The Un-named Forty Days

It is Easter Sunday, 2017!

The resurrection of Christ marked an end to a week of heightened emotions for everyone, including Jesus; at the same time, it was an unceremonious beginning of an un-named 40-day period during which Christ came back to the world in a changed-state of being, similar to His changed state at His Transfiguration. (Again, thoughts in this entry, like others, are from this blogger's imagination.)

On Christ's Transfiguration, Don Stewart posted the following paragraph [1]:

The Transfiguration was the glorification of the human body of Jesus. On this occasion His body underwent a change in form, a metamorphosis, so that it shone as brightly as the sun. At the time of the Transfiguration, Jesus' earthly ministry was coming to a close. He had acknowledged that He was the Messiah and predicted His death and resurrection. Now He was to reveal, to a select few, His divine glory.

This change of form was from human flesh to a heavenly matter, a spirit-based flesh (a term just invented here) that was able to shine as bright as, perhaps even brighter than the sun.  Fast forward from Jesus' Transfiguration to the end of Jesus' ministry, to the third day after His crucifixion, when Jesus again transformed, this time in reverse direction, from (lifeless) human flesh to (living) spirit-based flesh.  (See ** below.)

This spirit-based flesh was not readily recognized by the disciples, which could explain why they thought that Jesus was a "ghost" when He appeared to them in Jerusalem.  What happened there is quoted below without paragraph numbers and references to footnotes [2]:

[The disciples] were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost.

Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts?

Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.”

And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?”

They gave him a piece of baked fish;

he took it and ate it in front of them.

In this transformed state, Christ stayed for forty days [3] before He ascended into Heaven [4] probably because He wanted to underscore His divinity and to reassure His disciples that He is close to them always and loves them. They, too, must have missed Jesus terribly, and felt that they had lost Him, and did not at first quite know what to do with their lives in His absence.

These forty days between Christ's Resurrection and Christ's Ascension ought not to be overlooked.  This blogger believes that the Spirit of Christ is still very much present on earth with a particular closeness and intensity during this 40-day anniversary period [5], and believes that it is possible for anyone to experience this close intensity, provided that the person has absolute faith in Christ and has a yearning for and a reliance upon Christ that are about equal in magnitude to the love Christ has for the person.


** This part is incorrect and the correction is made in the next post.
[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_786.cfm
[2] http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/24 at 37-43
[3] http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/1 at 3.
[4] http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/24 at 50-53.
[5] There is a reason this blogger has this belief, but he not prepared to share it because it is rather personal but more so because hardly anyone would believe him.

The Forgiver And The Forgiven

Even though "this [quoted] portion of Lk 23:34 [below] does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution," this entry assumes that the words were spoken by Jesus on the Cross:

[Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”] [Brackets original.] [1]

Here, the Forgiver is God, and the forgiven are those who "know not what they do," whatever that means. [2]  When God forgives, this will probably happen to the forgiven:

He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise. [3]

If God does not forgive, one needs to think of the worst that can happen, intensify it an infinite fold and extend it to eternity.  This is not a good end to a short life.

What will actually happen after life is between God and the individual. [4]

During life, forgiving and being forgiven take place between man and his fellow man.  Man is capable of assuming either the role of the forgiver or the forgiven, both of which require humility.  Sometimes, it is more difficult to forgive than to ask for forgiveness. Therefore, an abundance of humility is required of the forgiver; not only that, an abundance of compassion is needed as well.   Many who hold the power to forgive the trespasses of others often do not have sufficient humility and compassion to do so.  While humility is the key to forgiving, compassion unlocks the door and acts on it.

Humility rests in the interior of the person who is the forgiver and it is found in whole of the mind, the heart and the spirit; compassion looks to the exterior and it is found in the circumstances (past, present and future) of the person to be forgiven.  There can be countless situations in the past and present for the forgiver to consider when deciding to forgive another person's trespasses but there is only one place in the future that the forgiver needs to look at and that is the same place as the one nobody wants to go for an eternity.

It is here that one's imagination needs to be exercised.  What if the person needing forgiveness from the forgiver and does not receive it, and as a result the trespasser goes to Hell for an eternity?  Indeed that is a lot of power that has been placed in the hands of the forgiver in this imagined situation, but what if in some way, for even a short time (not quite an eternity), the person seeking forgiveness but who has not been forgiven would receive his punishment in Hell, and what if the punishment happens to feel like an eternity with no expectation that it would ever end or knowledge of when it would end, would anyone still want to withhold forgiveness and put in real Hell the person with whom one has shared time, air and space together on this earth, even though the relationship had for some time been good but then turned sour, or it was contentious from the beginning?

If Abel had a chance to forgive Cain before being killed [5], would he have forgiven Cain, if knowing that by not forgiving, which he had a right to do, he would send his brother to Hell for an eternity of suffering while realizing that he was favored by God over his brother Cain and realizing that he had to earn God's love in order to spend his eternity in Heaven with God Whom he loved dearly?  This blogger is certain that Abel would forgive his brother, and why not when he knew that God loved him immensely?  With God always by his side, loving him, what would Abel lose by forgiving his brother, and what would he gain by holding onto a grudge (perhaps even seeking vengeance had he not died)?  If Abel could forgive his brother [6], so could everyone forgive everyone else since everyone is related to each other under the human race.

For those who believe in God, in God's goodness, and are not looking to go to Hell, why not forgive, and forgive repeatedly, knowing that at the end of one's short life, even if it were a thousand or a hundred thousand years long (short relative to forever), one could spend an eternity with God, with God's love overflowing in abundance in Heaven?

What if the forgiver does not forgive his fellow man so that starting from the moment of his own death he sees continuously during his eternity (without reference to time, past, present and future) his trespasser suffering without end in Hell, and is continuously conscious of the fact that the trespasses upon him in life were truly insignificant and disproportionate to an eternity of punishment in Hell that his trespasser is suffering, would he then regret not forgiving, when he only had to have a moment of humility and compassion to do so?  Is not an eternity of regret also a form of punishment for those in Hell as well?  Does Heaven have room for a heart so uncharitable and uncompassionate when everyone expects Heaven to be a place where forgiveness waits blamelessly and tirelessly and from which endless mercy springs forth?

Even though it is God, and only God, Who determines a soul's ultimate destination, man who has the chance to forgive in life may not want to lose that chance at the risk of having to regret consciously and continuously for an eternity in death because that, too, is Hell.


[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/23:34#50023034 at 34.
[2] There is a comment at footnote [8] in the post The Seven Last Words Of Christ  dated April 6, 2017, in this blog.
[3] http://www.usccb.org/bible/lk/23:34#50023034 at 43.
[4] Some preach that God's mercy has no bounds, that everyone, no matter who, receives God's mercy but this blogger thinks that God's mercy necessarily yields to Free Will, and therefore it does not extend to one who willingly and pridefully reject God.  Because God is all-powerful, God can override Free Will that has been gifted to man and impose upon man the mercy he needs forcibly, but if God's infinite mercy interferes at any time with man's infinite Free Will, then Free Will will cease to exist and man will no longer be man but a machine instead.
[5] http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/4
[6] Cain is deemed conventionally to be Abel's brother. However, he could be considered, controversially to an extreme, as Abel's half-brother based on this blogger's past speculation that Cain might not have come from the seed of Adam but had been born from the seed of the Serpent, in that the "speaking" Serpent had not only deceived Eve and Adam, but in changed form also had lustful and sexual relations with both in the Garden of Eden in order that its deceit could be consummated in the heat of passion.  Of course, as soon as they bit into the forbidden fruit, the Serpent dumped them without so much as saying good-bye, let alone giving each a parting kiss on the cheek, since the Serpent had no interest in them whatsoever, except to ruin them, and whatever that was required to get it done, the Serpent did.

Good Friday Thoughts: Christ's Sufferings

It was a lot of pain to bear, beginning with the betrayal, followed by the scourging at the pillar, the crowning of thorns, the hunger [1], carrying of the heavy wooden cross, the thirst [2], culminating in sweat, fatigue and exhaustion leading to the three falls, and ending with nails being pounded into His hands and feet and a sword going into His side before Christ took his last breath and died on the cross. Christ knew what was coming [3], but God would not take away it away from Him.  Why?

God did not say.  Therefore, one can only guess.

Based on a literal reading, one can say that the excruciating pain that Christ had to suffer had nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins since forgiveness comes from "[Jesus'] blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." [4]  Nor was the extent of Christ's pain necessary to triumph over death brought upon man by Eve and Adam's Original Sin since it was the resurrection of Christ that death was overcome: "just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." [5]

Although it could be assumed (based on what had happened) that the resurrection of Christ and the bringing of eternal life to man would not have been possible without the pain before and during Christ's crucifixion, but would it be correct to make that assumption?  Christ could have died a natural death and still resurrected, although this would not have been as dramatic and effective as rising from a crucified death that everybody knew about and coming out of a tomb (that was sealed and guarded) on the third day as foretold by Christ Himself. [6], [7]

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the sufferings of Christ are unrelated to "[t]he Paschal mystery [which] has two aspects: by [H]is death, Christ liberates us from sin; by [H]is Resurrection, [H]e opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God's grace, 'so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.' Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ's brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: 'Go and tell my brethren.' We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection." [8]

The conclusion above eliminating the nexus between Christ's painful sufferings and the flow of holy blood that cleanses sins for the preparation of eternal life by way of Christ's Resurrection may appear to be correct but it is not.  It is the shedding of Christ's holy blood that cleanses man's wicked sins.  This would only have been possible with the scourging, the crucifixion and the sword into the side of Christ.  These events were needed to draw enough of Christ's holy blood to have an effective and lasting cleansing of sins that are continuously being committed, and Holy Week is an annual reminder that the cleansing of man's sins by the blood of Christ is on-going and is far from being finished.

Holy blood is required to wipe out Original Sin because what Eve and Adam had done in the Garden of Eden had hurt God tremendously.  Only a Heart that is born from the seed of purity and holiness of the Spirit of God can heal God's pain, and the only One with this Sacred Heart is the Son of God.  It is from the Sacred Heart of the Son that blood needed to flow out through the painful wounds of the Son's sinless flesh to restore the heart of God that Eve and Adam had pierced with their disobedience, in order that God can be whole when standing at the door to Heaven welcoming the repentant children of the first parents home.

[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke22:16

[2] http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/19:28
[3] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+22%3A42

[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+26%3A26-28%2CMark+14%3A12-25%2CLuke+22%3A7-20&version=NIV, footnote reference omitted.

[5] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5:12-21

[6] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:62-28:15

[7] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2016%3A21

[8] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p2.htm, section 654, references omitted.

Can Love Resolve Conflicts?

Most of the posts in this blog are built on the two most important commandments which is to love God and neighbor. [1]

The question that comes to mind is whether love can resolve conflicts.  The answer has to be in the affirmative.  An atheist would probably disagree and point to the fact that Jesus Who was perfect and in love and in humility never resolved His conflicts with those who wanted Him crucified, and He went to His death with all His conflicts unresolved, and such conflicts continue to this day, within the Catholic church, between Christianity and other religions and in the rest of the secular world.

The atheist's point, if ever made, is valid on its face, except that the point assumes that a conflict arises mysteriously from nowhere and has to be dealt with, not with humility and love (forgiveness) which can resolve it but with retaliations which escalates, complicates, multiplies and spreads it.

In truth, a conflict does not arise out of thin air, but within one's prideful and merciless self, on both sides.  Humans do make mistakes, and it is also human to be able to understand that mistakes can be made, and to overlook them, forget about them and move on; yet, at the same time, it is also human to develop an inner obsession to get even at a minimum, and to vanquish the opponent at the extreme.

The bad news is that the opponent can never be destroyed because the force behind all conflicts comes from Satan. Man can never defeat Satan.  When one conflict seems to be overcome, another inevitably arises.  For example, a warrior may enter into a conflict with another and defeat him but he may have another one or two at home, with his wife and his paramours, because he has in his heart lust, which also comes from Satan.

All the forces of Satan are strong and are difficult for man to resist, but not for Christ.  Since Jesus had no pride in Himself and carried with Him at all times His mercy, conflict could not have arisen within Him.  Thus, there was never any conflict between Him and what others perceive to be His enemies because He did not become man for Himself; He became man for man and that includes all His enemies.  It is man who when under the influence of Satan does he see conflicts between himself and the Son of God, for after all, it is Satan's goal to create disagreements between man and God and to sever the ties that bind them.

While Satan is working tirelessly to create conflicts for man, Christ has, ironically, chosen man to undo them.  Even though the forces of Satan are strong and difficult to resist, they can be resisted.  Christ had already shown man how it is done by His life and His Passion, and He had already reserved for man his place in Heaven by these words: "'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.'" [2]  All children are called to come home, and home for the children of God is Heaven.

And who are the peacemakers who would be called home to Heaven as God's children?  They are every person in this world, regardless of age and religion, since everyone has the capacity to make peace, through humility, and through love.

Love indeed can resolve conflicts.


[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/22 at 36-40.
[2] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/5 at 9.

Taxation, Religion And Terrorism

This entry draws a line connecting the dots of taxation, religion and terrorism.  The line is being drawn backward beginning first with terrorism.  There are two articles, one by TIME entitled Deadly Explosions at Two Egyptian Churches on Palm Sunday Kill At Least 43 [1], and another by the Associated Press dated April 9, 2017, entitled Church bombing north of Egypt's capital kills 26, detailing the gruesome event. [2]  Quoted in part below (without hyperlink) is from the TIME  article:

Bombs exploded at two Coptic churches in different cities in northern Egypt as worshippers were celebrating Palm Sunday, killing at least 43 people and wounding about 100 in an assault claimed by the Islamic State group.

The blasts came at the start of Holy Week leading up to Easter, and just weeks before Pope Francis is due to visit the Arab world's most populous country, which has been beset by extremist violence against its minority Christians.

In the first attack, a bomb went off inside St. George's Church in the Nile Delta city of Tanta, killing at least 27 people and wounding 78, officials said.

A few hours later, a suicide bomber rushed toward St. Mark's Cathedral in the coastal city of Alexandria, the historic seat of Christendom in Egypt, killing at least 16 people and wounding 41, the Interior Ministry said.

The question is: why?

One part of the answer came in the last two paragraphs of the Associated Press  article, quoted below [3]:

Egypt's Copts are one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East, accounting for around 10 percent of Egypt's 92 million people and have long complained of discrimination.

The Copts were largely supportive of the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi, a senior Brotherhood figure, and incurred the wrath of many Islamists, who attacked churches and other Christian institutions after his ouster.  [The point made here will be revisited below.]

A second part of the answer requires a look back at the Obama administration in 2011 when President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt stepped down after "after nearly 30 years in power and 18 days of relentless pressure from street demonstrations demanding an end to his rule." [4]  A president of the United States has a lot of power over other countries economically and militarily, and if the person who was in charge of the world in 2011 wanted to, he could have intervened, quashed the uprising movement in Egypt and ensured that Mubarak's government stayed in power, but had not, and possibly could have introduced "Arab Spring" to the region, leading to the ouster of Mubarak.  Perhaps this was done because he wanted to out-do his predecessor from a different political party who invaded a sovereign (Iraq) without provocation and wanted history to remember him as the person most influential in re-shaping the Mideast into a (peaceful) democracy.  Not wanting to be a copycat using a very visible United States military, he might have employed an "invisible" group of well-paid local community organizers that was backed by an elite and blameless media siding with the uprisers to create havoc in Egypt (and later in Syria).  To top it all off, he also bombed Libya and had probably paid handsomely for a discreet execution service that ended Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's life. [5]  As it turned out, what took place under his watch, and under his predecessor's watch, have not been good for the world based on this blogger's opinion, an opinion he is not qualified to form because of his ignorance of world affairs and politics, but he formed it nonetheless because he believes that to be God's Truth, in a delusional way.

Looking at what had taken place is almost like watching a science fiction movie in which mythological Greek titans and gods that hate each other battle for dominance using defenseless pawns (weak unsuspecting sovereigns) like disposable chess pieces to do their dirty work, and watching real people suffer and die from a distance seemingly without any remorse, as if there is no blood on their hands, until of course, they awaken to the sad but inevitable realization that they are not titans or gods after all, and that they will die like all humans do.  The scene then changes, and the movie cameras turn to a set that represents Hell, where these supposedly gods and titans will see the blood from all the people that had been killed as a result of their decisions flow suffocatingly from their every orifice and feel all the pains their actions had caused extend to every space that constitute their respective forms.  It would be an amazing movie to watch if it were made and if Franco Zeffirelli were to direct it, for in this blogger's opinion, he is the filmmaker equivalent of the painter Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, but then science-fiction is not his forte.

Back to (almost) reality, the combined actions taken by these powerful (almost mythical) earthly creatures, assisted by Satan, have to this day been causing those who are caught in the middle much suffering; the sufferers are not only Christians, but also Muslims.

If Christians and Muslims were true to their respective faiths, there would be no animosity between them.  In its place will be mutual respect at least, that could develop into a certain love as their co-existence approaches the ideal.  Reading the last two paragraphs of the Associated Press  article quoted above identified by footnote [3], one ought to be able to conclude that both Christians and Muslims disliked each other because of politics, mixed in with religion.  In addition to religious wrath and political wrath, pride, unforgiveness and vengeance on all sides form the third part that completes the answer to the question "why" asked above.

From a religious perspective, if Christians were humble like the Holy Family Who might have lived a life that had been subjected to discrimination (possibly because Joseph took Mary Who was with Child while betrothed but before the consummation of marriage) and like Christ Who was subjected to hate (because of His teachings), Who washed the feet of Judas whom He knew would betray Him the evening of the Last Supper rather than castigating him in front of the other eleven disciples, then perhaps the Christians (who may still be discriminated against in some ways within a country having a Muslim majority (which has to do with human nature and nothing to do with religion)) would probably not be terrorized, especially if they had not supported the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi. This is not to say that the extremists who carried out terrorist acts against two Christians Coptic churches on Sunday, April 9, 2017 (see [1] above), had every right to do so because they had somehow been offended.  Those acts were Satanic; not Islamic.  Therefore, the killers have to account for their barbaric acts before their Allah, as opposed to Mohammad who was "[Allah's] prophet and messenger." [6]

This blogger believes that the good in religions come from God for God is the author of good.  If both Christians and Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, and followers of other non-Satanic religions adhere to their respective faiths, and keep their fingers out of politics, the world could be a lot more peaceful than it is now.  Of course, the world cannot be peaceful because many in power who practice their respective religions are hypocrites.  Some even go as far as claiming that they have a religion but who are actually non-religious (even atheists)--they only use religion as a mask to deceive others into believing that their actions come from good and are good when in fact they are Satan's minions, but then even nearly all of Satan's earthly minions have to pay their share of taxes.

This blogger has no idea what the other religions' positions are on the payment of tax to one's government, but he knows the Christian's position [7], [8], for Christ had said, "'[G]ive back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.'" [9]  When Christ said this, was He referring only to Caesar's coin with Caesar's image and inscription on it? Could He be also referring to Caesar's taxing authority and beyond that, Caesar's political powers over the living whose most dreaded fears are punishment and death and over all the resources the land and the sea provided?  Since Christ feared neither punishment nor death, Pontius Pilate had no power over Him, [10] and because He took no interest in "the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence," [11] Satan had no power over Him.

The fact that Satan was able to offer Christ "the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence" means that Satan has dominion over this world even though it has no dominion over the will of man.  Therefore those who ascend to the heights of power because they desire to have power over the world are necessarily submitting themselves freely to the will of Satan and as such, they seek to destroy on Satan's behalf, and the more powerful the position assumed, the bigger the potential power of destruction.  Destruction is not only limited to bomb-dropping on the military side but also includes different kinds of exploitation that occur on the civilian side.

The Son of God did not become man to show man how to destroy himself but how to save himself.  Thus, when Christ said to "'repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God,'" [12] He is saying to all not to play politics and covet the riches of and power over the world (at any level, of any kind, in any amount) but to repay God for the gift of life by devoting the entirety of one's energy in loving God and serving one's neighbor humbly.


[1] http://time.com/4732233/cairo-egypt-palm-sunday-bo
[2] http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2017-04-09-ML-Egypt/id-86a48ea81adf42cd9f0cdd0a8c565170
mbing/
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12324664
[5] "'We needed to move on, and Gaddafi, by dying, made that easier,'" said "Jalal el-Gallal, the wartime spokesman for the rebels’ National Transitional Council." See http://world.time.com/2012/10/18/how-did-gaddafi-die-a-year-later-unanswered-questions-and-bad-blood/  There is no evidence that Obama personally knew Jalal el-Gallal, but if Jalal el-Gallal were a loyal protégé of Gaddafi, does anyone think that he would have lived to make that statement?
[6] http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/islam-religion-miscellaneous/difference-between-muhammad-and-allah/
[7] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/22 at 15-22.
[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:15-22
[9] Ibid.
[10] http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/19 at 10-11.
[11] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/4 at 8.
[12] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/22 at 21.

The New (Catholic) Church Looks To Man -- Not God

The assertion that the Catholic Church (the one under new management) is a new church that puts man ahead of God and the Son of God came out of an imaginary trip this blogger took by putting himself in the shoes of those on the receiving end of the new church's messages.  This entry is based on subjective opinions and thus it is pure speculation, as are the rest of the posts in the blog.

As a refugee and migrant:  "The defense of the life, dignity and human rights of migrants and refugees must come before any other question when enacting migration policies." [1]  Upon hearing this, one would conclude that no refugee or migrant need be humble like Mary and Joseph who were in search of a place to stay when the Blessed Mother was ready to give birth to the Son of God since there is now an expectation created by the new church that there would be an absolute right for a refugee or migrant to demand to have dignity, even though no dignity was given to the Holy Family by those with the means to do so.  Instead of insisting on having their basic human rights, the Holy Family accepted what God had provided (or not provided, depending on one's perspective) and put their future entirely in God's hands. While on the move, like the Holy Family, no refugee and no migrant will be without divine assistance if there is faith in God.  However, today's new church does not really have unwavering faith in God, and most certainly does not put trust in miracles, but thinks that all sufferings of man can be solved with the enactment of social legislation.  In other words, this new church wants the refugee and migrant to focus on his or her rights, on his or her life, not the lives of Mary, Joseph and Jesus, and certainly not anyone else's life. What the new church wants each refugee and migrant to assert is clear: "I am here.  Look at me.  I deserve, and you have a lawful duty to give me all that I deserve."  Humility and love for God are not part of this hypothetical and subjectively worded message, even though the keys to both the heart and Heaven are humility and love of God and neighbor.  It is a secular and political message, appropriate for this new secular and politically-charged institution.

As a LGBT activist:  "A top Vatican cardinal and several other high-ranking prelates have praised a new book on what the Catholic Church's relationship with the 'LGBT community' should be, written by progressive Jesuit Father James Martin." [2]  "Cardinal Kevin Farrell, appointed by Pope Francis to head the Vatican's life and family dicastery, called Martin's book 'a welcome and much-needed book that will help bishops, priests, pastoral associates, and all church leaders more compassionately minister to the LGBT community." [3] "'It will also help LGBT Catholics feel more at home in what is, after all, their church,' said Farrell, the former bishop of Dallas." [4]  After a literal reading of the words of Cardinal Farrell, one could reasonably conclude that the new church belongs to the LGBT community, that it is not truly universal, and that "bishops, priests, pastoral associates, and all church leaders" would no longer see people as individuals, each of whom is a child of God, but as a group identified by their sexual inclinations, in the case of the LGBT group (as contrasted with, say, a group of migrants being identified by their unspecified sexual preferences speaking the same language culturally and phonetically), and further identified by their subcultures, some of which can be quite insular, and subtly exclusionary, but not discriminatory, on various bases. When had Christ grouped people together by their differences, such as by what they do (fisherman versus tax collector), or segregated them by their labels (Samaritan versus Jew), and treated them differently because they can be categorized?  He had not; every person is loved uniquely even though every person sins.  When one stands before God, one stands alone, each with his or her own set of burdens and sins.  Therefore, a group with a political or social agenda is irrelevant before God, whether it is LGBT or IBSA ("International Blind Sports Association") or any other group. However, this assertion does not apply to the new church since it is not the Church that Christ had established for the individual who loves God; rather, it is more akin to a secular institution that is controlled by a group of seasoned, radical and racially uniform male politicians and administrators at the top echelons that focuses on the individual--in this case, on individuals that willfully and demonstrably associate themselves with a group--not on God or the individual's love for God.  In other words, this is what the new church could be saying to the LGBT group, and to all sinners in general, subjectively imagined: "It is all about you. You are a part of our institution.  We do not care what you do sexually or otherwise, how you exclude and scorn others who are unlike you, or how unforgiving you can be (by taking others to court even though you may be right) when others do not share your thinking (even when it impinges on another person's religious freedom to not promote gay marriages [5]).  We also do not care whether or not you hate your God-given body and whether or not you mutilate your sexual organs, or if you even truly love God and are humble before God and neighbor.  So long as you are happy with this new church and donating to it, you can be a hypocrite, and you are welcomed here."

As someone within the Catholic hierarchy who disagrees with the pope:  Here the pope had no words and had let his actions speak.  When the silence is translated, the new church could be saying this, subjectively imagined: "You are invisible.  We do not like you and your philosophy.  It does not matter that you are Catholic, that you are a priest, a bishop, an archbishop, a cardinal or some other leader of a Catholic organization (seminary is included) that is under the purview of the Holy See (especially when the Holy See owns the land and the buildings you construct and use and you do not wish to give them up regardless of principle because you are hypocrites just like we are, basking in power and comfort).  You can go on performing your duties so long as you do not infringe on the new church's power; if and when you do, you will be demoted and sent to the Vatican's equivalent of Siberia.  It is all about you and your non-conformist attitude and nothing about how holy you are or how much you love God."

There are many more roles to assume, but the conclusions are generally the same as the above; therefore, this entry ends here.


[1] http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2017/saving-lives-must-be-first-concern-of-immigration-policy-pope-says.cfm
[2] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinals-back-jesuits-pro-lgbt-book
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/colorado-baker-takes-gay-wedding-cake-case-u-s-supreme-court/

Thoughts Interrupted: Chemical Weapons Attack and US Bombing In Syria

Background information on the chemical attack in Syria and the United States bombing that took place "near Homs at 3:45 a.m local time" [1] on April 7, 2017, is available online.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was blamed for the chemical attack that took place on or about April 4, 2017. [2] Without an investigation as to who might have been actually behind the attack, the president of the United States reacted, in this blogger's opinion, rather prematurely if, indeed, the action taken was to supposedly teach President al-Assad a lesson, and not for political gain.

In this conflict involving many different players with different and conflicting interests, there is not one side that is on God's side.  Has the Son of God ever resolved a conflict with the killing of an enemy despite having many?

The seemingly never-ending conflicts in the Mideast are too complex for this blogger to analyze in detail.  What is interesting was the attack in a St. Petersburg, Russia, subway station on or about April 3, 2017, for which nobody officially claimed responsibility, even though it was "Isis supporters [that cheered] the attack in St Petersburg that killed at least 10 people." [3]  If Russia's continual bombings in Syria have been unsuccessful in containing ISIL, then why would ISIL supporters terrorize Russian citizens in St. Petersburg "while the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was in St Petersburg – his home town"? [4]

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that ISIL does not like Russia's involvement in Syria, nor, on the contrary, does its neighbors want the conflict in Syria to ever end, so that ISIL would spend all of its resources there and not expand its presence to other countries in the area.  Hypothetically speaking, if President Trump were to carry out his original intent to join forces with Russia to eliminate ISIL in Syria, ISIL would drop Syria and leave fairly quickly.  Does anyone think ISIL would prevail when the world's two most powerful military forces join together in a mission to destroy it?

This blogger thinks that President Bashar al-Assad wants Syria back for Syrians, including Syrian Catholics who lived relatively freely and peacefully before an invasion took place under the Obama administration for reasons that are not entirely clear to those that are ignorant and powerless (this blogger included), mystifying them, especially when the then Commander-in Chief was a Chicago Law School professor with a Harvard law degree [5], who was supposedly an individual with deep understanding and compassion, an advocate of diversity and tolerance and a champion for peace.  History has proven otherwise, and in comparison to Bashar al-Assad, it is not definitive that he is so much better a statesman and an individual than al-Assad. By no means is this blogger implying that Bashar al-Assad is a saint; he most surely is not, nor is anyone who is in power; nonetheless, this blogger thinks that Bashar al-Assad has been made a scapegoat in the use of chemical weapons [6], and Syria has been turned into a theater in which ISIL battles the rest of the world.

It is sad to see people suffer, and die without having an opportunity to live, regardless of which side of a conflict they are on and what religious beliefs they may have, especially when such sufferings can stop if only man wills it to stop, unlike sufferings brought upon unexpectedly by illnesses and by Mother Nature.  This blogger has never really understood the need for war, when anyone, anywhere in the world, can be a friend, for friendship is based on common interests and loyalty, on mutual respect, on fairness and compassion and on a smile, and every human understands all that innately, which means that all people come from God, a God Who is all good.



[1] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/syria-airstrikes-international-community-reacts-to-us-bombing-airfield.html
[2] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/chemical-attack-syria-170404195457304.html
[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/st-petersburg-attacks-isis-russia-bombings-celebrate-islamic-state-response-a7664656.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/03/st-petersburg-metro-rocked-by-explosion-sennaya-ploshchad-station
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
[6] Bashar al-Assad is not losing and it is not critical that chemical weapons be used to prevail in the current conflict by killing 72 people and injuring more than 550 [see [2] above], considering that he could anticipate the next day's news headlines and could probably take more lives by dropping a number of conventional bombs in which case the world could not say anything since bombing people to death seems to be an acceptable and a humanitarian way to invade a sovereign country and cause collateral injuries these days.