Advice from Father Benedict Groeschel on the Sexual Abuse Crisis

Father Benedict Groeschel

The Internet is overflowing with suggestions on how to handle this latest phase of the sexual abuse crisis.  We are told that we need to throw out all the bishops, whether they are directly involved or not.  We are told that all named clergy predators need to go to jail.  Certainly people need to be held accountable and face the consequences of what they have done.

But what can we, as laity, do to help this situation.  The late, great Father Benedict Groeschel tells us in a beautiful article written in 2002.  The article, entitled, "Healing the Body of Christ" starts out:

The Catholic Church in America has been deeply hurt by the scandal involving the abuse of youngsters by some of the clergy. Loyal and devout Catholics have been particularly distressed by it.

 If there ever was a time for Divine Mercy, it is now. Our hurting Church is "the crucified Body of Christ" -- as I point out in my new book From Scandal to Hope. Click here for online catalogue. Only Divine Mercy can bring us the healing and reconciliation we so need. And that includes the victims and their families, our priests, our bishops, priests falsely accused of abuse, the abusers themselves, and the whole body of Christ.

Why Pope Franics is Right and His Critics Are Wrong

Jesus' attitude is striking: we do not hear the words of scorn, we do not hear words of condemnation, but only words of love, of mercy, which are an invitation to conversation. "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." Ah! Brothers and Sisters, God's face is the face of a merciful father who is always patient. Have you thought about God's patience, the patience He has with each one of us? That is His mercy. He always has patience, patience with us, He understands us, He waits for us, He does not tire of forgiving us if we are able to return to Him with a contrite heart. "Great is God's mercy," says the Psalm.

— Pope Francis, Angelus on March 17, 2013

I believe that Pope Francis is one of the holiest men to ever sit in the Chair of Peter. His message and actions reflect the love and mercy of Christ and the Gospel more closely than we have seen from any pope in the last 150 years. This is not to disparage any of our recent popes in any way. We have been greatly blessed with true men of God in the Chair of Peter during the last couple of centuries as is evidenced by the fact that the majority of them are either canonized saints or up for sainthood.

When Will Michael Voris Stop Hating Himself?

Michael Voris devotes a major part of his self-proclaimed apostolate to trying to destroy anyone in the Catholic Church who shows any compassion or empathy for homosexuals.  Voris especially goes after Catholic priests and bishops, the majority of whom, according to Voris, are either homosexual or "homosexualist." There are a lot of problems in the Catholic Church, but according to Michael Voris, most of the problems mainly center around the "homosexual agenda." Following is an excerpt from a "Vortex" episode from January 11, 2016:

"Here is the situation in a nutshell: The American Catholic Church is largely controlled by homosexual clergy and their allies. Those not in the network are powerless to confront it owing to its vast influence and fear factor, as well as not really understanding how it operates. The Catholic establishment media won't get within a million miles of this issue of the homosexual collective because they too are scared."

Voris seems unable to differentiate between showing respect and compassion for homosexuals and condoning homosexuality. He seems to view one action as equivalent to the other.

Catholics Leaving The Church and the Need for Vatican II: Part 1

Credit:  www.thelocal.de

When I was growing up in the 50's and 60's, Catholic churches were packed every week for Sunday Mass. There were 5 to 6 Masses or more, and the pews were filled for all of them. There were long lines for confession on Saturday. Many Catholics defined their lives by their neighborhood parish.

However, as we are all well aware, all churches in western society, including Catholic churches, have been emptying out for the past 50 years. Religious belief and practice now play a very minor role, if any role at all, in most lives. Many conservative and traditional Catholics say it is not rocket science to figure out what happened in the Catholic Church. These people tell us that before Vatican II, when people were held to a "stricter standard" and "knew" Church teachings, the Church was strong. Then the Second Vatican Council happened, which many feel watered down Church teachings, and that caused a mass exodus out of the Church.

A typical response to the situation was laid out by Father John Zuhlsdorf, who did a blog post in August 2013 entitled, "Institutional collapse: a fruit of Vatican II?" [HERE]. Father Z quotes from an article by Louie Verrecchio, a bomb throwing traditionalist who writes his own blog entitled "Harvesting the Fruit of the Vatican II" and who has all but completely denounced Pope Francis as a heretic. In fact, a couple of weeks ago Verrecchio called for the bishops to denounce Pope Francis as a heretic and recently posted an article on his blog entitled, "Pope Francis Hates the Catholic Faith". That should tell you everything you need to know.

In any event. Verrecchio based his article cited by Father Z on another article written by Dr. Ralph Martin who succinctly describes the current situation of the Catholic Church in the West:

"There is something like an institutional collapse going on, evidenced by the vast numbers of schools closing, parishes merging, clustering and closing and the multiple assignments that many young priests now are asked to manage. Besides the institutional collapse, there is evidence of a widespread repudiation of the teaching of Christ and the Church by vast numbers of Catholics."

Verrecchio agreed with Dr. Martin's assessment but complained that "he [Dr. Martin] leaves the disease undiagnosed."

Verrechio then gives us his diagnosis:

With the intellectual currents of the Enlightenment, the subsequent anti-religion rebellion of the French Revolution, and the profound intellectual rejection of the Christian worldview symbolized by Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, forces were unleashed in Western culture that eventually led to not only a repudiation of the church-state relationships that had evolved over many centuries but a repudiation of religion itself as a legitimate shaper of culture.

What Martin leaves unaddressed is the degree to which these “intellectual currents” were unleashed, not only in Western culture at the hands of determined secularists, but in the very heart of Catholicism via the Second Vatican Council at the hands of determined churchmen.

Ain't No Mountain High Enough

/Credit:  pixgood.com

"Jesus is God, therefore His love, His Thirst, is infinite. He the creator of the universe,

asked for the love of His creatures.

He thirst for our love… These words:

‘I Thirst’ –

Do they echo in our souls?”

Mother Teresa

The most plaintive, agonizing words ever spoken in all of human history were uttered by Jesus Christ as He hung dying on the cross to bring salvation to a condemned world.  Part of these words, the seven last words spoken by Jesus from the cross, is given little fanfare in the gospels. All we are told in John 19:28 is:

Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.

But what does this really mean?  Was Jesus just complaining that he needed something to drink?  He had been beaten to such a point that he was barely recognizable as a human being.  The blood was almost completely drained out of his body.  He had not had any food or water for many hours and was in an extreme condition of dehydration.  Is that what he was talking about?  With all of the many other things he had suffered - mockings and insults, skin ripped from his body, bones pulled out of joint, hair pulled from his head and beard, a severe whipping which brought him to the point of death, nails driven into his hands and feet, struggling for each breath as he hung on the cross - why would his one complaint, if that is what it was, be about thirst?

Our Lord was talking about something much deeper than physical thirst.  He was talking about a thirst that had driven him his entire life.  He was talking about a thirst he felt even before becoming incarnate, when he shared glory with the Father in heaven (John 17:5).  He was talking of his great love for humanity, for the people who were responsible for all of the suffering he was experiencing.   His thirst is for you and me, for every single human being who has ever lived.  Our Lord thirsts for the worst sinner as well as the greatest saint.  No one is excluded.

Credit:  resource4christians.blogspot.com

In St. Faustina's diary, "Divine Mercy in My Soul", Jesus says to St. Faustina:

I desire that you know more profoundly the love that burns in My Heart for souls, and you will understand this when you meditate upon My Passion. Call upon My mercy on behalf of sinners; I desire their salvation.  (paragraph 186)

My daughter, look into the abyss of My mercy and give praise and glory to this mercy of Mine. Do it in this way: Gather all sinners from the entire world and immerse them in the abyss of My mercy. I want to give Myself to souls; I yearn for souls, My daughter. On the day of My feast, the Feast of Mercy, you will go through the whole world and bring fainting souls to the spring of My mercy. I shall heal and strengthen them.   (paragraph 206)

Credit:  www.pinterest.com

The only condition Jesus puts on His Love is that we say yes to him.   As He said to St. Faustina (paragraph 186), "Call upon My mercy on behalf of sinners; I desire their salvation."

The Spiritual Dilemma of Divorce and Remarriage

This will be a pure stream of consciousness post for me because I really can't come to a personal conclusion on the subject of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion.   The easy answer is that those in such a situation cannot receive the sacraments because they are living in adultery.  They are responsible for the situation they're in - no one forced them to remarry - so they can do what's right or face the consequences, which is separate from their current spouse or deal with separation from Holy Mother Church and her life-giving sacraments.  It's time for the rest of us to move on.  I have to admit that has been pretty much my gut reaction to this issue.

But then I remember Jesus' parable about leaving the 99 and going after that one lost sheep. Matthew 18:12-14:

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off.  In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

And when it comes to divorce and remarriage, we are not talking about one sheep that has gone astray. This situation involves millions of souls who no longer have access to the Holy Eucharist which, as Our Lord told us, is so essential for eternal life: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has become the de facto spokesman on behalf of those who want to see some arrangement made for divorced and remarried Catholics to come back into communion with the Church. Others, such as Cardinal Raymond Burke, have said this is impossible, that this goes against the very words of Jesus Christ.  Confessing the sin of divorce and remarriage is not enough to be absolved.  The Church requires that you legally dissolve the second marriage and live apart from your second spouse whether there are children or not.  This, of course, imposes an extreme hardship and emotional trauma on all involved, including and most especially the children.

There is an interview with Cardinal Kasper on the Vatican Insider which you can read HERE, which gives us Cardinal Kasper's reason for wanting to explore this situation. The article starts out with this quote from Cardinal Kasper:

There are those who believe the church is for the pure. They forget that the church is also a church of sinners.

There is certainly no denying the truth of that statement. If Charlie Manson were suddenly to come to a revelation and repent of the evil in his life, the Church would willingly take him into her embrace. The people he killed and the lives he destroyed would not be made whole in any way, but nonetheless he would be completely forgiven of his sin and enter into a state of grace. And that is how it should be. Isaiah 1:18 says:

"Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool."

And yet, unless someone is willing to tear apart his family because it is not a true marriage as the Church defines it, he cannot be absolved of his sin. Please understand, I am certainly not arguing with the Church's stance on marriage at all. Marriage is a covenant made by two people before and with God, and it cannot be broken. Marriage is indissoluble, and those who have divorced and remarried have committed a grave sin which cannot be overlooked. But as Cardinal Kasper says in the interview:

“I cannot think of a situation in which a human being has fallen into a gap and there is no way out. Often he cannot return to the first marriage. If this is possible, there should be a reconciliation, but often that’s not possible.”

Just as Charlie Manson could never make things right for his victims, a person in a second marriage most times has no way of turning back the clock and making things right in his or her first marriage.  Yet Charlie Mason can be forgiven, but the divorced and remarried person cannot receive the same forgiveness.  Is the answer to just leave them hanging?

Cardinal Kasper asks some important questions which really do need to be considered:

“In the Creed,” the cardinal said, “we say we believe in the forgiveness of sin. If there was this shortcoming, and it has been repented for—is absolution not possible? My question goes through the sacrament of penance, through which we have access to Holy Communion. But penance is the most important thing—repentance of what went wrong, and a new orientation. The new quasi-family or the new partnership must be solid, lived in a Christian way. A time of new orientation—metanoia—would be necessary. Not punishing people but a new orientation because divorce is always a tragedy.”

Kasper then went on to ask a rhetorical question: “My question—not a solution, but a question—is this: Is absolution not possible in this case? And if absolution, then also Holy Communion? There are many themes, many arguments in our Catholic tradition that could allow this way forward.”

In past ages, most cultures were on the side on the Church in that divorce and remarriage were considered social stigmas. It was very rare for people to leave their marriages and remarry. But we live in a post-Christian world where marriage is no longer considered sacred. The only really important issue is that we be "happy." If your marriage doesn't make you "happy", then get out and find someone else who will make you "happy." Sadly, many Catholics have been taken in by this evil philosophy and the result is that millions are now unable to receive Holy Eucharist.

Cardinal Kasper made a very controversial statement in this interview regarding the state of many marriages in the Catholic Church:

The cardinal dealt with the problem of the lack of faith when a religious marriage is celebrated. “That’s a real problem. I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid. Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament presupposes faith. And if the couple only want a bourgeois ceremony in a church because it’s more beautiful, more romantic, than a civil ceremony, you have to ask whether there was faith, and whether they really accepted all the conditions of a valid sacramental marriage—that is, unity, exclusivity, and also indissolubility.”

Canonist Ed Peters jumped on this statement by Cardinal Kasper as being extremely irresponsible.  He feels that making such a statement will only add to this problem because it will cause people to doubt their own situations:

[B]y what right does the cardinal casually tell laity that 50% of their marriages are invalid—even if the pope did say it? Does turmoil among married persons in the wake of such a remark not matter to any except those who suffer it? As I said, I am stunned that such a remark was made, even if it was a mere repetition of another’s views.

I do not have the experience of working with married couples as Dr. Peters has, but I do live in the world and know many married couples, and it is my experience that a good majority of people have no idea what they are doing when they get married. They don't realize that marriage is a profound, life long commitment. Too many of us have been poisoned by Hollywood's version of marriage which is "happily ever after." When life gets real and people start realizing there is no "happily ever after", they decide this is not what they signed up for, and they want out.

Cardinal Kasper says we must deal with this problem BEFORE people get married:

“Many canon lawyers,” Kasper continued, “tell me that today in our pluralistic situation we cannot presuppose that couples really assent to what the church requires. Often it is also ignorance. Therefore you have to emphasize and to strengthen prematrimonial catechesis. It’s often done in a very bureaucratic way. No, we have to provide catechesis. I know some parishes in Rome where couples have to attend catechesis, and the pastor himself does it. We must do much more in prematrimonial catechesis and use pastoral work and so on because we cannot presuppose that everybody who is a formal Christian also has the faith. It wouldn’t be realistic.”

But what happens when people decide to walk away from a marriage?  How can the Church deal with this?  Do we just leave them to their own devices, to sink or swim on their own?  Is that how Our Lord dealt with the one sheep who went astray?

Cardinal Kasper:

Kasper then answered directly to the criticisms made by the Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, who put the following question to his German confrere: “What happens to the first marriage?”

“The first marriage,” Kasper answered, “is indissoluble because marriage is not only a promise between the two partners; it’s God’s promise too, and what God does is done for all time. Therefore the bond of marriage remains. Of course, Christians who leave their first marriage have failed. That’s clear. The problem is when there is no way out of such a situation. If we look to God’s activity in salvation history, we see that God gives his people a new chance. That’s mercy. God’s love does not end because a human being has failed—if he repents. God provides a new chance—not by cancelling the demands of justice: God does not justify the sin. But he justifies the sinner. Many of my critics do not understand that distinction. They think, well, we want to justify their sin. No, nobody wants that. But God justifies the sinner who converts. This distinction appears already in Augustine.”

Does anyone really believe we can force people back into a marriage they have walked away from? How do we put trust and commitment back into such a relationship? It is like trying to put shattered crystal back together.  Yet, it is imperative that the Church help these people to realize that they have committed serious sin and to lead them to repentance of that sin.  

From Cardinal Kasper:

“I do not deny that the bond of marriage remains,” the German cardinal explained. “But the fathers of the church had a wonderful image: If there is a shipwreck, you don’t get a new ship to save you, but you get a plank so that you can survive. That’s the mercy of God—to give us a plank so we can survive. That’s my approach to the problem. I respect those who have a different position, but on the other hand, they must see what the concrete situation is today. How can we help the people who struggle in these situations? I know such people—often women. They are very engaged in parish life; they do all they can for their children. I know a woman who prepared her daughter for First Communion. The parish priest said the girl can go to Holy Communion, but not mama. I told the pope about this, and he said, “No, that’s impossible.”

Cardinal Kasper then deals with those who have entered into an invalid second marriage:

As far as the second marriage celebrated in a civil ceremony is concerned, Kasper says: “The second marriage, of course, is not a marriage in our Christian sense. And I would be against celebrating it in church. But there are elements of a marriage. I would compare this to the way the Catholic Church views other churches. The Catholic Church is the true church of Christ, but there are other churches that have elements of the true church, and we recognize those elements. In a similar way, we can say, the true marriage is the sacramental marriage. And the second is not a marriage in the same sense, but there are elements of it—the partners take care of one another, they are exclusively bound to one another, there is an intention of permanence, they care of children, they lead a life of prayer, and so on. It’s not the best situation. It’s the best possible situation. Realistically, we should respect such situations, as we do with Protestants. We recognize them as Christians. We pray with them.”

In other words, Cardinal Kasper says we have to deal with the reality of families who are involved in invalid marriages.  As His Excellency said, "The second marriage, of course, is not a marriage in our Christian sense," but "there are elements of it—the partners take care of one another, they are exclusively bound to one another, there is an intention of permanence, they care of children, they lead a life of prayer, and so on."  My problem with this is, we now have the problem of "same sex" marriage, which is also not real marriage in any sense of the word.  Yet, many of these couples also have elements of marriage such as commitment, children, etc.  If we give any kind of recognition to second marriages, will that open the doors to somehow recognizing same sex marriages?  What happens if the Church decides to walk down that road?   Wouldn't this weaken the whole concept of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman?  Would this end up doing much more harm than good?

Cardinal Kasper ends this interview with this statement:

“In no way,” Kasper clearly stressed during the interview, “do I deny the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage. That would be stupid. We must enforce it, and help people to understand it and to live it out. That’s a task for the church. But we must recognize that Christians can fail, and then we have to help them. To those who say, “Well, they are in a sinful situation,” I would say: Pope Benedict XVI has already said that such Catholics can receive spiritual communion. Spiritual communion is to be one with Christ. But if I am one with Christ, I cannot be in a situation of grave sin. So if they can receive spiritual communion, why not also sacramental Communion? I think there are also problems in the traditional position, and Pope Benedict reflected a lot about this, and he said that they must have means of salvation and spiritual communion. But spiritual communion goes very far: it’s being one with Christ. Why should these people be excluded from the other Communion? Being in spiritual communion with Christ means God has forgiven this person. So the church, though the sacrament of forgiveness, should also be able to forgive if God does it. Otherwise there is an opposition between God and church—and that would be a great problem.”

I think this argument, saying that because such people can receive spiritual communion so why shouldn't they be allowed to receive sacramental Communion, has great and dangerous potential for become a slippery slope. Yes, spiritual communion does allow us to become one with Christ, but to equate it with sacramental Communion is just wrong. Sacramental Communion is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church has rightly said that one must be in a state of grace to receive this great Sacrament. If we open the doors to those who, as Cardinal Kasper admits, have engaged in serious sin because of divorce and remarriage, how can we ensure that it will stop there? Will we then allow anyone and everyone to receive the Sacrament of Communion just because they receive spiritual communion?

Is divorce and remarriage the "unpardonable" sin?  Can there be no mercy or forgiveness shown to those who are in this situation?  Is there really no way to bring them back into the sacramental life of the Church?  I honestly don't have any answers to these questions, but I think it is important that these issues be raised.  

We don't need to be sitting in judgment of people like Cardinal Kasper who wish to show mercy to those separated from the Church. We need to be praying for him and for all Church authority that they will be open and submissive to the Holy Spirit as He guides and leads the Church. Every soul is important to Jesus Christ, and so every soul should be important to us.

I truly appreciate that Cardinal Kasper is showing such great concern for those separated from the Church because of divorce and remarriage, and I think he does so in sincere concern for their souls. Further, I think it is vital that this issue be explored at the upcoming Synod. The Church cannot just turn her back on all those millions of souls who are spiritually separated because of their marital status. We must minister to them in some way. We must do everything we can to bring them back into the Church. 

In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish

Divine Mercy Sunday: A Day and A Message of Hope

Credit:  www.turnbacktogod.com

This Sunday, April 27, is Divine Mercy Sunday. This year it is even more special than usual because two popes - John XXIII and John Paul II - will be canonized that day. Divine Mercy Sunday was instituted by soon-to-be St. John Paul II in the year 2000. Saint John Paul II gave us this Feast in compliance with the explicit request in 1931 by Jesus Christ Himself to St. Faustina, who was canonized on that first official Divine Mercy Sunday, April 30, 2000.

Why did Our Lord want to give us this feast day? Dr. Robert Stackpole explains on the website thedivinemercy.org in an article entitled, "Divine Mercy Sunday", which you can read HERE,

First, why did Jesus ask the Church, through St. Faustina, to institute the Feast of Mercy? As recorded in Diary entry 965, Jesus said to Faustina:

Souls perish in spite of My bitter Passion. I am giving them ... the Feast of My mercy. If they will not adore My mercy, they will perish for all eternity. Secretary of My mercy, write, tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice is near.

In short, the main reason that Jesus wanted this Feast to be established is that He wanted to "throw a lifeline," so to speak, to souls who are perishing, souls who are drowning in sin and despair. That lifeline is this Feast, with all the tremendous promises of graces and benefits which Jesus attached to it. As He said to St. Faustina, He wanted to make this Feast day a special "refuge and shelter" for the "consolation" of souls. In Diary entry 1517, Jesus said: "the Feast of My Mercy has issued forth from My very depths for the consolation of the whole world." In short, Jesus gave us this Feast as both a comfort and a lifeline for souls.

As I have posted previously, I believe Divine Mercy is the essence of the message of the Catholic Church in the world today.  In our human reasoning we look at the world around us brimming over with evil and human suffering, from abortion to war to euthanasia to immorality, the destruction of the family, and on and on and on, and our answer to it is to raise our voices in condemnation and let everyone know that unless they repent they are headed to the lowest depths of hell.

But in the 1930's, Jesus - who has a much better and clearer picture of the evil in this world than we can ever have - appeared to a unknown and seemingly insignificant little nun in Poland and explained to her why He wanted the Feast of Divine Mercy to be instituted by the Church, as quoted by Dr. Stackpole.  This message from Jesus Christ is the exact opposite of condemnation:

My daughter, tell the whole world about My inconceivable mercy. I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day all the divine floodgates through which grace flow are opened. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity. Everything that exists has come forth from the very depths of My most tender mercy. Every soul in its relation to Me will contemplate My love and mercy throughout eternity. The Feast of Mercy emerged from My very depths of tenderness. It is My desire that it be solemnly celebrated on the First Sunday after Easter. Mankind will not have peace until it turns to the Fount of My Mercy.  (Diary 699)

Through St. Faustina, Jesus told the world that He is not here to condemn us but to pour His Mercy upon us if only we will say Yes to Him.  In fact, He tells us that "mankind will not have peace until it turns to the Fount of My Mercy."  Jesus Christ says plainly here that the only path to peace is through His Mercy.  It is only when we accept the loving forgiveness of Jesus Christ, when we wash our souls in His Precious Blood and allow Him to change our minds and hearts that we will find true peace.   He does this not through words of condemnation but through pleas to accept His Mercy.

One of the devotions given to St. Faustina by Jesus is the Divine Mercy Novena, which starts on Good Friday and culminates on Easter Saturday.  Our Lord told St. Faustina:

I desire that during these nine days you bring souls to the fountain of My mercy, that they may draw therefrom strength and refreshment and whatever grace they need in the hardships of life, and especially at the hour of death. 

On each day you will bring to My Heart a different group of souls, and you will immerse them in this ocean of My mercy, and I will bring all these souls into the house of My Father. You will do this in this life and in the next. I will deny nothing to any soul whom you will bring to the fount of My mercy. On each day you will beg My Father, on the strength of My bitter Passion, for graces for these souls.  (Diary 1209)

The following are the souls for whom we are to pray each day (as taken from the EWTN website):

DAY 1 (Good Friday) - All mankind, especially sinners
DAY 2 (Holy Saturday)- The souls of priests and religious
DAY 3 (Easter Sunday) - All devout and faithful souls
DAY 4 (Easter Monday)- Those who do not believe in Jesus and those who do not yet know Him
DAY 5 (Easter Tuesday)- The souls of separated brethren
DAY 6 (Easter Wednesday)- The meek and humble souls and the souls of children
DAY 7 (Easter Thursday)- The souls who especially venerate and glorify Jesus' mercy
DAY 8 (Easter Friday)- The souls who are detained in purgatory;
DAY 9 (Easter Saturday)- The souls who have become lukewarm.

This novena covers every soul on earth.  And as Jesus commanded St. Faustina, we are to "immerse them in the ocean of My mercy."  Our Lord is doing everything He can to remove the great barriers that exist between mankind and Himself, barriers that we created but which can be torn down and erased by turning to His Great Mercy.  As Jesus said to St. Faustina, "bring souls to the fountain of My mercy, that they may draw therefrom strength and refreshment and whatever grace they need in the hardships of life, and especially at the hour of death."

Further, Jesus says that "You will do this in this life and in the next."  The saints in heaven and even the poor souls in purgatory continue to intercede for us just as they did when they were here on earth.  To be one with Christ is to be one in His Great Sacrifice on the Cross, to join with His Sorrowful Passion, as we pray in the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

Do we bring souls to Jesus Christ through words of condemnation?  Are those in heaven sitting before Christ and condemning us?  Or are they interceding with words of love and mercy on our behalf?  If in the next life we will be interceding on behalf of sinners with mercy and compassion, how can we possibly believe that our actions should be any different while we are on earth?  Is it really our job as followers of Jesus  Christ to confront with words of condemnation those who are entrapped by their sins and completely unable to break free on their own?

Our Lord did not direct St. Faustina to confront sinners.  He told her, and us, to bring sinners to His Mercy through our prayers, always invoking the Passion of Jesus Christ.  He told us, through St. Faustina, to be willing to sacrifice for others, joining our sacrifices with His Great Sacrifice on the Cross. 

It is so easy to get on our high horse and look down on the rest of the world, pointing out their sin and telling them they are a bunch of pathetic losers.  But that is not why Christ died that horrible, bloody death on the Cross.  He took on our sins and went to His Cross to show the world how much He loves all of us.  We who have accepted that great Mercy into our lives and been transformed by it, are now given the great responsibility and duty to spread this message of Mercy and Love to others.  

Unfortunately, that is not how some people see it. Some people think that this idea of Divine Mercy, despite the fact that these are direct commands from Jesus Christ, is "pampering sinners". Michael Voris once again sadly gives us the perfect example of this thinking. He just did a Vortex episode entitled, "Easter Division", which you can watch HERE. In this Vortex, Michael Voris makes the argument that the purpose of the Church is, believe it or not, to cause division:

Know this and learn it well – if the world .. meaning your family, friends and neighbors who live in opposition to the truths of Christ don’t see a stumbling block in you, a cause of division – then you are living your faith as a coward – as Judas.

You have made compromise with the world. You are appeasing the Prince of this world at the cost of worship to your King.

You are a dead or wounded soldier, brought down by your own lack of fidelity and cowardice to confront the kingdom of Hell.

Really, Mike?  Just how do you reconcile Our Lord's words to St. Faustina, that we should be praying for the world and "immersing them" in the ocean of His Mercy, with being a "stumbling block" and causing division?

St. Paul gave the exact opposite message as he wrote in Romans 14:13:

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

In fact, Voris would probably condemn St. Paul for writing the following as recorded in II Cor. 6:3:

We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited.

What did St. Paul do in his ministry?  Verses 4-10:

Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

In other words, St. Paul suffered on behalf of sinners in order to bring them to the saving message of the Gospel.  And as he wrote, he acted "in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God."  No words of condemnation or division.

Those who would agree with Michael Voris about causing division will no doubt point to subsequent verses in II Corinthians 6: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (verse 14) St. Paul also quotes from the prophets, "Come out from them and be separate" (verse 17). However, to use this to justify causing "division" is a canard because there is a big difference between being "yoked" with unbelievers, i.e., taking part in their sinful conduct, and condemning unbelievers. Condemnation is a stumbling block to people, and St. Paul says he will not do that. How can we expect to bring people to Christ when we are pushing them away with our words?

This is certainly not to say that Paul never verbally corrected anyone. However, the people he corrected were those within the Church who should have known better, such as the Corinthians who allowed and even approved of a blatant sinner within their midst (I Corinthians 5). Once the Corinthians accepted St. Paul's correction, he encouraged them with love and kindness. And St. Paul further told the Corinthians that they should show love and acceptance to those who offend. From II Corinthians 2:

5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.

The difference between separating ourselves from the sin of others and condemning them is further clarified in James 4:11-12:

Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

Following is Michael Voris' answer to the above scriptures:

The Church of Nice goes on and on incessantly about love of neighbor, but at the end of the day, is perfectly content to let their neighbor be damned for everyday offenses against almighty God like contraception, adultery, homosexuality, and so forth.

See, the Church of Nice isn’t really all that Nice. It’s all just a show. They don’t like the Church Militant because they are convicted in their consciences of their pitiful lack of fight – of militancy.

And if there is one thing that the Church of Nice detests, on principle and in practice – it is division. And here is where the adherents of the Church of Nice are dead wrong. In order to achieve the unity that Our Lord begged for, there must be division.

Michael Voris conflates mercy and compassion with being "perfectly content to let their neighbor be damned for everyday offenses against almighty God like contraception, adultery, homosexuality, and so forth."  That is a completely deceptive and false statement.  Using this logic from Michael Voris, we would have to say that Jesus Christ was content to let people be damned when He refused to condemn those who were crucifying Him and instead said from the Cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."  Mercy does not mean accepting people's sins.  It means praying that sinners will accept the love and forgiveness of God.  That is what the Divine Mercy Novena is all about.

Michael Voris derisively uses the term "Church of Nice" (a term many Catholics, including myself at one time, have unfortunately adopted from Voris) to describe those who do not agree with the absurd and destructive philosophy that unity is born of division.  Michael Voris, if he was to be totally honest, would most certainly put St. Faustina, St. Paul, St. James and even Jesus Christ Himself in the category of "Church of Nice" because they preached against attacking one another in the Church.

Voris gives us St. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost as an example of one who is not afraid to cause division:

The very first words spoken publicly about the resurrection were charges of complicity leveled against the Jews by St. Peter himself at Pentecost.

Talk about saying something divisive right out of the gate. No political correctness there with him, no siree. He came right out with it – and not just once – but TWICE.

Men of Jerusalem – this Jesus whom you crucified God raised from the dead!

Voris doesn't give us any exact quotes from scripture, so I will. St. Peter starts out by quoting from the prophet Joel, a very upbeat and encouraging message (Acts 2:17-21):

‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

No words of condemnation or division there, just words of hope: "and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." No one is left out of this message of hope and salvation. Everyone is included.

St. Peter then goes on to explain to the people what had happened only a little more than 50 days prior to that day on which he spoke:

Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Do you hear any words of condemnation there?  Yes, St. Peter did say that these Jews were complicit in putting Christ to death, but he also said this was done according to "God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge."  St. Peter explains that "it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."  St. Peter couched the words of accusation with words of hope.

Then, in verse 36, St. Peter tell the Jews the good news that this Jesus whom they crucified is their Lord and Messiah:

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.

As the very next verse, verse 37, tells us, "When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brothers, what shall we do?' " It was not words of condemnation that brought the people to this point. It was being told that yes, they are sinners, but they have a great Lord and Messiah who gave everything to save them from their sin. St. Peter, in this famous sermon, was immersing the people in the ocean of Christ's Mercy, just as Our Lord told St. Faustina almost exactly 2000 years later.

In response to the question of what they should do, St. Peter gave them the beautiful Gospel message He had received from Our Lord (Acts 2:38-39):

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.

Yes, St. Peter told the people that they were sinners and responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, but the primary message from St. Peter was that Christ had died and been resurrected in fulfillment of God's Great Divine Plan to save mankind from their sins.  This is the message of the Gospel, the Good News that we are to spread around the world.   Contrary to the assertions of Michael Voris, there were no words of division in St. Peter's message but exactly the opposite - words of encouragement, hope and unity.

We need to ask ourselves, is the work of a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, one of confrontation leading to division?  Or is it to bring the healing message of mercy and salvation?  Do we look at our Lord on the Cross and see condemnation and division, or do we see Divine Mercy and Love?  What is it that we want to bring to the world?  What is the message that will save the world?  Michael Voris tells us that everything he does is to save souls.  Yet, it seems he wants to do it his way, with harshness and condemnation, and he ridicules anyone who doesn't agree with him.

This Sunday, April 27, 2014, two popes will be canonized.  They were both popes who did much to spread the message of mercy and hope of salvation to the world.  They both saw a world that is in immense pain and suffering, and they sought to bring healing.  These two popes lived the following command from Jesus Christ as told to St. Faustina,

I desire that priests proclaim this great mercy of Mine toward the souls of sinners. Let no sinner be afraid to approach Me.  (Diary 50)

Both John XXIII and John Paul II embodied the following passage from the diary of St. Faustina:

In the Old Covenant I sent prophets wielding thunderbolts to My People. Today I am sending you with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My Merciful Heart. I use punishment when they themselves force Me to do so; My hand is reluctant to take hold of the sword of justice. Before the Day of Justice I am sending the Day of Mercy.  (Diary 1588)

Jesus Christ Himself tells us that "My hand is reluctant to take hold of the sword of justice."  We need to take these words to heart.  It goes against everything that we humans regard as "common sense" that as the world descends into evil in a way that could have never been envisioned in history, Jesus Christ comes to us not with words of condemnation, but with the great message of His Mercy.  He says He does not want to punish us.  This is the message of Jesus Christ:

My Response to A Comment Regarding Cardinal Dolan

Charlotte B left a comment on my post dealing with Cardinal Dolan's "bravo" comment.  The post is HERE. Below is her comment, with my responses in blue.

I came here from the blog of Elliot Bougis and after reading your conversations with him on the blog.

I want to, out of Catholic charity, point out some problems in your reasoning. 

1) You assert that the Cardinal's comments are fine because none of the prominent gay news outlets seem to think positively or have noticed it. 

But this is a misunderstanding on your part. The fact that the Cardinal gave some bad advise/comment does not suddenly become neutral advise or good advise depending on how the people react to the comment. If anything, you should be thanking God that they did not use his words to further justify sinful acts.

Just as me blaspheming is a bad thing regardless of whether someone gets offended or picks up on it, bad advise is bad advise regardless of ones reaction to it.  

It is your opinion that it is bad advice.  Cardinal Dolan was most definitely not condoning the sin of homosexuality. He made that clear in other parts of the interview. But he said we are told by the Bible that we are not to judge. The gay community knew exactly what Cardinal Dolan was doing. His point was not to condone homosexuality but to not condemn an INDIVIDUAL about whom he knows nothing, and by doing so, the worst that can be said is that he overcompensated. It is amazing that so few Catholics can understand this. 

2) Jesus acted like Cardinal Dolan in the case of Adultery

Here there are lots of misunderstandings.

You claim that the Adulteress did not show signs of repentance. Well, does the gospel describe her attitude to you? That she seemed pretty obstinate about carrying out her adulterous ways and had identified herself with a community that is out to justify the act of adultery around the world as a good thing? All I see here is you reading back your own views in to the gospels. 

There is nothing in story to indicate that the adulterous woman had repented in any way. This is a story of great mercy shown by our Lord who refused to condemn a sinner.  Cardinal Dolan who, as stated, made it very clear in the rest of the interview that he does not condone homosexuality, nonetheless showed mercy and compassion to an individual trapped in this sin.  As I have written, the gay community got this message loud and clear. Many Catholics, who are suppose to be channeling the mercy and love of Jesus Christ to the world, seem totally unable to understand this great message. 

You do the same with the thieves during the crucifixion. 

You need to expand on that.  Just making a statement as  you have makes it impossible to respond. What have I read into the story of Dismas that is not there?

Yet, you also forget the positive examples of public rebuke by St. John the Baptist of Herod. You are forgetting that this is the man who Jesus hailed as the greatest prophet. But you have forgotten these passages.

John the Baptist is hailed as  the last of the Old Testament prophets. At the time John the Baptist preached, the Old Covenant was still in force.  That is not to say that his message is to be dismissed. Sin definitely needs to be pointed out, and there are times when a sinner has to be publicly called out. But there is something new which Christ instituted in the New Covenant, and that is mercy, which He exercised constantly in His earthly ministry. There was no mercy under the Old Testament. Our Lord brought a new way, a way of mercy and forgiveness. I think some Catholics feel we are still under the Old Covenant, and that sinners should be at least spiritually stoned.

We can also look a little deeper in to the New Testament. You seem to have missed St. Paul's chastising of the Corinthian community in 1 Corinthians 5 regarding their inaction toward the sinner in sexual immorality. 

That is a good point, but look at the passage, I Corinthians 5, especially verse 2:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

The Corinthians were actually celebrating this man's sin. There is a huge difference between showing mercy and celebrating sin. That is not mercy at all but actually joining in the destruction of a sinner. This is what St. Paul was condemning.  This man's sin had infected the rest of the congregation to the extent that they no longer recognized that the actions of this man were wrong.  The Corinthians had in effect become part of the sin.  When it gets to that point, there is no choice but to put such a sinner outside the congregation.  You could argue, and of course many have argued, that Cardinal Dolan's "bravo" was a celebration of sin. However, LifeSiteNews, in an article entitled, "Cardinal Dolan applauds football player for ‘coming out’, but didn’t back homosexuality: Diocese", reported the next day:

"The Archdiocese of New York has told LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Timothy Dolan's decision to congratulate a homosexual football player for coming out of the closet did not mean the cardinal “was unconcerned about Church teaching on homosexual activity.”

This is far different from the incident reported by St. Paul in I Corinthians. Cardinal Dolan has most definitely distanced himself from the sin of homosexuality, and the gay community knows it.  

As I pointed out in the comment section of Elliott's blog, Blessed Pope John XXIII made a rather astounding statement in his opening message to Vatican II:

"At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations."

This is where I say we need to look at the message of Divine Mercy. This does not mean condoning sin, but it does mean NOT condemning the sinner. As shown in the example of the thieves crucified with Jesus, not everyone will respond to mercy, and Our Lord says through St. Faustina that those who do not accept His Mercy will then have to face His terrible judgment. But He is the judge, not us.

We can also look at the history of the Church and find ample examples where heretics were rebuked publicly by the Saints when to do so threatened their own life.

See above.

There is also an elephant in the room that you are missing. You have conveniently forgotten about the Pharisees in the gospels. Perhaps you conveniently identified them as "NOT SINNERS". So you forgot how Jesus himself very publicly rebuked them multiple times.

You need to re-read my post. I said the Pharisees identified themselves as sinless. Our Lord, in contrast, said they were the greatest of sinners. And they were the only sinners He ever publicly condemned. He most definitely rebuked them many times. That was my point entirely.

I think it is safe to say that you are lacking some understanding here and trying perhaps a bit too hard to justify what is clearly scandalizing.

The mercy of God is all about separating the sinner from the sin.  It is saying that what you are doing, the sin you are involved in, is wrong.  If you persist in this sin, you will be condemned.  But Our Lord offers you His Loving Mercy and Forgiveness.  I like the way Cardinal Dolan put it:

"And so Francis is reminding us, look, if we come across as some crabby, nay saying shrill, we’re not gonna win anybody. If we come across as a loving, embracing holy mother church who says, “Come on in. We love you. We need you. We want you. And once you get to know us, then maybe we can invite you to the conversion of heart that is at the core of the gospel. And then maybe we can talk about changing behavior. That’s a very effective pedagogy."

3) Jesus spoke in a confusing way as well.

Hmm, did he? The bread of life discourse in John 6 was pretty straight forward. Jesus meant what he said and people left because they couldn't accept it. If he was misunderstood, why did he not stop them and explain?

The statement of "eat my body, drink my blood" was easily understood at the time Jesus said it?!  Are you serious?!  No one had any concept of the Eucharist at that time. Our Lord had not even introduced it yet. This statement was completely incomprehensible at the time Jesus said it, and those who stayed did so despite the fact that they did not understand. Jesus did not expect anyone to understand this at the time He said it because it was not possible.  But he knew that those who truly had faith in him would not leave despite the confusing nature of his statement.

Second, Jesus has already given the revelation to the Church. The duty of these men is not to give you some new revelation that has not yet been understood. It is to rather pass down and explain what has already been said. To that extent, the Cardinal (and many others prelates in our age) failed because he seemed to not explain Church teaching too well. 

You are pointing to one part of the interview where Cardinal Dolan refused to condemn an individual. He made the teachings of the Church very clear in rest of the interview. As stated, the gay community got the message loud and clear. Why don't you?

Divine Mercy is not new. As I have abundantly shown, Our Lord exemplified this in His earthly ministry. There is no new teaching. What is new, as Blessed Pope John XXIII explained, is how the Church relates to sinners, and this great message was given by Jesus Himself to St. Faustina, who was then to give it to the world.

I have truly come to believe that the reason so many Catholics do not understand the Church of our time, and the reasons why so many find statements by Pope Francis and here by Cardinal Dolan so confusing is because they do not understand that now is the time of Mercy, as Our Lord explained to Sister Faustina.  Our Lord told St. Faustina that He is returning soon as judge, but before that terrible day of judgment, He is giving us a time of mercy, when all who come to Him will be forgiven their sins.  No one is denied mercy at this time.  

"Let the greatest sinners place their trust in My mercy. They have the right before others to trust in the abyss of My mercy. My daughter, write about My mercy towards tormented souls. Souls that make an appeal to My mercy delight Me. To such souls I grant even more graces than asked. I cannot punish even the greatest sinner if he makes an appeal to My compassion, but on the contrary, I justify him in My unfathomable and inscrutable mercy. Write: before I come as a just Judge, I first open wide the door of My mercy. He who refuses to pass through the door of My mercy must pass through the door of My justice. . ." (Diary 1146)

Meditation on the Eleventh Station of the Cross: Jesus Is Nailed To The Cross

We have now come to the eleventh station of the Cross - Jesus is nailed to the cross.

The following is a description from frugalsites.net about what it meant to be nailed to the cross:

At the site of execution, by law, the victim was given a bitter drink of wine mixed with myrrh (gall) as a mild analgesic [our Lord rejected this drink which would have eased his pain somewhat].  The criminal was then thrown to the ground on his back, with his arms outstretched along the patibulum. The hands could be nailed or tied to the crossbar, but nailing apparently was preferred by the Romans..The archaeological remains of a crucified body, found in an ossuary near Jerusalem and dating from the time of Christ, indicate that the nails were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7 in (13 to 18 cm) long with a square shaft 3/8 in (1 cm) across. Furthermore, ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin have documented that the nails commonly were driven through the wrists rather than the palms.

After both arms were fixed to the crossbar, the patibulum and the victim, together, were lifted onto the stipes. On the low cross, four soldiers could accomplish this relatively easily. However, on the tall cross, the soldiers used either wooden forks or ladders.

Next, the feet were fixed to the cross, either by nails or ropes. Ossuary findings and the Shroud of Turin suggest that nailing was the preferred Roman practice. Although the feet could be fixed to the sides of the stipes or to a wooden footrest (suppedaneum), they usually were nailed directly to the front of the stipes. To accomplish this, flexion of the knees may have been quite prominent, and the bent legs may have been rotated laterally.

This is what they did to our great Creator God, the One who gave them their lives, the One who was submitting himself to this terrible death so that they and all of us may spend all eternity with Him. During all of this, Our Lord silently submitted, no complaints, no bitterness or anger at those who were doing this. Although it was the Roman soldiers who physically pounded the nails into the Precious Body of our Lord, it was all our sins that nailed him to the Cross. Each sin we commit is like a blow of the hammer against the nails. We know that Jesus will bear the marks of these nails on His Resurrected Body for all eternity as a silent witness to the horrible consequence of sin and what it took to forgive our sin. In fact, these holes left by the nails were the identifying sign to the apostles after Christ's resurrection. Luke 24:35-40:

Then the two from Emmaus told their story of how Jesus had appeared to them as they were walking along the road, and how they had recognized him as he was breaking the bread. And just as they were telling about it, Jesus himself was suddenly standing there among them. “Peace be with you,”he said. But the whole group was startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost!

“Why are you frightened?” he asked. “Why are your hearts filled with doubt? Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do.” As he spoke, he showed them his hands and his feet.

Only the true God is a suffering God, only the true God allows himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross so that He might save His creation from death and destruction.

"If you really want to love Jesus, first learn to suffer, because suffering teaches you to love."
--St. Gemma Galgani

The world teaches us that suffering is bad, and we are almost obligated to do whatever we can to avoid suffering. Do you have a headache? Take a pill. Is your marriage difficult? Get a divorce. Can't stand your relatives? Just stop talking to them. Is this pregnancy "inconvenient", will it put a cramp in your lifestyle? Then get rid of that baby. Life is short. You only go around once. You have to enjoy it as much as you can. Love? That's just all about good feelings. As Woody Allen once said, "The heart wants what it wants." It's "whatever gets you through the night", as John Lennon sang.

Christ's way, the Christian way, is one of self denial. It is one that actually seeks out suffering because redemption comes through suffering. It's one that pays no attention to its own wants and desires but looks first of all what Our Lord says and follows Him no matter what the price.

From the Way of the Cross by St. Francis:

Jesus, being stripped of His garments, was violently thrown upon the cross and His hands and feet nailed thereto. In such excruciating pains He remained silent, because it pleased His heavenly Father. He suffered patiently, because He suffered for me. How do I act in sufferings and in troubles? How fretful and impatient, how full of complaints I am!

If someone accidentally bumps into me and doesn't apologize, my self-righteous anger starts to show itself.  If someone is taking too long in a check-out line, I find myself starting to grumble under my breath.  Yet our Lord - who was completely righteous and pure, without sin - gave Himself to the executioners to inflict the most hideous suffering upon Him.   We are joined to Christ by suffering with Him.  If we are to be truly Christ-like, we must also learn to suffer.

Suffering is a great grace; through suffering the soul becomes like the Saviour; in suffering love becomes crystallised; the greater the suffering, the purer the love.
--St. Faustina

It is You Jesus, stretched out on the cross, who gives me strength and are always close to the suffering soul. Creatures will abandon a person in his suffering, but You, O Lord, are faithful...
--St. Faustina 

From St. Francis Way of the Cross:

O Jesus, gracious Lamb of God, I renounce forever my impatience. Crucify, O Lord, my flesh and its concupiscences; scourge, scathe, and punish me in this world, do but spare me in the next. I commit my destiny to Thee, resigning myself to Thy holy will: may it be done in all things!

May I learn to truly look to and imitate our Lord and the suffering He endured, willingly and without complaint, completely giving of Himself for mankind.  May I learn the enduring message of True Charity which is conceived and born in suffering..