Monday, February 13, 2012

Celebrating St. Valentines Day?

Am I the only one that has noticed commercials for St. Valentine’s day have become much ‘racier’ than in the past? From the Super Bowl Victoria’s Secret commercial to floral ads promoting flowers for sex. Both of them encouraging us to give the gift of lingerie so they can ‘get it’ tonight. Or Tela-floral Flowers encouraging men to pony up because IF you “Give … and you shall receive.” (This is a BLAITANT distortion of a promise in Scripture) Why aren’t the women’s libbers speaking out about this stuff? Why aren’t women in general? Why aren’t people in general? I can only assume it must be because they like it too, or it goes ‘right over their heads’ because they don’t know any better, or worse yet they just don't care. We have truly forgotten what the true meaning of LOVE is. We have become a sexual oriented society at the cost of the dignity of the human being whether male or female. People often desire sex for purely SELFISH reasons and often never look at the consequences.

Each year there seems to be less and less talk of True Love, Affection, and appreciation for the person. It seems it is only “How can I (ME) ‘get it’ tonight, and with whom. The most beautiful act of creation; the act of a man and woman coming together as one, has turned into advertisements with the most selfish of motives and is ‘all about ME’ and how can I be satisfied. It is almost like Prostitution… I’ll give you flowers or lingerie or a beautiful box of candy or even jewelry, perfume, tickets to the game, tickets for two to the spa, etc. ALL in exchange for some “getting it” tonight. Think about it… what does this say about who we have become and what does it tell our children. They are seeing it all going on ‘un-checked’!

I long for the old days when “Love” was more important than the “sex”. You loved your partner because you made a CONCIOUS decision to do so. On St. Valentines Day you exchanged gifts in appreciation for the other person. It was NOT so that you could get selfish sex. Do you or your friends even KNOW WHO this “St. Valentine” was? I bet you DO NOT! Well let me tell you who St. Valentine was. He was a third century priest (presbytery) who served in Rome. Claudius was Emperor of Rome at the time and thought young men would be better GLADIATORS rather than Husbands and fathers. HE essentially outlawed MARRIAGE (something we seem to have done all on our own in less than 75 years in the US). He ‘drafted’ all the young men to be Gladiators who would entertain him by fighting to the death.  St. Valentine knew the importance of marriage and family and defied Claudius. He would marry young couples in secret. Eventually he was caught and Claudius had him put to death making him one of the early martyrs of the Church. The Development of the ‘holiday’ that we celebrate is based on this account mixed with other legends and stories of the MUTUAL Love and Devotion of men and women who were ‘Valentines’ over the ages. Almost un-recognizable today… isn’t it?

The Holiday was initially meant as a day when a man and a woman would celebrate their love and devotion to one another. It was a conscious decision, a commitment at working to insure that their Love would last. They were giving wholly of themselves. This was when they knew what REAL LOVE was and … still can be.  LOVE is not something that you buy, or earn, or bargain for, or ‘trick’ people into doing. The true definition of Love is, “a conscious decision to always desire the good of the ‘other’ as ‘other’.” That means you desire the good of the other more than breathe itself, simply because of who they are. It is a mutual decision that two people consciously make and keep, working hard at, together, communicating, to keep that focus. We all know that relationships require working TOGETHER. We all need to revisit this true meaning of Love and to celebrate it in a way that St. Valentine would know that his sacrifice for TRUE LOVE was not in vain. Think about it, won’t you?

Finally, I wish all of you in a relationship, a happy St. Valentine’s Day. I hope that you revisit for yourselves the true meaning of the day and COMMITT (I know that’s a dirty word to some people) yourselves wholly to one another as St. Valentine would have encouraged you too.

Until Next time May God Bless and keep you and yours,

Thursday, September 29, 2011

CATHOLICSM: with Fr. Robert Barron

As Fr. Barron states "...the story of Catholicism has been told by many."  Mostly by people that don't like it to much.  Here the CHURCH tells it's own story on it's own terms.  This spectatular sereies will be the treasure of the Church ... at least for the first half... if not all of the 21st. Century.  If you are a Catholic who loves the chruch you will love this sereies.  IF you are a Catholic who has fallen away, this series will inspire you to once again take a look at your faith.  IF you are against the Catholic Church at least be objective enough to watch and so that we may tell you our story from our own perspective.  Like Fr. Barron said... so many have told the story and NOW we would like the opportunity to tell it ourselves.

This 10 Epeside Serries is coming to DVD and 4 of the Epesides will be on TV.  EWTN will be showing them on the Following Dates and Times.

11/16/11 U.S./Canada/Europe 8:00 PM EST EWTN

11/17/11 U.S./Canada/Europe 11:00 PM EST EWTN

11/18/11 U.S./Canada/Europe 10:00 PM EST EWTN

11/19/11 U.S./Canada/Europe 1:00 PM EST EWTN

Until next time,
God Bless and Keep You.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Pope Benedict XVI delivers HISTORIC speach to German Parliament durring HISTORIC VISIT

Pope BendictXVI addresesd the German Parliament today delivering a speach that every citizen of every country of western civilization needs to read!  What he identifies to parlimant can be applied to every governing body in the western world; and to every citizen as well.  Please take the time to read his speach and share it with your politicains, ESPECIALLY if they are Catholic.  I DO NOT THINK THERE IS A SOUL IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION THAT COULD TRULY AND HONESTLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.  Below is the text of his speach published on the internet.

Pope's Address to German Parliament

by Edward Pentin Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:30 AM Comments (1)

Mr President of the Federal Republic,
Mr President of the Bundestag,
Madam Chancellor,
Mr President of the Bundesrat,
Ladies and Gentlemen Members of the House,

It is an honour and a joy for me to speak before this distinguished house, before the Parliament of my native Germany, that meets here as a democratically elected representation of the people, in order to work for the good of the Federal Republic of Germany. I should like to thank the President of the Bundestag both for his invitation to deliver this address and for the kind words of greeting and appreciation with which he has welcomed me. At this moment I turn to you, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, not least as your fellow-countryman who for all his life has been conscious of close links to his origins, and has followed the affairs of his native Germany with keen interest. But the invitation to give this address was extended to me as Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, who bears the highest responsibility for Catholic Christianity. In issuing this invitation you are acknowledging the role that the Holy See plays as a partner within the community of peoples and states. Setting out from this international responsibility that I hold, I should like to propose to you some thoughts on the foundations of a free state of law.
Allow me to begin my reflections on the foundations of law [Recht] with a brief story from sacred Scripture. In the First Book of the Kings, it is recounted that God invited the young King Solomon, on his accession to the throne, to make a request. What will the young ruler ask for at this important moment? Success – wealth – long life – destruction of his enemies? He chooses none of these things. Instead, he asks for a listening heart so that he may govern God’s people, and discern between good and evil (cf. 1 Kg 3:9). Through this story, the Bible wants to tell us what should ultimately matter for a politician. His fundamental criterion and the motivation for his work as a politician must not be success, and certainly not material gain. Politics must be a striving for justice, and hence it has to establish the fundamental preconditions for peace. Naturally a politician will seek success, as this is what opens up for him the possibility of effective political action. Yet success is subordinated to the criterion of justice, to the will to do what is right, and to the understanding of what is right. Success can also be seductive and thus can open up the path towards the falsification of what is right, towards the destruction of justice. “Without justice – what else is the State but a great band of robbers?”, as Saint Augustine once said. We Germans know from our own experience that these words are no empty spectre. We have seen how power became divorced from right, how power opposed right and crushed it, so that the State became an instrument for destroying right – a highly organized band of robbers, capable of threatening the whole world and driving it to the edge of the abyss. To serve right and to fight against the dominion of wrong is and remains the fundamental task of the politician. At a moment in history when man has acquired previously inconceivable power, this task takes on a particular urgency. Man can destroy the world. He can manipulate himself. He can, so to speak, make human beings and he can deny them their humanity. How do we recognize what is right? How can we discern between good and evil, between what is truly right and what may appear right? Even now, Solomon’s request remains the decisive issue facing politicians and politics today.
For most of the matters that need to be regulated by law, the support of the majority can serve as a sufficient criterion. Yet it is evident that for the fundamental issues of law, in which the dignity of man and of humanity is at stake, the majority principle is not enough: everyone in a position of responsibility must personally seek out the criteria to be followed when framing laws. In the third century, the great theologian Origen provided the following explanation for the resistance of Christians to certain legal systems: “Suppose that a man were living among the Scythians, whose laws are contrary to the divine law, and was compelled to live among them ... such a man for the sake of the true law, though illegal among the Scythians, would rightly form associations with like-minded people contrary to the laws of the Scythians.” 2
This conviction was what motivated resistance movements to act against the Nazi regime and other totalitarian regimes, thereby doing a great service to justice and to humanity as a whole. For these people, it was indisputably evident that the law in force was actually unlawful. Yet when it comes to the decisions of a democratic politician, the question of what now corresponds to the law of truth, what is actually right and may be enacted as law, is less obvious. In terms of the underlying anthropological issues, what is right and may be given the force of law is in no way simply self-evident today. The question of how to recognize what is truly right and thus to serve justice when framing laws has never been simple, and today in view of the vast extent of our knowledge and our capacity, it has become still harder.
How do we recognize what is right? In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity. Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed body of law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God. Christian theologians thereby aligned themselves with a philosophical and juridical movement that began to take shape in the second century B.C. In the first half of that century, the social natural law developed by the Stoic philosophers came into contact with leading teachers of Roman Law.3 Through this encounter, the juridical culture of the West was born, which was and is of key significance for the juridical culture of mankind. This pre-Christian marriage between law and philosophy opened up the path that led via the Christian Middle Ages and the juridical developments of the Age of Enlightenment all the way to the Declaration of Human Rights and to our German Basic Law of 1949, with which our nation committed itself to “inviolable and inalienable human rights as the foundation of every human community, and of peace and justice in the world”.
For the development of law and for the development of humanity, it was highly significant that Christian theologians aligned themselves against the religious law associated with polytheism and on the side of philosophy, and that they acknowledged reason and nature in their interrelation as the universally valid source of law. This step had already been taken by Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans, when he said: “When Gentiles who have not the Law [the Torah of Israel] do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves ... they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness ...” (Rom 2:14f.). Here we see the two fundamental concepts of nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing other than Solomon’s listening heart, reason that is open to the language of being. If this seemed to offer a clear explanation of the foundations of legislation up to the time of the Enlightenment, up to the time of the Declaration on Human Rights after the Second World War and the framing of our Basic Law, there has been a dramatic shift in the situation in the last half-century. The idea of natural law is today viewed as a specifically Catholic doctrine, not worth bringing into the discussion in a non-Catholic environment, so that one feels almost ashamed even to mention the term. Let me outline briefly how this situation arose. Fundamentally it is because of the idea that an unbridgeable gulf exists between “is” and “ought”. An “ought” can never follow from an “is”, because the two are situated on completely different planes. The reason for this is that in the meantime, the positivist understanding of nature and reason has come to be almost universally accepted. If nature – in the words of Hans Kelsen – is viewed as “an aggregate of objective data linked together in terms of cause and effect”, then indeed no ethical indication of any kind can be derived from it.4 A positivist conception of nature as purely functional, in the way that the natural sciences explain it, is incapable of producing any bridge to ethics and law, but once again yields only functional answers. The same also applies to reason, according to the positivist understanding that is widely held to be the only genuinely scientific one. Anything that is not verifiable or falsifiable, according to this understanding, does not belong to the realm of reason strictly understood. Hence ethics and religion must be assigned to the subjective field, and they remain extraneous to the realm of reason in the strict sense of the word. Where positivist reason dominates the field to the exclusion of all else – and that is broadly the case in our public mindset – then the classical sources of knowledge for ethics and law are excluded. This is a dramatic situation which affects everyone, and on which a public debate is necessary. Indeed, an essential goal of this address is to issue an urgent invitation to launch one.
The positivist approach to nature and reason, the positivist world view in general, is a most important dimension of human knowledge and capacity that we may in no way dispense with. But in and of itself it is not a sufficient culture corresponding to the full breadth of the human condition. Where positivist reason considers itself the only sufficient culture and banishes all other cultural realities to the status of subcultures, it diminishes man, indeed it threatens his humanity. I say this with Europe specifically in mind, where there are concerted efforts to recognize only positivism as a common culture and a common basis for law-making, so that all the other insights and values of our culture are reduced to the level of subculture, with the result that Europe vis-à-vis other world cultures is left in a state of culturelessness and at the same time extremist and radical movements emerge to fill the vacuum. In its self-proclaimed exclusivity, the positivist reason which recognizes nothing beyond mere functionality resembles a concrete bunker with no windows, in which we ourselves provide lighting and atmospheric conditions, being no longer willing to obtain either from God’s wide world. And yet we cannot hide from ourselves the fact that even in this artificial world, we are still covertly drawing upon God’s raw materials, which we refashion into our own products. The windows must be flung open again, we must see the wide world, the sky and the earth once more and learn to make proper use of all this.
But how are we to do this? How do we find our way out into the wide world, into the big picture? How can reason rediscover its true greatness, without being sidetracked into irrationality? How can nature reassert itself in its true depth, with all its demands, with all its directives? I would like to recall one of the developments in recent political history, hoping that I will neither be misunderstood, nor provoke too many one-sided polemics. I would say that the emergence of the ecological movement in German politics since the 1970s, while it has not exactly flung open the windows, nevertheless was and continues to be a cry for fresh air which must not be ignored or pushed aside, just because too much of it is seen to be irrational. Young people had come to realize that something is wrong in our relationship with nature, that matter is not just raw material for us to shape at will, but that the earth has a dignity of its own and that we must follow its directives. In saying this, I am clearly not promoting any particular political party – nothing could be further from my mind. If something is wrong in our relationship with reality, then we must all reflect seriously on the whole situation and we are all prompted to question the very foundations of our culture. Allow me to dwell a little longer on this point. The importance of ecology is no longer disputed. We must listen to the language of nature and we must answer accordingly. Yet I would like to underline a further point that is still largely disregarded, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he listens to his nature, respects it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.
Let us come back to the fundamental concepts of nature and reason, from which we set out. The great proponent of legal positivism, Kelsen, at the age of 84 – in 1965 – abandoned the dualism of “is” and “ought”. He had said that norms can only come from the will. Nature therefore could only contain norms if a will had put them there. But this would presuppose a Creator God, whose will had entered into nature. “Any attempt to discuss the truth of this belief is utterly futile”, he observed.5 Is it really? – I find myself asking. Is it really pointless to wonder whether the objective reason that manifests itself in nature does not presuppose a creative reason, a Creator Spiritus?
At this point Europe’s cultural heritage ought to come to our assistance. The conviction that there is a Creator God is what gave rise to the idea of human rights, the idea of the equality of all people before the law, the recognition of the inviolability of human dignity in every single person and the awareness of people’s responsibility for their actions. Our cultural memory is shaped by these rational insights. To ignore it or dismiss it as a thing of the past would be to dismember our culture totally and to rob it of its completeness. The culture of Europe arose from the encounter between Jerusalem, Athens and Rome – from the encounter between Israel’s monotheism, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and Roman law. This three-way encounter has shaped the inner identity of Europe. In the awareness of man’s responsibility before God and in the acknowledgment of the inviolable dignity of every single human person, it has established criteria of law: it is these criteria that we are called to defend at this moment in our history.
As he assumed the mantle of office, the young King Solomon was invited to make a request. How would it be if we, the law-makers of today, were invited to make a request? What would we ask for? I think that, even today, there is ultimately nothing else we could wish for but a listening heart – the capacity to discern between good and evil, and thus to establish true law, to serve justice and peace. Thank you for your attention!

Read more:
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI addressed the 

Laborers in the Vineyard.

The Gospel reading for this past Sunday was from the 20th Chapter of Matthew.  It was the telling of the UNFAIR labor practices of the landowner who paid some people much more than he did others, who worked longer hours.   He showed mercy on those who, although they did not work as long a day as some of the others; He gave them the same reward –‘pay’.  I say thank GOD for the mercy of the ‘Landowner’.  Here’s why…

You see, I am one of those people in the 'vineyard' who went astray, and didn’t get to the vineyard until later in the ‘day’.  I took the wrong turn and didn't get to the vineyard to find work right away.  My family prayed that I’d find my way back there, because I had been there once before.  They knew that I was a 'decent guy’ but it wasn't until MUCH later that I actually found my way back to the vineyard and was able to receive 'gainful employment' there.  When I finish my work in the vineyard as do the rest of my fellow workers... I sure do hope that the landowner is good to me.  I hope that he takes into consideration that I’ve done my best while outside of His vineyard.  I got confused and lost, and was working elsewhere.  Do you know what I mean? 
You see, my fellow workers ... if we look at the vineyard as the kingdom of heaven... it isn't really about the ‘money’ we are going to get paid... it is about gaining access to the 'eternal vineyard' when we ‘retire’.  That is TRULY what we are all looking for, isn’t it?  In the end, we are either 'in' or 'out'.  I just pray the landowner won’t ‘dock’ me for losing my way.  After all, I tried to do the same work elsewhere, just not according to the specifications, policies, and procedures he had in his vineyard.  I am just happy I finally found my way back to his.   Although I made it to his vineyard latter than I should have... I hope he takes my honest efforts elsewhere, into consideration.  When it comes to the end of my ‘day’ in the vineyard, I hope he lets me retire in his ‘eternal vineyard’.  I know I didn’t spend as much time laboring in THIS vineyard as some of you, but I WAS working hard in another vineyard to supply wine to the rest of the world.  I hope he is merciful and allows me access in the end.

My friends… it’s all about God’s Grace.  I give thanks and praise to Almighty God that HE is the landowner and not one of the other workers who have been employed there for decades.  Me is a merciful Landowner and should someone work much less time in the vineyard than I … I want THEM to be able to retire right along with me.  I am mindful of a brother who HATES ALL WINE and wants nothing to do with it.  Hopefully… he’ll come around in time for the Landowner to employ him as well.  What do you think?

Until Next time… May God Bless and Keep you and yours.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Quote for Today.

"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought."   --Bl. John Paul the Great

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Quote for Today:

"The sickness of a family member, friend or neighbor is a call to Christians to demonstrate true compassion, that gentle and persevering sharing in another’s pain."  ---Pope John Paul II

Tuesday, August 2, 2011


As a Catholic Returning to the Church after 25 years in the Evangelical Church, I find myself ‘missing’ the reverence I had experienced as a young Catholic.  So many changes and experiments have been tried in so many dioceses across the United States.  There has been the use of crystal rather than gold for patens and chalices.  There were modern music experiments, removal of kneelers, moving of the tabernacle to less obvious places or to small adoration chapels completely.  I have not seen ALL of these changes here in my own dioceses, but have witnessed them as I travel around the State and the south of the US.

One of the first things I noticed with my return was the number of people who no longer genuflect or even bow before the tabernacle prior to entering the pew or passing by the front center, naïve of the church.  I have witnessed a few parents doing it, but their children walking right past them to hurry into the pew before them.  IT seems the only people who reverence the Alter and tabernacle these days are our Priests and Deacons, and of course the white and gray haired members.  Why don’t we ALL follow their example?

There has been much debate about this in the American Church and I do not think it is will end anytime soon.  I expect it will continue to come up especially when people see the changes coming to the Mass this fall with the New Roman Missal.  I applaud the changes, but I must admit I wish there were more changes coming with it.  I would consider it a ‘missed opportunity’ to NOT simultaneously implement additional changes that many Faithful Catholics long to see.  With the New Roman Missal, it would be a PERFECT opportunity to restore the reception of the holy EUCHARIST on the tongue and kneeling.  SO many of us receive it as if it is a ‘lunch line’ and especially the young people who probably have little or no idea what ‘reverence’ is.  Re-establishing the practice would highlight the importance, reverence and respect that so many seem to be missing in their experience.  It would re-establish for us a ‘teaching moment’ for all times.  Children will ask, "WHY do we kneel?"  Why on the Tongue?  Do YOU know why?

I had mentioned in a previous blog that the Church in the US has a kind of ‘variance’ in receiving communion.  Pope Benedict presently and rightly administers the sacrament of the Eucharist to communicants who are kneeling and on the Tongue.  In the US, our Bishops voted and sought for a variance several decades ago.  Although the OFFICIAL CHURCH teaching and practice is that we should all receive it kneeling and on the tongue.  IN the US, with the coming new Roman Missal we will find changes in the liturgy that re-establish original intentions and wording that the Church in her practices has changed.  In hindsight, it was a mistake to make some of these changes and therefore ‘corrections’ and tweaking… if you will… are restoring original meaning and intentions.  Again, I wish that we could restore the practice of receiving our Lord at the Eucharist while kneeling and on the tongue at the same time so that we have complete continuity with the rest of the Catholic Church and especially our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.    

What do you think?  I would be interested to hear some of your thoughts.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Multiplication of Loaves and Fishes: Fact or Fiction?

I came across this blog that Discusses whether the Multiplication of Loaves and Fishes was simply 'sharing of the crowd' or a 'MIRACLE' of Jesus'.  It is worth your attention.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Quote for Today.

"Finally, true freedom is not advanced in the permissive society, which confuses freedom with license to do anything whatever and which in the name of freedom proclaims a kind of general amorality (immorality). It is a caricature of freedom to claim that people are free to organize their lives with no reference to moral values, and to say that society does not have to ensure the protection and advancement of ethical values. Such an attitude is destructive of freedom and peace." 
                                                                                                    –Blessed Pope John Paul II


I went to the Yearly “Gatherin’ at the River” this past week and I had a great time seeing my extended family and so many friends.  I saw a cousin that I have not seen in almost 25 years.  IT is WONDERFUL to be able to get together with so many of my family members.  At the Gatherin’, there were more than 75 people for dinner.  MOREOVER, there were 20 to 30 there for several days afterwards.  I thank God for my sister Mary who hosts this yearly gatherin’ with the warmest and most welcoming smile.  She truly has the gift of hospitality!  Thank you too, for all the ‘helpers’: cooks, bakers, kettle washers, and cleanup crew.   “Many Hands Make Light Work!” WE are truly a FAMILY BLESSED!

Getting together with so many people can be very interesting sometimes.  There may be a spat or brief argument, but it is quickly squashed.  In addition, sometimes there is some LIVELY discussion going on that NOT everyone is excited about.  You know what I mean… when people start talking politics, investments, and the most TABOO subject of all… RELIGON.  MANY of MY generation feel that you should NEVER talk about these subjects, because we need to be tolerant and accepting of other opinions.  However, in the process my generation has also lost the ART of CONVERSATION… REAL CONVERSATION.  You see, because we have been taught that; we no longer practice it and as a result do not keep up to date on issues of politics, history and most important our faith or religion.  We have a tendency to leave that to the Politicians, (yeah… like they are doing a great job with that in Washington?!) priest, and financial planners.  WE no longer do our own homework … but rely on these people to do ALL our ‘thinking’ for us.  IN the process… we become uninformed, we are unable to THINK critically, forget history, forget what it means to be a Democrat or Republican, and we forget the important tenants of our FAITH.  There is REAL TRUTH in… “You don’t use it? YOU LOSE IT!”

Last year in 2010, I don’t remember exactly; I was having a discussion with one of my relatives about religion.  THERE WERE SEVERAL people SQUIRMING in their seats… or shall I say CRINGING!  I was debating religion with a young man who didn’t agree with me.  YES, we both were a little heated… but stopped and said… WAIT a MINUTE… let us listen one at a time.  However, before we said that… one of my older relatives told me to stop talking about this “… you don’t talk about Politics and Religion, because we don’t want any arguments!”  He was emphatic.  I immediately said… “WAIT a minute… if we don’t ‘TALK’ about this stuff HOW are we going to LEARN (especially the younger people)?”
The problem with this mentality of NOT talking about these… the most important subjects of the human experience… we SHIRK our responsibilities as parents by not PASSING on our ‘life experience’.  Our kids learn from TEACHERS, and FRIENDS, and “ACTIVISTS”, at the bar, the street, school, and ESPECIALLY on COLLEGE CAMPUSES!  WHEN do they hear about REAL LIFE APPLICATION from US?  I am not saying that as adults we are always right.  In fact, when I talk and debate with the younger generation, I find some VERY interesting OBSERVATIONS.  THEY ARE NOT STUPID!  Misguided… maybe. J  THEY have a lot to SAY… but have only heard it from the sources I have mentioned.  THEY NEED TO HEAR it from US as well.  THEY need to know why we as adults think the way we do and they need to hear about history and life from the source itself… not from some history or sociology professor who has a liberal agenda and wants to teach their own version of HISTORY, philosophy, religion, and political agendas.

As Parents, we often have been so busy at work and making money so that we can send our kids to college to get the best education and opportunities, so that they have the tools they need to live a full and productive life.  We send them there, often with our money, to have them 'BRAINWASHED' into thinking like a 'progressive adult' and then when they get out of college we wonder WHO THE HECK IS THIS KID?   WE forget about the simple things.  EVEN I AM guilty of not giving my kids what they needed the most.  MY TIME, MY PHILOSOPHY, my LIFE experience, MY HISTORY.  THESE are the things that books can’t teach.  It is our UNWRITTEN WORDS… the SPOKEN word…that we need to give more of.  LIFE in RELATIONSHIPS… communications on the more than 'normal' or ‘surface level.'  IT’s NOT easy, it can get hot at times and IT takes a lot of work.  Maybe that is why we don’t want to talk about politics and religion…because we either don’t remember, don’t stay current, or are just plain to busy or TIRED to try.  As a result, we are NOT TALKING to our kids about what is REALLY important and IMPORTANT to US.  FOLKS… this is the ONLY way we can hand down the important things in life… the OBJECTIVE TRUTHS that we all hold dear.  WE must start anew, before it gets any later.  IF we do not build these relationships and foster them, sharpen our debating skills by studying and keeping current… they will find the information they need to go forward from someone else.  Who will that someone be?    IF your kids are saying like mine have…  “DAD, you don’t have a clue, I’m not going to listen to you.”; “YOU just are too old fashioned and you are not ‘relative’ or ‘relevant’ anymore.”; “I learned it at college and I’m out in the world every day, why do I need to listen to you anymore.  I have my own opinions” And, they will finish by saying, “You aren’t saying anything that makes sense (cause you haven’t kept up) and I know better than you now.”  Folks, this happens every day and everywhere… somewhere.

Therefore, my friends the next time you are talking with your children and they reveal that they no longer believe in God.  BEFORE you fall over from those words, because you just do not understand where your kids were in Church every week… SHARPEN UP your skills.  PRAY for the Holy Spirit to help you. In addition, TALK, NO DEBATE your (adult) children … treating them as the equals that they are.  GUIDE them.  IF YOU DO NOT… CNN, ABC, FOX, MSNBC, and CBS with all their TV PERSONALITIES will all be there, along with the Teachers and College Professors doing the job for YOU.

Until Next time, May God Bless and Keep you.