Now that I have gotten your attention.
I will get to the beaches later on.
What I really want to write about is different concepts of Heaven–real and only imagined.
I am at the age that every waiting room I sit in makes me think that this could be God’s Waiting Room.
I believe that throughout history most people have believed in a God.
And with that necessarily follows certain questions of eschatology…that is the meaning of life and the advent of an afterlife.
Socrates did and he believed in an afterlife as well.
History is riven with acts of the utmost cruelty and brutality.
It is also replete with countless acts of acts of nobility and charity that underscore the duality of man.
This by necessity raises the question of reward and punishment and our understanding of Heaven and Hell.
I think most people have similar ideas on the latter but it is Heaven and what must go on there that fascinates, intrigues and maybe just fills us with a great sense of anticipation and maybe even fear.
The major drawback is that you have to die to get there.
Since no one, except Jesus has ever experienced Heaven, and then come to earth, what we really know about it is at best sketchy.
There is something Christians call the Beatific Vision — a face to face encounter with God that promises to be so overpowering the human imagination just can’t image it.
This encounter is supposed to fill us with an over-powering sense of joy that St. Paul said in Corinthians 2:9, is so spectacular that no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has the heart of man conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.
This is really saying something special since there are so many natural wonders and beauties in this life that anything much greater would literally blow our human minds.
As a man I find all the natural wonders–from the curvaceous shape of a beautiful woman on the beach to the rolling hills of Virginia and the sandy beaches of Maui so uplifting that I have trouble imagining anything much more emotionally satisfying.
In the Book of Revelation, the most incomprehensible and most misunderstood book in the Bible, St. John writes of celestial choirs and a great deal of heavenly pomp and circumstance that doesn’t really seem all that appealing to the average person.
The God that we have been taught to love is all-knowing, and more importantly all-loving.
Loving is giving of Himself and I would think as the Divine host he would focus a little more on His guests.
He could give us the grand tour as a proud and generous Host would do in earthly life.
And lets face it we would be His eternal guests since we did literally nothing to earn or warrant His beneficence.
I think He would take us around and introduce us to some of the most famous guests that have shared His love.
Then there would be reunions with friends and families and the meeting new people.
I would love to sit around the campfire or at a sidewalk Bistro and talk history with some of our former presidents and generals.
I would love to meet Bishop Fulton J. Sheen and pick is enormous brain.
I would also love to know who really killed the Kennedys, maybe Marilyn and Princess Di and if FDR knew about the Japanese sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.
I will be truly saddened if my father were not there.
He never joined the Catholic Church and quite frankly though he respected my mother’s faith, he never made any outward allegiance to any religion.
But I have to think and hope that my mother’s 15 years as an Alzheimer’s victim was applied to whatever debt he may have owed.
If Heaven is supposed to be a perfect happiness and fulfillment of our earthly lives, if some of my closest relatives and friends are not there, what will that do to my happiness?
I think that and God’s infinite mercy are the two best arguments for a quasi universal salvation.
Another writer on Heaven recently said that we would get to meet the saints.
That is a scary proposition because so many led what seemed like impeccable lives that I would have tremendous feelings of inferiority around them.
I mean what do you say to people who loved God so much that they were devoured by wild animals.
St. Thomas Aquinas would be someone to spend a day with but my knowledge of Thomistic philosophy is limited but he did have a clear way of explaining things.
I would like to meet someone after my own heart–St. Thomas More, who loved God as much as anyone but was reluctant to stick out his neck–until King Henry backed him into his fatal encounter with his executioner.
His way was the only way I could have done what our martyrs have done.
I never volunteer for anything but when push comes to shove…
I would have shot my mouth off to the king and then it would have been too late.
St. Augustine is another story.
His Manichean background and the sexual sins of his early years soured him on anything to do with the human body and its sexuality.
And while he renounced this heresy, its views had already permeated his approach to sex, sin and the human body.
Sex was dirty and our bodies unclean.
He was plagued by this wretched sin of lust most of his life.
It affected the Church’s teaching on marriage and stained its sacramental importance.
I know John Paul II tried to do a lot to erase that stain with his Theology of the Body but there is still a long way to go.
The confusion attendant to the Biblical account of creation just complicates our understanding of sex, nudity and marriage.
Our first parents, whether it was an allegory or an actual fact, were created in their natural state.
Since they had complementary sexual organs, it is not much of a stretch to say that they did engage in lots of love-making, just as God had intended.
But I wonder if this was just reproductive sex since child-bearing became one of the negative results of the fall of man.
I dare not say punishment lest I sound like our esteemed president.
Boston College theologian Peter Kreft believes there will be sex in Heaven for all for whom it was an integral part of their saintly lives on earth.
His ideas on spiritual sex are provocative and engaging.
How that would work is another of the many mysteries of the afterlife.
There were no clothes necessary because they were in a state of pristine beauty, just as God had intended.
But the serpent on the vine changed things for all eternity.
After they partook of the fruit of good and evil, they realized they were naked and sin entered the world and with it lust.
Lust can be defined as the innate desire to use another human being merely for the pleasure of the act or thought.
Most often the subject matter is sex.
As a result because of their shame they covered their loins.
Some theologians say theirs was a sexual sin but I have found nothing to confirm that.
But they must have been naked sometime after that because they had at least two children–Cain and Abel.
And there had to be some daughters too.
That raises the question of incest out of necessity.
Millions of married couples today are comfortable in their spouses’ company and even sometimes, the extended family without the benefits of any clothing.
Have they lost their shame?
Or are they treating their bodies more like God intended?
MAKE CERTAIN TO LOOK FOR NUDE BEACHES II NEXT WEEK
I have been wrestling for a few weeks with the Joe Paterno controversy that has, not only destroyed a coaching legend, but quite possibly a leading Eastern university.
The conventional wisdom has already lynched his former assistant Jerry Sandusky for his alleged role in one of the most scandalous acts of child abuse ever conceived at a major university.
Does the name Mary Surratt mean anything to you?
I am not wired to jump on the pile and shout his guilt from the highest vantage point in America, like so many of our sanctimonious sportswriters and columnists throughout America.
In an era that disavows the professional and dedicated religious clergy who had always considered moral behavior their area of competency, who appointed this class of mainly sportswriters, who have appointed themselves the moral judges and executioners of sports legends, coaches, players and ball boys?
What do they really know about morality or anything outside the lines of sport?
What are their credentials?
These bishops of blame act as if they had some special knowledge of morality that the rest of us lack.
They are America’s Neo-Gnostics!
They have no churches, seminaries, degrees, credentials, or certificates.
Think George Vecsey of the New York Times.
Why should their opinions matter?
Most are not fit to carry Paterno’s ball bag to practice.
I have never met Joe Paterno, nor have I ever been a fan of Penn State’s football program.
But I will say that they did provide me with one of my biggest thrills in my four years at Holy Cross.
At my 40th reunion I ran into classmate Jim Gravel, who had provided that thrill on a sunny fall day in 1962.
It was late in the 4th quarter and State had just scored to make it 48-13–they had the 48.
In all of their greedy wisdom, they elected to go for the two-point conversion, adding insult to the 48-point injury.
The Crusaders stiffened on defense and denied them the magic 50-point plateau.
It was on the ensuing kickoff with a mere 13 seconds left in the game that the slender Gravel thrilled, not just me but the 6000 in attendance.
He fielded the ball on the HC 13 and cut through their line of tacklers and took it to the end zone for our 20-48 moral victory.
We had a lot of those kinds of victories in those days.
I believe one of the coaches on the other side had to be Joe Paterno, who 49 years later is suffering through a dark night of the soul that has virtually wiped out the best efforts of a long career both on and off the football field. (Now he has lung cancer to boot.)
He had just recorded his record 409th win as a Division I head coach, the most in history to date.
I wonder if the press will clamor for all those victories from 1998 to be rescinded.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Just what is the proper–the Christian way to judge this pernicious situation?
First of all, his former assistant, Jerry Sandusky is innocent…until proven guilty.
One of the great drawbacks to our suffocating democracy is that mob rule eventually replaces sound and logical reasoning.
We are quickly approaching that state of mindlessness.
Should Paterno have rushed out and reported the accusations of a graduate student to the police?
Hadn’t this been the case in 1998 and the state failed to prosecute because of a lack of evidence?
Didn’t the University do everything in its limited powers, given Sandusky’s individual rights, that common sense dictated?
Is Sandusky a paedophile or maybe there’s another word for his behavior which seems to be exclusively with young boys?
Has Penn State been too quick with its rush to judgement now?
Can anyone say, Duke Lacrosse team?
Since Paterno supposedly had never had any first-hand knowledge of these alleged crimes, what would have happened if he had tattled and been wrong?
Is there anyone out there, who knows of our climate for litigation what Sandusky would have done?
What is the usual fate of Good Samaritans or Whistle-blowers in this country?
Are they heroes or chumps?
Do we not regard them like squealers and vermin?
Now it is our sanctimonious sportswriters and columnists, who are demanding that Paterno take the heroic way, instead of the prudent way!
What would they have done in JoePa’s place?
I’ll bet they would have done nothing more than he did.
The absolute right thing is always easier from a distance.
He did what America’s secular culture taught him to do…go through the chain of command.
This is the very culture these writers have helped to contribute.
Welcome to their brave new world of MC—moral correctness.
Can we demand that an old man who sees a baby floating down the river dive in and save that baby..at great personal risk…and without a decent chance of success?
Is it not curious that given all of these moral suppositions in a culture that has sanctified a woman’s right to choose the death of her unborn baby that our society has this knee-jerk reaction to even the allegations of child sexual abuse?
Is it that we treasure sexual behavior, even among the consenting young so highly that we do not want our children twisted by thew same predators that our sexually charged society encourages?
Speaking of Alfred Kinsey, did he not believed that sex with children was good for…the children? Did he not fosters studies where he and others sexually manipulated babies, all in the name of SCIENCE?
Now there was a self-serving gourmet of adolescent pleasures.
Doesn’t our society base its sexual mores on his writing and later those of his kinsman, Hugh Hefner?
Or is it something deeper?
Has anyone read the story of Lady Macbeth lately?
Speaking of Freud and I was at least thinking of Freud, didn’t he believe that we must give into all of our sexual desires because repression caused neuroses?
Speaking of Catholics…
Is there anyone out there who doesn’t…at least subliminally connect the Italian Paterno with his Catholic faith?
And by that link him to its damaged priests and bureaucratic bishops who tried to protect their institution for the good of the whole?
Is Paterno just another Look Away Catholic?
Is this just another example of the secular persecution of the Catholic Church by proxy?
I’ll leave it up to you to decide. Send your comments to my comments page.
I can’t remember how old I was when I learned to bless myself with the sign of the cross.
My mother might have taught me or perhaps it was my first grade teacher, Sister Ellen Marie.
It is startling to me, some 62 years later that the sign of the cross and its physical representations seem to have lost their place in American society.
The cross as a religious sign is under siege.
Many people say that they are offended when people demonstrate their religious faith.
They say, not in words, but in attitudes that we must relegate such devotional moments to the privacy of our home.
Perhaps in the closet is the only place suitable because we might offend visitors, delivery men and the like.
Well homosexuals aren’t in there any more.
That should leave some room for us.
To me this is a more than a subtle form of discrimination.
On a deeper level, it has all the earmarks of a modern form of persecution.
I really don’t understand the threat that my Catholic faith has to these forces of prejudice whose pedigree runs hundreds of years…at least to the French Revolution.
Jesus Christ was a simple carpenter to most of them and He preached a revolutionary gospel of love and brotherhood. Most people like that idea.
I don’t see the problem with that, except maybe for the fact that He left the beginnings of a Church behind that developed a strict moral order in line with his sermons of charity, lust and turning the other cheek.
Then of course there is the Divinity thing.
Christians have to acknowledge a power much greater than themselves or any government they might create.
Perhaps that’s the rub.
People, especially liberals and other well-educated people see themselves and their will as more important than His.
Maybe it is Jesus’ axiom that the truth shall set you free!
Whose truth? Certainly not that of a secular government that manufactures its truth daily.
Maybe that’s the reason Marx and his heirs have made it a point to destroy Christianity.
Or maybe it goes back even further than Communism.
Maybe it is the Augustinian dichotomy of the City of God versus the City of Man.
Maybe Nero was the first representative of the latter.
I recently viewed the 1932 movie, The Sign of the Cross and was amazed at the stark contrast between the world of Rome and the promised world of Jesus.
It was one of Cecil DeMille’s great religious epics and at that time movie producers were pushing the envelope over the accepted levels of modesty and individual chastity because of declining attendance due to the hard times.
The Catholic Church in Chicago led the charge in producing a self-enforcing code that was handed over to the Will Hays Office and became known as the Hays Code in 1930.
From 1930 to 1934, Hay’s Production Code was only slightly effective in fighting back calls for federal censorship.
However, things came to a head in 1934 with widespread threats of Catholic boycotts of immoral movies.
DeMille’s Sign was at the center of this growing national controversy and probably the main reason for the establishment the Catholic Legion of Decency, which became a formidable benchmark of morality until 1978.
The Sign starred Frederic March and a relative unknown, Italian actress. Elissa Landi.
But the real star turned out to be Claudette Colbert whose notorious milk bath stole all the headlines.
She playfully splashes enough milk so the world can get a fleeting full look at her breasts.
To me that salacious scene is quite tame by our post-modern standards but I can see their point in 1932.
I don’t have any way of knowing how many lustful thoughts emanated from those few brief seconds of visible flesh in 1932, but I can honestly say her playfulness probably exceeded the parameters for intent for John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
She definitely wanted the audience to sneak a peek.
Yet in retrospect I do believe her brief exposure did have at least one redeemable feature.
It helped to provide the sharp contrast between the modestly clad Christian women and the courtesans of Emperor Nero’s pagan court.
While the film was over-dramatized and the filmography primitive compared to our own times, the story of the Prefect of Rome and his obsession with a young Christian woman was very compelling.
It was not only a love story but one of how the purity of a Christian woman who believed in something higher, could tame the passions of a Roman pagan so much that he gladly followed her into the lions’ den and a gruesome death.
Parallels like that seem lost on the audience of today.
The scenes of vivid and overt savage persecution were gut-wrenching.
But Jesus had warned them that the world would persecute them. And it still does.
The Romans enjoyed their games.
Besides the standard gladiatorial combats, there were graphic scenes that served as a near-comic backdrop of African pygmy warriors fighting Amazon women.
But all this was really the appetizers. The Romans had come to see the Christians play the lions.
Nubile Christian women who were obviously naked, though strategically placed flower leis did provide a brief modicum of modesty, were tied to posts as lions and even gorillas got ready ready to devour them.
While this had a salacious value for many moviegoers, I saw it as a warning as to what my faith can actually cost.
Fortunately for us today, the only lions we let in the arena are from Detroit and the Christians don’t have their own formal team.
That brings me to the saga of Tim Tebow and his career in the National Football League.
Tebow won national acclaim by leading his Florida Gators to two national championships and winning a Heisman Trophy to boot.
His passing style is unorthodox and not very well suited for the pros.
Yet as he showed at Florida, he has all of the intangibles of poise under fire, character and leadership. And he knows how to win!
To date he has won three of his four starts for Denver this year.
These traits cannot be taught or acquired.
He also engendered the wrath of millions of pro-choice people, who chided his mother for not having aborted him when he was in utero 23 years ago.
Their joint prolife ad at a recent Superbowl was just too much for the choice crowd.
Tebow also prays during games by genuflecting after a key play.
Some opponents have responded by mocking his religious devotion on a field similar to the games where they ate Christians, not tackled them.
In a sport where many consider womanizing an adjunct to their prowess on the field, Tebow’s celibacy until marriage is regarded as unpopular as a blind side tackle.
According to the New York Times, he can be seen as polarized between those who can lionize him (not eat him) as a mythological athlete and those who resent the idea that Tebow taps into some power on the field.
To me this is just another subtle form of persecution and I will always be a Tebow fan, not just for his uncanny ability to always prove the experts wrong but for his undying faith in God.
I wish I could take credit for this very clever title but it actually comes from a book of the same name, written by Jesuit Father James Martin.
It does what I wanted to do in a previous post about devout Catholics and other religious people who don’t seem to emanate the joy of their religious convictions.
Father Martin’s book is adept at ferreting a rich lode of precious gems of humor that illustrate a correlation between sanctity and inner joy.
Even though saints are on the doorstep of eternity, they often reveal a clever wit that belies their perilous circumstances.
If anyone has ever been to the Sistine Chapel, and I have–twice, they could not have missed the artistic rendition of St. Lawrence who was roasted alive on a barbecue spit-like contraption.
He asked his executioners to rotate him because, I’m done on this side.
And there was St. Thomas More, my favorite saint and oddly the patron saint of lawyers and politicians, who proved that at least one from those classes that made it to heaven.
His reproach to his friend, Richard Rich who betrayed him for a political appointment Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales…is a classic.
As he placed his head down on the block, he asked his executioner to be careful with his first strike because of his short neck.
St. Thomas had the true Christian spirit of rejoicing in the love of God.
Before his death he advised his family to Be merry in God.
Without God — without the hope of another world beyond this one, for which this one is longing — there could be no true merriment. There could be only the shallow giggle of flippancy, or the hollow mockery of the cynic.
To be truly merry is to live lightly in this world, to be unburdened with cares about things that are quickly passing away.
Oh if we could all follow these words!
We might say that for those who take God and His will with appropriate seriousness, nothing else need be taken seriously.
To be in the world but not of the world is, among other things, to laugh at the world.
This is precisely Father Martin’s point.
He believes humor always seems to be a prerequisite for sanctity.
The saints always seem to take the long view of things and were quick to laugh at life’s absurdities and their own personal foibles because they had always put their trust in God’s love for them.
The other night we went to the 5:30 Mass for All Saints’ Day at a neighboring parish.
It is a special time in the Catholic Church when it honors the ultimate goal for each one of us…not just Catholics.
That’s the final destination for all human beings and it is not wise to get off the train until you were there.
A long time friend, who used to be the assistant at Annunziata, Monsignor Vernon Gardin is now the pastor of the Immacolata.
We went specifically to hear his clear and well-organized sermon but were treated, instead with one of the first public reflections of his Permanent Deacon.
Our disappointment quickly vanished as he started to talk about being a member of the Church Militant in hope of becoming a member of the Church Triumphant.
While life is indeed a battle, it is not without its mirth and good humor.
Every time we dine with Monsignor, laughter usually rings louder than a number of Biblical clarion calls.
My wife is especially fond of him because he appears to be a very happy man who is very good at being God’s servant.
He smiled when she said that and told us that yes, I am happy…but I do have my problems…like every one…
My wife stoically said, well that’s just life on planet earth.
Well his laugh bellowed out the door when he heard that.
He promised to quote her in a sermon some time.
We then started talking about how we were at a Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1986 when Cardinal O’Connor introduced the congregation to a very special guest–Mother Teresa herself.
My wife had spied this little blue and white nun kneeling to the side of the altar as we came into the Cathedral and guessed that it was the famous missionary to India.
She talked for about 15 minutes and lamented how terrible it was that mothers were killing their unwanted babies through abortion.
This is a statement she has made to world leaders that support prenatal infanticide, like Bill and Hillary who squirmed under her indictment.
Monsignor said that we were in the presence of a living saint.
I agreed because she actually lit up the Cathedral with her aura.
But according to Father Martin’s book, she had a quick humorous wit as well as her devoutly serious side.
One of her sisters came to her and pleaded with her to tell her how she could become a saint.
Mother Teresa was quoted as having said, well it would be good time to die right now because the pope is making everyone a saint.
Mother Teresa was tweaking Pope John Paul II’s penchant for canonizing nearly 500 people during his papacy.
This was more than all his 263 predecessors had done in just under 2000 years.
Monsignor Gardin wondered if she had really said that.
I believe she did because mirth is the road to heaven.
My friend Bobby, whom I have known for 62 years, is a devout Catholic who is an expert on saints.
I’ll bet he would agree with Father Martin.
Since there is a saint for virtually every activity but massage therapists, I also want to ask him if St. Vitus is the patron saint of dancers.
There was an official report at the Vatican October 23, 2011 on greed that should leave virtually every thinking Catholic in the world shaking his or her head about this preposterous position taken by the leaders of the Church.
The Vatican called for the establishment of a global public authority and a central world bank to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.
This makes me wonder where the Vatican officials have been the last 50 years.
It is precisely government that has precipitated the greed that floods the world.
They are looking to government, and more government to solve a problem it is largely responsible for
It called for the establishment of a supranational authority with worldwide scope and universal jurisdiction to guide economic policies and decisions.
Were I dare to breathe the words conspiracy, or New World Order people would be all over me.
This does remind me of a recent story that someone told me about running into Cardinal Burke, who said the 7 o’clock Mass at Annunziata yesterday before my Mens Bible Study.
She asked him, half jokingly if he had run into any Masons in Rome.
He just rolled his eyes and shook his head in the affirmative.
Does make you wonder.
The Vatican’s inept understanding of economic affairs makes one wonder if their social and theological ideas are that sound.
Ronald Reagan got it right in the 1980s when he said that government is not the answer but the problem.
Look at any problem from the environment, energy, job creation and the bursting bubbles in housing, medicine and education and you will find the heavy-handed fist of government.
Can you say Post Office?
What galls me is that even most conservatives will say, that all this mismanagement was an honest mistake.
I am convinced that government knows exactly the consequences of tax increases on the wealthy and eventually the middle class, the dark side of supply and demand and the hidden taxes of inflation.
They want economic crises so that they can blame the devastating results on their enemies, who they describe as heartless and greedy.
I believe that greed has many faces and permeates all of us because of original…including our teachers, students and even our clerics.
I submit that no institution is more greedy than the United States government, led by its socialist president, who wants to destroy the middle class, private property, the Christian religion and the family.
Virtually every one of his policies are designed to add a new mandate and responsibility to his enemies so that the system collapses and his power can fill the resultant vacuum.
It has been greedy politicians, hungry for more power and the accouterments that flow with that power that has sent the world in turmoil.
Burton Folsom’s new book on Franklin Roosevelt, FDR Goes to War illustrates this point.
Several Democrat expressed the view that the government always has a moral if not actual lien on all our income.
A moral lien? From where did that come?
Certain not from any of our governing documents, such as the Constitution?
And most certainly…not from God!!!
We are a government of laws, not self-righteous men.
Former Kentucky Senator Benjamin Happy but Stupid Chandler, who later became the commissioner of Baseball–he failed at that as well–echoes the statements of Elizabeth Warren, when he said all of us owe the government.
We owe them for everything we have–and the government can take everything we have if they need it.
They are not representatives of the people but have more in common with the Russian commissars of old.
And when the government needs our money–and they will ALWAYS need our money, it will use the penalty of imprisonment to get it.
It is obvious that these attitudes still prevail among big government advocates.
And what about the churches?
Many have latched their stars onto the government and feed their own greed so they can help the poor.
But at what expense? What does a perpetual childhood do to the poor and the indolent?
Will government largesse, confiscated from others, help they attain eternal salvation?
The Vatican document also condemned what it called the idolatry of the market as well as a neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.
How about the idolatry of government?
I guess the Vatican thinks that is OK.
In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale.
I guess by hording they mean business’s failure to invest in the uncertainty of the economic times, because of the invasive policies of government.
To me that is not hording, but showing a proper stewardship over one’s finances in the time of crisis.
it said, adding that world economics needed an ethic of solidarity among rich and poor nations.
This sounds like Karl Marx more than Jesus Christ.
And are the thugs that President Obama or his associates at Wall Street and at Tea Parties showing any kind of ethic?
They sound more like bullies and petulant children who are the direct result of a Nanny State that has to blow our collective noses.
It is always the business leaders that are condemned because of their following their own self-interests in serves the forces of Mammon
We are continually reminded of Gordon Gekko, the anti-hero of not one but two Wall Street movies.
His words greed is good, have been emblazoned on the minds of all socialists, Marxists and central=planners, who are threatened by freedom of the open market.
They would rather see the entire globle dance to their one-world tune and live in the squalor that has kept down third world countries all over the globe than allow individual to use their business acumen to make the world a better place.
But Gekko is more moral than all government and church leaders clamoring for Wall Street’s largesse because at least he used his wit and brain to earn it, not seize it through force.
The Report also warns If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid.
To this I say that government as we know it under Obama has already undermined the constitutional process and is ready to foment violence to enact its dictatorial will on a largely clueless public.
It pains me that my Church seems to have gone far off its track and forgotten that its main function in the world is to be a beacon of moral truth, not economic and political propaganda.
It is here primarily to save individual souls not follow some utopian fantasy as the elimination of poverty.
The churches should be warning all iof us about the faces staring back at us in our mirrors.