Ash Wednesday in 2017 is on March 1st. As the day approaches, an effort is being made to switch the direction of this blog which of late has been in large measure repetitive criticisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the 266th pope of the Roman Catholic Church. [1] This will not be a 180° turnaround, but it will be a pivot toward another direction, which hopefully the entries will be deeper, more thoughtful and have less to do with the cares of the world than in the past.
The destination this blog will be sailing toward remains vague at the moment, but it ought to come into focus as time proceeds. Unless inspirations come rapidly, which is not anticipated, postings in the future will probably be farther and fewer in between than in the recent past.
This entry marks a turning point. It begins with the assertion that one does not have to be a student of higher learning to know that man is to a degree shaped by his genetics, by the society and the era in which he is raised, by the lessons he has learned from his parents and teachers, by the good and bad experiences during his formative years and by the continuing changes in his life and around him, and as such, one has to accept Bergolio as he is, for no words, from an unknown blogger or from a powerful politician, will make a difference in the way he thinks and acts.
Without delving into Bergolio's past to find out whether he in truth was or was not a "political animal" who had as "[a] teenager...been interested in the relationship between faith and communism," [2] it is sufficient to conclude that his life as a second generation Italian immigrant in Argentina molded him to be the man he is today. Yet, as with Bergolio or with any other person, the degree to which one is irrevocably transformed by his upbringing and environment is not fixed, nor can it be predicted, for there are two invisible intervening forces, one of which comes from God and that is Free Will, the other of which is either a direct or an indirect call from God, that can change a person.
Free Will when exercised is a force so powerful that all the barriers formed by all events of one's past are together not strong enough to resist it, but stronger than one's Free Will is God's Will. An example of God's Will is the story of Saul who was on a rampage to persecute followers of Christ but who was met with the call of God on his way to Damascus which resulted in his conversion. [3] A 16-minute and 36 seconds video on YouTube is a modern day example of God's intervention. [4] Whether this person's testimony is fiction or truth is for the viewer to determine, just as the miracle on the road to Damascus is the reader's choice to believe or not.
Whether Bergolio is acting in accordance with his own Free Will or in accordance to God's Will is not for this blogger to speculate or judge. Bergolio is, after all, a child of God who is loved by God just like any one who has ever inhabited this earth. This revelation came to this blogger after Mass on Sunday when he was sitting on a bench facing Christ showing His Sacred Heart. Maybe this blogger is the "Saul" that is in need of a conversion.
With that said, one can only hope that his conversion would be a success, and with it, the direction of this blog should slowly fulfill its purpose which is for blogger and reader together to reach a place of peace, if not in this world, then perhaps in another.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/pope-francis-cordoba-exile-humble/402032/
[3] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:1-31
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WztrzHDa5Vg For some reason, this video was a "Recommended for you" video that appeared yesterday even though it bears no relation to the videos that have been watched recently. The purpose of its appearance and the urge to click on it are clear now that is has been used as a citation.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Friday, February 24, 2017
Water
This is an attempt at a riddle:
I am lowly,
I am powerful.
With me, you have life.
Without me, you have death.
Who, and what am I?
That Who is Christ. That what is water.
Water and Christ are joined together in many ways. At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan river [1]. Then He called His first disciples beside the Sea of Galilee. [2] At the wedding of Cana, He performed His first miracle by turning "six stone water jars" of water into wine. [3] At the Last Supper, "[H]e took a cup, and when [H]e had given thanks, [H]e gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" [4] This cup held wine from the fruit of the vine that depended on water to give it life. After His ministry ended, when Jesus was on the cross, blood and water flowed from His side after it was pierced by a spear. [5]
Just as water is essential to all life on earth, Christ is essential to eternal life in Heaven. Water that sustains life must be kept pristine just as God must be kept from being secularized. Based on this assertion, one has to wonder if Bergolio had secularized creation when he compared it to a poem and had secularized the papacy when he did not mention God even once when he made his comments, as reported, on "Feb. 24 during a meeting with 90 international experts participating in a 'Dialogue on Water' at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences." [6]
Quoted below in its entirety is a Catholic News Service article dated February 24, 2017, entitled Promote life by protecting, sharing clean water, pope says [7]:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Access to clean drinking water is a basic human right and a key component in protecting human life, Pope Francis said.
"The right to water is essential for the survival of persons and decisive for the future of humanity," the pope said Feb. 24 during a meeting with 90 international experts participating in a "Dialogue on Water" at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Looking at all the conflicts around the globe, Pope Francis said, "I ask myself if we are not moving toward a great world war over water."
Access to water is a basic and urgent matter, he said. "Basic, because where there is water there is life, making it possible for societies to arise and advance. Urgent, because our common home needs to be protected."
Citing "troubling" statistics from the United Nations, the pope said, "each day -- each day! -- a thousand children die from water-related illnesses and millions of persons consume polluted water."
While the situation is urgent, it is not insurmountable, he said. "Our commitment to giving water its proper place calls for developing a culture of care -- that may sound poetic, but that is fine because creation is a poem."
Scientists, business leaders, religious believers and politicians must work together to educate people on the need to protect water resources and to find more ways to ensure greater access to clean water "so that others can live," he said.
A lack of clean and safe drinking water "is a source of great suffering in our common home," the pope said. "It also cries out for practical solutions capable of surmounting the selfish concerns that prevent everyone from exercising this fundamental right."
"We need to unite our voices in a single cause; then it will no longer be a case of hearing individual or isolated voices, but rather the plea of our brothers and sisters echoed in our own, and the cry of the earth for respect and responsible sharing in a treasure belonging to all," he said.
If each person contributes, he said, "we will be helping to make our common home a more livable and fraternal place, where none are rejected or excluded, but all enjoy the goods needed to live and to grow in dignity."
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26:17-30, quoted without line number and footnote.
[6] http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2017/promote-life-by-protecting-sharing-clean-water-pope-says.cfm
[7] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Pope Elevates Himself Above Jesus Christ, The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Holy Family And The Saints
Jesus Christ was a public figure, just as Bergolio is a public figure, but the similiarities end there. The one difference highlighted in this entry is about rights. Bergolio claims that his image is copyrighted and therefore he has rights over his image even though he could care less about the rights of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Family and the saints whose images are being exploited for profit. By not addressing their interests first, and protecting their images from being exploited, Bergolio has put himself above them.
It is apparently legal for the Vatican to exploit the images representing Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Family and saints for profit [1]; yet, the Vatican wants to prohibit the use of Bergolio's image unless it has the Holy See's prior express approval. [2] Did the Vatican ever get permission from Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Family, and the many saints to use their images for profit? Unless the Vatican takes down its website [3] that sells these images and no longer maintains a gift shop on site that sells rosaries, crucifixes and other religious momentos that bear the image of anyone without his/her explicit permission, then the Vatican is itself violating shamelessly the spirit of copyright law that it claims for itself.
Quoted below is the entire February 22, 2017, Catholic News Agency article entitled Vatican to crack down on illegal sale of papal symbols, coat of arms that reported on the copyright law Bergolio seeks to enforce, with hyperlink included [4]:
Why so petty?
Has Bergolio ever thought of the answer he would give if Christ were to ask him on Judgment Day why he sought to protect his own image but not the image of His Mother, Who is far more beautiful than any of the representations of Her on earth? Perhaps Bergolio had, and his reply could be that the images of the Blessed Virgin Mary were made to the best of man's ability and were made to glorify Her, unlike some of the published images of him which were made not to glorify but to humiliate him.
In response, Christ could say that the images published of Bergolio had been Bergolio's true image and that he has no reason to complain because those images were indeed of him; however the images made of the Blessed Virgin Mary were so inaccurate that they do not do any justice to the true image of the Blessed Mother, so much so that a dour-looking Bergolio is by far a more flattering image of Bergolio than the most beautiful image of the Blessed Mother made by man a tolerable one for Her, but then the Blessed Virgin Mary is a loving Mother and She loves all the images made of Her, however hideous they may appear, because She is not petty and all She knows is how to love and pray for sinners.
Christ could continue, and ask, "How about you, my son? Do you think you are petty? Do you know how to love? Have you loved me? Have you loved all whom I love?"
[1] http://www.vaticangift.com/
[2] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-to-crack-down-on-illegal-sale-of-papal-symbols-coat-of-arms-15200/
[3] http://www.vaticangift.com/
[4] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-to-crack-down-on-illegal-sale-of-papal-symbols-coat-of-arms-15200/
It is apparently legal for the Vatican to exploit the images representing Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Family and saints for profit [1]; yet, the Vatican wants to prohibit the use of Bergolio's image unless it has the Holy See's prior express approval. [2] Did the Vatican ever get permission from Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Family, and the many saints to use their images for profit? Unless the Vatican takes down its website [3] that sells these images and no longer maintains a gift shop on site that sells rosaries, crucifixes and other religious momentos that bear the image of anyone without his/her explicit permission, then the Vatican is itself violating shamelessly the spirit of copyright law that it claims for itself.
Quoted below is the entire February 22, 2017, Catholic News Agency article entitled Vatican to crack down on illegal sale of papal symbols, coat of arms that reported on the copyright law Bergolio seeks to enforce, with hyperlink included [4]:
On Wednesday the Vatican announced plans to monitor with a more careful eye those who print official images of the Pope or the Holy See and sell them for profit, intervening with “appropriate action” when necessary.
A Feb. 22 communique issued by the Secretariat of State said pointed out that among its various tasks, it also has “that of protecting the image of the Holy Father, so that his message can reach the faithful intact and that his person not be exploited.”
Because of this, part of the department is dedicated to protecting “the symbols and coats of arms of the Holy See” through appropriate channels on an international level.
In order to make this “protective action” more effective and to “halt situations of illegality that arise,” the department said they will begin carrying out “systematic surveillance activities apt to monitor the ways in which the image of the Holy Father and the coats of arms of the Holy See are used,” intervening with “appropriate action” if and when needed.
The announcement came just weeks after posters critical of Pope Francis appeared on the walls and buildings of the city center of Rome, depicting a sour-faced pontiff with a list of grievances regarding his recent reform efforts.
A few days after the posters appeared and quickly went down, a spoof version of the Vatican’s daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano was sent to members of the Curia claiming the Pope had answered the five “dubia” on Amoris Laetitia sent to him by four cardinals in September, which were subsequently published.
However, the Vatican was quick to clarify that there was no link between the anti-Francis propaganda and the Secretariat of State’s decision.
In a Feb. 22 communique, the Holy See Press Office clarified that Secretariat of State’s decision to crack down on the illegal sale of papal symbols and images “does not originate from any recent news report,” but is rather aimed at protecting the image of the Holy Father and his official coat of arms “against cases of illicit use and exploitation for unauthorized profit.”
Paloma Garcia Ovejero, vice-spokesman for the Holy See, told journalists that the decision “deals with all things of value which are sold or used to earn money.”
“We’re talking about the product and the use of the image of the Pope or the Holy Father’s coat of arms or that of the Holy See which are exploited” for economic purposes, she said.
“So no posters, no Osservatore...It has nothing to do with the posters or the fake Osservatore Romano,” she said, “because they weren’t sold.”
The Secretariat of State’s crackdown is a follow-up of their 2009 decision to issue a a strict copyright of the Pope’s name, image and symbols.
In the Dec. 19, 2009, statement announcing the copyright deal, the Vatican stressed that “it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and therefore, to protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church.”
“Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff... and/or the use of the title 'Pontifical,' must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See,” the statement read.
Why so petty?
Has Bergolio ever thought of the answer he would give if Christ were to ask him on Judgment Day why he sought to protect his own image but not the image of His Mother, Who is far more beautiful than any of the representations of Her on earth? Perhaps Bergolio had, and his reply could be that the images of the Blessed Virgin Mary were made to the best of man's ability and were made to glorify Her, unlike some of the published images of him which were made not to glorify but to humiliate him.
In response, Christ could say that the images published of Bergolio had been Bergolio's true image and that he has no reason to complain because those images were indeed of him; however the images made of the Blessed Virgin Mary were so inaccurate that they do not do any justice to the true image of the Blessed Mother, so much so that a dour-looking Bergolio is by far a more flattering image of Bergolio than the most beautiful image of the Blessed Mother made by man a tolerable one for Her, but then the Blessed Virgin Mary is a loving Mother and She loves all the images made of Her, however hideous they may appear, because She is not petty and all She knows is how to love and pray for sinners.
Christ could continue, and ask, "How about you, my son? Do you think you are petty? Do you know how to love? Have you loved me? Have you loved all whom I love?"
[1] http://www.vaticangift.com/
[2] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-to-crack-down-on-illegal-sale-of-papal-symbols-coat-of-arms-15200/
[3] http://www.vaticangift.com/
[4] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-to-crack-down-on-illegal-sale-of-papal-symbols-coat-of-arms-15200/
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
An Interview With Archbishop Charles Chaput Of Philadelphia
On February 21, 2017, the Catholic News Agency published an article entitled Archbishop Chaput on his new book about life in a post-Christian world, the entirety of which is quoted below without comment and without hyperlinks [1]:
[1] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-chaput-on-his-new-book-about-life-in-a-post-christian-world-62110/
Philadelphia, Pa., Feb 21, 2017 / 02:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia's new book, released on Tuesday, takes a hard look at how Catholics in the United States can live their faith in a public square which has become post-Christian.
CNA recently spoke with Archbishop Chaput about Strangers in a Strange Land: Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World, published Feb. 21 by Henry Holt and Co.
During the conversation, the archbishop discussed the changes seen in American public life in recent years, the role technology has played in these changes, and the place of law in the country's ethos.
He also touched on Christian hope, the central importance of fidelity to Christ, and the temptation of conformity to cultural norms.
Please read below the full text of CNA's interview with Archbishop Chaput:
Why did you feel the need for a new book after “Render Unto Caesar”?
I think the nine years since the release of Render Unto Caesar have seen a generational change in America. Boomers are aging out of leadership. Younger people are moving in. Their civic formation and memory – their understanding of the nation, the role of religious faith in public life, the nature of the Church – are very different from my age cohort.
The 1960s generation, my age group, had the benefit of moral and intellectual capital built up over many decades. We borrowed on it, even while we attacked it. Now a lot of it is used up. That has political consequences for the country and pastoral consequences for anyone trying to preach and live the Gospel. For example, what does a word like “salvation” mean to people who’ve been told since birth that they're basically pretty good already, and if they’re not, it’s the fault of somebody or some force outside themselves?
As Christians, we're offering a salvific message in a therapeutic culture. It's a tough sale.
Doesn't “Strangers in a Strange land” as a title suggest a rather pessimistic view of the place Christians have in society today?
Realistic, yes; pessimistic, no. Optimism and pessimism are equally dangerous because both God and the devil are full of surprises. About three-quarters of Americans still self-identify as Christians. Tens of millions of them actively and sincerely practice their faith. I know dozens of young clergy and lay leaders who are on fire with God, and they’ll make a real difference in the world with their witness. So biblical faith still has an important influence on our public life.
But we'd be foolish to ignore the overall trends in American religious affiliation, which are not good.
You make the case in your book that we're living in a “post-Christian world.” How so?
By “world” I mean mainly the developed countries of the north. In the global south, Christianity is generally doing very well and growing rapidly. But the north has the wealth and power, and therefore the ability to shape much of the dialogue about international trade, politics, and even history. Take a creature like the European Union. The EU very deliberately ignores 1,500 years of Europe’s Christian heritage and defines itself in purely secular terms, as if a huge part of its own past never happened. In effect, it tries to create a new reality by erasing its own memory.
That's a harder trick to pull off in the United States, because we have no negative experience of religious wars or state Churches, the nation’s religious roots are still fresh, and religious practice is still high. But if you unpack the subtext in some of today’s militancy about tolerance and diversity, you find the same disdain for Christian faith and morality.
What do you see as the main factors that have changed America’s religious landscape?
Some of the change is inevitable and good because we’re a country built on immigration, and our demography naturally changes over time. More important, I think, is that many of the developments in our legal and educational philosophies and our sexual mores over the past 60 years have not been friendly to religious belief, and especially to Christian faith. At the same time, technology has fundamentally altered the way we learn, live and work, how we imagine the “supernatural,” and even how we think, or whether we think at all, about God.
You mention the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision [legalizing same-sex marriages] as an emblem of the “many issues creating today's sea change in American public life.” How so?
America is an invented nation. It has no history before the age of progress. It’s a country created and held together by law; and law not only regulates, it also teaches. Americans have an instinctive bias toward assuming that if it’s legal, it’s also morally acceptable. So what the law says about marriage, family and sex has a huge influence on how we actually live as a society. Obergefell was a watershed in how we view these things, and not for the better.
Can we find in our current circumstances some practical reasons for real hope, or are we Christians destined to live sort of “by hope alone”?
Jesus changed the world with 12 very flawed men. We have plenty of good men and women, and more than enough resources, to do the same. But not if we’re too self-absorbed and too eager to fit into the world around us to suffer for our faith. We’re not short of vocations. We’re short of clear thinking and zeal.
What makes Christian hope so radically different from the “hope and change” kind of political slogans common in the secular world?
Political slogans are designed to bypass the brain and go for the heart. They’re a shortcut that relieves people of the hard work of thinking. “Hope and change” is a classic example. The real issue in those words, which is never addressed, is why we should hope, and what kind of change do we want – because some change can be bad.
Christian hope is not an emotion. It’s based on our faith in a loving God, no matter how hard our circumstances. There’s a wonderful line in the King James Version of the Book of Job, where Job – who's bitterly tested by God – says, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (13:15). That confidence, despite all the seeming evidence to the contrary, that's the virtue of hope. And it's very different from just choosing a positive outlook.
How does your vision of a great Christian past and a hopeful future differ from “Making America Great Again?”
The Christian past was great only to the degree that Christians were faithful to Jesus Christ and his Gospel. All the beauty of Christian art, music, architecture, culture and scholarship that we’ve inherited – all of it – depended on and derived from that fidelity. The same applies to how we build the future.
As for the country: We’ll make America great when we make America good. And that means laws and leaders and communities that embody justice, charity and a respect for the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, and including the refugee and immigrant. Otherwise, “making America great again” is just the latest version of “hope and change.”
You say in your first chapter that there are things we Christians “should not bear, should not believe, should not endure in civic life.” Wouldn't that make us “culture warriors” rather than evangelizers?
Preaching, teaching, defending and suffering for what we believe about God and his love for us are part of a culture war that goes back to Golgotha. These things are also called witness.
You quote Václav Havel saying that “the only way to fight a culture of lies...is to consciously live the truth.” What would it mean to live the truth for rank-and-file Catholics today?
Every Catholic every day has little opportunities to speak up to explain or defend his or her faith. Nearly 200 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville – the great early chronicler of our nation’s life – noticed that Americans, despite all our talk about individual liberty, have a terror of being out of step with public opinion.
We don't need more resources to renew the Church in the United States. We need more courage. And that begins with the honesty to live what we claim to believe as Catholics, whether public opinion approves or not.
[1] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-chaput-on-his-new-book-about-life-in-a-post-christian-world-62110/
A Pope And An Imam Join Forces
A Catholic News Agency article entitled Vatican, Al-Azhar team up to counter religious justification for violence dated February 21, 2017, is quoted below in part:
The Vatican and one of Islam’s most renowned schools of Sunni thought are joining forces to discuss how they can work together in combating religious extremism that uses God’s name to justify violence.
On Feb. 21 the Vatican announced that Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, will travel to Cairo to participate in a special seminar at the Al-Azhar University.
He will be joined by the council’s secretary, Bishop Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, and the head of their Office for Islam, Msgr. Khaled Akasheh, to discuss the theme “The role of al-Azhar al-Sharif and of the Vatican in countering the phenomena of fanaticism, extremism and violence in the name of religion.”
The meeting will take place “on the vigil” of Feb. 24 in honor of Pope Saint John Paul II’s visit to the university on that day in 2000. It will also be attended by the Holy See’s ambassador to Egypt, Archbishop Bruno Musarò, as well as various representatives from Al-Azhar.
Currently Ahmed al Tayyeb, the Imam of al Azhar is considered by some Muslims to be the highest authority the 1.5-billion strong Sunni Muslim world and oversees Egypt’s al-Azhar Mosque and the prestigious al-Azhar University attached to it. [Emphasis added.]
Founded in the Fatimid dynasty in the late 10th century together with the adjoining mosque, the university is one of the most renowned study centers for the legal principals of Sunni Islam. [Emphasis added.]
This joint effort between the Holy See and the Al-Azhar University almost seems like a beam of light piercing through the black background of the ISIL flag, but it is doubtful that its opacity will allow any of its light to shine through.
While it is good to be optimistic, it is better to be realistic. How likely are the leaders of ISIL going to listen to Imam Ahmed al Tayyeb, who is only considered "by some Muslims," not all, not a majority and not even half of the Muslims "to be the highest authority...." [2] Moreover, ISIL is not recruiting from "the university," notwithstanding that it is "one of the most renowned study centers for the legal principals of Sunni Islam." [3] And if Imam Ahmed al Tayyed is so authoritative and influential, why is he even speaking to a Catholic pope and not directly with ISIL leaders? What good exactly will it do by talking to a pope that ISIL had wanted to kill (according to a report by Express, published on December 13, 2015, entitled ISIS threat to POPE: Fears for Holy Father as terror nuts plot 'FINAL MASSACRE' in Rome [4]), and probably still wishes to do so? [4]
Although it is not likely that ISIL will be able to kill the pope because of the level of security surrounding him, it is possible that whatever messages that will come out of the joint discussions between the Vatican and the university, intended for ISIL and to combat "religious extremism", will be dead on arrival.
In conclusion, those on the side of ISIL are not blind to the fact that this pope is an embattled pope facing a schism in the Catholic Church, even though those on the other side of ISIL are perhaps still blind to the reality that Islam has already been split irreconcilably between the moderate and the extreme factions.
[1] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-al-azhar-team-up-to-counter-religious-justification-for-violence-13909/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/626279/ISIS-threat-to-POPE-Fears-for-Holy-Father-as-terror-nuts-plot-Rome-massacre
The Two Kinds Of Poverty
The first premise of this entry is that everyone lacks something and it is that deficiency that makes everybody poor. All are therefore in need of some sort of infusion to feel whole. Nobody is whole because of Original Sin, which is the black hole of the human race. Similar to the black holes of the universe, the metaphoric black hole has an insatiable appetite that pulls into its cavity whatever that is around.
As the black hole expands from within, the urge to complete oneself grows with it. It is that undefinable persistent inner emptiness that encapsulates a kind of poverty that is ubiquitous in that it plagues the whole human race, those disadvantaged as well as those with all the advantages.
However, throughout the ages, there are those who are blessed more than others, not because they have a lack of want, for everybody has wants, but because their wants are grounded in the spirit of poverty, like the wants of San Francesco d'Assisi and Sainte Bernadette Soubirous. Not everyone cares to be poor in spirit like them, not because spiritual poverty is unattainable but because it is difficult to attain.
Being poor in spirit means humility before family and neighbor, friend and foe, and, of course, God. With God, obedience is also necessary. Poverty in spirit is accessible to all, including those blinded by their secular ideology, pride and hypocrisy.
While a person is defined by the amount of effort expended to embrace spiritual poverty, it is the permanent or momentary absence of that poverty that connects one to another, that makes every person equal to every other person.
Sadly, not everyone thinks that they are equal to everyone else. Many of the politicians and the religious like to stand on their elevated podiums to lift those who are economically poor (refugees included) but few of them acknowledge and mention the "glass ceiling." They express their compassion for the disadvantaged by resorting to their 140-character tweets or lengthy speeches, and from their impassioned words flow their crocodile tears. These people are compassionate only to a point, and that point ends at the invisible "glass" boundary that delineates their turf, inside which their true colors show and their power begins. That power is not to be questioned or challenged, certainly not by those over whom they dominate. By virtue of their superior status, they are able to assure their own survival by giving away the public's money in exchange for votes in the case of politicians, and by spending charitable donations in order to provide for their own livelihood in the case of the religious.
This blog has always maintained that the poor are to be afforded assistance, but they are not to be used to gain votes or to give religion its purpose.
Based on a general understanding of the teachings of Christ, [1] it seems correct to conclude that the reason for Christ's incarnation was not to equalize the many different strata within a society, but to show one how to lower one's social stratum in order to love perfectly, so that man can complete himself, filling to the extent possible that cancerous black hole [2] inside him and in doing so, the world would be a more peaceful and less contentious place. This conclusion is drawn based on the second premise that Jesus came not from a heaven of nothingness but a Heaven full of riches (other-worldly) that is beyond man's comprehension and yet, as God incarnate, Jesus Who knew what richness meant, never deemed it essential to turn stones into gold for the poor even though He had turned water into wine for a couple's wedding guests.
[1] It is good to remind readers again that this blogger does not study the Bible. He uses it only as a reference and quotes it on an as-needed basis to lend credence to his opinions.
[2] Man's inner black hole is Satan's portal to Hell.
As the black hole expands from within, the urge to complete oneself grows with it. It is that undefinable persistent inner emptiness that encapsulates a kind of poverty that is ubiquitous in that it plagues the whole human race, those disadvantaged as well as those with all the advantages.
However, throughout the ages, there are those who are blessed more than others, not because they have a lack of want, for everybody has wants, but because their wants are grounded in the spirit of poverty, like the wants of San Francesco d'Assisi and Sainte Bernadette Soubirous. Not everyone cares to be poor in spirit like them, not because spiritual poverty is unattainable but because it is difficult to attain.
Being poor in spirit means humility before family and neighbor, friend and foe, and, of course, God. With God, obedience is also necessary. Poverty in spirit is accessible to all, including those blinded by their secular ideology, pride and hypocrisy.
While a person is defined by the amount of effort expended to embrace spiritual poverty, it is the permanent or momentary absence of that poverty that connects one to another, that makes every person equal to every other person.
Sadly, not everyone thinks that they are equal to everyone else. Many of the politicians and the religious like to stand on their elevated podiums to lift those who are economically poor (refugees included) but few of them acknowledge and mention the "glass ceiling." They express their compassion for the disadvantaged by resorting to their 140-character tweets or lengthy speeches, and from their impassioned words flow their crocodile tears. These people are compassionate only to a point, and that point ends at the invisible "glass" boundary that delineates their turf, inside which their true colors show and their power begins. That power is not to be questioned or challenged, certainly not by those over whom they dominate. By virtue of their superior status, they are able to assure their own survival by giving away the public's money in exchange for votes in the case of politicians, and by spending charitable donations in order to provide for their own livelihood in the case of the religious.
This blog has always maintained that the poor are to be afforded assistance, but they are not to be used to gain votes or to give religion its purpose.
Based on a general understanding of the teachings of Christ, [1] it seems correct to conclude that the reason for Christ's incarnation was not to equalize the many different strata within a society, but to show one how to lower one's social stratum in order to love perfectly, so that man can complete himself, filling to the extent possible that cancerous black hole [2] inside him and in doing so, the world would be a more peaceful and less contentious place. This conclusion is drawn based on the second premise that Jesus came not from a heaven of nothingness but a Heaven full of riches (other-worldly) that is beyond man's comprehension and yet, as God incarnate, Jesus Who knew what richness meant, never deemed it essential to turn stones into gold for the poor even though He had turned water into wine for a couple's wedding guests.
[1] It is good to remind readers again that this blogger does not study the Bible. He uses it only as a reference and quotes it on an as-needed basis to lend credence to his opinions.
[2] Man's inner black hole is Satan's portal to Hell.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
The Parable Of The Rich Young Man And Its Many Layers
Quoted below in its entirety from biblegateway.com (without footnotes) is the parable of The Rich Young Man [1]:
This parable is on its face about a rich young man's attachment to his earthly possessions and his desire for eternal life, but that is not all. The many layers that lie below its surface were revealed by quick flashes of thoughts entering the mind, not as a result of hours of meditation.
Here, the blogger digresses further. Meditation does not work for him. He tried it a couple of times in the past and drew only blanks, becoming bored quickly. The thoughts that come through nowadays can be compared to being given a few large pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that needs to be connected with other smaller pieces that have yet to be made. There is no doubt that the maker of these pieces was never good at making and putting them together, and getting an entry posted remains challenging, some more than others. If it is difficult to do, then why do it? Perhaps having this blog is a calling of sorts, or just plain vanity. If it is a calling, then it is a calling of the mediocre, not the exceptional, of an "Antonio Salieri" at his worst, not a "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" at his best [2]. If it is vanity, then readers' tolerance and forgiveness are needed.
Now back to the parable of The Rich Young Man: For this entry, a section by section arrangement seems to work well. Line numbers that correspond to those in the passage quoted above are assigned to each section.
Section 1 - Lines 16 - 17:
"16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, 'Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?' 17 And he said to him, 'Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'"
This young man went up to the Teacher, not just any teacher, to ask his question: "'[W]hat good deed must I do to have eternal life?'" He probably knew something about Jesus already and Jesus knew that. Instead of answering him, Jesus asked, "'Why do you ask me about what is good?'" Without waiting for a response, Jesus answered His own question: "'There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'" The answer Jesus gave anticipated the young man's next question.
Section 2 - Lines 18 - 20:
"18 He said to him, 'Which ones?' And Jesus said, 'You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 20 The young man said to him, 'All these I have kept. What do I still lack?'"
It is interesting to note that Jesus did not name all ten of the Commandments. [3] Arguably, Jesus omitted only one, to not do any work on Sabbath day, and included the first two in His answer to His own question: "'There is only one who is good.'" Because there is only one God Who is good, the young man therefore must have no other gods and must not use God's name in vain. Jesus then recited five of the original commandments that the young man had to follow, namely to honor his parents, but not to kill, steal, commit adultery and bear false witness. After that, Jesus introduced a commandment that combined the last two, which required the young man to love his neighbor as himself, meaning that he was not to covet his neighbor's wife or desire whatever his neighbor had. Since he was to love his neighbor who was merely human, by inference he must also love God, the "'only one who is good.'" This "new" commandment to "'[l]ove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'" [4] was affirmed by Jesus to be the first, and greatest, commandment in Matthew 22:34-40 (infra), as was the "new" last commandment to "'[l]ove your neighbor as yourself'" [5] affirmed to be the second greatest commandment.
All that is evident, but less so is the symmetry with which Jesus replaced the first two Commandments with one, and the last two with another. More subtle than the beauty of symmetry are the unspoken words in the parable in which Jesus omitted to mention the Commandment to not work on Sabbath day. Apparently, Jesus, Who is "'the Son of Man [and Who] is [the] Lord of the Sabbath'" [6], had modified it, if not eliminated it entirely, seeing that it was being ignored, [7] and perhaps also foreseeing that it would not be kept. By not telling the young man to observe Sabbath day, Jesus' silence spoke.
The young man of course knew that Jesus had failed to mention one or more commandments. Not understanding why Jesus was silent on the one requiring the observance of Sabbath day in particular, he followed up with a tactful question. Referring to the incomplete list of commandments Jesus had just given him, the young man said: "'All these I have kept. What do I still lack?'" He might as well have said this to Jesus instead: "All these I have kept, but aren't you forgetting something?" Jesus did not fall for the trap and went to the heart of the young man's original question: "'what good deed must I do to have eternal life?'"
Before moving forward, one ought to go back and take another look at what Jesus' silence meant in regard to the "forgotten" commandment.
Without saying anything, Jesus was saying that He had the authority to speak on behalf of God, and to clarify or modify God's words as He deemed proper and necessary, for Jesus was God incarnate and is part of the Holy Trinity.
As God incarnate, Jesus had by His silence formed His living Church with seven commandments, replacing the original ten, by eliminating one and consolidating four into two, and leaving five of the original ones intact.
The two "new" consolidated commandments that Jesus gave the rich young man were also told to a Pharisee, an expert in the law, who asked in Matthew 22:34-40 (supra), "'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?'" [8] Jesus said in reply, "'"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'" [9]
Looking at the facts and the totality of the circumstances with the clarity of hindsight, one should be able to conclude without any reservation that Jesus' unspoken words firmly established Jesus to be the Son of God. Being the incarnated Son of God, Jesus was perfect and knew what perfection was, and had instructed the young man accordingly on how to be perfect, so that he could be certain to have eternal life.
Section 3 - Lines 21 - 22:
"21 Jesus said to him, 'If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.' 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."
The obvious lesson here is that one cannot serve God and be a slave to one's possessions at the same time. With possessions come responsibilities; and the time needed to attend to them reduces the quality of love and the level of dedication that are needed to follow Christ.
The rich young man did not wish to part with his possessions and went away sad because he was unable to be perfect the way Christ wanted him to be perfect, but perfection and the lack of possessions are not necessary conditions for one to have eternal life. Earlier Jesus told the rich young man, "'If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'" This was told to the rich young man before he was asked to perfect himself by following Christ.
To be perfect, the rich young man needed to sell all his possessions. This was just a first step he needed to take, and he could not even do that. Because he did not pass the easy part of the test, there was no use for Jesus to let him know the difficult part, but Jesus did come back to it toward the end of the parable. (See Section 6 below.)
Section 4 - Lines 23 - 26
"23 And Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.' 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, 'Who then can be saved?' 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'"
These words confirm that the rich are not automatically barred from entering the Kingdom of Heaven and that the poor are not all saved. Christ had made it clear that nobody can enter Heaven without God's mercy, not even the disciples.
There is nothing here that escapes the obvious.
Section 5 - Lines 27 - 28
"27 Then Peter said in reply, 'See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?' 28 Jesus said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Three possible subtleties here should be considered. Firstly, not only did Peter expect to be rewarded, he wanted to know what he would get. Jesus did tell him what the reward would be but it was contingent upon the ones "who have followed me." In other words, those who had not, would not be rewarded. If Judas Iscariot was there, Jesus was talking to him. Secondly, Jesus was also referring to Free Will, giving all the disciples the chance to change their minds, to choose not to follow the Son of God at some point, who would then not "have followed [Christ]." Finally, the reward was not the "glorious throne" of Christ, but twelve "less glorious" thrones that when sat upon would give those sitting upon them the authority to judge "the twelve tribes of Israel," excluding apparently all the Gentiles, and that was excluding a very large number of people and souls. For someone with high expectations and much ambition, that reward could seem like a disappointment. If the disciples were disappointed by the reward that awaited them, they would be more disappointed by what Christ had to say next.
Section 6 - Line 29
"29 'And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.'"
These words were not only meant for the disciples, but were also a continuation of the conversation Christ was having with the rich young man. (See Section 3 above.)
To see this as a continuation of the conversation with the rich young man, one must accept that perfection in Christ is not only about selling off chattels and giving the proceeds to the poor (the easy part), but also leaving behind "'houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands'" to follow Him (the difficult part). One can argue that following Christ does not require one to be without a spouse because Christ did not say to leave behind one's spouse, although it can be inferred that to follow Christ, one has to leave behind one's spouse as well, because the words "everyone who has left houses" likely mean "everyone who has left houses with spouses in them." This conclusion is supported by the requirement to leave "children" behind since mothers are much more likely to stay at home with their children than to assume their role as wives and follow their husbands around. In other words, for priests to marry and have a family is not what Jesus had in mind. This makes sense because having a wife and family necessarily requires one to be a devoted husband and father, thereby taking away from one's ability to transform that devotion into a broad love that is extended to anyone and everyone, and to avail oneself fully without hesitation to a stranger in need.
Having to leave behind one's family is similar to having to relinquish one possessions, for both family and possessions come with responsibilities and burdens that would necessarily compromise one's dedication to being an unfailing follower of Christ. Thus, it can be concluded that the path that leads to receiving "a hundredfold" on top of "eternal life" is not an easy one and is not for everybody, and was certainly not for the rich young man.
Unlike the rich young man, Jesus' disciples chose the difficult path and followed Christ. It ought to be clear to the disciples that these words of Jesus were meant for them, for they had left their houses, their jobs, their mothers and fathers to follow Christ, and that they would "'receive a hundredfold and ... inherit eternal life.'"
At the same time, Christ could be telling Peter and the rest of disciples to not be concerned about what rewards they could expect, whether their rewards would be extra special to them and whether such rewards would match their expectations since eternal life alone is already an infinite gift in contrast to eternal death. And if Christ wanted to give more and better rewards to others who might not have suffered as much as the disciples, the disciples should not complain since that would be Christ's decision. It seems like Christ had already made that decision when He began talking about rewards in Heaven with this inclusive word: "'And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.'" [Emphasis added.] If being told that there was a possibility that someone else could be their equal was not enough to dampen somewhat the disciples' enthusiasm, the last sentence of the parable would nearly wipe it out, provided that the disciples could see into the future, which they could not.
Section 7 - Line 30
"30 'But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
It is likely that the disciples did not have a clue what Christ meant by these words: "many who are first will be last, and the last first."
These words do not mean that the disciples who were first to follow Christ would not enter Heaven first; they just mean that there could very well be a last one who would be first, maybe first among equals or simply first, who would always be standing to next to Christ on the right side of Christ and who would "inherit eternal life," "receive a hundredfold" and be given the authority to judge all the Gentiles. Who might this last one be?
Saint Francis of Assisi was the only person that came into the blogger's mind before it went blank and shut down on its own, not allowing the blogger a chance to think of someone else. It was because of the sudden appearance of this one unforgettable piece of jigsaw puzzle that this entry was started.
Three days later, a conclusion is reached: the parable of The Rich Young Man did not end with the rich young man in the parable who spoke to Christ but left Christ abruptly with sorrow because he could not renounce his possessions; rather, it ended poetically with another rich young man some 1,200 years later to whom Christ spoke when he was in his early 20's [10], who gave up his possessions and inheritance and left his home, his father and mother to follow Christ with joy in his heart.
Many events seem to form a circle, with Jesus being the new Adam and the Virgin Mary being the new Eve, could therefore Francis of Assisi be the new rich young man? [11]
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-30&version=ESV; see also http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19:16, with explanations that differ from those above.
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/dec/19/classicalmusicandopera.italy
[3] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:34-40
[5] Ibid.
[6] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A1-14&version=NIV
[7] Ibid.
[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A34-40&version=NIV
[9] Ibid.
[10] http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/moversandshakers/francis-of-assisi.html; https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-francis-of-assisi/
[11] A entry that is currently awaiting inspiration, should it ever arrive, will be about a future event that could come full circle.
16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.
This parable is on its face about a rich young man's attachment to his earthly possessions and his desire for eternal life, but that is not all. The many layers that lie below its surface were revealed by quick flashes of thoughts entering the mind, not as a result of hours of meditation.
Here, the blogger digresses further. Meditation does not work for him. He tried it a couple of times in the past and drew only blanks, becoming bored quickly. The thoughts that come through nowadays can be compared to being given a few large pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that needs to be connected with other smaller pieces that have yet to be made. There is no doubt that the maker of these pieces was never good at making and putting them together, and getting an entry posted remains challenging, some more than others. If it is difficult to do, then why do it? Perhaps having this blog is a calling of sorts, or just plain vanity. If it is a calling, then it is a calling of the mediocre, not the exceptional, of an "Antonio Salieri" at his worst, not a "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" at his best [2]. If it is vanity, then readers' tolerance and forgiveness are needed.
Now back to the parable of The Rich Young Man: For this entry, a section by section arrangement seems to work well. Line numbers that correspond to those in the passage quoted above are assigned to each section.
Section 1 - Lines 16 - 17:
"16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, 'Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?' 17 And he said to him, 'Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'"
This young man went up to the Teacher, not just any teacher, to ask his question: "'[W]hat good deed must I do to have eternal life?'" He probably knew something about Jesus already and Jesus knew that. Instead of answering him, Jesus asked, "'Why do you ask me about what is good?'" Without waiting for a response, Jesus answered His own question: "'There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'" The answer Jesus gave anticipated the young man's next question.
Section 2 - Lines 18 - 20:
"18 He said to him, 'Which ones?' And Jesus said, 'You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 20 The young man said to him, 'All these I have kept. What do I still lack?'"
It is interesting to note that Jesus did not name all ten of the Commandments. [3] Arguably, Jesus omitted only one, to not do any work on Sabbath day, and included the first two in His answer to His own question: "'There is only one who is good.'" Because there is only one God Who is good, the young man therefore must have no other gods and must not use God's name in vain. Jesus then recited five of the original commandments that the young man had to follow, namely to honor his parents, but not to kill, steal, commit adultery and bear false witness. After that, Jesus introduced a commandment that combined the last two, which required the young man to love his neighbor as himself, meaning that he was not to covet his neighbor's wife or desire whatever his neighbor had. Since he was to love his neighbor who was merely human, by inference he must also love God, the "'only one who is good.'" This "new" commandment to "'[l]ove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'" [4] was affirmed by Jesus to be the first, and greatest, commandment in Matthew 22:34-40 (infra), as was the "new" last commandment to "'[l]ove your neighbor as yourself'" [5] affirmed to be the second greatest commandment.
All that is evident, but less so is the symmetry with which Jesus replaced the first two Commandments with one, and the last two with another. More subtle than the beauty of symmetry are the unspoken words in the parable in which Jesus omitted to mention the Commandment to not work on Sabbath day. Apparently, Jesus, Who is "'the Son of Man [and Who] is [the] Lord of the Sabbath'" [6], had modified it, if not eliminated it entirely, seeing that it was being ignored, [7] and perhaps also foreseeing that it would not be kept. By not telling the young man to observe Sabbath day, Jesus' silence spoke.
The young man of course knew that Jesus had failed to mention one or more commandments. Not understanding why Jesus was silent on the one requiring the observance of Sabbath day in particular, he followed up with a tactful question. Referring to the incomplete list of commandments Jesus had just given him, the young man said: "'All these I have kept. What do I still lack?'" He might as well have said this to Jesus instead: "All these I have kept, but aren't you forgetting something?" Jesus did not fall for the trap and went to the heart of the young man's original question: "'what good deed must I do to have eternal life?'"
Before moving forward, one ought to go back and take another look at what Jesus' silence meant in regard to the "forgotten" commandment.
Without saying anything, Jesus was saying that He had the authority to speak on behalf of God, and to clarify or modify God's words as He deemed proper and necessary, for Jesus was God incarnate and is part of the Holy Trinity.
As God incarnate, Jesus had by His silence formed His living Church with seven commandments, replacing the original ten, by eliminating one and consolidating four into two, and leaving five of the original ones intact.
The two "new" consolidated commandments that Jesus gave the rich young man were also told to a Pharisee, an expert in the law, who asked in Matthew 22:34-40 (supra), "'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?'" [8] Jesus said in reply, "'"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'" [9]
Looking at the facts and the totality of the circumstances with the clarity of hindsight, one should be able to conclude without any reservation that Jesus' unspoken words firmly established Jesus to be the Son of God. Being the incarnated Son of God, Jesus was perfect and knew what perfection was, and had instructed the young man accordingly on how to be perfect, so that he could be certain to have eternal life.
Section 3 - Lines 21 - 22:
"21 Jesus said to him, 'If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.' 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."
The obvious lesson here is that one cannot serve God and be a slave to one's possessions at the same time. With possessions come responsibilities; and the time needed to attend to them reduces the quality of love and the level of dedication that are needed to follow Christ.
The rich young man did not wish to part with his possessions and went away sad because he was unable to be perfect the way Christ wanted him to be perfect, but perfection and the lack of possessions are not necessary conditions for one to have eternal life. Earlier Jesus told the rich young man, "'If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'" This was told to the rich young man before he was asked to perfect himself by following Christ.
To be perfect, the rich young man needed to sell all his possessions. This was just a first step he needed to take, and he could not even do that. Because he did not pass the easy part of the test, there was no use for Jesus to let him know the difficult part, but Jesus did come back to it toward the end of the parable. (See Section 6 below.)
Section 4 - Lines 23 - 26
"23 And Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.' 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, 'Who then can be saved?' 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'"
These words confirm that the rich are not automatically barred from entering the Kingdom of Heaven and that the poor are not all saved. Christ had made it clear that nobody can enter Heaven without God's mercy, not even the disciples.
There is nothing here that escapes the obvious.
Section 5 - Lines 27 - 28
"27 Then Peter said in reply, 'See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?' 28 Jesus said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Three possible subtleties here should be considered. Firstly, not only did Peter expect to be rewarded, he wanted to know what he would get. Jesus did tell him what the reward would be but it was contingent upon the ones "who have followed me." In other words, those who had not, would not be rewarded. If Judas Iscariot was there, Jesus was talking to him. Secondly, Jesus was also referring to Free Will, giving all the disciples the chance to change their minds, to choose not to follow the Son of God at some point, who would then not "have followed [Christ]." Finally, the reward was not the "glorious throne" of Christ, but twelve "less glorious" thrones that when sat upon would give those sitting upon them the authority to judge "the twelve tribes of Israel," excluding apparently all the Gentiles, and that was excluding a very large number of people and souls. For someone with high expectations and much ambition, that reward could seem like a disappointment. If the disciples were disappointed by the reward that awaited them, they would be more disappointed by what Christ had to say next.
Section 6 - Line 29
"29 'And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.'"
These words were not only meant for the disciples, but were also a continuation of the conversation Christ was having with the rich young man. (See Section 3 above.)
To see this as a continuation of the conversation with the rich young man, one must accept that perfection in Christ is not only about selling off chattels and giving the proceeds to the poor (the easy part), but also leaving behind "'houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands'" to follow Him (the difficult part). One can argue that following Christ does not require one to be without a spouse because Christ did not say to leave behind one's spouse, although it can be inferred that to follow Christ, one has to leave behind one's spouse as well, because the words "everyone who has left houses" likely mean "everyone who has left houses with spouses in them." This conclusion is supported by the requirement to leave "children" behind since mothers are much more likely to stay at home with their children than to assume their role as wives and follow their husbands around. In other words, for priests to marry and have a family is not what Jesus had in mind. This makes sense because having a wife and family necessarily requires one to be a devoted husband and father, thereby taking away from one's ability to transform that devotion into a broad love that is extended to anyone and everyone, and to avail oneself fully without hesitation to a stranger in need.
Having to leave behind one's family is similar to having to relinquish one possessions, for both family and possessions come with responsibilities and burdens that would necessarily compromise one's dedication to being an unfailing follower of Christ. Thus, it can be concluded that the path that leads to receiving "a hundredfold" on top of "eternal life" is not an easy one and is not for everybody, and was certainly not for the rich young man.
Unlike the rich young man, Jesus' disciples chose the difficult path and followed Christ. It ought to be clear to the disciples that these words of Jesus were meant for them, for they had left their houses, their jobs, their mothers and fathers to follow Christ, and that they would "'receive a hundredfold and ... inherit eternal life.'"
At the same time, Christ could be telling Peter and the rest of disciples to not be concerned about what rewards they could expect, whether their rewards would be extra special to them and whether such rewards would match their expectations since eternal life alone is already an infinite gift in contrast to eternal death. And if Christ wanted to give more and better rewards to others who might not have suffered as much as the disciples, the disciples should not complain since that would be Christ's decision. It seems like Christ had already made that decision when He began talking about rewards in Heaven with this inclusive word: "'And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.'" [Emphasis added.] If being told that there was a possibility that someone else could be their equal was not enough to dampen somewhat the disciples' enthusiasm, the last sentence of the parable would nearly wipe it out, provided that the disciples could see into the future, which they could not.
Section 7 - Line 30
"30 'But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
It is likely that the disciples did not have a clue what Christ meant by these words: "many who are first will be last, and the last first."
These words do not mean that the disciples who were first to follow Christ would not enter Heaven first; they just mean that there could very well be a last one who would be first, maybe first among equals or simply first, who would always be standing to next to Christ on the right side of Christ and who would "inherit eternal life," "receive a hundredfold" and be given the authority to judge all the Gentiles. Who might this last one be?
Saint Francis of Assisi was the only person that came into the blogger's mind before it went blank and shut down on its own, not allowing the blogger a chance to think of someone else. It was because of the sudden appearance of this one unforgettable piece of jigsaw puzzle that this entry was started.
Three days later, a conclusion is reached: the parable of The Rich Young Man did not end with the rich young man in the parable who spoke to Christ but left Christ abruptly with sorrow because he could not renounce his possessions; rather, it ended poetically with another rich young man some 1,200 years later to whom Christ spoke when he was in his early 20's [10], who gave up his possessions and inheritance and left his home, his father and mother to follow Christ with joy in his heart.
Many events seem to form a circle, with Jesus being the new Adam and the Virgin Mary being the new Eve, could therefore Francis of Assisi be the new rich young man? [11]
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-30&version=ESV; see also http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19:16, with explanations that differ from those above.
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/dec/19/classicalmusicandopera.italy
[3] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:34-40
[5] Ibid.
[6] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A1-14&version=NIV
[7] Ibid.
[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A34-40&version=NIV
[9] Ibid.
[10] http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/moversandshakers/francis-of-assisi.html; https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-francis-of-assisi/
[11] A entry that is currently awaiting inspiration, should it ever arrive, will be about a future event that could come full circle.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
What Is Going On In The Photograph?
Is this woman, possibly from a Sioux tribe, who possibly is a priestess who believes in "Wakan Tanka, [the Sioux] god and creator of all things," [1] giving this man dressed as the pope, who is supposedly a representative of Christ, a blessing? Should it not be the other way around?
Here is a close-up of the same photograph:
Looking at the photograph, one has to wonder if Christ would ever allow His true representative on earth to lower his head in submission to receive a blessing from a person who probably does not believe in Christ to be the Son of God. Considering what Christ had said to Satan, that Satan should worship the Lord God and serve only God [4], does it look like Bergolio is serving God in the photograph? Does Satan or any of its minions ever listen to and do what Christ wants?
[1] http://native-american-indian-facts.com/Great-Plains-American-Indian-Facts/Sioux-Indian-Tribe-Facts.shtml
[2] http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2017/consult-respect-indigenous-peoples-and-their-land-pope-says.cfm
[3] http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/vatican_pope_us_pipeline_48083jpg-b908fjpg/
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%204%3A8
 |
| "CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano" [2] |
Here is a close-up of the same photograph:
 |
| "L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP" [3] |
Looking at the photograph, one has to wonder if Christ would ever allow His true representative on earth to lower his head in submission to receive a blessing from a person who probably does not believe in Christ to be the Son of God. Considering what Christ had said to Satan, that Satan should worship the Lord God and serve only God [4], does it look like Bergolio is serving God in the photograph? Does Satan or any of its minions ever listen to and do what Christ wants?
[1] http://native-american-indian-facts.com/Great-Plains-American-Indian-Facts/Sioux-Indian-Tribe-Facts.shtml
[2] http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2017/consult-respect-indigenous-peoples-and-their-land-pope-says.cfm
[3] http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/vatican_pope_us_pipeline_48083jpg-b908fjpg/
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%204%3A8
What Does The Catholic Church Have To Do With A Crude Oil Pipeline?
Quoted in part below is from a February 15, 2017, Reuters article entitled Pope appears to back native tribes in Dakota Pipeline conflict [1]:
To what extent the way of life of indigenous people should be protected is outside of the scope of Catholic Church, which ought to focus on Christ's sacredness rather than on the "sacred ground" claimed by the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes. If Bergolio wants to argue the the 1997 U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it applies to the two Sioux tribes, then he ought to file a lawsuit in a United States district court (assuming he can overcome the standing issue), and he should also assist with the one that was filed on July 27, 2016, by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against the United States Army Corps of Engineers. [2]
How Bergolio manages to find time to meddle in such superfluousness is astounding, as if he has nothing else better to do, while leaving matters that pertain to the impending division and the continuing viability of the Vatican on the back burner. Perhaps the indigeneous tribes were a welcomed secular distraction that distanced himself temporarily from his immediate reality. However, no distraction, perhaps other than an earthquake that reduces the Vatican to rubble, will overcome the fact that he has been trapped by his own Amoris Laetitia, which seems to say that "'in some cases the divorced and civilly remarried can be admitted to receive the Eucharist.'" [3] If there is any remaining doubt on this issue, the February 14, 2017, Vatican Press publication of "a short book by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio," [4] "arguing that Amoris Laetitia allows for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist in some cases," [5] had put it to rest, despite earlier statements by Cardinal Gerhard Müller to the contrary. [6] Cardinal Müller is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Administering the Eucharist to those who are divorced at St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City is far removed from building a crude oil pipeline in North Dakota in the United States, figuratively and literally (the two places are separated by approximately 5,039 mi [7] or 8,109 km), but problems inside the Holy See are only steps away from the church. A short CatholicCulture.org comment dated February 14, 2017, entitled Unrest at the Vatican; reassurances backfire, re-published by LIFESITE on February 15, 2017, gives readers a sense of what is happening on Bergolio's side of the Dakota Pipeline [8].
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-dakota-pipeline-pope-idUSKBN15U1VA
[2] http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/3154%201%20Complaint.pdf Readers wishing to keep up with the latest developments on the case, as of February 14, 2017, can read about the denial of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's request for a temporary restraining order here:
https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/crsts-request-for-a-temporary-restraining-order-against-dapl-is-denied/
[3] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/04/does-amoris-laetitia-encourage-communion-of-divorced-and-re-married.html
[4] http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30752
[5] Ibid.
[6] http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/cardinal-muller-communion-for-the-remarried-is-against-gods-law/
[7] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=North+Dakota+to+Vatican+distanc+e
[8] https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/unrest-at-the-vatican-reassurances-backfire;
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1411;
Pope Francis appeared on Wednesday to back Native Americans seeking to halt part of the Dakota Access Pipeline, saying indigenous cultures have a right to defend "their ancestral relationship to the earth".
The Latin American pope, who has often strongly defended indigenous rights since his election in 2013, made his comments on protection of native lands to representative of tribes attending the Indigenous Peoples Forum in Rome.
While he did not name the pipeline, he used strong and clear language applicable to the conflict, saying development had to be reconciled with "the protection of the particular characteristics of indigenous peoples and their territories".
Francis spoke two days after a U.S. federal judge denied a request by tribes to halt construction of the final link of the project that sparked months of protests by activists aimed at stopping the 1,170-mile line.
Speaking in Spanish, Francis said the need to protect native territories was "especially clear when planning economic activities which may interfere with indigenous cultures and their ancestral relationship to the earth".
The Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes have argued the project would prevent them from practicing religious ceremonies at a lake they say is surrounded by sacred ground.
"In this regard, the right to prior and informed consent (of native peoples) should always prevail," the pope said, citing the 1997 U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
To what extent the way of life of indigenous people should be protected is outside of the scope of Catholic Church, which ought to focus on Christ's sacredness rather than on the "sacred ground" claimed by the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes. If Bergolio wants to argue the the 1997 U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it applies to the two Sioux tribes, then he ought to file a lawsuit in a United States district court (assuming he can overcome the standing issue), and he should also assist with the one that was filed on July 27, 2016, by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against the United States Army Corps of Engineers. [2]
How Bergolio manages to find time to meddle in such superfluousness is astounding, as if he has nothing else better to do, while leaving matters that pertain to the impending division and the continuing viability of the Vatican on the back burner. Perhaps the indigeneous tribes were a welcomed secular distraction that distanced himself temporarily from his immediate reality. However, no distraction, perhaps other than an earthquake that reduces the Vatican to rubble, will overcome the fact that he has been trapped by his own Amoris Laetitia, which seems to say that "'in some cases the divorced and civilly remarried can be admitted to receive the Eucharist.'" [3] If there is any remaining doubt on this issue, the February 14, 2017, Vatican Press publication of "a short book by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio," [4] "arguing that Amoris Laetitia allows for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist in some cases," [5] had put it to rest, despite earlier statements by Cardinal Gerhard Müller to the contrary. [6] Cardinal Müller is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Administering the Eucharist to those who are divorced at St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City is far removed from building a crude oil pipeline in North Dakota in the United States, figuratively and literally (the two places are separated by approximately 5,039 mi [7] or 8,109 km), but problems inside the Holy See are only steps away from the church. A short CatholicCulture.org comment dated February 14, 2017, entitled Unrest at the Vatican; reassurances backfire, re-published by LIFESITE on February 15, 2017, gives readers a sense of what is happening on Bergolio's side of the Dakota Pipeline [8].
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-dakota-pipeline-pope-idUSKBN15U1VA
[2] http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/3154%201%20Complaint.pdf Readers wishing to keep up with the latest developments on the case, as of February 14, 2017, can read about the denial of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's request for a temporary restraining order here:
https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/crsts-request-for-a-temporary-restraining-order-against-dapl-is-denied/
[3] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/04/does-amoris-laetitia-encourage-communion-of-divorced-and-re-married.html
[4] http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30752
[5] Ibid.
[6] http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/cardinal-muller-communion-for-the-remarried-is-against-gods-law/
[7] https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=North+Dakota+to+Vatican+distanc+e
[8] https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/unrest-at-the-vatican-reassurances-backfire;
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1411;
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
St. Valentine's Day - A Secular Comment
Disregarding who Valentine was, how he became a saint and how he has come to represent romantic love, this blogger wants to take advantage of this day, as commercialized, to express a time-wasting, secular comment on the love that he neither comprehends nor has allowed himself to experience.
Enduring romantic love, he imagines, is not an annual celebration but a life-long, continuous affair. It is not an obligation to attend to or an expectation to be fulfilled; rather, it is an unfinished yearning that begins on the day two individuals of the opposite sex meet with a mutual unspoken desire to create a union that becomes a bond that strengthens when the relationship is being tested, when it is nearly impossible to hold together, when both sides reach out to each other, with hand in hand, like on that first date, with abiding love in their hearts, knowing that there is nothing that is unconquerable when they are together.
The reality, unfortunately, is not nearly as perfect as dreamed, and one ought to ask why. One can point to choice, or to fate, both of which are plausible reasons. One also cannot underestimate the power of desire which too often breaks the promise of fidelity, or the weakness of the will which almost always succumbs to the pains of the heart.
Thus, is the bond of love so fragile that not even an annual reminder on St. Valentine's Day is enough to keep it from coming apart?
Perhaps not, not if the two individuals once joined together by love are each willing to accept one's own weaknesses with sufficient humility to ask for forgiveness and to embrace the other person's weaknesses with sufficient compassion to grant forgiveness. In doing so, it is not an exercise using a scale of justice, for love is not an object that can be counted, measured or otherwise quantified and weighed: love is a living organism that needs to be nurtured and protected in order to survive and flourish.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Enduring romantic love, he imagines, is not an annual celebration but a life-long, continuous affair. It is not an obligation to attend to or an expectation to be fulfilled; rather, it is an unfinished yearning that begins on the day two individuals of the opposite sex meet with a mutual unspoken desire to create a union that becomes a bond that strengthens when the relationship is being tested, when it is nearly impossible to hold together, when both sides reach out to each other, with hand in hand, like on that first date, with abiding love in their hearts, knowing that there is nothing that is unconquerable when they are together.
The reality, unfortunately, is not nearly as perfect as dreamed, and one ought to ask why. One can point to choice, or to fate, both of which are plausible reasons. One also cannot underestimate the power of desire which too often breaks the promise of fidelity, or the weakness of the will which almost always succumbs to the pains of the heart.
Thus, is the bond of love so fragile that not even an annual reminder on St. Valentine's Day is enough to keep it from coming apart?
Perhaps not, not if the two individuals once joined together by love are each willing to accept one's own weaknesses with sufficient humility to ask for forgiveness and to embrace the other person's weaknesses with sufficient compassion to grant forgiveness. In doing so, it is not an exercise using a scale of justice, for love is not an object that can be counted, measured or otherwise quantified and weighed: love is a living organism that needs to be nurtured and protected in order to survive and flourish.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Monday, February 13, 2017
The Judgment Of Nations Parable
The Judgment Of Nations is a parable in Matthew 25:31-46. Quoted below in its entirety is from usccb.org without footnotes, except one which follow the passage below [1]:
The footnote (quoted without hyperlinks) follows [2]:
After reading the footnote accompanying the passage above, this blogger has a much better understanding of the parable. Therefore, he is able to support and supplement the conclusion drawn by the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops ("USCCB") which says "that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist’s sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel" but not the weaker case that assumes the "least brothers" to be "all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc."
The stronger case presented by the USCCB has to be the correct reading. For the weaker case to be correct, it would necessarily lead to the erroneous conclusion that the secular "sheep" on the right would enter Heaven without ever believing in God's omnipotence to the point of rejecting God's existence so long as they feed those who are hungry, give water to those who are thirsty, clothe those who are naked and so on, despite the fact that Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." [3] Without first accepting God, how can one love God "[w]hich is the first of all the commandments"? [4]
Those who are familiar with Bergolio and his team ought not to be surprised to see them rely this passage to open the door to Heaven to atheists and secularists so long as they give money to the poor in order that the poor can buy their own food, drinks and clothes, pay for hospitalization and medications so they can get well without a visit, stay at their own hotel rooms so they do not have to enter and mess up someone's home and post their own bail to save "the [secular and atheist] sheep" a trip to jail.
Of course, it is incumbent upon those, including the "goats," who are able to come to the aid of another in need regardless of the person's beliefs, to give aid with love in their hearts, just as Jesus had healed many who needed healing with love in His heart. Perhaps doing good works with unconditional love is the equivalent of doing the work of God with God at the center of one's heart, and therefore the door to Heaven could be wide open for all who do such work in such a manner, should they choose to enter it.
[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25:31
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/12:29
[4] http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/12:28
The Judgment of the Nations.*
31
f “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
g and all the nations* will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
h For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37
Then the righteous* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40
i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41
* j Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
k For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44
* Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46
l And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
The footnote (quoted without hyperlinks) follows [2]:
* [25:31–46] The conclusion of the discourse, which is peculiar to Matthew, portrays the final judgment that will accompany the parousia. Although often called a “parable,” it is not really such, for the only parabolic elements are the depiction of the Son of Man as a shepherd and of the righteous and the wicked as sheep and goats respectively (Mt 25:32–33). The criterion of judgment will be the deeds of mercy that have been done for the least of Jesus’ brothers (Mt 25:40). A difficult and important question is the identification of these least brothers. Are they all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc. (Mt 25:35, 36) or a particular group of such sufferers? Scholars are divided in their response and arguments can be made for either side. But leaving aside the problem of what the traditional material that Matthew edited may have meant, it seems that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist’s sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel. The criterion of judgment for all the nations is their treatment of those who have borne to the world the message of Jesus, and this means ultimately their acceptance or rejection of Jesus himself; cf. Mt 10:40, “Whoever receives you, receives me.” See note on Mt 16:27. [Emphasis original.]
After reading the footnote accompanying the passage above, this blogger has a much better understanding of the parable. Therefore, he is able to support and supplement the conclusion drawn by the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops ("USCCB") which says "that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist’s sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel" but not the weaker case that assumes the "least brothers" to be "all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc."
The stronger case presented by the USCCB has to be the correct reading. For the weaker case to be correct, it would necessarily lead to the erroneous conclusion that the secular "sheep" on the right would enter Heaven without ever believing in God's omnipotence to the point of rejecting God's existence so long as they feed those who are hungry, give water to those who are thirsty, clothe those who are naked and so on, despite the fact that Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." [3] Without first accepting God, how can one love God "[w]hich is the first of all the commandments"? [4]
Those who are familiar with Bergolio and his team ought not to be surprised to see them rely this passage to open the door to Heaven to atheists and secularists so long as they give money to the poor in order that the poor can buy their own food, drinks and clothes, pay for hospitalization and medications so they can get well without a visit, stay at their own hotel rooms so they do not have to enter and mess up someone's home and post their own bail to save "the [secular and atheist] sheep" a trip to jail.
Of course, it is incumbent upon those, including the "goats," who are able to come to the aid of another in need regardless of the person's beliefs, to give aid with love in their hearts, just as Jesus had healed many who needed healing with love in His heart. Perhaps doing good works with unconditional love is the equivalent of doing the work of God with God at the center of one's heart, and therefore the door to Heaven could be wide open for all who do such work in such a manner, should they choose to enter it.
[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25:31
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/12:29
[4] http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/12:28
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Blind Faith
This blogger sometimes has sketchy thoughts that come into his mind that he shamelessly finds it appropriate to put down in a blog, even though he is without the requisite knowledge and credentials to expound on such thoughts. This entry is yet another example of his shamelessness, evidenced by "facts" that are pure speculation, arguments that are specious and conclusions that are without merit. Regardless, he writes while struggling to develop those thoughts and to make logical sense of them (it would be nice if they could come as ready-to-post, grammatically-correct paragraphs):
Dictionary.com defines blind faith to be a "belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination." [1]
Does blind faith exist today in Christianity, in Islam and in other religions based on the definition above? In this entry, (without proof) the answer is yes. Do all religions require blind faith to thrive? No. One that does not is arguably Catholicism and one that does is arguably radical Islam.
Many who kill in the name of radical Islam find the need to shout out "Allahu Akbar," which means "'God is greater'" [2] even though the phrase "is commonly used by Muslims as a peaceful reminder of their commitment to their religion." [3] "Allahu Akbar" is also said "in unison to show approval to a speaker, in the same way that Christians use 'amen'" [4] but "many Islamist extremists have co-opted 'Allahu Akbar' as a war cry[, and t]here are reports of many jiahdis uttering the phrase before killing." [5]
This blogger believes that Islam is not a religion of violence anymore than any other religion, including Catholicism, going back to the days of the Crusades. [6] He also believes that it takes blind faith in a religion (or in a government) to commit atrocities, and that ignorance and plebeianness are not prerequisites for blind faith since there are plenty of well-educated and well-off people who kill, or who think that Bergolio is a true representative of Christ.
Why do people have blind faith? There could be a variety of reasons and this blogger can imagine only a few of them. On the radical Islamic side, the saddest of them are boys from a very young age are being "indoctrinated with religious [more accurately, jihadist] concepts." [7] Another is perhaps the sense of isolation felt especially by "home grown terrorists" brought upon by cultural differences and ethnic appearances intensified by the dispensability of "real" human contacts in the age of social media, video games and other online interactions. Still another is perhaps a general dissatisfaction with a materialistic and hedonistic world that is exacerbated by the world leaders who are drunk with power, but who are also insecure and fearful and who need to prove to themselves and to others their prowess and dominance so much so that they will do whatever it takes to shore up their egos, including the direct and indirect invasion of another (weak and defenseless) sovereign without provocation and without regard for future consequences, including the endgendering of hatred of those directly and indirectly affected. Therefore, feeling caught in a system oblivious of their needs, it is possible that these "home grown terrorists" could think, albeit erroneously, that they could find more meaning in their lives when they embrace blindly the "religion" of radical Islam.
Seldom, if ever, do the majority of people think of the "home grown terrorists" who never felt truly welcomed or accepted by their adopted society in which they live, or the brainwashed young boys who eventually grow up to be jihadists, who had never been given a chance to think for themselves, as victims, even though many left-wing liberals consider themselves as victims to such a degree that some of them who are Catholics even see Christ as a victim -- a holy victim. As discussed previously in this blog, it is true that Christ is holy, but it is not true that He was a victim. At most, Christ could be deemed a martyr for his "cause," but that still cannot be right because the salvation of souls is neither a "cause" nor a "principle" [8] but a manifestation of Divine Love. Priests and others who like to think of Christ as a "holy victim" ought to reserve the word "victim" and feelings of pity for themselves.
Christ does not need pity but Bergolio does, and so do those who have blind faith in him. This blogger really has no clue why Catholics around the world would want to follow Bergolio blindly except perhaps for the fact that tradition and obedience demand that they do, or perhaps they have been swept up in the excitement of having a liberal pope who speaks their language of relativism and mercy (mercy for all except for his political enemies), or perhaps they have been caught up in the momentum of the secularists' movement of which Bergolio is a part, evidenced by how often he talks about matters that are political, economic and societal and how much his audience likes listening to him because such talks take the focus away from them and redirects it to others, leading them to believe that none of those problems are theirs and that they belong to someone else, as compared to how rarely he talks about the salvation of the soul because no Bergolio fan wants to hear how to save his/her soul and the consequences of not saving it, and because talking about the salvation of the soul means that people in the audience are required to step outside of their comfort zone, losing their status as observers and not being able to sit self-righteously and comfortably in their seats to simply listen to the pope castigate others whose views are not aligned with his (a mishmash of secular, socialist and heretical beliefs) and become participants in the life of Christ, each being reminded of the burden of sins and having to take personal responsibility for one's choices.
Every time Bergolio addresses secular concerns like a left-wing socialist politician, even with occasional references to the Bible, Bergolio has in effect forced Christ to stand in his shadow while putting himself front and center when he ought to act as a transparent conduit, making himself "invisible" so that those desiring the love of God can be brought close to God by the plain words of God spoken directly by the Son of God.
Because Bergolio has relegated Christ to the background, something not even Satan would do, he has made himself the head of the Catholic Church when Christ is the true Head of the Church. At the helm, Bergolio has attracted a following of "blind" followers who no longer care about what Christ had to say, but care only about what Bergolio has to say. Bergolio expects and demands complete assent; anyone who refuses may be "decapitated" in the way Matthew Festing, the former Grand Master of the Order of Malta, among others, had been "decapitated." Posters that went up in Rome on February 4, 2017, had a message under a picture of Bergolio that said [9]:
In contrast to the "blind" followers of Bergolio (with their heads still intact), those who walked with Jesus were not "blind." To make certain that their faith in Him was not a blind faith, Jesus had, on one occasion, restored eyesight to a man born blind [10].
Many people, besides the Apostles, were able to see and touch the incarnated Son of God and hear Him speak, and to witness His divinity when He performed miracles, and His humanity when He was being scourged and crucified. Jesus' divinity was also evidenced also by His transfiguration, His risen Body and His ascension into Heaven. Even though many did not witness these and other events directly, they were able to "see" them, and Christ, through the eyes of the disciples by hearing them tell about the life of the incarnated Son of God with unmitigated passion.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the incarnation of the Son of God is to let the world see, hear and reach God through Christ, Who by His death had established the one and only true Church that does not need blind faith (or the Vatican) to exist and endure.
If, for some reason, the incarnation, crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ were not enough to convince the many unbelievers who are truly "blind" to accept the Christ as the Son of the One and Only True God, His Mother has come to the world in His place since His resurrection, through Her many apparitions, to remind sinners of Her Son's divinity.
[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/blind-faith
[2] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/703390/allahu-akbar-what-does-it-mean-why-terrorists-muslim-arabic
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] http://www.history.com/topics/crusades
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/05/islamic-state-trains-purer-child-killers-in-doctrine-of-hate
[8] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/martyr?s=t
[9] https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/02/04/rome-wakes-find-city-full-anti-pope-francis-posters/
[10] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:1-12
Dictionary.com defines blind faith to be a "belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination." [1]
Does blind faith exist today in Christianity, in Islam and in other religions based on the definition above? In this entry, (without proof) the answer is yes. Do all religions require blind faith to thrive? No. One that does not is arguably Catholicism and one that does is arguably radical Islam.
Many who kill in the name of radical Islam find the need to shout out "Allahu Akbar," which means "'God is greater'" [2] even though the phrase "is commonly used by Muslims as a peaceful reminder of their commitment to their religion." [3] "Allahu Akbar" is also said "in unison to show approval to a speaker, in the same way that Christians use 'amen'" [4] but "many Islamist extremists have co-opted 'Allahu Akbar' as a war cry[, and t]here are reports of many jiahdis uttering the phrase before killing." [5]
This blogger believes that Islam is not a religion of violence anymore than any other religion, including Catholicism, going back to the days of the Crusades. [6] He also believes that it takes blind faith in a religion (or in a government) to commit atrocities, and that ignorance and plebeianness are not prerequisites for blind faith since there are plenty of well-educated and well-off people who kill, or who think that Bergolio is a true representative of Christ.
Why do people have blind faith? There could be a variety of reasons and this blogger can imagine only a few of them. On the radical Islamic side, the saddest of them are boys from a very young age are being "indoctrinated with religious [more accurately, jihadist] concepts." [7] Another is perhaps the sense of isolation felt especially by "home grown terrorists" brought upon by cultural differences and ethnic appearances intensified by the dispensability of "real" human contacts in the age of social media, video games and other online interactions. Still another is perhaps a general dissatisfaction with a materialistic and hedonistic world that is exacerbated by the world leaders who are drunk with power, but who are also insecure and fearful and who need to prove to themselves and to others their prowess and dominance so much so that they will do whatever it takes to shore up their egos, including the direct and indirect invasion of another (weak and defenseless) sovereign without provocation and without regard for future consequences, including the endgendering of hatred of those directly and indirectly affected. Therefore, feeling caught in a system oblivious of their needs, it is possible that these "home grown terrorists" could think, albeit erroneously, that they could find more meaning in their lives when they embrace blindly the "religion" of radical Islam.
Seldom, if ever, do the majority of people think of the "home grown terrorists" who never felt truly welcomed or accepted by their adopted society in which they live, or the brainwashed young boys who eventually grow up to be jihadists, who had never been given a chance to think for themselves, as victims, even though many left-wing liberals consider themselves as victims to such a degree that some of them who are Catholics even see Christ as a victim -- a holy victim. As discussed previously in this blog, it is true that Christ is holy, but it is not true that He was a victim. At most, Christ could be deemed a martyr for his "cause," but that still cannot be right because the salvation of souls is neither a "cause" nor a "principle" [8] but a manifestation of Divine Love. Priests and others who like to think of Christ as a "holy victim" ought to reserve the word "victim" and feelings of pity for themselves.
Christ does not need pity but Bergolio does, and so do those who have blind faith in him. This blogger really has no clue why Catholics around the world would want to follow Bergolio blindly except perhaps for the fact that tradition and obedience demand that they do, or perhaps they have been swept up in the excitement of having a liberal pope who speaks their language of relativism and mercy (mercy for all except for his political enemies), or perhaps they have been caught up in the momentum of the secularists' movement of which Bergolio is a part, evidenced by how often he talks about matters that are political, economic and societal and how much his audience likes listening to him because such talks take the focus away from them and redirects it to others, leading them to believe that none of those problems are theirs and that they belong to someone else, as compared to how rarely he talks about the salvation of the soul because no Bergolio fan wants to hear how to save his/her soul and the consequences of not saving it, and because talking about the salvation of the soul means that people in the audience are required to step outside of their comfort zone, losing their status as observers and not being able to sit self-righteously and comfortably in their seats to simply listen to the pope castigate others whose views are not aligned with his (a mishmash of secular, socialist and heretical beliefs) and become participants in the life of Christ, each being reminded of the burden of sins and having to take personal responsibility for one's choices.
Every time Bergolio addresses secular concerns like a left-wing socialist politician, even with occasional references to the Bible, Bergolio has in effect forced Christ to stand in his shadow while putting himself front and center when he ought to act as a transparent conduit, making himself "invisible" so that those desiring the love of God can be brought close to God by the plain words of God spoken directly by the Son of God.
Because Bergolio has relegated Christ to the background, something not even Satan would do, he has made himself the head of the Catholic Church when Christ is the true Head of the Church. At the helm, Bergolio has attracted a following of "blind" followers who no longer care about what Christ had to say, but care only about what Bergolio has to say. Bergolio expects and demands complete assent; anyone who refuses may be "decapitated" in the way Matthew Festing, the former Grand Master of the Order of Malta, among others, had been "decapitated." Posters that went up in Rome on February 4, 2017, had a message under a picture of Bergolio that said [9]:
“Ah Francis, you’ve taken over congregations, removed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals… but where’s your mercy?”
In contrast to the "blind" followers of Bergolio (with their heads still intact), those who walked with Jesus were not "blind." To make certain that their faith in Him was not a blind faith, Jesus had, on one occasion, restored eyesight to a man born blind [10].
Many people, besides the Apostles, were able to see and touch the incarnated Son of God and hear Him speak, and to witness His divinity when He performed miracles, and His humanity when He was being scourged and crucified. Jesus' divinity was also evidenced also by His transfiguration, His risen Body and His ascension into Heaven. Even though many did not witness these and other events directly, they were able to "see" them, and Christ, through the eyes of the disciples by hearing them tell about the life of the incarnated Son of God with unmitigated passion.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the incarnation of the Son of God is to let the world see, hear and reach God through Christ, Who by His death had established the one and only true Church that does not need blind faith (or the Vatican) to exist and endure.
If, for some reason, the incarnation, crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ were not enough to convince the many unbelievers who are truly "blind" to accept the Christ as the Son of the One and Only True God, His Mother has come to the world in His place since His resurrection, through Her many apparitions, to remind sinners of Her Son's divinity.
[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/blind-faith
[2] http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/703390/allahu-akbar-what-does-it-mean-why-terrorists-muslim-arabic
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] http://www.history.com/topics/crusades
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/05/islamic-state-trains-purer-child-killers-in-doctrine-of-hate
[8] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/martyr?s=t
[9] https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/02/04/rome-wakes-find-city-full-anti-pope-francis-posters/
[10] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209:1-12
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Vatican's New Charter For Health Care Workers
On February 6, 2017, CatholicCulture.org reported that the Vatican's "new dicastery for Integral Human Development [had] introduced a new Charter for Health-Care Workers." [1]
On February 10, 2017, ETWN News reported that Professor Antonio Gioacchino Spagnolo, "director of the Institute of Bioethics and Medical Humanities at the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome, spoke to journalists at the Feb. 6 presentation of the new charter, and played a key role in drafting the new text." [2]
"At roughly 150 pages including the index, the charter is structured much like the old edition, and is divided into three parts: Procreation, Life, and Death." [3]
The quoted paragraphs below are from the same ETWN News article entitled Vatican unveils updated healthcare charter as new ethical questions arise, dated February 10, 2017, cited above [4]:
This simple-minded blogger is having a difficult time understanding Professor Spagnolo. First of all, human-animal hybridization to him means hybridization. In other words, as soon as a hybridized cell or organ is implanted into a human body, the person is no longer of God's creation but of man's. No amount of rationalization will ever alter the fact that a new creature (life) would be formed as a result.
Secondly, euthanasia is murder, whether consented to beforehand or not. God had made it clear that: "Thou shalt not kill." [5]
Whether prolonged extreme medical intervention is part of God's plan this blogger does not know but what is certain is that God has given each person his/her Free Will and with this Free Will, each person is able to surrender it back to God and allow God to determine when it is time to go, while the Blessed Virgin Mary prays continuously for sinners up to and at the hour of death. [6]
While no sinner knows when and how death will arrive, this blogger hopes that when his time is up, he will have just enough consciousness to reaffirm his love for God one last time.
[1] https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30680
[2] http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=15026
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A13&version=KJV
[6] https://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/mary3.htm
On February 10, 2017, ETWN News reported that Professor Antonio Gioacchino Spagnolo, "director of the Institute of Bioethics and Medical Humanities at the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome, spoke to journalists at the Feb. 6 presentation of the new charter, and played a key role in drafting the new text." [2]
"At roughly 150 pages including the index, the charter is structured much like the old edition, and is divided into three parts: Procreation, Life, and Death." [3]
The quoted paragraphs below are from the same ETWN News article entitled Vatican unveils updated healthcare charter as new ethical questions arise, dated February 10, 2017, cited above [4]:
In his comments to EWTN News, Spagnolo commented on recent cases the new, updated charter would cover, including the creation of human-pig “chimeras,” as well as the case of an elderly woman with dementia who was held down by her family during a euthanasia procedure.
The first case refers to the recent high-level scientific research project that culminated in the creation of chimeras, or organisms made from two different species.
While the project initially began by conducting the experiment on rats and mice, at the end of January it culminated with the human-pig mix, marking the first time a case had been reported in which human stem cells had begun to grow inside another species.
In the experiment, which appeared in the scientific journal “Cell,” researchers from various institutes, including Stanford and the Salk Institute in California, injected pig embryos with human stem cells when there were just a few days old and monitored their development for 28 days to see if more human cells would be generated.
Human cells inside a number of the embryos had begun to develop into specialized tissue precursors, however, the success rate of the human cells was overall low, with the majority failing to produce human cells.
Commenting on the case, Spagnolo said this type of “hybridization between human and animal cells” was primarily done to garner more scientific information. “It’s important” that this research is done, he said, but cautioned that we can’t be “indifferent” to how the information is used.
If a scientist decides to mingle human cells with those of another species in order to create some sort of hybrid being, “this is of course something that can’t be accepted because in some way it means using the generation of a life as an instrument to reach one’s own ends.”
However, if it’s done for a purpose other than generating alternate beings, such as growing human organs for transplant, Spagnolo said this would be acceptable.
One thing that’s already being proposed, he said, is the possibility of xenografts, i.e. tissue grafts or organ transplants from a donor that is a different species than the recipient.
The idea of doing this, Spagnolo said, is to “inoculate” pigs with human cells, allowing the organs of the pig to receive human antigens, “so when a transplant were done with a liver or heart from the pig inside a (human being), there wouldn’t be the rejection that there is normally doing it with other species.”
Spagnolo said that using the hybrid cells for organ or tissue transplant “is acceptable because to transfer a human cell to a pig doesn’t mean creating a life.”
Rather, it allows the pig “to have a genetic patrimony similar to that of a human being to then be able to use the organs to help people,” he said, emphasizing the fact that it’s not pig cells being injected into human beings, but vice versa.
So to make a good, informed decision involves first of all seeing “what type of experiments” are being done, deciding from that “whether it’s acceptable or not,” then looking at what “one intends to produce, what are the objectives one intends to reach.”
Pointing to another touchy scientific case that came up recently when an elderly woman in her 80s was held down by her relatives as her doctors euthanized her, Spagnolo said this is the type of murky water which “advanced statements” or living wills wade into in countries where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal.
The woman, who lived in the Netherlands, had dementia and had reportedly expressed a desire for euthanasia when “the time was right” at an earlier date, but had not done so recently.
When the woman began exhibiting “fear and anger” and was sometimes found to be wandering the halls of her nursing home, the senior doctor at the home determined that the woman’s condition meant the time was right, and put a sleep-inducing drug into her coffee so he could administer the lethal injection.
The woman was not consulted, and woke up as the doctor was trying to give the injection. When she fought the procedure, her family members were asked to hold her down while the injection was completed.
“When medicine no longer does what it should” because in a living will someone expresses their desire for assisted suicide, “this statement completely alters the doctor-patient relationship,” Spagnolo said.
He pointed to a bill that is currently on the table in Italy that would effectively legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, requiring doctors to act on the advanced statements of their patients in this regard, and prohibiting them from conscientious objection.
This bill, as well as the case of the woman in the Netherlands, illustrates “the difficulty of advance statements,” Spagnolo said, explaining that if someone makes an advance statement and later decides against it, “the fact of having said it before is used and is done (by) drugging the patient.”
While the doctor-patient relationship is always key element of the discussion, Spagnolo noted that various studies have been conducted showing a doctor’s behavior toward patients differs based on whether or not the patient has an advanced statement, specifically on euthanasia.
“This disparity should be avoided. The doctor should always act the same way when the person is concerned,” he said.
So with the new charter, all healthcare workers will now have a point of reference for some of these sticky scenarios, he said.
“They can know that some things must be done, they are obligatory. Others, however, are only possibilities.
In this sense, “the will of the patient is very important, not in the perspective of ‘anticipating’ death, but in the perspective of knowing whether or not to accept and support certain interventions the doctor can do, but which the patient might think unsuitable.”
This simple-minded blogger is having a difficult time understanding Professor Spagnolo. First of all, human-animal hybridization to him means hybridization. In other words, as soon as a hybridized cell or organ is implanted into a human body, the person is no longer of God's creation but of man's. No amount of rationalization will ever alter the fact that a new creature (life) would be formed as a result.
Secondly, euthanasia is murder, whether consented to beforehand or not. God had made it clear that: "Thou shalt not kill." [5]
Whether prolonged extreme medical intervention is part of God's plan this blogger does not know but what is certain is that God has given each person his/her Free Will and with this Free Will, each person is able to surrender it back to God and allow God to determine when it is time to go, while the Blessed Virgin Mary prays continuously for sinners up to and at the hour of death. [6]
While no sinner knows when and how death will arrive, this blogger hopes that when his time is up, he will have just enough consciousness to reaffirm his love for God one last time.
[1] https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=30680
[2] http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=15026
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A13&version=KJV
[6] https://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/mary3.htm
Fake News, Fake Foods, Fake Wealth, Fake Everything Except God
Quoted below are three paragraphs from an article published on February 10, 2017, by THE LOCAL it (with hyperlink omitted) [1]:
Fake news is not limited to secular matters. As reported by Crux on February 10, 2017, "[b]arely a week after Rome woke up [to] full of anti- Pope Francis posters," a fake version of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper, with the date of January 17, 2017, was sent out "to cardinals and officials via email, claiming that the pontiff had answered five dubia, or questions, posed to him by four conservative cardinals about his document Amoris Laetita." [2] Rather than getting upset, the "editor-in-chief of L’Osservatore Romano, Giovanni Maria Vian, was unperturbed: 'We were only sad because the layout wasn’t as nice as ours.'" [3] If only everyone could be as humorous as Giovanni Maria Vian, the world would be full of smiling faces, but not everyone is and one such person is Michelangelo Coltelli (see above) who wants to set things right, and had suggested that "schools [teach] children the difference between fake news and real news."
It would be a miracle if schools in Italy can teach children how to differentiate between fake news and real news. Perhaps they could be taught first how to distinguish between the foods they eat, the real foods that come from God and fake foods that are GMOs (genetically modified organisms [4]).
Perhaps the children should also learn what is organic food, and whether "organic" means 100 percent natural or whether it is just a marketing label that fakes the consumer into believing that organic food is the food Mother Nature naturally provides, uncontaminated by added chemicals at every link along the food chain.
Beyond that, perhaps the children should also be taught the difference between what is fake wealth, which is wealth that relies on the relentless printing of money, credit, speculation, bitcoins and blind faith in the continuity of the world's banking and electronic systems, versus real wealth which is tangible, which has been accreted by virtue of physical labor and can be bartered.
People today live in a world with fake wealth, fake foods, fake drugs [5], fake leather, fake diamonds, fake gold and even fake Bordeaux wines, so why should people be shocked by fake news, or by a fake pope without legitimacy? They should not, nor should they be surprised that God is not fake.
Those who want the real truth which is the same as God's Truth must follow Christ and do "'[w]hatever He says.'" [6] However, one must be very careful not to confuse the voice of Satan with the voice of God. It ought to be easy to tell one from the other. If the voice is Satan's, then it would reinforce the pride that is in the person "hearing" it, compounded by an enticing and nearly irresistible temptation; if, on the other hand, it is God's voice, then it would be "heard" with an unexpected sense of Heavenly peace, without the promise of a personal reward.
[1] http://www.thelocal.it/20170210/italians-joing-fight-against-fake-news-francesco-totti-laura-boldrini
[2] https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/02/10/fake-vatican-newspaper-delivers-new-shot-pope-francis/
[3] Ibid.
[4] https://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-defined/
[5] http://www.newsweek.com/2015/09/25/fake-drug-industry-exploding-and-we-cant-do-anything-about-it-373088.html; http://www.iracm.com/en/2017/02/spain-10-15-fake-pharmaceutical-products-european-market-sold-spain/
[6] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-11&version=NKJV
The number of Italian fake news sites has grown significantly since 2015, Michelangelo Coltelli, founder of Butac.it, a fact-checking website which highlights cases of fake news, told The Local.
“And the number of times these stories are then shared on social media has been phenomenal,” he said.
“In Italy there are sites used for political purposes, for disinformation, and those that make money through clickbait. Sadly I don’t think there’s a solution to this apart from education - it needs to start with schools teaching children the difference between fake news and real news.” [Emphasis added.]
Fake news is not limited to secular matters. As reported by Crux on February 10, 2017, "[b]arely a week after Rome woke up [to] full of anti- Pope Francis posters," a fake version of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper, with the date of January 17, 2017, was sent out "to cardinals and officials via email, claiming that the pontiff had answered five dubia, or questions, posed to him by four conservative cardinals about his document Amoris Laetita." [2] Rather than getting upset, the "editor-in-chief of L’Osservatore Romano, Giovanni Maria Vian, was unperturbed: 'We were only sad because the layout wasn’t as nice as ours.'" [3] If only everyone could be as humorous as Giovanni Maria Vian, the world would be full of smiling faces, but not everyone is and one such person is Michelangelo Coltelli (see above) who wants to set things right, and had suggested that "schools [teach] children the difference between fake news and real news."
It would be a miracle if schools in Italy can teach children how to differentiate between fake news and real news. Perhaps they could be taught first how to distinguish between the foods they eat, the real foods that come from God and fake foods that are GMOs (genetically modified organisms [4]).
Perhaps the children should also learn what is organic food, and whether "organic" means 100 percent natural or whether it is just a marketing label that fakes the consumer into believing that organic food is the food Mother Nature naturally provides, uncontaminated by added chemicals at every link along the food chain.
Beyond that, perhaps the children should also be taught the difference between what is fake wealth, which is wealth that relies on the relentless printing of money, credit, speculation, bitcoins and blind faith in the continuity of the world's banking and electronic systems, versus real wealth which is tangible, which has been accreted by virtue of physical labor and can be bartered.
People today live in a world with fake wealth, fake foods, fake drugs [5], fake leather, fake diamonds, fake gold and even fake Bordeaux wines, so why should people be shocked by fake news, or by a fake pope without legitimacy? They should not, nor should they be surprised that God is not fake.
Those who want the real truth which is the same as God's Truth must follow Christ and do "'[w]hatever He says.'" [6] However, one must be very careful not to confuse the voice of Satan with the voice of God. It ought to be easy to tell one from the other. If the voice is Satan's, then it would reinforce the pride that is in the person "hearing" it, compounded by an enticing and nearly irresistible temptation; if, on the other hand, it is God's voice, then it would be "heard" with an unexpected sense of Heavenly peace, without the promise of a personal reward.
[1] http://www.thelocal.it/20170210/italians-joing-fight-against-fake-news-francesco-totti-laura-boldrini
[2] https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/02/10/fake-vatican-newspaper-delivers-new-shot-pope-francis/
[3] Ibid.
[4] https://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-defined/
[5] http://www.newsweek.com/2015/09/25/fake-drug-industry-exploding-and-we-cant-do-anything-about-it-373088.html; http://www.iracm.com/en/2017/02/spain-10-15-fake-pharmaceutical-products-european-market-sold-spain/
[6] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-11&version=NKJV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
