Sunday, March 31, 2013
Everything You Thought Was Wrong
The Easter Message.
to the Pharisees. Guess What, yooo-hooo, I'm still here. You didn't kill me off. I know you wanted to and tried really hard to because you were so threatened by my message. It looked in fact like you succeeded. You liked that barrab-ass guy better than me, I know. But guess what. I'm baaaaaaack. That's what Jesus might have said standing in the garden outside the empty tomb. I'm baaaaaack. (if you are a foreigner it is a reference to a schwartenegger movie).
Jesus, the person who went around doing nothing but amazingly kind, powerfully loving things like feeding people and healing people, raising other people from the dead in fact, the person casting out demons from the tortured, turning water into wedding wine. That Jesus. He's baaaaaaaack. And this time he isn't going away.
But wait- people tortured to near death then strung up on a crossed tree are dead as a door knob. Right? What are you talking about? Aren't dead people supposed to stay dead and just accept that they are dead?
Apparently not- there is life now and forever If you believe it. Everything you thought was wrong. Dead people can in fact live forever, if they believe in Jesus, the simple carpenter from Nazareth, the Cristos, the Christ, the Savior of mankind.
Anyone care for some fish this morning? I am frying up a nice hallibut here care to join me? That is what one dead guy said over three days after they laid him in a tomb.
Down dog, stay dead. Nope-that doesn't work any more. You can try your little power tricks and oppression schemes. You cannot put a good man down like a dog.
He will rise again, and so will you on the last day.
And that Jesus guy- he still lives. And that's the Easter Message.
to the Pharisees. Guess What, yooo-hooo, I'm still here. You didn't kill me off. I know you wanted to and tried really hard to because you were so threatened by my message. It looked in fact like you succeeded. You liked that barrab-ass guy better than me, I know. But guess what. I'm baaaaaaack. That's what Jesus might have said standing in the garden outside the empty tomb. I'm baaaaaack. (if you are a foreigner it is a reference to a schwartenegger movie).
Jesus, the person who went around doing nothing but amazingly kind, powerfully loving things like feeding people and healing people, raising other people from the dead in fact, the person casting out demons from the tortured, turning water into wedding wine. That Jesus. He's baaaaaaaack. And this time he isn't going away.
But wait- people tortured to near death then strung up on a crossed tree are dead as a door knob. Right? What are you talking about? Aren't dead people supposed to stay dead and just accept that they are dead?
Apparently not- there is life now and forever If you believe it. Everything you thought was wrong. Dead people can in fact live forever, if they believe in Jesus, the simple carpenter from Nazareth, the Cristos, the Christ, the Savior of mankind.
Anyone care for some fish this morning? I am frying up a nice hallibut here care to join me? That is what one dead guy said over three days after they laid him in a tomb.
Down dog, stay dead. Nope-that doesn't work any more. You can try your little power tricks and oppression schemes. You cannot put a good man down like a dog.
He will rise again, and so will you on the last day.
And that Jesus guy- he still lives. And that's the Easter Message.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
To Be or Not to Be.....
"To Be A Realist, You Must Believe in Miracles." said John Kerry in Israel.
Here's One: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/phoenix-woman-refuses-abortion-gives-birth-to-baby-carried-outside-womb
Here's One: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/phoenix-woman-refuses-abortion-gives-birth-to-baby-carried-outside-womb
Human Rights
and Human Wrongs
The argument is often misframed in the gay marriage debate as 'i should get to love whomever i want!' I even got a facebook post from the Whitehouse- 'SHARE' here if you think people should get to love whomever they want.
No one argues with that. The argument is -should you get to have gay up the arse or mouth where it doesn't belong conjugal sexual relations with
whomever you want and make us call that a real valid marriage .
The answer to that meets with a resounding "NO" or "ARE YOU KIDDING ME" if you say ANYONE you want. How about your mother, your aunt, your sister or your five year old. Of course not. So what you really mean is SHARE here if you really think anyone should be able to institutionalize formally and officially conjugal gay sexual relations for people who want to have sex up the arse or put their mouths where they don't belong.
Actually, hmmmm. No on that also. Where does that sense of entitlement come from?
There are standards of what is called 'righteousness' in some communities. Most religious communities define them and expect people to live according to them. Huge numbers of religious communities of all faiths have some admonitions against sodomy, sexual relations up the arse or splashing poking body parts where they shouldn't be. These are standards of Righteousness that are codified in scripture. People didn't make them up. They just didn't decide one day- hey, that isn't a good idea. They got the idea that it isn't a good idea because divinely inspired scripture and respected tradition have told them, that is not only a bad idea, it is dangerously wrong.
So now a very vocal loud aggressive group of people want the entitlement to a constitutional right to
up the arse sex conjugality. They are so aggressive many states said- oh what the heck lets just give it to them to shut them all up. If that's how they want to love, let 'em at it.
But that is not what Love means to most people. That is not what God means or scripture means when it says "Love Your Neighbor."
We have given anti-discriminatory protected status to sexual 'orientation' -only in some states- and DC- under the conclusion, whether scientifically valid or not, that an 'orientation' is some immutable that is intrinsic to a person so they cannot control it. Even that is a stretch, but lets give them that 'orientation' is something protectable.
It is still a far far stretch to go from 'orientation' to institutionalized universally recognized gay sexual behavior should enjoy a conjugal entitlement as a civil right.
For that one I think the majority of the country is in the 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME' poll response category.
The argument is often misframed in the gay marriage debate as 'i should get to love whomever i want!' I even got a facebook post from the Whitehouse- 'SHARE' here if you think people should get to love whomever they want.
No one argues with that. The argument is -should you get to have gay up the arse or mouth where it doesn't belong conjugal sexual relations with
whomever you want and make us call that a real valid marriage .
The answer to that meets with a resounding "NO" or "ARE YOU KIDDING ME" if you say ANYONE you want. How about your mother, your aunt, your sister or your five year old. Of course not. So what you really mean is SHARE here if you really think anyone should be able to institutionalize formally and officially conjugal gay sexual relations for people who want to have sex up the arse or put their mouths where they don't belong.
Actually, hmmmm. No on that also. Where does that sense of entitlement come from?
There are standards of what is called 'righteousness' in some communities. Most religious communities define them and expect people to live according to them. Huge numbers of religious communities of all faiths have some admonitions against sodomy, sexual relations up the arse or splashing poking body parts where they shouldn't be. These are standards of Righteousness that are codified in scripture. People didn't make them up. They just didn't decide one day- hey, that isn't a good idea. They got the idea that it isn't a good idea because divinely inspired scripture and respected tradition have told them, that is not only a bad idea, it is dangerously wrong.
So now a very vocal loud aggressive group of people want the entitlement to a constitutional right to
up the arse sex conjugality. They are so aggressive many states said- oh what the heck lets just give it to them to shut them all up. If that's how they want to love, let 'em at it.
But that is not what Love means to most people. That is not what God means or scripture means when it says "Love Your Neighbor."
We have given anti-discriminatory protected status to sexual 'orientation' -only in some states- and DC- under the conclusion, whether scientifically valid or not, that an 'orientation' is some immutable that is intrinsic to a person so they cannot control it. Even that is a stretch, but lets give them that 'orientation' is something protectable.
It is still a far far stretch to go from 'orientation' to institutionalized universally recognized gay sexual behavior should enjoy a conjugal entitlement as a civil right.
For that one I think the majority of the country is in the 'ARE YOU KIDDING ME' poll response category.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Why are the Liberals now Conforming
Jumping on the Gay Parade Wagon
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Romans 12:2
Classifying
Behaviors
You can turn any behavioral predisposition or inclination into a class. Gayness now wants to be a class for protected status purposes. People who like to have sex backwards as some say or People who like to have sex with people with parts like theirs. The slippery slope off a cliff is if you start classifying all behaviors however objectionable as protected status where does that end? People who love to sing loudly on the metro - can that be a protected class so its legal discrimination if we regulate that they not be allowed to sing loudly on the metro during rush hour (simply because it annoys the heck out of others)
How about alcoholics. A percent of the country is a minority -they are alcoholics. Are we discriminating against them when we arrest people for drunk driving? They are always disproportionately affected or impacted (disparate impact analysis). How about left handed people.
Are we discriminating against the class of left handed people when casinos put the lever of slot machines on the right? Should left handed people be a protected class. Should people who don't eat pork be classed as a protected class on that basis. All people of whatever religion who do not eat pork are a protected class- therefore all the hot dog vendors who do not also have kosher beef alternative hot dogs in New York can now be sued for discriminating against that protected class for only serving pork filled hot dogs.
Theologians and religiously defined people have arguments about the sanctity of marriage and preferences for different genders raising kids. I am not in the 'who'se holier' game and leave those arguments to those soliciting your charitable contributions. I am just a lawyer.The legal arguments surround whether constitutionally any group with any behavioral preference should be allowed protected status because they want it so for any behavioral issue they should get it like everyone else.
Discrimination law is tricky this way- This is unchartered legal waters in fact and never before have we given 'protected class status' to anyone for behavioral preferences. Acting out sexually gay is not the same thing as being born black and only a fool would conflate the two logically.
When the matter of Loving v. Virginia was decided in which a black woman and white man wanted legal marriage for themselves the court created a constitutional right to marriage in that case for one man and one woman and nothing in the case made it a fundamental right for every human being or even every adult. The point lambasted during the campaign was that if you extend the right to every human you then have to examine the carved categories and say some adults should but some adults should not have the right to marry. For example, now we already have preclusionary laws in which some adults are not allowed to marry each other, e.g. incest, polygamy, and marrying minors. Those laws would be similarly subject to challenge if people with behavioral preferences get to turn their preferences into class status. The preclusions against marriage now are for people who have sex backwards or with people with the same parts (euphemistically and you know what I mean), polygamy, incest, underage, bestiality, etc. We now want to make one category a protected class status- there then is no logical basis to not create protected class status categories of any other behavioral preference- no matter how odious it may appear to other people, or even the majority of people in the country.
Legally there would be solid constitutional ground to find that 'marriage equality' is not necessarily constitutionally mandated for people who wish to have sex backwards, or sex with people of their same parts --because there is no constitutional requirement to turn behavioral preferences into class status.
The only thing that comes close now in discrimination law to protected class status for behavior is the anti-discrimination against religion and religious practices law(s). That clearly finds that acts of religious worship enjoy protected status. So to find that institutional gay sexual activity is the sort of activity that should enjoy protected status finds it is more similar to religious protected behavior than blackness, gender or the place of one's birth or national origin. Such a result works a twisted conclusion that even the most ardent gay paraders might find hard to swallow.
Are we discriminating against the class of all alcoholics when we arrest drunk drivers. And there is no end to that tale of reductio ad absurdum -- unless you find that gay sexual expression can be protected as a religion.
The welfare of children, something Justice Kennedy seemed concerned with falls more, in my view with the ability of any adult to house orphans because we should want them in loving homes of any adults rather than in orphanages or in the unstable world of transient foster care. Then there is the matter of the children already being raised by gay parents who as children don't definitionally enjoy the same status of legitimacy because their parents are not married and it seems brutally unfair to penalize children thusly. Will that outweigh the logical constitutional difficulty? I can't wait to find out.
(the author Cynthia L. Butler has practiced Title VII discrimination law for over a decade in several jurisdictions as a federal litigator)
You can turn any behavioral predisposition or inclination into a class. Gayness now wants to be a class for protected status purposes. People who like to have sex backwards as some say or People who like to have sex with people with parts like theirs. The slippery slope off a cliff is if you start classifying all behaviors however objectionable as protected status where does that end? People who love to sing loudly on the metro - can that be a protected class so its legal discrimination if we regulate that they not be allowed to sing loudly on the metro during rush hour (simply because it annoys the heck out of others)
How about alcoholics. A percent of the country is a minority -they are alcoholics. Are we discriminating against them when we arrest people for drunk driving? They are always disproportionately affected or impacted (disparate impact analysis). How about left handed people.
Are we discriminating against the class of left handed people when casinos put the lever of slot machines on the right? Should left handed people be a protected class. Should people who don't eat pork be classed as a protected class on that basis. All people of whatever religion who do not eat pork are a protected class- therefore all the hot dog vendors who do not also have kosher beef alternative hot dogs in New York can now be sued for discriminating against that protected class for only serving pork filled hot dogs.
Theologians and religiously defined people have arguments about the sanctity of marriage and preferences for different genders raising kids. I am not in the 'who'se holier' game and leave those arguments to those soliciting your charitable contributions. I am just a lawyer.The legal arguments surround whether constitutionally any group with any behavioral preference should be allowed protected status because they want it so for any behavioral issue they should get it like everyone else.
Discrimination law is tricky this way- This is unchartered legal waters in fact and never before have we given 'protected class status' to anyone for behavioral preferences. Acting out sexually gay is not the same thing as being born black and only a fool would conflate the two logically.
When the matter of Loving v. Virginia was decided in which a black woman and white man wanted legal marriage for themselves the court created a constitutional right to marriage in that case for one man and one woman and nothing in the case made it a fundamental right for every human being or even every adult. The point lambasted during the campaign was that if you extend the right to every human you then have to examine the carved categories and say some adults should but some adults should not have the right to marry. For example, now we already have preclusionary laws in which some adults are not allowed to marry each other, e.g. incest, polygamy, and marrying minors. Those laws would be similarly subject to challenge if people with behavioral preferences get to turn their preferences into class status. The preclusions against marriage now are for people who have sex backwards or with people with the same parts (euphemistically and you know what I mean), polygamy, incest, underage, bestiality, etc. We now want to make one category a protected class status- there then is no logical basis to not create protected class status categories of any other behavioral preference- no matter how odious it may appear to other people, or even the majority of people in the country.
Legally there would be solid constitutional ground to find that 'marriage equality' is not necessarily constitutionally mandated for people who wish to have sex backwards, or sex with people of their same parts --because there is no constitutional requirement to turn behavioral preferences into class status.
The only thing that comes close now in discrimination law to protected class status for behavior is the anti-discrimination against religion and religious practices law(s). That clearly finds that acts of religious worship enjoy protected status. So to find that institutional gay sexual activity is the sort of activity that should enjoy protected status finds it is more similar to religious protected behavior than blackness, gender or the place of one's birth or national origin. Such a result works a twisted conclusion that even the most ardent gay paraders might find hard to swallow.
Are we discriminating against the class of all alcoholics when we arrest drunk drivers. And there is no end to that tale of reductio ad absurdum -- unless you find that gay sexual expression can be protected as a religion.
The welfare of children, something Justice Kennedy seemed concerned with falls more, in my view with the ability of any adult to house orphans because we should want them in loving homes of any adults rather than in orphanages or in the unstable world of transient foster care. Then there is the matter of the children already being raised by gay parents who as children don't definitionally enjoy the same status of legitimacy because their parents are not married and it seems brutally unfair to penalize children thusly. Will that outweigh the logical constitutional difficulty? I can't wait to find out.
(the author Cynthia L. Butler has practiced Title VII discrimination law for over a decade in several jurisdictions as a federal litigator)
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Equal Time
On the Other Hand ---
Today's S.Ct.arguments might come down to the swing Kennedy vote.
Why is the lambasted Rush Limbaugh of the Court Scalia perhaps not off his leather backed rocker on this issue?
The bible actually DOES have a lot to say about homosexuality. It doesn't just say it in the old testament- Sure, we should love everybody, but that does not mean any behavior is loveable- even if someone thinks its in their internal make up. Right?
They may THINK that, and I may THINK I need a half a bottle of wine a day to keep me lucid. There is nothing medically provable that I need half a bottle of red to make me lucid and in fact i have gone for long stretches without it (I say hypothetically) but love it when I drink it.
Someone might love getting drunk- does that mean we have to view all drunken behaviors as constitutionally protected as sobriety?
Intellectual honesty-lets get real people.
I am not a prude or a moralist. But lets be intellectually at least honest with the argument.
In light of the 'religious values' objectors to the gay marriage equality argument some have argued WRONGLY that the bible doesn't actually speak to it or that Christ did not anywhere condemn it and that old Levitican old testament references to homosexuality should be put somewhere in the archives with equal weight to don't eat bacon cheeseburgers. That is wrong.
The NEW Testamant (unfortunately for the equality argument) has STRONG admonitions against it as a perverse behavior. So the question is ARE ALL BEHAVIORS TREATED EQUALLY under the Constitution?= CLICK Here FOR WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%207%20Homosexuality.html
And things that also didn't need spelling out in bold caps and underlined were admonitions to not poke your wife in the eye, not punch your mother in law in the gut, not ritually wash your hands in the latrine and not eat with your mouth full of excrement. Because each of those things would have been so culturally unheard of, so totally unacceptable that they didn't merit mention. Neither did homosexuality -- except one huge strong "DON'T YOU DARE" in both the New and Old Testaments.
So people who take the words of Bible as truth, which is not just fundamentalists, but pretty much main stream everything Christian, have to ponder- why is there a Constitutional Right to any Behavior I
think I am predisposed to engage in.
Kennedy is worried about a 'Cliff." The other conservatives are worried about crashing meteoric hell fires and brimstones.
Expect a decision sometime this July or mid summer.
Today's S.Ct.arguments might come down to the swing Kennedy vote.
Why is the lambasted Rush Limbaugh of the Court Scalia perhaps not off his leather backed rocker on this issue?
The bible actually DOES have a lot to say about homosexuality. It doesn't just say it in the old testament- Sure, we should love everybody, but that does not mean any behavior is loveable- even if someone thinks its in their internal make up. Right?
They may THINK that, and I may THINK I need a half a bottle of wine a day to keep me lucid. There is nothing medically provable that I need half a bottle of red to make me lucid and in fact i have gone for long stretches without it (I say hypothetically) but love it when I drink it.
Someone might love getting drunk- does that mean we have to view all drunken behaviors as constitutionally protected as sobriety?
Intellectual honesty-lets get real people.
I am not a prude or a moralist. But lets be intellectually at least honest with the argument.
In light of the 'religious values' objectors to the gay marriage equality argument some have argued WRONGLY that the bible doesn't actually speak to it or that Christ did not anywhere condemn it and that old Levitican old testament references to homosexuality should be put somewhere in the archives with equal weight to don't eat bacon cheeseburgers. That is wrong.
The NEW Testamant (unfortunately for the equality argument) has STRONG admonitions against it as a perverse behavior. So the question is ARE ALL BEHAVIORS TREATED EQUALLY under the Constitution?= CLICK Here FOR WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%207%20Homosexuality.html
And things that also didn't need spelling out in bold caps and underlined were admonitions to not poke your wife in the eye, not punch your mother in law in the gut, not ritually wash your hands in the latrine and not eat with your mouth full of excrement. Because each of those things would have been so culturally unheard of, so totally unacceptable that they didn't merit mention. Neither did homosexuality -- except one huge strong "DON'T YOU DARE" in both the New and Old Testaments.
So people who take the words of Bible as truth, which is not just fundamentalists, but pretty much main stream everything Christian, have to ponder- why is there a Constitutional Right to any Behavior I
think I am predisposed to engage in.
Kennedy is worried about a 'Cliff." The other conservatives are worried about crashing meteoric hell fires and brimstones.
Expect a decision sometime this July or mid summer.
This is Brilliant
The Good Pope FRANCOIS Has 2 New Books coming:
expressing Ignatian Spirituality.
One on Recovering from Corruption and another on Humility.click here for Vatican News: http://www.news.va/en/news/presentation-of-first-two-books-in-italian-by-pope
Rather than deny that corruption exists as if the church were some marshmallow Easter Peep so as not to offend anyone, he acknowledges the existence of profound corruption, takes it head on, deals with how it undermines the mission and talks about how to recover from it. Reform could very well be real with him.
The other book is on Humility. Because the Greatest of These is a Servant of all.
Long Live Pope Francis.
Rather than deny that corruption exists as if the church were some marshmallow Easter Peep so as not to offend anyone, he acknowledges the existence of profound corruption, takes it head on, deals with how it undermines the mission and talks about how to recover from it. Reform could very well be real with him.
The other book is on Humility. Because the Greatest of These is a Servant of all.
Long Live Pope Francis.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Please
Excuse my French, but sometimes foul language is the only way to express what has to be said. (really I am polite company)
Supreme Court arguments on all that marriage equality stuff today. Say that God's Will Be Done prayer- the answer may surprise you.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
The Best Argument
For a Married Priesthood
SAINT PATRICK.
Universally believed to be the grandson of a Priest- if John the Baptist, son of a priest Zechariah didn't impress you. (who is not getting born because priests can't marry......hmmmmm)
From an official 'Catholic' on line publication.
Patrick (385-461) — Patron saint of Ireland and one of the most beloved of all saints. Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a Roman citizen, born in the Roman province of Britain near Bannavem Taburniae (an unknown location, perhaps in the region of the lower Severn, in North Wales),
the son of Calpurnius, a deacon, and a grandson of Potitus, a priest (it was still not uncommon for deacons and priests to be married). Captured at the age of sixteen by Irish raiders, he was taken to Ireland and sold into slavery. He tended flocks in County Antrim (although tradition places him "beside the Wood of Voclut, which is near the Western Sea," near Killala in County Mayo). During the six years he spent in servitude, Patrick underwent a profound religious transformation, and in the summer of 407 was commanded in a dream to escape. He journeyed some two hundred miles to board a ship transporting Irish hounds to the Continent. Upon landing in Gaul (modern France), which was then under assault by the Germanic and Gothic hordes, Patrick came into the spiritual care of the monastic institutions of the region; one of his most notable teachers was St. Germanus of Auxerre. Patrick took to his training, making possible the fulfillment of his absolute longing for an Irish apostolate. As Patrick himself noted: "The voice of the Irish . . . cry out as with one mouth: ‘We ask thee, boy, come and walk amongst us once more.’ " In the Confession, Patrick declares his vocation to be a mandate of the divine and founded not upon human learning, and so his preparation for a return to Ireland was largely a spiritual one. He admitted freely his lack of learning, writing that "I blush and fear exceedingly to reveal my lack of education." Nevertheless, he mastered the essentials of the faith and grew very familiar with Scripture, although scholars have long questioned where exactly his education was conducted. Some agree that he spent time in Gaul, but others prefer Britain as the place of his learning. Regardless of his length and location of learning, Patrick proved a brilliant missionary. Patrick was not the first missionary bishop appointed to bring Christianity to the Irish. Palladius was named to the post in 431 by Pope St. Celestine I (r. 422-432), but he either died or, as seems likely, he met with little success and went to Scotland some time after 431. In his place was appointed Patrick, who was consecrated a bishop and sent to the Irish mission. For the next twenty-nine years, Patrick traveled across the five kingdoms of the island and won the conversion of virtually the whole of the Irish people. It is likely that in his later years he established Armagh as the primatial see of Ireland. He wrote before his death: "Hence, did it come to pass in Ireland that those who never had a knowledge of God . . . have now been made a people of the Lord, and are called Sons of God." His two primary achievements were the promotion of a native clergy and the careful integration of the Christian faith with native Irish-Celtic culture. He used a simple, sincere, biblical style of preaching that won both hearts and minds. Unfortunately, details of his life and labors are fraught with questions owing to the large body of legends that sprang up about him and the general unreliability of the main source available, including the Life of St. Patrick by Muirchu, the Irish Annals, and the Breviarium Tirecham. Patrick himself was the author of Confessio (a moving testimony of his personal faith) and Letter to Coroticus, a troublesome chieftain. Legends about St. Patrick abound, perhaps the most famous being that of his expulsion of snakes from Ireland. National holidays in his honor are held in numerous countries, including Ireland, the United States, and even Russia. Feast day: March 17.
HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY-
And Blessings On All Priestly Progeny - past and future.
SAINT PATRICK.
Universally believed to be the grandson of a Priest- if John the Baptist, son of a priest Zechariah didn't impress you. (who is not getting born because priests can't marry......hmmmmm)
From an official 'Catholic' on line publication.
Patrick (385-461) — Patron saint of Ireland and one of the most beloved of all saints. Magonius Sucatus Patricius was a Roman citizen, born in the Roman province of Britain near Bannavem Taburniae (an unknown location, perhaps in the region of the lower Severn, in North Wales),
the son of Calpurnius, a deacon, and a grandson of Potitus, a priest (it was still not uncommon for deacons and priests to be married). Captured at the age of sixteen by Irish raiders, he was taken to Ireland and sold into slavery. He tended flocks in County Antrim (although tradition places him "beside the Wood of Voclut, which is near the Western Sea," near Killala in County Mayo). During the six years he spent in servitude, Patrick underwent a profound religious transformation, and in the summer of 407 was commanded in a dream to escape. He journeyed some two hundred miles to board a ship transporting Irish hounds to the Continent. Upon landing in Gaul (modern France), which was then under assault by the Germanic and Gothic hordes, Patrick came into the spiritual care of the monastic institutions of the region; one of his most notable teachers was St. Germanus of Auxerre. Patrick took to his training, making possible the fulfillment of his absolute longing for an Irish apostolate. As Patrick himself noted: "The voice of the Irish . . . cry out as with one mouth: ‘We ask thee, boy, come and walk amongst us once more.’ " In the Confession, Patrick declares his vocation to be a mandate of the divine and founded not upon human learning, and so his preparation for a return to Ireland was largely a spiritual one. He admitted freely his lack of learning, writing that "I blush and fear exceedingly to reveal my lack of education." Nevertheless, he mastered the essentials of the faith and grew very familiar with Scripture, although scholars have long questioned where exactly his education was conducted. Some agree that he spent time in Gaul, but others prefer Britain as the place of his learning. Regardless of his length and location of learning, Patrick proved a brilliant missionary. Patrick was not the first missionary bishop appointed to bring Christianity to the Irish. Palladius was named to the post in 431 by Pope St. Celestine I (r. 422-432), but he either died or, as seems likely, he met with little success and went to Scotland some time after 431. In his place was appointed Patrick, who was consecrated a bishop and sent to the Irish mission. For the next twenty-nine years, Patrick traveled across the five kingdoms of the island and won the conversion of virtually the whole of the Irish people. It is likely that in his later years he established Armagh as the primatial see of Ireland. He wrote before his death: "Hence, did it come to pass in Ireland that those who never had a knowledge of God . . . have now been made a people of the Lord, and are called Sons of God." His two primary achievements were the promotion of a native clergy and the careful integration of the Christian faith with native Irish-Celtic culture. He used a simple, sincere, biblical style of preaching that won both hearts and minds. Unfortunately, details of his life and labors are fraught with questions owing to the large body of legends that sprang up about him and the general unreliability of the main source available, including the Life of St. Patrick by Muirchu, the Irish Annals, and the Breviarium Tirecham. Patrick himself was the author of Confessio (a moving testimony of his personal faith) and Letter to Coroticus, a troublesome chieftain. Legends about St. Patrick abound, perhaps the most famous being that of his expulsion of snakes from Ireland. National holidays in his honor are held in numerous countries, including Ireland, the United States, and even Russia. Feast day: March 17.
HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY-
And Blessings On All Priestly Progeny - past and future.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
The First Jesuit
The Pope
Who thought of the Poor, the Spirit of Peace, and of Creation.
Pax, Pais, Paix, Pace, Peace, Done Nobis.
Who thought of the Poor, the Spirit of Peace, and of Creation.
Pax, Pais, Paix, Pace, Peace, Done Nobis.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
AMDG
Everyone in the world will know what that means now. AMDG
CONGRATULATIONS TO JESUITS EVERYWHERE FOR THEIR FIRST POPE.
A JESUIT NAMED FRANCIS.
I'm a believer again :-)
CONGRATULATIONS
POPE FRANCIS!
PAPE FRANCOIS!
PAPA FRANCISCO!
CONGRATULATIONS TO JESUITS EVERYWHERE FOR THEIR FIRST POPE.
A JESUIT NAMED FRANCIS.
I'm a believer again :-)
CONGRATULATIONS
POPE FRANCIS!
PAPE FRANCOIS!
PAPA FRANCISCO!
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
The Pope, Il Papa
Is An Italian hopefully (if it isn't O'Malley)
Click HERE
don't you think Italian when you think Pope?
Stay tuned for Holy Smokes!
and you can actually sign up for the latest breaking on www.popealarm.com
Click HERE
don't you think Italian when you think Pope?
Stay tuned for Holy Smokes!
and you can actually sign up for the latest breaking on www.popealarm.com
Friday, March 08, 2013
Secretary of State Kerry Honors Women Bloggers Around the World
Honoring various Courageous Women around the world live streamed here, and now it posts other live feed or recent events from the State Department.
Among those honored were a Syrian attorney human rights activists, a politically persecuted activist female blogger, an Indian rape victim who spoke against the stigma of rape in her country and a Somali human rights activist who couldn't stop gushing over the First Lady.
It is fantastic to see that John Kerry is deeply committed to betting the lot of women around the world. He was clearly the right choice for the job.
International Women of Courage include blogger in Vietnam, Ta Phong Tan, imprisoned for speaking “Truth and Justice” more: go.usa.gov/22Ze
Thursday, March 07, 2013
OK He Rocks
Chillin
in retirement- Pope Emeritus in a white Baseball Cap. Now we have seen everything :-) i like him better already :-)
He was the main attraction at National's Stadium a few years ago if you recall.
Monday, March 04, 2013
had to post this
awesome adventure from a friend's facebook post. She's having way too much fun!!
Click here----http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
Click here----http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
http://environmentalistinthedesert.blogspot.co.il
Évangile de Jésus Christ selon saint Luc 4,24-30.
Dans la synagogue de Nazareth, Jésus déclarait : " Amen, je vous le dis, aucun prophète n'est bien accueilli dans son pays.
En toute vérité, je vous le déclare : Au temps du prophète Élie, ...lorsque la sécheresse et la famine ont sévi pendant trois ans et demi, il y avait beaucoup de veuves en Israël ;
pourtant Élie n'a été envoyé vers aucune d'entre elles, mais bien à une veuve étrangère, de la ville de Sarepta, dans le pays de Sidon.
Au temps du prophète Élisée, il y avait beaucoup de lépreux en Israël ; pourtant aucun d'eux n'a été purifié, mais bien Naaman, un Syrien. »
A ces mots, dans la synagogue, tous devinrent furieux.
Ils se levèrent, poussèrent Jésus hors de la ville, et le menèrent jusqu'à un escarpement de la colline où la ville est construite, pour le précipiter en bas.
Mais lui, passant au milieu d'eux, allait son chemin.
Dans la synagogue de Nazareth, Jésus déclarait : " Amen, je vous le dis, aucun prophète n'est bien accueilli dans son pays.
En toute vérité, je vous le déclare : Au temps du prophète Élie, ...lorsque la sécheresse et la famine ont sévi pendant trois ans et demi, il y avait beaucoup de veuves en Israël ;
pourtant Élie n'a été envoyé vers aucune d'entre elles, mais bien à une veuve étrangère, de la ville de Sarepta, dans le pays de Sidon.
Au temps du prophète Élisée, il y avait beaucoup de lépreux en Israël ; pourtant aucun d'eux n'a été purifié, mais bien Naaman, un Syrien. »
A ces mots, dans la synagogue, tous devinrent furieux.
Ils se levèrent, poussèrent Jésus hors de la ville, et le menèrent jusqu'à un escarpement de la colline où la ville est construite, pour le précipiter en bas.
Mais lui, passant au milieu d'eux, allait son chemin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)