Ave Maria! Found this on Gloria.tv from our Mass in the Lateran Basilica on April 16, 2009, 800th anniversary of the approbation of the Rule of St Francis which took place at … this very basilica. Enjoy!

Highlights from the Solemn High Mass according to the Extraordinary Form, celebrated in Saint John Lateran Basilica, by the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate. All sacred music sung by the Friars and Sisters (Polyphony and Gregorian Chant) This is the first time that the traditional Mass has been celebrated in the pope’s chair since Vatican II. Quite a magnificent sight to behold! Video from Gloria TV

Homily #091109 ( 08min) Play -

The residence of the Popes which was named the Lateran Palace was built by Lateranus Palutius, whom Nero put to death to seize his goods. It was given in the year 313 by Constantine the Great to Saint Miltiades, Pope, and was inhabited by his successors until 1308, when they moved to Avignon. The Lateran Basilica built by Constantine near the palace of the same name, is the first Basilica of the West. Twelve councils, four of which were ecumenical, have assembled there, the first in 649, the last in 1512.

If for several centuries the Popes have no longer dwelt in the Palace, the primacy of the Basilica is not thereby altered; it remains the head of all churches. Saint Peter Damian wrote that “just as the Saviour is the Head of the elect, the church which bears His name is the head of all the churches. Those of Saints Peter and Paul, to its left and its right, are the two arms by which this sovereign and universal Church embraces the entire earth, saving all who desire salvation, warming them, protecting them in its maternal womb.”

The Divine Office narrates the dedication of the Church by the Pope of Peace, Saint Sylvester:

“It was the Blessed Pope Sylvester who established the rites observed by the Roman Church for the consecration of churches and altars. From the time of the Apostles there had been certain places dedicated to God, which some called oratories, and others, churches. There, on the first day of the week, the assembly was held, and there the Christian people were accustomed to pray, to hear the Word of God, and to receive the Eucharist. But never had these places been consecrated so solemnly; nor had a fixed altar been placed there which, anointed with sacred chrism, was the symbol of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who for us is altar, victim and Pontiff. But when the Emperor Constantine through the sacrament of Baptism had obtained health of body and salvation of soul, a law was issued by him which for the first time permitted that everywhere in the world Christians might build churches. Not satisfied to establish this edict, the prince wanted to give an example and inaugurate the holy labors. Thus in his own Lateran palace, he dedicated a church to the Saviour, and founded the attached baptistry under the name of Saint John the Baptist, in the place where he himself, baptized by Saint Sylvester, had been cured of leprosy. It is this church which the Pontiff consecrated in the fifth of the ides of November; and we celebrate the commemoration on that day, when for the first time in Rome a church was thus publicly consecrated, and where a painting of the Saviour was visible on the wall before the eyes of the Roman people.” – magnificat.ca

When the Lateran Church was partially ruined by fires, enemy invasions, and earthquakes, it was always rebuilt with great zeal by the Sovereign Pontiffs. In 1726, after one such restoration, Pope Benedict XIII consecrated it anew and assigned the commemoration of that event to the present day. The church was afterwards enlarged and beautified by Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII.
Ave Maria! Mass readings

Audio (MP3)

+++

Homily #091004 ( 23min) Play – Today is the Feast of St Francis of Assisi (New Advent), the Poverello, who is the founder of the Franciscan Orders and so his feast supersedes Sunday’s liturgy at our Franciscan friary. Fr. Bonaventure explains the importance of the love of poverty that was so central to St. Francis’ spirituality and how this relates to devotion to Christ and Mary and the importance of the incarnation and the bodily death of Christ and to the renewal of the Church in our materialistic times.
Ave Maria!

Audio (MP3)

+++

Homily #090821 ( 12min) Play – Pope St. Pius X was elected at a critical time in the Church’s history when the error of modernism was at its first high mark. Let us look to him as an example to fight against it today when it has reached a new high point.
Ave Maria! Mass readings

Audio (MP3)

+++

“Caritas in Veritate” to Cover Social Themes
VATICAN CITY, JULY 1, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI’s new encyclical, titled “Caritas in Veritate,” will be released Tuesday, the Vatican announced.

The Vatican press office confirmed today that the Pope’s first social encyclical, which is expected to offer an analysis of the current economic crisis, will be presented at a press conference in the late morning July 7. The text will then be released to the public at midday, local time.  More…

Homily #090430 ( 06min) Play – Today we need good fathers such as Pope St. Pius V who knows how to feed his children with the Bread of Life.

Ave Maria! Mass readings

Audio (MP3)
+++

Ave Maria Meditations

I set off in search of the source of my vocation. It is beating there … in the Upper Room in Jerusalem. I thank God that during the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 I was able to pray precisely there-in the Upper Room (Mark 14:15), where the Last Supper took place.

THE SOURCE OF MY VOCATION

by The Servant of God, Pope John Paul II

I transport myse1f in thought to that memorable Thursday when Christ, having loved his own to the end (Jn.13:1), instituted the Apostles as priests of the New Covenant. I see Him bending down before each of us, succesors of the Apostles, to wash our feet. I hear Him, as if He were speaking to me-to us-these words: “Do you realize what I have done for you? You call Me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the Master and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought also to wash one anothers feet. I have given you an example to follow, so that as I have done for you, you also should do” (John 13:12-16).

Together with Peter, Andrew, James, and John … let us continue to listen: “As the Father has loved Me, so I have loved you. Remain in My love! If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and remain in His love. I have told you this so that My joy might be in you and your joy might be complete. This is My commandment: love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down ones life for ones friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you” (Jn 15:9-14).

Is not the mysterium caritatis of our vocation contained in these sayings? These words of Christ, spo­ken at the hour for which He had come (Jn.12:27), are at the root of every vocation in the Church. From them flows the life-giving sap that nourishes every vocation: those of the Apostles and their suc­cessors, but also every other vocation, because the Son wishes to be a friend to everyone: because He gave His life for all. Here we find what is most important, most valuable, and most sacred: the love of the Father and the love of Christ for us, His and our joy, and also our friendship and fidelity, which ex­press themselves in the fulfillment of the commandments.

These words also contain the goal and the meaning of our vocation: to “go and bear fruit that will last” (Jn 15:16). The bond of love unites all things; substantially it unites the Divine Persons, but on a different level it also unites human beings and their different vocations. We have entrusted our life to Christ, who loved us first and, as the Good Shepherd, offered His life for us.

The Apostles heard Christ’s words and applied them to themselves as their personal vocation. So too we, their successors, shepherds of Christ’s Church, cannot but feel impelled to be the first to respond to this love, faithfully fulfilling the commandments and offering our life every day for the friends of our Lord. “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).

In the homily I preached in Saint Peter’s Square on October 16, 2003, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of my pontificate, I said: “While Jesus was saying these words, the Apostles did not realize that He was referring to Him­self. Not even His beloved Apostle John knew it. He understood on Calvary, at the foot of the Cross, when he saw Jesus silently giving up His life for ‘His sheep.’

When the time came for John and the oth­er Apostles to assume this same mission they then remembered His words. They realized that they would be able to fulfill their mission only because he had assured them that He Himself would be work­ing among them. “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will last” (Jn.15:16). Not you, but I!-says Christ. This is the foundation of the efficacy of a bishop’s pastoral mission.

“Always be faithful to an intense interior life, nourished above all by the celebration of the Holy Mass, Eucharistic devotion and daily meditation.  Only through the Eucharist is it possible to maintain the innocence of children, the purity of the young, matrimonial chastity and fidelity, priestly and religious consecration”

(Pope John Paul II, Servant of God).

Fr. Philip Neri Powell from Domine da mihi hanc aquam! has posted a very enlightened defense of Marian coredemption. In particular I would like to make note of his replies to the objections against the fifth Marian dogma. He says there are basically two objections: 1) “a declaration of the proposed dogma is unnecessary since Catholic theology already recognizes Mary’s unique role in God’s plan for human salvation”; 2) “the dogma is ecumenically dangerous in that it threatens good relations with other Christian ecclesial communities by seeming to elevate Mary to a level equal to that of Christ as sole Redeemer.” For a thorough response to these objections I send you directly to his post. What I am most interested in is his response to objection 2 which I think is brilliant:

Father Powell puts his finger on the fear of many Catholics to speak the truth in the face of Protestant objections: “That we would flinch from speaking the truth because some might misunderstand simply means that we fear a negative response from our ecumenical partners.” I find this very true, for example, when discussing the meaning of the term “coredemption.” Many of the Catholic objectors to the dogma say that “coredemption” is an inherently confusing term because of the various ways in which “co-” can be used as a prefix. In English it means generally, as Father Powell points out, “with” and “equal to,” which is not the case in Latin. The point is that, yes, the term needs to be explained, but so what? Why don’t we just explain it?

A very similar problem arises from the use of the term “Mother of God.” Many “Bible Christians” think that the Catholic teaching on this point makes Mary equal to God; however, the problem is not that the term is inherently ambiguous, but that the explanation has either not been heard or has not been accepted, even though the term has been adequately explained by Catholics since the Council of Ephesus in 431. I do not think the fundamental problem here is deeply theological. On the contrary, it is a superficial assumption based on the bias that Catholic doctrine is anti-biblical and man made. Unfortunately, some Catholics seems to share this bias.

Father Powell also points out that Protestants have themselves felt free to unilaterally redefine Christian teaching, as the Anglicans have with respect to contraception and abortion:

The objection that the proposed fifth Marian dogma will damage ecumenical relations seems somewhat dubious in the harsh light of the ecclesial reality dropped into our Catholic laps without our consultation. Why this sudden need for Protestant approval of Catholic teaching?

Father Powell’s reply to this second objection is particularly outstanding where he points out the fear among astute Catholics of being tagged as “theologically unsophisticated”:

My guess is that this objection is really more about a certain sort of generational embarrassment with Marian dogma and devotion in general and rests on the need of some in the Church to please those they feel are more theologically sophisticated. How am I supposed to show my Catholic face at the next meeting of the American Academy of Religion when all of my more enlightened Protestant colleagues from Harvard and Yale know we silly Catholics have infallibly declared that Mary is Co-Redemptrix? How embarrassing! Such individuals are left with the choice of defending what appears to be another exercise of raw papal power and earning the pity of their more progressive betters or rejecting the dogma and winning the accolades of their more enlightened colleagues. Guess which one they choose over and over again.

In my opinion, some of the most basic reasons for Catholic hesitancy to defend Marian coredemption have more to do with cultural and social assumptions than they do to any fundamental theological problems. It seems to me that I have never really heard a “Catholic” reason for not defining the dogma. All the objections are essentially Protestant.

I do think it needs to be pointed out, however, that the contemporary controversy runs deeper than merely arguing over whether the Virgin’s free consent at the Annunciation can be in any way construed to have contributed to our redemption. Protestants and the Catholic objectors generally know that the content of the doctrine connotes more than that. In fact, Father Powell indicates that this is so at the beginning of his post when he defines very simply the meaning of Coredemprix:

. . .[T]he Holy Father is being asked to declare solemnly and infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a co-worker in the redemption of mankind through her initial assent to be the mother of God and through her suffering with Christ as he dies on the cross. [emphasis mine.]

But when Father Powell goes on to explain how Mary is Coredemptrix with Christ he does not mention how it is that She is His “co-worker . . . through her suffering with Christ as he dies on the cross”:

. . . Assuming Mary’s freedom to accept or reject Gabriel’s call to become the Mother of God, we can see that Mary’s assent made it possible for the second Person of the Blessed Trinity to become man—a step necessary in for the universal efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Without her consent, the Son would have not been incarnated. You might object here and say that Gabriel could have accepted her no and moved on to another woman with the same invitation. This is purely speculative, of course, but had he done so, any woman who said yes would be our spiritual mother and worthy of the title “Co-Redemptrix.”

The problem here is that no other woman was immaculately conceived or could be called the Immaculate Conception. Even if the objection Father Powell here answers is purely speculative, it needs to be pointed out that no other woman other than Mary was predestined by God to be His Mother. Only one is immaculately conceived, and only one is predestined to cooperate in this unique way in His plan.

St. Maximilian Kolbe, for example, points out that neither Adam, nor Eve, nor anyone else but Mary could be addressed with the title of Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception is a prerogative that belongs to Mary alone by virtue of an eternal predestination.  Both the dogmatic declarations defining the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption refer to the joint predestination of Jesus and Mary in the divine plan. Here are the corresponding passages from the respective apostolic constitutions:

And hence the very words with which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom and set forth his eternal origin, the Church, both in its ecclesiastical offices and in its liturgy, has been wont to apply likewise to the origin of the Blessed Virgin, inasmuch as God, by one and the same decree, had established the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, emphasis mine).

Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences . . . (Pope Pius XII, Munifentissimus Deus, Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Assumption, emphasis mine).

So while one might speculate on the great mystery of the Virgin’s perfect freedom and how it was that God made so much contingent upon Her free cooperation, we still must affirm that there is much more unique about this one woman than that She happened to say “yes” as opposed to “no.”

I mention this because understanding it will help us appreciate that the free cooperation of the Virgin in the mystery of our redemption is extended to the foot of the cross. By virtue of Her predestination with Christ, Mary does contribute to our redemption “through her suffering with Christ as he dies on the cross.”

In fact, prior to the Second Vatican Council among theologians and during its sessions among the council fathers, when the question of coredemption was being debated, the doctrine was understood  not only to include, but to primarily refer to Mary’s compassion at the foot of the cross. Our Lady’s suffering was argued to have been coordinated with that of Her Son, not as the sufficient cause of our redemption, but as the predestined coefficient of His work.

In the Franciscan school, the argument for this would be similar to that of Duns Scotus for the Immaculate Conception. Both are based on the joint predestination of Jesus and Mary. Scotus argued that preservative redemption (complete freedom from original sin—Immaculate Conception) not only takes nothing away from the dignity of the Redeemer, but exalts it incomparably more than liberative redemption (the washing away of original sin already contracted). So in the same way, that one should be able to cooperate effectively in the very act of redemption, not only takes nothing away from the merit of the One Mediator, but exalts it incomparably more than would be the case otherwise. This is because Mary’s unique power is based on the fact that She has been redeemed in an incomparably more perfect way than anyone else. She is Coredemptrix because She is the perfect fruit of a perfect redemption.

Whether one buys this argument or not, it should be noted that our Protestant brethren object to the doctrine of the coredemption due of their understanding of the one mediation of Christ. That mediation takes place principally on the cross and it is there that the coredemption is primarily posited.

Again, upon close examination of this question it becomes apparent that the only objections against coredemption are Protestant. They will be the same ones that are used to reject tradition, the sacramental order, the priesthood and good works. Either we can cooperate with Christ or we cannot. And if we can, then it should not be hard to understand how the predestined Mother of God, prepared before hand by her Immaculate Conception, gives God a glory greater than which cannot be conceived by Her free and effective cooperation at the foot of the cross.

I would concur with Father Powell that the Catholic understanding of our own cooperation in the work of redemption reveals a logic consistent with that of the Coredemption.

In all of her titles, Mary is understood to be the perfected form of a human response to God’s invitation to live in union with Him in eternity (CCC 967-70). So, in every sense, we all participate in an imperfect way in all of Mary’s titles. We all mediate God’s grace to others—what are the corporeal works of mercy but our human use of divine gifts for the benefit of others? We all give birth to the Word made flesh—what is Eucharistic communion but the taking in of Christ so that we might become more and more the Word given flesh? We are all “co-operators” (operators with) God’s will for us when we assent to and make good use of His gifts for others (CCC 1996-2000).

What I would further point out is that this logic is consistent with the coredemption because the Mother of God stands in the first place (in primis from the Roman Canon) in the matter of that cooperation which is accomplished at the consummation of the mystery of redemption at the foot of the cross.

Ave Maria! Below is an Article from Zenit News. One correction: Cologne is not the place of his birth, but rather of his death.

Faith-Reason Harmony Praised in Duns Scotus

Pope Recalls Franciscan Theologian on 7th Centennial of Death

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 22, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is proposing the Franciscan theologian Blessed John Duns Scotus as a model for believers and nonbelievers alike, due to his search for harmony between faith and reason.

Scotus, who died in 1308, was the subject of a papal letter sent in October to Cardinal Joachim Meisner, archbishop of Cologne, where the theologian was born. The Holy Father’s statement was sent on the occasion of a conference on the theologian held in November. The Latin-language letter was made public Saturday.

The Pontiff referred to Scotus, currently in the process of canonization, as the “subtle doctor” who, “associating piety with scientific investigation, with his refined and deeply penetrating ingenuity into the secrets of natural and revealed truth, became a light and example for the entire Christian people.”

“Firm in the Catholic faith, he labored to understand, explain and defend the truths of faith in the light of human reason,” the Pope continued. “He labored especially to demonstrate the consonance of natural and supernatural truths, which emanate from the same source.”

Benedict XVI emphasized both the theologian’s fidelity and submission to the magisterium and his love for the Virgin Mary — he was one of those who defended the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Holy Father also noted Blessed Scotus’ concept of theology as “more like contemplation than speculation.”

Scotus, he said, was a “great preacher of God as love,” a truth that “should be delved into and taught especially in our times.”

IVF:? Part Three

(Part Two here)

“The Lord called me from birth:
from my mother’s womb
he gave me my name.”? (Isaiah 49: 1-6)

What’s the big deal? Have we not advanced to the point of making babies in lab dishes, so everyone can be a proud parent? I recall reading one woman’s indignation, demanding to know why the Pope did not want her to have a baby. You know some alert theologian could have jumped in at that time and presented the rock-bottom truth of our faith that, evil may not be done, even to secure some perceived good.

Some physicians have, as noted above, ethical concerns about all of this and have decided not to implant more than four embryos. This would supposedly reduce the risk of having to abort so many. “Four is the limit recommended by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine for women aged 35 to 40, although it will accept five for women older than that.”[i] Other doctors wonder if the woman has the right to expose babies in multiple pregnancies to future medical problems (and the studies continue to mount from all over the world about fetal abnormalities from IVF: birth defects, mental retardation, behavior disorders, etc.) What a high degree of “ethics” by the society above – don’t kill more than four! As opposed to “moral”, “ethical” is a nice semantic term you can take all over the place. Others express “distaste” about “reducing;” read that: uneasy.

How in the world did we get here? We got here because God’s authority continues to be completely rejected. There is societal indifference to what goes on, a disinterest in anything which does not directly affect me and my lifestyle. Is IVF more nuclear fall-out from abortion? That is one answer but incomplete; it is not the whole story. The key element was synthetic birth prevention. And, contrary to the ardent feminist denial of the facts, from the outset abortion became “backup contraception”. I remember the 60’s. I remember the triumph when the birth control pill was introduced to the world. The “women’s liberation” movement’s first plank then and now is equality is impossible without abortion. With the pill, they were jubilant. The pill would release forever a woman’s responsibility for the conception and nurturing of offspring.

Once procreation was separated from the conjugal act, the whole bowl of wax began to unfold. Pandora’s Box was shattered, freeing the evils that would bedevil mankind. Late-term pregnancy abortions gradually were accepted and are now de rigueur in certain clinics. With IVF we have arrived in contemporary America and the new world order at, to name a few: “make your own baby”, including “fetal reduction,” delayed motherhood, surrogate mothering, embryo transfer (moved embryo from one women to another), storage problems of half a million frozen embryos (90% of which do not survive their ice age,) “extra” embryos to be harvested as extra body parts; insurance coverage in many states; support groups for mothers who reduce; designer children; sex selection of children (banned in some countries;) “money-back” guarantees (frowned on by some meds); recruiters on college campuses for eggs/sperm donors (some provide photos of donors’ eyes, ears, etc., not to omit glowing intellectual and medical histories;) anonymous (drive-by) sperm donors; sperm banks; egg banks; egg donor ads, running regularly in daily newspapers, and on the Internet (“Apply on line to become an egg donor.”); the Yellow Pages; donor marketing agencies; serious medical complications from “hyper-stimulation” of ovaries to secure eggs; screening of embryos to avoid genetic hazards; cloning; cloning of human beings with other species, and on and on ad infinitum. By the by, “donors” are usually paid handsomely for selling their bodily wares. Some profess to do this for altruistic motives, to assist the childless. However, the very real probability that embryos will die or be eliminated makes that assertion of nobility something of an oxymoron.

Less I be accused of exaggeration, the above are facts gleaned from an enormous supply of material on the whole subject of IVF. At one library I pulled up relevant book lists; there were 39 under the heading of IVF. The internet is endless in its offerings of such material. Newspapers, journals are getting into this curious and controversial story, so fraught with extremes – sensationalism at its most provocative. A sub-plot showed up recently on the television series E.R., when several children gathered to meet their slightly abashed doctor “father”. Some of the “diaries,” books/journals describing a woman’s complete IVF experience, are often crude, discouraging the reader from pursuing the story line. To draw quotes from these would render their authors more attention.

Crudity is so common in our country we barely notice the daily bombardment and degradation. Subjects unmentionable are discussed casually on television at any hour. Disrobing has become an art form. In a doctor’s office recently, I saw the image of a full-term, pregnant, nude woman displayed on the cover of Newsweek (12/10/07). It was so blatantly bad–this image, casually available on the clinic coffee table. Such presentations utterly deprive women of any dignity whatsoever, pregnancy a public exposure of the most prurient type. There will be no reaction from our jaded culture. (Some maternity stores this season were displaying scanty bathing suits for advanced pregnancy.) To the more morally alert, it is just one more outrage, an execrable example of depraved media. It reminds you of the judge in the parable who “respected neither God nor man.” The result: We are all stricken with some kind of mental paralysis as we try to go about living in trendy America. We are numb. This is a kind of protective shield. How many shocks a day can an individual stand? We can’t – we don’t — ask anymore, what is next? There is no refuge to escape the panoply.

After spending several weeks on this essay, and reading more about IVF and affiliated horrors than I imagined at the beginning, I have come to the conclusion expressed well by Judy Brown of American Life League, the entire process must be outlawed, by legislatures, and if there is any dignity, integrity left in our courts, there too. We have created a monster, fulfilling what Pope Benedict anticipated and feared when he wrote Donum Vitae. Thank God, the church is always ahead of the movement of societal cultures – The gift to us Roman Catholics as well as to the world. On February 1, 2008, Pope Benedict said the following: “When human beings in the weakest and most defenseless state of their existence are selected, aborted, killed or used as pure ?biological material,’ how can it be denied that they are no longer… ?someone but something.’”[ii] This is food for thought in our over-hurried world – a world according to John Paul II with an over emphasis on “efficiency.”

[iii] reported an internet site which

Donor Sibling Registry Logo

Where are we going? What is next? The Fort Worth Star Telegram “connects children born from the same eggs or sperm.” In other words, the searcher endeavors to learn how many half-brothers and sisters he has out there somewhere – and their common sperm donor. A “Donor Sibling Registry” was established in 2000; about 19,000 people posted personal details; About 4,700 matches were found. People, the article tells us, are startled by the looks of strange children at the park sand lot, who look so much like their own child. In one search it was discovered that a single donor had sired more than 100 kids. I leave it to the imagination of the reader to follow this news into the future… Obviously there is a yawning distance between adopting a newborn infant, and utilizing an anonymous egg/sperm. As Abraham responded to the rich man seeking help from the poor Lazarus, between us there is a great chasm, so that we cannot cross over to your side.

In the last few months I have been removing stones from one of the flower gardens here in New England – stones tossed there by the builder, which prevent any flowers from taking real root. There are also roots to detach. It is hard work, though satisfying, but not complete because new dirt has to be inserted in the gaping holes. It reminds me of the indescribable lies, distortions and omissions thrown at our whole culture, the evils now so pronounced as to make it impossible for most to accept the truth about God and life. The garden is full of rocks, with long-running roots. It has been made infertile and must be cleansed and then replanted. Christ warned us that once evil is dismissed, care must be taken lest new and worse devils enter in. What is next?

The paucity of truth! What is it? “I AM the way, the truth and the life” says the Lord. American Heritage defines truth as “conformity to knowledge, fact or actuality; veracity.” The media appears to define truth through interviews (e.g., opinion); varied reports from random sources and those which are politically correct. Thus the opportunity for truth has been circumscribed. As evidenced by the prominence of IVF acceptance, the anti-Christ forces are masters of distortion. Dr. Leon Kass describes present day scientism as “soul-less”, which he says is an effort to reduce all questions of human life to the “purely material.”[iv]

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us, now and at the hour of our death!

[ii] Life Site News: from Catholic Online International News

[iii] Fort Worth Star Telegram, 3/23/08

[iv] Life Site News; 11/7/07, from a Manhattan Institute lecture