which from Itself
loves and glows, self-knowing and self-known;

that second aureole which shone forth in Thee,
conceived as a reflection of the first -
or which appeared so to my scrutiny -

seemed in Itself of Its own coloration
to be painted with man's image. I fixed my eyes
on that alone in rapturous contemplation.

Like a geometer wholly dedicated
to squaring the circle, but who cannot find,
think as he may, the principle indicated -

so did I study the supernal face.
I yearned to know just how our image merges
into that circle, and how it there finds place;

but mine were not the wings for such a flight.
Yet, as I wished, the truth I wished for came
cleaving my mind in a great flash of light.

Here my powers rest from their high fantasy,
but already I could feel my being turned -
instinct and intellect balanced equally

as in a wheel whose motion nothing jars -
by the Love that moves the sun and other stars.

See How They Love One Another

The passage I have been contemplating this week is from Ephesians 4:30-5:2. One of the marks of this section is that St. Paul is writing to the community of Christians. This is a passage for mature Christians and not for newbies.

What do I mean? In this Church of Nice, to which I referred in January on this blog, so many people are afraid to speak out against sin, vice, evil in the world, or politics, or in families. I have written about this earlier this week in the posts on tough love.

I lived in a community for seven years. It was a great, but very hard experience. Some people were judgmental and some were not involved. Some were intense and some superficial. Some were humble and some were control freaks. One learned how to love all in Christ. This did not mean glossing over differences or sin, but helping each other is a spirit of love to overcome evil and become personally holy. When those outside the community saw how we treated each other, they were drawn to us and through us to Christ.

I did not stay as I discerned that I did not have a permanent commitment to that community.

However, the lessons of self-giving and discipline, such as the fact that we got up and had daily prayer at 5:30 a.m. have stayed with me to a certain extent.

Also, the giving up of self in small things, like space, time, plans was learned. Some of us learned these things in family life, but community, focussed on Christ and His Love, brought these virtues to a different perfection.

St. Paul was not talking about ignoring flaws. He assumed that the Christians were repenting daily and learning to love. He was fine-tuning the work of the Holy Spirit.

His lessons are lessons for family life as well.

Michael Voris, a Great Blog, and RealClearReligion on the Scandal of the Al Smith Dinner--It Continues

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/08/16/obama_roasts_cardinal_dolan.html

Have we all become the Lumpenproletariat? The Politics of Identity

In a book written in 1845 entitled, The German Ideology, Marx and Engels used a term first used by Hegel to describe a sub-group of people in the culture, who have no interest in society or politics. This term is lumpenproletariat.

These people, described as rag-tags, a non-class of those who have no stake in a country's levels of material wealth. In a rude way, these were classed as of no interest to the communist agenda, as they would not care enough to change history or the class structure, as they were outside of it.

Hegel saw in The Philosophy of Right, that only those who owned property, had relationships in a society such as family and marriage, were involved in contracts whether political or economic and who has moral values would be interested in maintaining a society and establishing as well as continuing communities.

He was spot on. The lumpenproletariat would be those who did not own land, were even transients, and were considered, later by Trotsky, as useful in so far as they were disillusioned, depressed and ready for a revolt.

Marx did not think they would revolt, as it would not effect their sub-class. Marx knew that revolution was only possible for those who would actually engaged in political or revolutionary activities and those  who liked and followed a "politics of identity".

We have lost this politics of identity in the Catholic Church. Unless we rediscover how to think as a Catholic, one cannot identify politics with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Marx understood that the lumpenproletariat were not helpful to anyone. At one time, he grouped them with anarchists, who only want to destroy without an ideology of government.

One of the biggest losses for identity politics is the loss of a basis in natural law philosophy.

We no longer speak the same language as the post-post moderns, who do not believe in natural law.

The lumpenproletariat have in their definition, no relationships, no moral code, no church-going habits.

These would be the Fagans and Bill Sykes of the world. These could be called the "missing people".

I am beginning to see that many post-Christian peoples fall into this category. One of the marks of the lumpenproletariat would be no desire for anything but self. In the South, the term for lumpenproletariat would be white trash. In England, it would be yob or yobbo.

The point is that relativism and individualism create a large under-class of lumpenproletariats.

I think we are there at this stage in the Post-Christian, post-Western world.

I think that Marx is correct in putting the lumpenproletariats in the same category as anarchists.

My next post on this will include Gramsci's idea of the subalternity and hegemony, again.  To be continued...

Some of my criteria for publishing comments

On allowing commentators ideas to be published depends on criteria, which many bloggers hold dear:

1) No Anonymous comments are published.

2) Belligerent or purposefully nasty comments are not published.

3) Comments which are part of an agenda from website owner who are not only non-Catholic, but
    anti-Catholic and unreasonable are not published: for example, being rude to the Pope or insisting
    on sinful stands and worded in such ways as to not invite discussions.

4)  Extremely personal, emotional or cries of the heart are not published--I pray for those people.

5) Comments with rude words are not published-obviously, people invited to my dinners at home
    do not use street language.

6) Commentators who only want to advertise their products on my blog are not published if they sell
    items or books or anything contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. For example, someone
    sent me a link containing yoga clothing. As yoga is condemned in Jesus Christ Bearer of the Water
    Life, I rejected those comments.

7) Anti-American or anti-British prejudices or racial prejudices, (which are irrational), are not published.

8) Anything offensive to Our Lady is not published.

9) Ad hominems are not published.

10) Specific references to sexual things are not published.

I do not mind discussion, but it must be real and not for the sake of attack.

Another Great Post from JonathanCatholic: on the Al Smith Dinner

Forgotten Truth and the Al Smith Dinner Scandal, a Commentary

His Excellency, Cardinal Dolan’s article will appear in normal font, and my comments will appear in bold.

Last week I was out in Anaheim for the annual Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus. It was, as usual, a most uplifting and inspirational event.

In his rousing address to the thousands of delegates, representing 1.8 million knights, Dr. Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight, exhorted us to a renewed sense of faithful citizenship, encouraging us not to be shy about bringing the values of faith to the public square. This duty, he reminded us, came not just from the fact that we are Catholic, but also from the fact that we are loyal Americans.

(Bringing the values of faith into the public square is fantastic in terms of defending religious liberty from state oppression, although I would point out that it might be a mistake to focus too much on general religion and general religious liberty in the public square as opposed to Christendom and Her Truth being rebuilt in our nation and in the West. This is just a small point since generic religious faith as opposed to the Catholic Faith is not the main point of this article from His Excellency, but I wanted to point out that our loyalty within culture has to be to the building of a Catholic Society, a society and a culture that are permeated with and informed by true Christianity and Christian values. Everything we do, every battle we fight, every goal we set, MUST be as the Church Militant going about to establish the reign of Christ the Divine King in all of society, as opposed to working, fighting, and establishing goals to the end of protecting “freedom of religious expression,” also known as religious liberty. This is something that is lost sight of in the post-Vatican II days through an erroneous, hermeneutic of rupture interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae. This is the difference between seeing the contraception and abortion mandate as being primarily a violation of religious liberty or primarily an intrinsic evil that is witnessed to as evil by the Catholic Religion, which, because it is the Revelation of the one true God, is the absolute Truth.)

He then went on to announce a promising initiative of the Knights of Columbus to foster civility in politics. Quoting a very recent study, he noted that over 80% of Americans are fed up with the negativity, judgmentalism, name-calling, and mudslinging of our election-year process, and eagerly want a campaign of respect, substance, amity — civility!

(Note very carefully, from this paragraph on, how His Excellency uses the word “politics,” and what he applies it to. Keep in mind that much of his focus in this article is on civility precisely because he views the Al Smith Dinner very much in the light of politics. This is why His Excellency trots out the political buzzwords of negativity, judgmentalism, name-calling, and mudslinging in the context of “our election-year process,” as well as his focus on the American people wanting “a campaign of respect, substance, amity – civility.” His Excellency’s language and manner here is reminiscent of a commentary on political advertisements on television.)

For seven decades, the Al Smith Dinner here in New York has been an acclaimed example of such civility in political life. As you may know, every four years, during the presidential election campaign, the Al Smith Dinner is the venue of history, as it is the only time outside of the presidential debates that the two presidential candidates come together, at the invitation of the Al Smith Foundation, through the archbishop of New York, for an evening of positive, upbeat, patriotic, enjoyable civil discourse. This year, both President Obama and Governor Romney have accepted our invitation. I am grateful to them.

(“…an acclaimed example of such civility in political life.” “The two presidential candidates come together… for an evening of positive, upbeat, patriotic, enjoyable civil discourse.” I’m afraid that His Excellency may not be viewing this dinner in the correct light, the light of a proper hierarchy of priority in the Church Militant. What he is saying here would be a perfectly valid point if he were a Republican politician who was inviting members of Congress from both sides of the isle to a dinner, but he is not a politician of any kind, or shouldn’t be. His Excellency is a Prince of the Catholic Church, and the first and most important focus for him is the Divine Faith. I will comment more on this in a later paragraph.)

The evening has always had a special meaning, as it is named after Governor Al Smith, the first Catholic nominated, in 1928, as a candidate for president, who was viciously maligned because of his own Catholic faith. Smith was known as The Happy Warrior, because while he fought fiercely for what he believed was right, he never sought to demonize those who opposed him. And, the dinner named in his honor is truly life-affirming as it raises funds to help support mothers in need and their babies (both born and unborn) of any faith, or none at all.

The Al Smith Dinner has never been without controversy, since, as Carl Anderson reminded us, politics can inspire disdain and negativity as well as patriotism and civility.

(This is one of the most egregious and truly confusing statements in the whole article. Am I reading this wrong, or is His Excellency saying that the current controversy is of its essential nature a political one? He seems to be saying exactly that, since is reminding his readers that politics can inspire disdain and negativity. Your Excellency, Catholics who are concerned about this dinner invitation extended to Obama are not primarily concerned about politics. The true Catholic in the United States should not be sold out to either party, as both deviate from the Catholic Religion in some ways, though the Democratic Party is by far the more horrendous party in deviating from Truth and authentic morality. Thus the Catholic is not dead set against Barack Obama because said Catholic is a partisan purist on the Right who detests the current administration for being Democrat. Nor can the Catholic Faith itself be primarily considered to be a political stance; politics are merely the societal playing-out of the Truth we hold. No, Your Excellency, Catholics who oppose the invitation to Obama or who oppose Barack Obama himself are not motivated to “negativity” by Right Wing politics. We truly and deeply hold the Catholic Religion to be Truth, and we 1) Fight with all our power any political force that supports or advances the cause of intrinsic evil within society, and 2) Fight all the more against a political force that has lied to us and repeatedly marginalized us in the public sphere. The first reason is being a true servant of Our Lord by holding Catholic Truth to a place of primary importance in our worldview, and the second reason is just being a man.)

This year is surely no exception: I am receiving stacks of mail protesting the invitation to President Obama (and by the way, even some objecting to the invitation to Governor Romney).

(He has simply confirmed my previous point by linking this year with the past political controversies he referenced. If His Excellency honestly believes that the stacks of mail he is receiving protesting the invitation he extended to President Obama is politically motivated, he doesn’t truly understand minds of the faithfully Catholic men who are writing him.)

The objections are somewhat heightened this year, since the Catholic community in the United States has rightly expressed vigorous criticism of the President’s support of the abortion license, and his approval of mandates which radically intruded upon Freedom of Religion. We bishops, including yours truly, have been unrelenting in our opposition to these issues, and will continue to be.

(Your Excellency, how can you be “unrelenting in your opposition” against the President and his policies if you relent for a night to laugh and joke on a positive, upbeat, enjoyable evening? Isn’t this a self-contradiction? It is one thing to be politically opposed, as a Republican is against a Democrat, and take a night off from political divisions, but this is not politics we are dealing with. This is not primarily about politics; this is about intrinsic evil against natural law. Trust me when I say that this is not a political statement: Barack Obama has the guilt of murder, persecution of the Church, lying, and the promotion of contraceptive sex all involved in his person. No-one can take a night off from decrying these evils as if they were political talking points; we cannot act as if we are not in a war for the soul of the West.)

So, my correspondents ask, how can you justify inviting the President? Let me try to explain.

For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church. It is an occasion of conversation; it is personal, not partisan.

(*Groan* Why, Your Excellency, why do you insist on repeatedly referring to matters of intrinsic evil as a partisan issue? Why, why do you believe that enjoyable conversation is beneficial to the situation the Church finds herself in, in the midst of a largely profane, anti-Christian culture? And most confusing, why would a “personal” event be any less damaging by any standard to the honor of Holy Mother Church or to her witness to the Truth, since you are “personally” a Prince of the Church?)

Two, the purpose of the Al Smith Dinner is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them.

(“…our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not endorse either candidate.” This statement carries with it the import of false ecumenism; the Church is not at Her best when she unites with other ‘people of faith’ to help those in need, She is at her best when She is absolutely faithful to and outspoken about Her Lord, Jesus Christ, and offers His Sacrifice, together with Her own, on behalf of all the world. Flowing from this Oblation of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, undivided from our Oblation, in prayer and thanksgiving to the Holy Trinity, comes authentic help for the poor in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy made possible by the working of the Holy Ghost, enkindling charity in our hearts; lighting us on fire with His authentic love. If it is possible, in a secondary sense, to cooperate in good will with people in other communities and religions, great. But this is not the substance of Who the Church is when She is at Her best, it is merely a secondary behavior of the Church acting in good will toward other men. If we are not primarily focused on Christ, His Person, His Sacrifice, and His Truth, but rather on the gathering of “people of faith… in… friendship, civility, and patriotism,” I’m afraid we have missed the mark of what discipleship at Christ’s Feet means. You will notice His Excellency also continues the misunderstanding that the protest against this scandal is somehow about politics.)

Three, the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one. Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States. And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences. What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President?

(Culture, society, and government are merely different facets of Western culture in particular and the world in general. His Excellency seems to be neglecting two very important things here, one that is known in Faith, the other, in simple Reason. First of all, we know by Faith, and it is a De Fide dogma according to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s famous and wonderful work, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,” that “The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin.” If the devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of original sin, then why ought we to be primarily concerned with engagement and dialogue? Should not our primary focus be on the fact that we are in a perpetual war against evil in this world, with engagement and dialogue taking the level of secondary importance? The dualities His Excellency attempts to construct between ignoring or inviting, talking together and yelling from a distance, and opening a door or shutting one are rather nonsensical, since warring against evil and taking a primary stance of manly resistance toward it is not ignoring it, nor is it yelling from a distance or shutting a door. Second, we know from Reason, just simple common sense, that you cannot dialogue with someone or something that is unwilling to cooperate. The devil will not ‘dialogue’ with us, and those who repeatedly lie to the Catholic Church and persecute her relentlessly have rendered service to the evil and have spoken quite loudly and very clearly that they do not want a dialogue. Such is the person of Barack Obama, and such is his administration. They have made it quite clear that they are no longer interested in compromise. With all due respect to His Excellency, now is the time for manful and serious resistance, as soldiers of Our Lord, not pleasantries and dialogue. You cannot dialogue with someone who refuses to compromise.)

Finally, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner in no way indicates a slackening in our vigorous promotion of values we Catholic bishops believe to be at the heart of both gospel and American values, particularly the defense of human dignity, fragile life, and religious freedom. In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant solidarity of the evening, be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect.

(Again, with all due respect to His Excellency, how can you have “vibrant solidarity” with someone, Barack Obama, who supports intrinsic evil and violation of natural law? That’s pure nonsense. How can you dissolve the white and black of natural morality to an unholy, grey pablum wherein we can all be ‘nice’ to one another and support the same moral causes in solidarity? Does His Excellency honestly believe that it is that simple, that we can band together as a nation in support of women and infants regardless of that messy issue of *how* we differ regarding what is support and what is harm? The naïveté of thinking this way is beyond comprehension. That paragraph stands out truly in the midst of the whole article as a truly nauseating mush of ‘niceness’ and false solidarity, considering the blood that is spilled and the millions of lives contracepted or aborted out of existence every year with the full and express approval and support of the President. No, we cannot have solidarity with such a man; no, we cannot make nicey-nice and joke and laugh with him as if nothing is wrong and take a night off from the decidedly moral and not political fight.)

Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. That charge weighs on me, as it would on any person of faith, but especially a pastor, who longs to give good example, never bad. So, I apologize if I have given such scandal. I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them?

(Some? Your Excellency, hundreds of thousands of Catholics feel this way, I promise you. I take you at your word, Your Excellency, and I appreciate your good will from the bottom of my heart, with sincerity. What is painful to me, and what weighs on me, however, is that you demonstrate that you still do not understand why the Al Smith dinner is a scandal in the first place. If you had not invited the President, you might have given scandal to non-Catholics, but you know that by inviting him you give scandal to Catholics. Is this of equal weight in your eyes?)

No matter what you might think of this particular decision, might I ask your prayers for me and my brother bishops and priests who are faced with making these decisions, so that we will be wise and faithful shepherds as God calls us to be?

(You have my prayers, and the prayers of all faithful Catholics, Your Excellency. We want nothing more than to get behind you and support you with Rosary Crusades and Chaplets of Divine Mercy, Novenas to the Sacred Heart and Litanies of the Holy Name of Jesus. Consider us your prayer warriors and your army of support; we only beg that you make the hermeneutic of continuity your guide and remember that we are the Church Militant, and balance your worldview from one of dialogue and pleasantries and politics to one of militancy against intrinsic evil and one of zealous Faith above politics.)

In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.

(They were sinners, Your Excellency. Christ dined with them, but He did not make light of sin in the process. He never once treated evil as politics or neglected hard truth and blunt or even offensive language when charity demanded it. His Sacred Heart burned with the fire of infinite charity such that He was willing to die for us, and flowing from that charity He was offensive when He had to be to call out evil and those who promote it.)

I will continue to pray for His Excellency, Cardinal-Archbishop Dolan of New York. Please join me, and pray for a restoration of Sacred Tradition and a return of faithfulness, among the elderly and the youthful, the clerical and the lay, to Catholic principles and Catholic loyalties, to putting the sacred Faith first and not dialoguing incessantly or acting like religion is politics and politics is religion.

On the single life again..by popular demand..mental preparation for marriage.

Two points for my single sisters and brothers today. As you wait for Mr. or Mrs. Right, please recall that only Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can fill the empty spaces of your hearts. Loneliness or lack of vision are individual crosses one must deal with in or out of marriage. Marriage is not a band-aid for serious wounds of the past, not is it a sacrament to end all sufferings.

What many men do not understand, is that women who are really traditional Catholics, want babies, want children. This is natural and a God-given drive. Men who are single sometimes look for a women who will meet all their needs, not wanting to share life with children, not realizing that God has called all, male and female, to die to self and to live in and with Christ as fully as possible.

The second point is that one must choose a vocation which is conducive to the married state if one is really called to that vocation. For example, as a teacher in the past, teaching was something I could do in home schooling and then, at least part-time, continue after the nest was empty. Some careers are simply too demanding for a woman who wants children and a husband, both motherhood and being a wife are full-time jobs.

Likewise, if a man is considering marriage as his vocation, he must enter into a calling which will support a family. Catholic families are counter-cultural by definition, and the stay-at-home mom is the paradigm.

Some of the problems have to do with two generations of women and men who have been brainwashed by the world. They want it all: a high standard of living, comfort, climbing the ladder of success, even having the so-called necessary two or three weeks of vacation yearly.

The Catholic marriage model has been set aside for convenience and selfish pursuits.

All vocations are hard, but if one is called to marriage, the joys and graces of the sacrament may be found in abundance. But, one must plan and not merely fall into a state of torpor or insensitivity.

May I add one more item. Look at my earlier posts on the Pope's encyclical on love.

Look at your politics. There is no doubt that socialism destroys the family and the primary husband and wife relationship. It destroys caritas.

Christ After the Flagellation Contemplated by the Christian Soul

This painting by Diego Velazquez, painted between 1626 and 1628, has been hanging in my bedroom since I arrived in London in June. The baroque masterpiece depicts Christ, ennobled and yet suffering, being sought and looked at by the soul, depicted as a little child. In that sense, the painting reminds me of the icons, which show the soul as small and innocent. An angel, strong, bold, large, imposing, gender-less, handsome, teacher-like, in red and black, points to the injured Christ. I like to think this angel is my Guardian Angel, the guardian of my soul and every soul of a human who is a child of God.

We are made children of God in baptism and not before. This soul has been given an angel as a child of God and the angel, rightly so, indicates that Christ died for this soul's innocence and salvation.

The instruments of torture lie in the foreground of the painting. Christ is strained, still bound to the pillar. But, He is in control, the Master of His Suffering. He looks at the soul with great love and longing. Love Me and Honor Me, the look seems to state. Christ seems to be asking the soul to think of why He has been brought to this state. But, there is not reproach, only love.

There are no accidents with God and this is not my picture, not my room, only a summer dwelling. One of the oddest things about the painting is that the Christ looks like a member of my family, bringing an intimacy to the portraiture through the gene-pool and the imagination of the artist.

That God wants me to contemplate His Suffering is true and good. He calls me and you to contemplation in the busy world.

May I respond always in obedience to my angel and in the attitude of honor and love of this soul in the painting.

Besides an icon which I brought with me of the Vladimir Madonna, which I carry everywhere, the only other picture in the room is a print of St. Etheldreda's entitled, "Chapel, Ely Place".  I am content with the art in my little room.

Read this article

Here is a snippet:

It was President Franklin Roosevelt who said: “Continued dependence on [government support] induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Charles Koch: Why We Fight for Economic Freedom

Special Guest Post from JonathanCatholic

Spouse of God, Continued

In my post in the past week, I discussed the humility that God the Son truly assumed to Himself in becoming man, and examined the extraordinary fact of His obedience to the Blessed Virgin and Saint Joseph, in the context of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori’s great work, “The Glories of Mary,” and a passage from the second chapter of the Gospel according to Saint Luke. This week I would like to complete the meditation by focusing on the implications this has for the teaching of the Church in other areas, most notably the Priesthood and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

When our God humbled Himself to become subject to the Blessed Virgin Mary in obedience during His life here on earth, it was part of the larger context of His entire intention of becoming man, a purpose of pure charity, born from all eternity in the infinite fire of charity that is the Most Holy Trinity. In the deepest intention of the Holy Trinity for God the Son to become man, at the heart of this intention was that God the Son joined Himself so intimately to mankind that He made Himself truly vulnerable to humanity, in the person of Mary, and through Mary, the Church. In this vulnerability, He became subject to her throughout His life as an expression of how fully He had joined Himself to mankind.

At the moment of the Annunciation of Saint Gabriel the Archangel, He awaited her fiat before He willed to be conceived in her womb. As soon as the ‘Let it be done’ fell from her lips, the eternal and majestic Almighty came down as simply and sweetly as a Divine Spouse; at the moment of her assent, God descended both to compass her and be compassed by her; to both surround and be surrounded.

Throughout Our Lord’s life, God Himself willed to be cared for by Mary and willed to need her. It was within His power to be utterly self-sufficient; He could have appeared on earth and commanded obedience immediately from every nation, with the glory of the Godhead shining from His Face. Yet, where does He appear, but in the arms of the Virgin? To whom does He cling, now, as a Toddler, but to her leg? When He studies the art of carpentry, what does He eat, but food from her table? As He matures in His humanity, growing in grace in the sight of the Father and of men, to whom does He look, to see the charity she has for Him and how proud of Him she is?

When the time of His Passion came, who followed Him silently? Who gave Him strength to endure the bitter trial of the flogging? In the injustice of the false council and governor that condemned Him, who was in His memories as the one who offered Him consolation? As He carried the rough Cross, who followed the drops of Divine Blood, silently weeping? As He was dying on the Cross, who stood under Him, the Immaculate New Ark of the Covenant, face red with His Blood, eyes stained with tears, and Heart torn in two? Who stood there, having a Mother’s Right to her Son, freely offering Him to the Father for the salvation of the world and giving Him up even as was prophesied afore in the person of Abraham offering Isaac in submission to the Will of God, or in the person of the great Matriarch Hannah, who offered her only son to God in equally perfect obedience?

In the relationship between Jesus and Mary, the Church finds Her innermost being and constitution. All of Her doctrines flow from this bond, all of Her strength is found in their Hearts, all the Truth of Her practices is found in their Sacred Lives; for Christ is the fullness of all Revelation, and He is found nowhere but in and through Mary, and not without her. When the Priest offers the Sacrifice of the Mass, who does he emulate but the one who stood there at Calvary, offering her Son and releasing her right to Him on our behalf? In his relationship to the Blessed Sacrament, which he is the Sacred Guardian and Protector of, and in which he calls at his word Our Lord Jesus Christ into this world, who do we see, but the son who takes after his Mother? When he calls upon the Holy Ghost to sanctify and change the gifts of bread and wine, does not he and the Spirit call with one voice, just as Mary did with her fiat in the Holy Ghost at the Incarnation? For in both cases the Spirit and the Bride say, “Come,” and our Eucharistic Lord comes into this world at that word. For the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Priesthood of Christ, and she is the Mother of His Priests; they are fruit from her Vine, and they emulate their Mother in all things relating to her relationship with God her Son.

In the Church as a whole, spread throughout the world, God is truly mediated through Her; in Her and through Her, by His design, is only where He is to be found. For in the Eucharist the Lord is truly born of Her into the world, and in the Tabernacle She is ever pregnant with Him. Sacred Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, are born of the Church and are protected by Her, and in them Christ the eternal Word is present. Just as Mary relates to God, so the Church relates to God; in Mary as a Son, and in a similar way in the Church. When you look at the Church, see the Blessed Virgin Mary; when you look at the Blessed Virgin Mary, see the Church. In this sacred relationship between Mary/the Church and God, we find the Catholic Truth regarding where God is to be found: in the womb of Holy Mother Church, in the Eucharist and in Revelation, through the protection and guardianship of the Church Herself, which models after the Blessed Virgin.

My Home Town Makes DrudgeReport

I know East Davenport like the back of my hand. My son organized his international cricket games in the park there. We used to eat at the local Mexican restaurant, Rudy's, right there. The views of the Mississippi River are great from the hills and politics is the local sport. If you were in a local restaurant, you would see people reading (yes, they read) and talking about politics intelligently, with facts. That is the Iowa way. Soybean, Black Angus and corn prices, gay marriage,  the GOP governor and all types of interesting topics would be overheard. 

There is also an ice cream and locally made chocolate shop to die for called Largomarcino's. If you go there, get a hot-fudge Sunday and a Green River drink. 

POTUS was there on Thursday. I hope other people are as fed up as Mr. Murty. Love the tee-shirt.

I used to live just down the road in downtown Davenport, in a great loft apartment. It is not a Catholic city, but it is a political one. 

Iowa deli co-owner caters for Obama visit, but his T-shirt tells another story

By Amy Gardner, Thursday, August 16, 1:43 AM

DAVENPORT, Iowa — Ross Murty likes business, but he doesn’t like President Obama.
And so the co-owner of the Village Corner Deli here agreed to cater Obama’s visit Wednesday — but not before donning a T-shirt blaring the message: “Government didn’t build my business. I did.”
It was a reference to a remark Obama made several weeks ago that his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has seized upon to portray Obama as anti-business. Obama, referring to the help government provides to businesses by building roads and providing education and other services, said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."
“No one from the government was there when we were sweating it, when we were building this business,” Murty said. Before him was a bank of chafing dishes filled with smoked beef brisket, pulled pork, vegetable parmesan bake and cheesy hash brown casserole provided to the White House press corps covering the president’s three-day swing across Iowa this week.

Murty, 45, a registered Republican, didn’t really have a choice with the catering job. His partner, Bret Dalton (a registered Democrat), accepted the work on Saturday while Murty was away in Chicago watching a Cubs game. Dalton volunteered for Vice President Biden’s presidential campaign in 1988, when he was a student at Iowa State University.
But that’s not why he got the contract.
“One of Obama’s lead people came into the deli Saturday morning,” Dalton said. “I didn’t even know it was for Obama until that night.”
When he found out, though, Dalton had some fun. He called up Murty, who was driving back from Chicago, and asked: “Guess who’s coming to town this week?”
“He was a little stunned,” Dalton recalled. But the two take their political disagreements in stride, and the conversation was all in good fun, both said.
“I would never say no to anybody for any reason,” Murty said. “My partner and I have different views in politics, but business is business.”
The White House performs background checks on contractors for security reasons, but it does not vet them for their political views. Also, the caterers are hired to provide food for the White House press corps, which pays for the food, even though the White House makes the arrangements.
The Obama campaign had no comment on Murty's T-shirt.

But the Romney campaign seized on the moment, circulating pictures that reporters had tweeted of Murty with his controversial T-shirt. “Mr. President, please stay another day!” the Romney campaign e-mail said.

An Advertisement from St. Louis--Modest Wedding Dresses-TAC Ladies, For YOU!

This is from one of my readers. I thank tech_pilgrim for this link. My mom is from St. Louis and I love the city. Here is another good reason to go there, besides the Cardinals....Brides, take heart....

A repeated post ...for my fellow bloggers

Saturday, 3 March 2012

A Catholic Carpe Diem

A Catholic Carpe Diem, this post is for bloggers.
And, I claim Fulton J. Sheen as one of my patrons on the Net.
A day in the life of a blogger depends on the person's real job.
Now, for most bloggers, a vocation to the priesthood, married life,
motherhood and fatherhood may be part of the blogging day.
A job or profession most likely marks most Catholic bloggers,
who can be Canon lawyers, secular lawyers, university professors,
artists, journalists, writers, students, computer “guys”, or home schooling moms.
Blogging is an addition to the busy schedule of most.
The quality of the blog depends upon the time and technological skills of the bloggers.
For example, for one blogger, a posting may take 20 minutes.
For another, 30 minutes, and for some bright sparks, 10 minutes.
But, the real mark of every blogger is passion.

The passion of the Catholic blogger is to communicate the beautiful Faith of
our Catholic Church, and give of the five loaves and two fishes
which have been given to that writer, especially in a busy schedule.
A blog may be what is left over in the baskets at the end of the day, or even the week.
Or, the blog could be one of the five loaves.

For most Catholic and traditional bloggers, a blog is a means of evangelizing, i
n the “new evangelization” of Blessed John Paul II. The Internet may very
 well not always be a place of truly free speech. I am not writing this out of paranoia,
but have already shown below in some articles, the coming United Nations effort to
bow to less than free cultures regarding electronic communication.
We in the West expect to be able to stand on our virtual soap-box
and say what we will, without being harassed. This may not always be the case.
And, so, the passion of the blogger is to get across as much real Truth,
real Catholic information as possible in a short period of time. Hence,
the needed passion to communicate falls within a framework of the “now”.
What is important “now” for Catholics?

By the “now”, I do not mean the ephemeral or the trendy. I mean what is important for
the corporate life of the Faithful. Sometimes the now means sharing a prayer, or being a
prophet, or a teacher. Sometimes the now means answering questions, or communicating
important local and international Catholic events, both good and not so good.
One can imagine examples in the last three months where the Catholic blogging
community has worked more hours than usual on the question of Catholic freedom of conscience
 in America. And, that is not the only issue.

I am convinced that I am part of a growing number of bloggers who try to make up what
has been missing in the catechesis of two, maybe three, generations. One person here in
Ireland, four years older than myself, was never taught Catechism in school. The lack of
education for some has created the Catholic Traditional Blog,
which attempts to fill in the gap for adult education for those who are on the computer
and on the Internet. I have read that sixty-percent of the Irish public have
Internet access at home. This is not my personal experience, quite the contrary.
Or, if there is access, only the very young, or under thirties use it regularly and not those older.
Access is limited elsewhere, as I have already noted on this blog.

Was is appalling are the numbers of adults who are not on the computer and not on the Internet,
who do not have access to the real teaching of the Catholic Church, or simply,
do not know where to find the resources. Such adults will remain as children and
even may be endangering their salvation by remaining in ignorance. Any adult who remains in
ignorance of the teachings of the Church in 2012 is guilty of sloth or disinterestedness. 
The second is a serious sin of neglect.

I have been told over and over again in England and in Ireland that adults
“do not have time for religious learning”. The pursuit of mortgages, cars,
careers and even a developed social life have pushed the responsibility to learn
and appropriate the Faith to the back-burner.

I have written on this before, almost two months ago. We shall be judged on
our own merits, or lack thereof, and not on the merits of Father ABC, who did not teach us the Faith.

The blogging community wants to share the Faith, Hope and Love given to us by
Christ with the whole world. If some Catholics are not interested or are too busy to
pursue learning the Truth of the Teaching Magisterium of the Church, we can only
hope that some day soon, the little light of realization will show them that now is the time
to grow in Faith and Reason, knowledge and grace. We may not have the leisure or the means “later”.

I compare blogging with missionary work. In my home town, the oldest existing
Church was founded by an Italian missionary priest, who traveled on horseback along
the Mississippi River spreading the Gospel and setting up parishes. He moved with
whatever was available at the time-a horse, backpack, Bible, Missal, Mass kit, vestments,
 food and water. He may have traveled with others, like a tracker, or guide, or a
few lay assistants. But, he moved, from Italy to Iowa and then up and down the edges of the Great River.

If he had not done this, many families would have died in the Faith. We are the
missionaries of the world of the Internet. I would like to think that in any little way, we encourage the Faith.

The missionary priests, and my great-uncle was one who came to help the
Czech community in northern Iowa, faced horrible dangers and inconveniences--weather,
unfriendly natives, unfriendly Protestants, lack of provisions, lack of books,
even lack of housing and clothing. We, who sit in our dens, classrooms, living rooms,
or Internet cafes, face no problems except perhaps not enough change for a second cup of coffee,
or the temporary loss of electricity, or travelling through a “dead zone”. But,
this may not always be the case. Blog away, fellow bloggers, while you can.
The days of freedom may be shorter than one would hope.