#fr john

[boylols]

Love reblogging things for other parts in the system because i am Not reading all that but i know someone else will

[cumbriacrack]

Priest “saddened” after lead stolen from church roof CUMBRIA’S only Orthodox priest has been left “saddened” after thieves stole lead from the chapel roof in the run up to Easter. Full story: https://www.cumbriacrack.com/2018/04/03/priest-saddened-lead-stolen-church-roof/

[nollywoodmagazine]

Please Forgive Us... Killers of Rev Fr. John Adeyi Beg His Family

Please Forgive Us… Killers of Rev Fr. John Adeyi Beg His Family

The suspected killers of Rev Fr John Adeyi, the Vicar General of the Catholic Diocese of Otukpo, Benue State have pleaded with the Benue State government to tamper justice with mercy.

The suspects, who were paraded yesterday, admitted that the cleric did not do anything to them before they killed him, claiming that he was already destined to die.

View On WordPress

[olmctempe]

He, She or...

Dear Friends,

Admittedly I am stupefied by the lightening speed with which the issue of transgender and transsexual lifestyles has been normalized in our culture. The issue is probably best symbolized by the very public transformation of former Olympic Gold medalist Bruce Jenner known now as Caitlyn. The way in which the media has promoted his change to her with thunderous applause and the highest accolades outdoes any other historical issue in my lifetime. And as expected no journalist has dared to report on the dark underside of making such a lifestyle change. There are plenty of people who went down this road and deeply regret it (see: "Sex Change Surgery: What Bruce Jenner, Diane Sawyer and You Should Know" www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14905/).

This is a major cultural shift that is the crowning achievement of those who want to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person. And I say cultural because culture is what drives everything: change the culture and you will change people's value system. Pope John Paul II understood this well and it is why he so heavily challenged us to shape a culture of life. Our efforts in that area have certainly born fruit, though there is still a long way to go. As with Abortion, trans/lifestyles, once you understand fully the issue and other solutions you have to ask yourself, "what really is the most loving thing to do" in order to help those with this struggle?

Recently I listened to a discussion that centered on the issue of religious practice and bigotry. The high water mark for Church attendance in the US was in the mid 1950's and at the same time our culture was teeming with bigotry, think of the Jim Crow laws. One of the debaters then concluded that this was proof that religious practice furthered bigotry since after all our society today is less religious and in his mind less bigoted. Well that is a stretch. If you look at the actual religious teachings and doctrines that were taught in the 1950's bigotry and discrimination were considered serious moral offences. Still religiously observant people certainly despite the teachings of their faith bought into the cultural mindset of the age. Or look at Germany in the years leading up to WWII. Hitler and the Third Reich changed the German culture that despite being mostly Lutheran and Christian got German Christians to be accepting of genocide and mass murder based mostly on race despite their obvious violation of the basic religious tenets of Christianity.

It is cultural and not religious values that most people will support when there is a contradiction. So in the 1950's even though the Church clearly taught that racism is sinful many Catholics were overt racists. I remember reading some of the documentation that was put together for the canonization of St. Katherine Drexel who opened schools for Blacks and Native Americans throughout the US and did so with her own money. She would always asked the local Bishop's permission before she opened a school in his diocese. One Bishop who was from the south (and this was in the 1930's) wrote back to her stating: "Madam, I may be a Christian and a gentleman but I am first and foremost a southerner, permission denied". Even for a Catholic Bishop the culture superseded the teachings of his religious practice.

Things are not much different today. When surveys are taken we learn that most Catholics go along with the culture on issues like contraception and abortion and now the redefinition of marriage despite the teaching of the Church. So it would seem that most people go along with the culture first and then whatever part of their religion that does not conflict with the culture. Granted it is hard to stand against the culture when required but that is at this point in history our calling as Christians.

That's why being a Christian is counter-cultural. Back in the last century plenty of Catholics stood against the racist values of the culture. St. Katherine Drexel was certainly one of them along with many Bishops who made sure their Catholic schools were integrated. And they paid the price of being vilified and marginalized, often cut off from the favor of the ruling classes.

So all this is to say that if you plan to adhere to current Church teaching you will be counter-cultural. Maybe this is why Jesus always referred to his followers as the "little flock" and the "salt of the earth" or the "leaven in the dough". We may not be many, that is the faithful who stay adhered to the Shepherd, but we will be the light of the world, offering clear guidance to those who seek to navigate the distorted vision of the human person that our culture so intensely promotes.

It's a long-term strategy and things may get worse before they get better. But success is not the measurement. All that is required is simple faithfulness. Simple but not easy.

Love, Father John B.

[olmctempe]

Final Exam

Dear Friends,

Graduations abound this time of year. Here's a reminder that education is supposed to teach you how to think. The student who took this test apparently learned how to think and quite humorously but not exactly as the teacher would have liked:

In which battle did Napoleon die? His last one

Where was the Declaration of Independence signed? At the bottom of the page

River Ravi flows in which state? Liquid state

What is the main reason for divorce? Marriage

What is the main reason for exams? Failure

What can you never eat for breakfast? Lunch or Dinner What looks like half an apple? The other half

If you threw a red stone into the Blue Sea what would it become? Simply a wet stone

How can a man go 8 days without sleeping? Easy sleep at night

How can you lift an elephant with one hand? You can never lift an elephant that has only one hand

If you had 3 apples and 4 oranges in one hand and 3 oranges and 4 apples in the other hand, what would you have? Very large hands

If it took 8 men 10 hours to build a brick wall, how long would it take 4 men to build it? No time at all, the wall was already built

How can you drop a raw egg on a concrete floor without cracking it? Anyway you want because a concrete floor is very hard to crack

Did he answer the questions correctly? Well he didn't give the answers the teacher was looking to get. But then again he answered most of the questions correctly as written. You need to know something about the rules of grammar to understand that (verbs go with the nearest noun etc.). Still the teacher gave the student an F but an A for creativity. Somehow I think this kid will go far in life!

Let's keep all our graduates at any level in our prayers and challenge them to go out into the world and make a difference.

Let's also remember and thank all the teachers who helped form and shape the minds and hearts of our children.

[olmctempe]

The Road Less Travelled

Dear Friends,

The "road less traveled" is not the smoothest road. Anyone who takes being a Christian seriously will eventually find him or herself on that road. I don't just mean because of the challenges that come from without, whether persecutions, hostility or suffering personal loss because of your beliefs. Often the most difficult part resides within our own spiritual journeys. God has a way of being very exacting of his children. And for good reason: He wants us to live the abundant life. It's just that sometimes it seems as though He makes the grade in the road especially steep!

One of the reasons for this is that the Christian life is a life of virtue. And virtue is honed through experience. It is very easy to be virtuous when all is well; the road is smooth and difficulties scarce. It's another thing when the road less traveled is rough and uphill. That is where our true character is revealed and we see whether or not we have really internalized the life of grace and virtue.

It's relatively easy to practice charity when you have a lot to give. But when times are lean are you still willing to give? Remember the "widow's mite", Jesus praised her willingness to give from the little she had. She did not rationalize withholding her gift but despite her meager circumstances she freely gave and did not consider not giving. She practiced virtue when it mattered.

How about the virtue of chastity? Again rather easy to practice it when you are a single person. But when you get involved in a romantic relationship it becomes a lot more of a challenge. And if you get engaged to be married it becomes even easier to rationalize not remaining chaste with your fiancée. Then there is the practice of viewing pornography. We can easily justify it by saying no one will know or it's only pictures and doesn't involve another person. Being virtuous when no one is looking is probably the hardest of all. But that is precisely the place where we will know who we really are. That will spell the difference between loving or loathing ourselves.

We begin to walk the road less traveled when we commit our lives to Christ. But have we really committed all of our life to Christ? We can only know as we walk the road and encounter the difficulties of the journey. Have I really surrendered everything to Christ, am I willing to do whatever it takes to be faithful even when it is inconvenient? Or have I only given part of my life to Christ, the nice neat easy part?

What happens say if my marriage ends in divorce? Am I willing to live by the teaching of Christ that to remarry (without having the first marriage declared null) would be to commit adultery? Am I willing to walk that road less traveled? Or do I tell myself "I deserve to be happy" and then do what I want?

What happens when things don't go your way? Do you act like a teenager and become rebellious and hostile and ungrateful for all that has been done for you? Does your speech deteriorate into gossip and slander; do you plot revenge to get back at the one who wronged you? Or do you continue to walk the road less traveled with grace and dignity despite the loss? How about when a colleague undermines you? Do you react with bitterness and antagonism or do you practice the virtues of love and tolerance, forbearance and mercy?

This Pentecost Sunday our newly baptized and confirmed complete their formal period of formation in the Christian way of life. They set out now on the road less traveled. For them there will be struggles and setbacks. They need the rest of us to show them how to walk the road. But we can't be of service to them if we ourselves have ceased to walk the road less traveled.

The gifts of the Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord have been bestowed upon us. But we only know if we have activated them by the fruits they bear or not. Are charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control and chastity evident in our life when the road is difficult or no one is looking? If they are then you are walking the road less traveled and that will make all the difference.

Love, Fr. John B.

[olmctempe]

RFRA Indiana Version

Dear Friends,

So the Indiana Governor signs into law a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and gay freak out ensues, political propaganda feeding mob hysteria. Here in AZ we experienced a similar brouhaha in March 2014 (I explained it all in my letters of 2 & 9 March '14). Simply put the original RFRA was first signed into law by President Clinton after almost unanimous congressional support. It was one of the few times that Congress was able to effectively reign in the power of the Supreme Court by restoring the "balancing test" that the court had used for decades in deciding cases of religious liberty but jettisoned in a 1990 Court case.

That case involved a small Native American group that used a psychoactive substance in their religious services. The substance fell under the Controlled Substances Act and therefore was illegal to possess. The court ruled that a law of general applicability like the Controlled Substances Act did not specifically target religion and therefore in this case trumped religious freedom. In other words a religious exemption could not trump a law of general applicability. Up to that case the court had used the "balancing test" to see if government had a strong enough compelling interest to restrict religious rights, the balance between governmental interest and religious liberty. After that ruling the liberals and conservatives in Congress got up in arms and accused the court of restricting religious liberty. Hence was born the 1993 RFRA.

The RFRA includes the word "restoration" since it sought to restore the earlier jurisprudence standard. The law itself is crafted very well. In a nutshell it says that in order for the government to substantially burden someone's or a groups religious practice it must have a compelling reason to do so and must do it in the least restrictive way possible. This law applies only on the Federal level and each state must pass its own version if it chooses. AZ has its own version of RFRA and in March of 2014 tried to tweak it when all hell broke loose. The tweaking of the law was intended to include disputes that arose not only between government and individuals but also between private individuals. Basically the law would allow a person to use in court a religious practice defense in a lawsuit. It does not mean you will win, just that the law recognizes religious practice as a legitimate defense. In fact in the few cases it has been invoked as a defense for refusal to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony the defendants have lost.

The question to ask is why in the 1990's the law was so highly applauded but in 2015 it has been demonized? The reason is that in the 1990's the law helped out a favored constituency of many (Native Americans) but in 2015 the law has been used to help a non-favored constituency (religious believers especially Christians.)

It is also important to note that the "balancing test" that now is under assault is used in most courts in free societies today. In fact most free societies realize that balancing governmental interests and individual religious liberty is important to keep us free and prevent the slide into totalitarianism. From that point of view it is ironic that so many voices in "the land of the free" want to trash the standard. The freedom to live by one's conscience is absolutely foundational to a free society.

The RFRA itself says nothing about gays or same-sex marriage but for some reason a contrived crisis of gay discrimination has been advanced and "religious liberty" is now code word for gay discrimination. This is a completely outlandish idea as RFRA covers a large swath of issues. The law was most recently used successfully to defend a Muslim prisoner who wanted to grow a beard while incarcerated. It also was used successfully to defend Hobby Lobby in the contraception mandate case and it is frequently used to protect medical providers from being forced to be complicit in medical procedures that violate their conscience. The insistence that Indiana's law was solely designed to make it difficult to have a caterer, a florist or a photographer at a same sex wedding shows how incredibly self-centered the gay community can be. The vicious attacks on the Pizza Shop owner who said his moral beliefs would prohibit him from participating in a ss wedding reveal a very hateful side to the gay community. Add it all up and it shows us that any thought that we could reach an accommodation in our society to respect each other's position is gone. Put it this way if you are unwilling to dance with the groom and groom expect the full force of the government and social media to be used against you.

One final point, you may recall that when Hobby Lobby made the argument that businesses or corporations have religious or conscience rights they were laughed out the room. Well now really big corporations like Wal-Mart and Apple rushed to condemn Indiana's version of RFRA as morally offensive and threatened not to do business there. So it seems that corporations do have more than profit as their reason for being. Once again the same crowd that claimed that Hobby Lobby had no moral or religious claim to influence its business practice are all applauding Apple and Wal-Mart for using moral principles to influence their business decisions.

What would happen without a RFRA is that at a certain point religious believers will simply be excluded from many professions. The physician who refuses to perform an abortion or euthanize his patient will be told he is disqualified from practicing medicine. Those who hold the position that marriage is between one man and one woman will be disqualified for all sorts of jobs if not polite society itself. And of course it could always go the opposite direction and those who trash RFRA ought to consider that. If everyone's voice is not heard in the public square and only one side is allowed to speak we begin the slide towards totalitarianism.

Love, Fr. John B.