Quick Thoughts on Current Events

It would seem that I have precious little time for writing lately, so I figured I would give some short comments on some very serious issues of which I have been pondering the last few weeks.

1.)    Why is the woman, Sarah Hall Ingram, who was responsible for overseeing the tax exempt organizations within the IRS now running the agency’s office that is responsible for implementing Obamacare?  Why has she not been prosecuted, let alone not fired, particularly when one of these egregious forms requesting ridiculous information was sent to the Waco Tea Party from HER!?!  Obviously the problem is not restricted to just a few low-level rogue employees in Cincinnati as the Obama administration would have us believe.

2.)    Abortionist Gosnell was convicted of murder in the killing of three babies that initially lived during botched abortions he performed.  While the statist media’s relative silence on the matter is deafening, the real question is what the heck is the big deal?  After all, had he been able to inject poison into the hearts of these children while still in their mothers’ wombs, this would have been perfectly legal.  The only difference, and it is the difference that got Gosnell rightfully convicted of murder, is that he was incompetent as a “doctor” and accidentally delivered these babies before killing them.  As we all have been told by the euphemistically named “pro-choice groups” it is still a fetus and undeserving of the right to life if it is still within the mother.  The difference evidently is six inches of birth canal that magically determines when a fetus is transformed into a baby deserving of the same rights endowed to all humans.

3.)    Watergate was responsible for bringing down President Nixon because of his involvement and cover up of a botched burglary for political means.  Nearly all of his previously-supportive Republican colleagues were ashamed of him and joined with Democrats in demanding his resignation.  The Benghazi debacle resulted in the possibly preventable deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador and two former SEAL’s that disobeyed orders to stand down and attempted to save him anyway.  The Obama administration has since intimidated, threatened, and tried to cover up this issue.  They even went so far as to blame a non-relevant video that no one had ever seen as the catalyst for the attack on 9/11.  The Republicans are outraged.  Evidently, the Democrats have no shame though and unlike during Watergate are willing to stand by their corrupt president.  The difference: no body died during Watergate.

4.)    We were lied to that Obamacare would allow us to keep our own doctors, not have “death panels”, and lower health care costs.  My doctor is likely going to close his practice soon due directly to the expense of Obamacare.  Congressional Republicans are being quietly chastised by Democrats for not being cooperative in appointing members to be a part of Obamacare death panels – oops, I meant end of life counseling panels.  Of course the Democrats cannot complain about this in the media though as it would let the cat out of the bag that Sarah Palin was indeed correct.  And finally, the CBO has announced that it will now cost 1.8 trillion dollars to implement Obamacare instead of the originally estimated 900 billion dollars.  Every last one of the warnings we conservatives stated during the debate are now coming to fruition in this travesty of a law.

5.)    Obama is set to announce a new round of strategic nuclear warhead reductions in the near future as part of a disarmament agenda that could reduce U.S. strategic warheads to as few as 1,000 weapons.  Specialists on nuclear deterrence say further cuts beyond the 1,550 deployed warheads mandated by the 2010 New START arms treaty could undermine the United States' ability to deter nuclear powers like Russia and China, who have significant modernization programs for their nuclear arsenals underway.  I guess this is part of the “more flexibility plan” that Obama promised then-Russian President Medvedev prior to Obama’s reelection.

In summary, we have a corrupt government, especially in the executive branch, that is guilty of numerous issues of criminal malfeasance and the only problem the press seems to be very concerned about is the wire-tapping of them.  The culture of death is expanding with the support of our president, while the United States’ security is being undermined militarily.  The economy continues to struggle and millions of Americans are suffering.  The final push to implement the un-Constitutional Obamacare (and it is un-Constitutional regardless of what SCOTUS says) will only serve to harm the middle class and those already struggling to make ends meet even more so.  Meanwhile, many Americans are oblivious or apathetic towards the corruption and incompetence within our government.  As long as they keep getting their SNAP checks and Obama-phone subsidies, they don’t really care.  I was horribly worried that America would not survive Obama’s second term.  In retrospect, it may already be dead.

Planned Parenthood, Obama, Gosnell, and Our Culture of Death

I have almost literally become sickened as of late due to the waxing of our American culture of death as personified in three entities:  Planned Parenthood, President Obama, and “Doctor” Kermit Gosnell.  I shudder to think what our society will become in another decade if this horrific cultural phenomena is not abated.  I have few illusions that it will ever be reversed now.  Indeed, it seems like nothing short of Divine intervention will turn us away from this blackest evil.  It is now ingrained and intrinsic to the very fabric of our culture, so it would seem.

First, there is the seemingly rabid support for the nation’s largest abortion provider in the guise of Planned Parenthood.  They proclaim they are all about “women’s health” but make no mistake that an overwhelming percentage of the income they make is specifically related to providing abortions. 

Our public support for this grotesque abortion-mill company is so intertwined in society that when the Susan G. Komen foundation said last year that they would no longer provide grant money to Planned Parenthood the outcry from the left was so deafening that the Komen foundation reneged on their statement. 

Ironically the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s purpose is to help prevent and ultimately cure breast cancer.  Too bad that they didn’t stand by their original edict and decided to continue providing funding to Planned Parenthood.  There has been increasing numbers of peer-reviewed scientific studies that show causative links between many forms of birth control & abortions and the increasing odds of occurrences of breast cancer in women.  Yep, great call there, Komen Foundation!   You seem to be working at odds with your stated purpose for being.

The fact that Planned Parenthood is subsidized with hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars each year is particularly pernicious.  A record $542 million (45% of their budget)  came from taxpayers for fiscal year 2012.  The immoral and amoral positions put forth by this organization are also thoroughly disgusting.  Their web site promotes sexual exploration, the use of various birth control measures, and the trivializing of sex for even young teenagers.  Of course, when that experimentation “works” and the birth control fails, Planned Parenthood is there to gain – errr, I mean “help” with the abortion. 

The very founding of this gruesome organization via Margaret Sanger was based on some twisted Nazi-like eugenics mantra.  Indeed she stated,

“Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are human weeds… a deadweight of human waste.  Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race.”

 

It was via abortions that Margaret Sanger hoped to propagate legal genocide of these “inferior” races.  THAT is Planned Parenthoods’ founding and it well earned legacy.

Secondly, we have President Obama.  He himself effectively voted for, as an Illinois senator, for legislation authorizing even the most extreme forms of abortion which even many “pro-choicers” find repugnant, such as “partial birth abortion”.  And now, on April 26^th – last week, he became the first sitting president of the United States ever to address Planned Parenthood.  He stated, “You’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way.”  Ironically he closed his twelve minute speech without ever even mentioning the word abortion but rather with the words, “Thank you Planned Parenthood, God Bless You.”  Wow!

One of Obama’s core principles seems to be that access to even late term abortions shall not be restricted.  After all, he wouldn’t want one of his daughters to ever be “punished with a baby”. 

Even his signature piece of legislative achievement, the execrable Affordable Care Act, has egregious mandates and stipulations within it to remove any conscience clauses for medical professionals who will not perform abortions due to moral or religious reasons.  Further, the HHS mandate tied to this travesty of a law states that all businesses and institutions must provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptive, sterilization, and abortifacient prophylactic services.  He refuses to even accommodate religious institutions, let alone individuals or private businesses that refuse to comply with this 1^st amendment-usurping mandate.  Keep in mind that those are inalienable rights that come from God and not our government.  Our government is supposed to protect and defend those rights.

Lastly, there is a culmination of this abortion culture of death as personified in the non-story of the Philadelphia abortion “doctor” Kermit Gosnell that the main-stream-politically-correct media has studiously avoided covering.  This butcher, who’s trial has now gone to jury, has been accused of killing many children who survived his botched abortions through means that would make Josef Mengele wince.  His abortion and infanticide clinic has surpassed the worst of conditions and abuses that even the most ardent pro-life supporter would ever dream of accusing an abortionist of fostering. 

Kirsten Powers summarized the human atrocities in a USA Today article,

“Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven’t heard about these sickening accusations?  It’s not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell’s former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart…Here is the headline the Associated Press put on a story about his testimony that he saw 100 babies born and then snipped: ‘Staffer describes chaos at PA abortion clinic.’” 

And that is one of the exceedingly rare stories that even acknowledges this trial.  Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey put it into perspective quite well when he said on the floor of the U.S. House, “If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing.”  He is absolutely right; the media’s and the public’s silence on this is deafening.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media in its progressive bias is quite loathe to report such horrendous murders as it would be used as fodder against the pro-abortion agenda.  Far better to try and squelch the story rather than admit that many of the pro-lifers might actually be right about their worst fears actually having come to fruition within the abortion industry.    The media refuses to cover the trial, except from a very high level and then on rare occasions, because they implicitly agree with abortion and thus have no moral ground on which to report, let alone criticize, the inevitable abuses that have occurred as a result of this culture of death we have created.

Indeed even a female patient by the name of Karnamaya Mongar that went to abortionist Gosnell for “help” died under his care due to his negligence.  So much for this being all about “women’s health”.  It would seem that Gosnell’s practice had been reported for years to authorities for his abuses, all to no avail. 

And to add insult to the entire process, Gosnell claimed that he was being singled out for prosecution simply because he is black.  Disgusting!  No “Dr.” Gosnell, you were singled out because you killed patients, and not just those that were born alive and who’s spinal cords you cut with scissors after they were born.  It was because you put a just-born breathing infant in a shoe box to die, rather than render help.  It is because you were a ghoul of the worst type who placed severed baby feet in a jar.  It had nothing to do with your skin color.

What are we to expect though when we as a culture try to justify the extermination of our unborn, or as often was the case with abortionist Gosnell – the newly born?  We even have various professors and “ethicists” that try to give legitimacy to abortion and even infanticide.  Princeton’s Peter Singer has long been one such advocate.  An article published last year in J. Med Ethics entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” was written by authors Alberto Giubilini (Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), and Frencesca Minerva (Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia).  Within this incredible article they proclaim,

Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

How long before these “cutting edge” ethicist professors are part of society’s normative view on abortion and “post-birth abortion”?

This culture of death is evil through and through.  President Obama conferring God’s blessings on an organization responsible for the greatest number of abortions in America is simply a symptom of how deep into the pit we have fallen.  Eventually there will come a day of reckoning for our world, and not necessarily even at God’s hands, but by the hands of those whom are evil and we have proclaimed as good.  I truly shudder that justice will one day be met out on us.  I pray that God will forgive us.

Reaping What is Sown

A successful business man was growing old and knew it was time to choose a successor to take over his business.  Instead of simply choosing one of his directors or his children, he decided to do something different. He called all of the young executives in his company together for a meeting.

He said, "It is time for me to step down and choose the next CEO to run my business.  I have decided to choose one of you."  The young executives were shocked, but the boss continued.  "I am going to give each one of you a single plant seed today - one very special seed. I want you to plant the seed, water it, and come back here one year from today with what you have grown from the seed I have given you.  I will then judge the plants that you bring, and the one I choose will be the next CEO."

                                            

One man named Jim was there that day and he, like the others, received a seed. He went home and excitedly told his wife the story.  She helped him get a pot, soil, and compost and he planted the seed.  Every day he would water it and watch to see if it had grown. After about three weeks, some of the other executives began to talk about their seeds and the plants that were beginning to grow.

                                            

Jim kept checking his seed, but nothing ever grew.  Three weeks, four weeks, five weeks went by, still nothing.  By now others were talking about their plants, but Jim didn't have a plant or even any signs of life in his pot and he began to feel like a failure.

                                            

Six months went by and still there was nothing in Jim's pot. He just knew he had killed his seed. Everyone else had trees and tall plants, but he had nothing.  Jim didn't say anything to his colleagues; however, he just kept watering and fertilizing the soil.  He so wanted the seed to grow.

                                            

A year finally went by and the day came when the CEO called for the big meeting, and all the young executives of the company brought their plants to the CEO for inspection.  Jim told his wife that he wasn't going to take an empty pot.  But she asked him to be honest about what happened. Jim felt sick to his stomach; it was going to be the most embarrassing moment of his life, but he knew his wife was right.  He took his empty pot to the board room.

When Jim arrived, he was amazed at the variety of plants grown by the other executives.  They were beautiful -- in all shapes and sizes.  Jim simply put his empty pot on the floor and many of his colleagues laughed.  A few felt sorry for him.

                                            

When the CEO arrived, he surveyed the room and greeted his young executives.

                                            

Jim just tried to hide in the back. "My, what great plants, trees and flowers you have grown," said the CEO.  "Today one of you will be appointed the next CEO!"  All of a sudden, the CEO spotted Jim at the back of the room with his empty pot. He ordered the Financial Director to bring him to the front.  Jim was embarrassed and terrified.  He thought, "The CEO knows I'm a failure!  Maybe he will even have me fired!"

                                            

When Jim got to the front, the CEO asked him what had happened to his seed, so Jim told him the whole story.  The CEO asked everyone to sit down except Jim. He looked at Jim, and then announced to the young executives, "Behold your next Chief Executive Officer!  His name is Jim!" Jim couldn't believe it.  Jim couldn't even grow his seed.

                                            

"How could he be the new CEO?" the others said.

                                            

Then the CEO said, "One year ago today, I gave everyone in this room a seed. I told you to take the seed, plant it, water it, and bring it back to me today. But I gave you all boiled seeds; they were dead - it was not possible for them to grow.  All of you, except Jim, have brought me trees and plants and flowers. When you found that the seed would not grow, you substituted another seed for the one I gave you. Jim was the only one with the courage and honesty to bring me a pot with my seed in it. Therefore, he is the one who will be the new Chief Executive Officer!"

                                            

   * If you plant honesty, you will reap trust

                                            

   * If you plant goodness, you will reap friends

                                            

   * If you plant humility, you will reap greatness

                                            

   * If you plant perseverance, you will reap contentment

                                            

   * If you plant consideration, you will reap perspective

                                            

   * If you plant hard work, you will reap success

                                            

   * If you plant forgiveness, you will reap reconciliation

                                            

So, be careful what you plant now; it will determine what you will reap later.

H/T:  To my friend Paul Dubney who passed away over a year ago now.  You are missed!

A Refutation of the Case for Gay "Marriage"

I had made it a point to try and restrain myself from writing on temporal matters during Lent and so of course found much in the way of temptation that just cried out for my vitally-needed input into the various debates that occurred over the course of these past forty days.  Unfortunately one of those critically important debates was focused on the topic of gay “marriage” as our Supreme Court heard arguments on this matter last week during the holiest week on the Christian calendar.  Irony abounds as we as a culture further turn away our faces from God and His will and concentrate rather on what we want as self-indulgent adults in our “enlightened and compassionate society” today.

Marriage throughout the millennia was primarily about a man and woman becoming one flesh and the raising of any children that resulted from their unitive and procreative marital embrace.  Marriage was necessary for protecting and caring for the wife and children.  Marriage was about the perpetuation of our species in the most efficient and logical manner.  With that being the case, I guess that one of the main questions of this debate is do children have a basic right to a mother and father?  I would argue that the answer is emphatically yes, and therefore I oppose the redefinition of marriage on the grounds that doing so would dramatically infringe on that basic human right of a child to have a mother and a father. 

Sociology and science reflects what common sense already tells us.  Children tend to fair far better when living with their own mother and father who are living in a committed marriage.  Most gay marriage proponents disagree.  A refreshing exception to the rule, Jean Marc, who is a mayor of a French city who has cohabitated with his male companion for twenty years agrees with me.  He said, “the LGBT movement that speaks out in the media . . . They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this…The rights of children trump the right to children.”

Unfortunately, many proponents do not see any harm in allowing two people in love, regardless of either’s genders, from engaging in matrimony.  After all, we are an enlightened society today.  If two men or two women love each other, why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry each other?  Indeed!  Well what happens if both my wife and I decide that we both love Susie and want her to be our second wife?  Why should we be restricted from our polygamous marriage if love is the only standard?  For that matter, I love my mother too.  Why should society deem it inappropriate or taboo for me to marry her?  Shouldn’t I be allowed to marry the one I love after all?  And what about that 15 year old down the street?  We do so much enjoy playing video games together while listening to Justin Bieber CD’s.  Why should the government tell us that it would be wrong for us to marry?  And, what about my dog?  She has been a loyal companion for the last decade, and many folks already leave their estates to pets.  This would simply extend that path to its logical destination.  Why shouldn’t we codify it one step further and just allow human/pet marriages?  Continuing, there is already an instance of a woman “marrying” herself and another woman who has “married" the Eiffel tower.  And who are we to deny them this right to marry the person(s), animal, or object of their affections and love? 

 

You see, if the definition of marriage is so transitory and can be redefined based on what our newly enlightened society says it is, then we must also recognize these other “non-traditional” forms of marriage as being equally valid.  Of course if the definition of marriage is no longer the union of one man and one woman, but the union of any combination of individuals, then the term no longer holds any discernible meaning. A counterfeit will always devalue the real thing, and thus counterfeit marriages will lead to “everything is acceptable” unions. There will be no legal reason with which to deny anyone from falling under the penumbra of the new definition of “marriage.”  Since love is the determining benchmark, all of these "marriages" now become permissible.

Despite what many critics will characterize and dismiss as that slippery slope argument, it would seem today that many of the proponents of “gay marriage” still insist that traditional Christian morality on the topic is antiquated and unenlightened – indeed it is even bigoted and hateful to many peoples’ way of thinking in opposing gay marriage.  Sadly, many gay marriage proponents fail to realize that I and others can love someone without embracing everything they stand for, and likewise disagreeing (even vehemently) with someone on a particular issue such as gay marriage does not mean that I necessarily abhor that person.  Indeed we are called by God to love everyone, and although I do fail at this, such is nonetheless my goal.  I have gay friends and family members whom I do love and respect.  That does not mean that I accept or condone homosexual activity or the redefining of the sacrament of marriage.  That said, I choose to hate the sin and not the sinner, as we all are guilty of sin. 

This makes me wonder further though.  Is there such a thing as absolute Truth?  And if so what is the standard for that Truth?  Still today, many people would say that absolute and transcending truth is found in God and His will.  I know I am of this particular opinion.

It is my belief that God has placed in each of our hearts the essential knowledge of His truth and love.  We generally know if we are doing good or bad accordingly and this intrinsic knowledge typically transcends geography, cultures, faith, and time.   

So why is that throughout nearly all of recorded human history has marriage always been between a man and a woman? 

Marriage between a woman and a man is definitely something that has transcended thousands and thousands of years, across nearly all cultures, across nearly all religions, and across all continents.  Indeed, the concept of “gay marriage” was so aberrant that for all of these past millennia, humankind could not even conceive of the idea of it.  This is what the Inuit tribes of the Arctic taught.  It was the custom of dynastic China and Japan.  This was the case for the Mayan people of central America and such were the rituals of most of the tribes of Africa.  It was the way of our own Native Americans.  One male and one female marriage was the cornerstone of European society for all of the past ages.  Marriage between a man and a woman are what was recorded in the sacred scriptures and traditions of the world’s greatest religions from Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, to Hinduism. 

And after all these millennia of wisdom from man and the heavens, we as a people have finally become so smart and enlightened that we can reject them all.  We can now disavow all of human history as wrong and bigoted in order to redefine the term of marriage to allow for the union of same sex couples.  If all of these cultures, faiths, and traditions taught such a fundamental falsehood, then that would tend to indict them all as being false themselves.  All of the world throughout human history has been wrong, and now in the last two decades of our history we have finally evolved to know that we now have the Truth. 

But truth is not to be found simply in a majority of voters’ ballots or in a Gallup poll.  Real truth transcends time.  It is found in God.  And since the sides of history and the present are mutually exclusive in their view points on this topic, obviously both cannot be right.  Many of our progressive friends ironically decry the fact that those of us who fail to support gay marriage will ultimately end up being on the wrong side of history.  The wisdom of the millennia of past history screams out to be heard and is ignored by such people accordingly.  And while history does teach us what is right in this case, shouldn’t we be more concerned with being on the right side of Truth?

If we are to legalize marriage between same sex couples, does this not enshrine into law and teach our children that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and ultimately irrelevant?  Doesn’t it say that there are no significant differences between the genders?

Regardless of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court a few months from now, I think it is sadly likely that “gay marriage” will eventually become the new norm of the land.  It would seem that we are indeed continuing to slouch towards Gomorrah in our new enlightened society.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone when interviewed on the topic of gay marriage last year stated, “Everyone should be treated equally, but it is not discrimination to treat differently things that are different. Marriage really is unique for a reason.”

Simply identifying what is “right” with the will of the majority is a dangerous thing.  At one time in America’s history, a majority in the South thought that owning slaves was right.  Indeed a majority of the crowd on that first Good Friday called for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Christ. A majority does not necessarily lend itself as a credible moral authority.  As the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “there is a world of difference between an authority on which you rely when it pleases you, and one which you trust absolutely whether it pleases you or not; for what the world needs is a voice that is right not when the world is right, but right when the world is wrong.” 

I hope and pray that the Supreme Court will concur with the wisdom of all of human history and God, but whether it does or not, the Truth about what constitutes true marriage will not be altered.

Good Friday: I Make All Things New Again!

As we enter into Good Friday and the most solemn day of the year for most Christians, I wanted to share this beautiful and haunting music video.  It is sung by two of my favorite artists, Brad Paisley and Sara Evans, and they do a masterful job.  The video itself contains excerpts mainly from the Passion of the Christ film.  Please be warned that the film and the clip can be difficult to watch in parts for many folks due to the realistic and graphic portrayal of the crucifixion of our Lord and Savior.

Nevertheless, as Blessed Pope John Paul II was reported as having said upon seeing a private screening of the film upon its release, "It is as it was." 

My people, what have I done to you?  Or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.  What more should I have done, and did not do?  I led you out of the land of Egypt, and you prepared a cross for me.  I opened the Red Sea before you, and you opened my side with a lance.  I gave you a royal scepter, and you have given me a crown of thorns.  With great power I lifted you up, and you hung me upon a cross.  My people, what have I done to you, or in what have I offended you?  Answer me.    (~ From the Reproaches of Good Friday)

Blessed be God forever!  Amen!

Lent, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, and Hope

During this season of Lent, I have tried to remove myself as much as possible from blogging, especially on temporal things such as politics.  That said, I came across this wonderful meditation for Lent at The Little Catholic Bubble  that Leila Miller has done regarding some radio addresses that the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen had done in the 1940's. 

Now Archbishop Sheen was a wonderful and faithful man who was pretty much a household name throughout the middle decades of the 20^th century.  He had a national radio program and even an Emmy-award-winning national television show. 

I recall having watched several of his long-ago recorded episodes of that TV show where he came out in his full clerical regalia and then spoke to the camera and his audience in front of a chalk board for the entire time.  Pretty boring stuff you would surmise.  Not so.  It was captivating and I hungered for the meaty information he proclaimed to us.  Many Americans, even millions of non-Catholics, loved and admired him for his straight forward talk and wonderful sense of humor in teaching us about the Gospels, Faith, and Christ, accordingly.

There is a book of his entitled The Seven Last Words and the Seven Virtues which was transcribed from Sheen's radio talks in 1940 and is a meditation on the seven last statements ("words") that Jesus spoke from the Cross, corresponded with the seven virtues of fortitude, hope, truth, faith, temperance, justice, and charity. 

In this age of moral relativism in the secular world and often banal homilies and watered-down catechesis in the religious world, I find myself once again captivated by Sheen's simple and profound way of exploring and explaining the Faith.  His is a voice that is sorely needed in today's world.  Archbishop Sheen died in 1979, and the cause for his canonization to saint-hood has been recently opened. 

Happening across this wonderful article, I wanted to share some of the excerpts on the chapter regarding the virtue of hope as I think it is particularly relevant for this Lenten season.  Enjoy!

The Second Word:

"This Day Thou Shalt Be With Me In Paradise."

The Corresponding Virtue:

Hope

Excerpts from Sheen's February 18, 1940 address:

[W]e speak of the virtue of Hope to differentiate it from the emotion of Hope. The emotion centers in the body and is a kind of dreamy desire that we can be saved without much effort. The virtue of Hope, however, is centered in the will and may be defined as a divinely infused disposition of the will by which with sure confidence, thanks to the powerful help of Almighty God, we expect to pursue eternal happiness, using all the means necessary for attaining it. The virtue of Hope lies not in the future of time, but beyond the tomb in eternity; its object is not the abundant life of earth, but the eternal love of God.

…

[Jesus was crucified between two thieves.]

As one gazes on that spectacle of three crosses silhouetted against a black and frightened sky, one sees in prospect the future judgment of the world; the Judge in the center and the two divisions of humanity on either side: The Sheep and the goats; the blessed and the lost; those who love and those who hate; for the end shall be as the beginning, except that Christ shall appear for the final judgment not on the cross of ignominy but in glory in the clouds of heaven.

…

In a single moment a soul with a genuine fear of God can come to a greater understanding of the purpose of life than in a life-time spent in the study of the ephemeral philosophies of men. That is why death-bed conversions may be sincere conversions. The hardened soul disbelieves in God until that awful moment when he has no one to deceive but himself. Once the spark of salutary fear of God had jumped into the soul of the thief from the flaming furnace of that central Cross, fear gave way to faith.

…

Two thieves there were: One who loved and one who hated. Each was on a cross. Neither the good nor the bad can ever escape the cross. One thief was saved; therefore let no one despair. One thief was lost; therefore let no one presume. The two extremes to be avoided then are presumption and despair. Presumption is an excess of hope and despair is a defect of hope.

…

What we all have to realize is that when we sin we turn our back on God. He does not turn His back on us. If we are ever to see His face again we must turn around, that is, turn from sin. That is what is meant by conversion…. God cannot save us without that conversion; if we die in our unrepentant sin we are forever turned away from God. Where the tree falleth, there it lies. There is no reversal of values after death. We cannot love sin during life and begin to love virtue at death. The joys of heaven are the continuance of the Christ-like joys of earth. We do not develop a new set of loves with our last breath.

…

If He forgave the thief and Magdalene and Peter, why not you? What makes many in old age sad is not that their joys are gone, but that their hopes are gone. Your earthly hopes may decrease with the years, but not heavenly hope. Regardless of the sinful burden of the years, God's mercy is greater than your faults. Only when God ceases to be infinitely merciful and only when you begin to be infinitely evil, will there be reason for despair; and that will be never.

…

If you insist that you are disgusted with yourself, may I say that you can come to God even by a succession of disgusts? What does your disgust mean except that everything earthly has failed you? That is one of the ways God makes you feel hunger for the Divine. Do you not crave food most when you are hungry? Do you not want water most when you are thirsty? Your own disgust, if you knew it, is the distant call of Divine Mercy. If then the  poverty of your merits makes you shrink from the Divine Presence, then let your needs draw you to it. And that, incidentally, is why we Catholics find comfort and solace in the Sacrament of Penance. When we are disgusted with our sins we can go into a little booth called a confessional box, unload our misery, have our sins washed away, and start life all over again. I know a thousand psycho-analysts who will explain sins away, but that is not what we want. We want them forgiven.

The Way Things Are Done In California

As a RF engineer working for a national wireless phone carrier, it is my job to design, build, and optimize cell site towers and most particularly the associated radio equipment for each cell site.  I currently work in the politically and culturally conservative state of Utah, and although I am not a member of the predominate religious faith here, I find myself liking the area quite well.  Most of the people are courteous and the culture on the whole tends to celebrate traditional American values. 

A part of my job is to continuously improve our wireless network, and that will sometimes entail adding new cell sites to accommodate customer growth or fill in various coverage holes.  With zoning in some jurisdictions becoming rather onerous, we always try to co-locate our antennas on existing towers or taller commercial building rooftops first.  Unfortunately when we try to cover larger swaths of residential areas, existing towers and tall buildings are sometimes very hard to come by.  We thus have typically found a good solution to this problem for many residential areas.  We speak with local school principals and the associated PTA etc. as necessary and request to build a tower on school properties.  This usually works out quite well.  We are able to provide needed coverage to our subscribers in their homes, and the always cash-strapped schools are able to get a monthly lease amount of money.  Additionally, once a carrier goes to the trouble of leasing and zoning such a tower in a residential area, it usually isn’t too long before other carriers come along and ask to co-locate on that tower too thus providing even more rent to the school.  The school wins, the carriers win, and everyone is happy.  Or not.

About five years ago I proposed building a new cell tower to an elementary school principal who’s school lied directly in the middle of a dense residential area for which all carriers had trouble providing adequate coverage to their subscribers.  The principal was enthusiastic and on the verge of giddy over our proposal as he would only have to give up a 20 by 20 foot unused corner of his playground in exchange for a much-needed influx of cash to be used by the school as he deemed necessary.  He even negotiated for us to provide a new marquee sign at the front of the school as an added bonus for them.  We had completed a draft lease and agreed on all of the terms in theory.  The only hurdle was to get approval from a parent advisory board.  I showed up at the meeting and presented my case and answered all of their questions accordingly.  Everyone seemed well pleased with the proposal and were preparing to vote on the issue, when a middle-aged professional-looking lady arrived late to the meeting. 

I could tell right away that she was going to be a problem.  Her tone to me and others on the board was adversarial and condescending.  She proceeded to ask me many questions that had already been asked by the crowd.  I found it rather interesting and quite telling that neither the principal nor anyone else reigned her in and told her so.  Her biggest complaint was regarding the “safety” of my proposed tower.  She was certain that such cell towers, particularly ones placed at schools, would irradiate her precious little child and undoubtedly lead to cancer.  It was a question that had already been addressed.  Nevertheless I calmly and patiently presented her my independent studies AGAIN and explained that the site operated at frequencies and power levels that were orders of magnitude lower than what was required to even begin causing any health risk whatsoever.  In fact, the 1996 Telecommunications act even made it illegal to reject a new site based on RF safety concerns accordingly.  Of course, the lady began to pontificate on what a liar I was and that I was just a shill for the industry that wanted to make money and to hell with the consequences for the kids.  I could see that her ranting diatribe was irritating many of the other parents and making others rather uncomfortable.  When it appeared that most of the parents and staff weren’t buying her hysteria, she pulled out her trump card.  “As many of you already know, I am a lawyer who moved her from the San Francisco Bay Area last year, and I stopped many of these sites from being built out there.  The fact that you people would consider putting such a dangerous site in the middle of our school ground is ridiculous.  That is not the way we did things in California, and I am going make sure it doesn’t happen here.  If you proceed forward with this site, I will bring a lawsuit forward here too.”   Ironically, I noticed she answered her CELL PHONE and immediately dropped the call as she was leaving the meeting.

Anyway, the principal asked for a recess and said that we would postpone a vote until next month’s meeting.  I spoke to him two days later and he informed me that he was no longer interested in our proposal and that he was sincerely sorry.  It was a reminder of a lesson that I have seen repeated in various iterations time and again since then. 

  

California is dominated by large cities that are overwhelmingly progressive, and have basically ruined a once great state accordingly.  They have nearly bankrupted the state in their ridiculous and never-ending attempts to be the nanny to all constituents and involve themselves in every aspect of people’s lives.  Their state debt now dwarfs that of the nation of Greece’s accordingly.  Many businesses have fled the state to escape the confiscatory tax rates and regulatory burdens, including Fortune 500 companies such as Northrop.   According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California ranks 49^th in unemployment at 9.8% as of December 2012.  The people there don’t seem to realize that there are ramifications for the burdens that the state places on those that provide jobs for the citizens.  People, families, and especially businesses are often times voting with their feet and leaving the Golden State accordingly. 

The problem is that many of these fine people move to new states, such as Utah.  They then get involved with city councils, PTA boards, and state governments.  All of that would be wonderful if they would use and proclaim the lessons they should have learned about living in an intrusive hyper-progressive state and how destructive it becomes to prosperity and freedom.  Unfortunately, they often seem to forget the conditions there that were the catalyst for them moving from California in the first place.  I have since heard time and again that old refrain I heard from the Bay-Area-lawyer Lady years before of “that’s not how we did things in California.”  Many of these folks want to seemingly re-create the mess that they fled in their previous home state. 

I’ve got a suggestion for all such progressive Californians.  If you don’t like the way we do things in our conservative state, stay in your own progressive swamp.  At the very least, do NOT come to our state and tell us how we are doing things wrongly. 

That is especially true for Utah.  We have been ranked #1 for three years in a row for “Best State for Business and Careers” by Forbes Magazine.   We have also been ranked first for “Economic Dynamism”, and the “Top State for Volunteerism” for seven years in a row.  Our state unemployment has remained considerably lower than the national average and far below California’s.  Our cost of living is well below the national average and our culture of family values tends to be far more traditional and conservative than the nation’s as a whole.  The state has been recognized as one of the best managed states governmentally and according to the recent census, Utah was ranked 3^rd for “Overall Economic Health”.  In other words, I think Utah has a pretty good handle on things judging by any number of objective standards;  all of which are far better than California’s.  In other words, if you good California folks want to move to Utah and other conservative states and work to productively contribute to it, then I am sure you will be happily welcomed.  When you come here and tells us we are doing wrong and use your state of California as the model, we are going to laugh at you uproariously.   

I had a beloved uncle that died a few short years ago that lived in Oregon most all of his life.  He was not one for being politically correct, and always insisted that it was the government’s obligation to build a very secure border fence – a fence around the borders of California to keep them in there.  I laughed at the time, but in retrospect I am beginning to think that he was right.