Is it time to boycott Google?

And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you. And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men's hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in tribulation, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, you will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice, for the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not fail you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers which he swore to them.
– Deuteronomy 4:27-31

         -------

"I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father." His disciples said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure! Now we know that you know all things, and need none to question you; by this we believe that you came from God." Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe? The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. I have said this to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
 – John 16:28-33

Is Google too PC? Is it time to move my blog to WordPress?

The reason I ask is because I just noticed some strange and disturbing behavior on the part of the Google search engine. If you type in a search for "marriage equality" or "lgbt" or "gay marriage", you get a special search result that features the colors of the flag of the lgbt movement.

I thought that if I typed in USA, I might get a similar display featuring the colors of the American flag. But Google doesn't seem to swing that way.

It's also strange that the user is not "rewarded" with the special lgbt colors for a search of "homosexual marriage". I guess that is not considered PC enough by the Google elite.

As a corporation, Google is free to do whatever it wants within the law. Google is known for extending benefits to homosexual partners. It is also known for having supported Obama in the presidential election. Here's a list of the top 10 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign in 2008.

I have admired Google in the past for taking an independent path with regards to technology. That was a key factor in my choosing Blogger/Blogspot, which is owned by Google, as the location of my blog.

But I don't think it is proper to taint Google search results with a pro lgbt symbol. I rely heavily on Google as a search engine. And I rely on Google's results being politically neutral. It would be all too easy for Google to tamper with search results in order to favor one company or one ideology. I'm not saying that Google is doing this or plans to do this. But I think that Google is sending a dangerous message by in effect "endorsing" the lgbt movement within its search results.

Try it yourself. What do you think? Is this a desirable "feature"? Has Google crossed the line? Is it time for Christians opposed to "homosexual marriage" to boycott Google?

It is time to stop serving the "gods of wood and stone", or in this case the gods of silicone and plastic. The LORD reveals to us through scripture what we truly should be searching for: "search after him with all your heart and with all your soul." And He makes us a promise: "you will find him"! These are the times of tribulation.

-----

Epilogue

As I was doing some further research for this article I came upon more relevant information:

• Google Raises Eyebrows With New Gay-Only Employee Benefit (July 01, 2010) – A new Google policy is raising some eyebrows after the company revealed it will be compensating employees for taxes paid on domestic partners' health benefits – but only if they’re gay.
• Our [Google's] position on California's No on 8 campaign (9/26/2008) – ... we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.... While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Google as a corporation has clearly chosen sides and is taking an activist role in support of the homosexual agenda. I don't see how this can be fair to Google employees that do not agree with the corporation on these issues, and in particular I'm thinking of Christians. Or is there a sign out in front of Google headquarters, "Christians need not apply here"?

Also, I'm old enough to remember the Rainbow Coalition. This was an outgrowth of the civl rights movement. Back then the rainbow represented the equality of all persons regardless of race or color. It seems to me that the "homosexual rights" movement has hijacked this symbol. This is another example of the homosexual movement attempting to piggyback on the success of the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was above all a Christian based movement that got its strength from the moral character of its cause. The homosexual movement attempts to make analogies with the civil rights movement by saying that they are fighting for "equal rights". But the case of "homosexual marriage" is not one of "equal rights" but simply a case of attempting to redefine an institution that has been a cornerstone of civilization for thousands of years. There is no moral justification for this. And those leading this cause are well aware that this will destabilize American society, and in particular the Christian foundations of American society.

The "right" to "homosexual marriage" has no historic precedent. It is a totally fabricated "right". If the homosexual community wants to argue that there should be laws that give longterm homosexual partners limited legal privileges (but not the same as a married couple) based on the nature of their relationship, then at least this could lead to a rational discussion. But to obfuscate the issue by referring to some non-existent fundamental "rights" that are peculiar to homosexuals is demagoguery. And then to speak of "marriage equality" for homosexuals is just to up the ante.

Demagoguery (from Wikipedia)

A strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda.

20th-century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

Though this definition emphasizes the use of lying and falsehoods, skilled demagogues often need to use only special emphasis by which an uncritical listener will be led to draw the desired conclusion themselves. Moreover, a demagogue may well believe his or her own arguments (for example, there are good reasons to assume that Adolf Hitler—certainly one of the most successful demagogues in history—sincerely believed his own anti-Jewish diatribes).

"In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
 – John 16:33

Dowd vs. the Church: Verily, Verily

St. Patrick's Cathedral NY, NY

"Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen; but you do not receive our testimony."
– John 3:11

Maureen Dowd must not have been feeling well Saturday morning. It seems she woke up and reflexively vomited up an article titled, "The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera".

In keeping with the New York Times policy of taking every opportunity to attack the Catholic Church, this article rehashes every anti-Catholic slur of the recent past. Why is it that Dowd is unable to write more than a few paragraphs about the Church without constantly returning to the issue of a small minority of priests that were guilty of child sexual abuse? And when will Dowd and other anti-Catholics learn the definition of "pedophile"? (And when will Dowd and other baby boomers finally admit that the radical feminism of the 60s was a failure?)

In the campaign to deny the religious rights of Christians, all sorts of new "rights" are created by the anti-Christians. We are supposed to be the intolerant ones, while the mere fact that some people don't like Christians is considered a good enough reason by the ACLU to force us to hide our faith from public view. Catacombs anyone?

Pulitzer prize winning Dowd, seems to have had an anti-Pulitzer moment when she penned such sophomoric slop as:

"The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying."

As a graduate of Catholic University, I would hope that Dowd would have a better understanding of what is at the "heart" of the Church, which is Christ. True hypocrisy is covering oneself with the cloak of tolerance and "rights" while being completely intolerant towards the Catholic faith and campaigning to destroy the fundamental right of religious freedom. (But I guess its OK when Dowd launches these attacks on the Church because she is herself a Mass-attending, Communion-receiving Catholic. Although she apparently holds many views that are in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Church. Like Cuomo, and Pelosi...)

I am thoroughly convinced that the main reason that Dowd et al. are so obsessed with the issue of homosexual "rights" at this time is that it conveniently allows them to further their anti-Christian agenda. As if the country and New York state didn't have much more pressing issues to deal with at this time. We can't make an inch of progress on real issues like the way that Wall Street moguls manipulate the economy, but politicians like Cuomo and Obama can proudly point to their progress on "gay rights". Yes, because that is what America is fundamentally about – the right to sexual promiscuity?

How did we go from "I have a dream" to "I have a sexual fantasy"? And I'm not just talking about homosexuals here.

On what basis was Rep. Weiner forced to abandon his political office if not on the basis of morality? And yet when the Catholic Church offers a moral argument against homosexual marriage, it is immediately repudiated a priori. Who are the hypocrites? Does morality matter to American society or not?

If morality does matter, then what do we base our moral system on? The answer to this question throughout American history has always been Christianity. Those Americans who reject Christianity as the basis of morality do not seem to understand that without that firm foundation, we are tossed about as a society as an earthquake causes people to lose their footing and their bearings; we are swept up as a tornado sweeps up houses, leaving behind a path of destruction; we are buffeted and submerged as a tsunami tears away people from their world and carries them far out to sea.

This unnatural disaster which we are experiencing as a society has its roots in the unnatural course that we have chosen over the past decades since the end of World War II. It began with the deceptions of Kinsey and Sanger and has ended with the deceptions of Obama. It began innocently with songs of peace and love, and has come to a crashing cacophonous orchestral crescendo with the campaign for homosexual "marriage". When did the unthinkable become the "inevitable"?

Oh and Maureen, notice that I didn't even bring up the oft repeated accusation against you of plagiarism in this article, because it is not relevant. The stringing together of a bunch of anti-Catholic clichés and then calling it an article is not an act of plagiarism, it simply demonstrates a lack of originality of thought.

----------

Epilogue: How much do I [Maureen Dowd] hate the Catholic Church? Let me count the ways.

Just so you don't think I'm exaggerating the nature of Dowd's diatribe let me give all the examples of allusions to the priest sex scandal in her 22 paragraph NYT op-ed. And remember this is an editorial written by a permanent columnist for the New York Times editorial page. Please ask yourself if this piece adheres to the professional standards of the NYT or any other reputable newspaper.

Paragraph 3. This entire introductory paragraph is dedicated to the scandal.

If only his church had been as ferocious in fighting against the true perversity against nature: the unending horror of pedophile priests and the children who trusted them.

Paragraph 10. Just warming up. Another full paragraph dedicated to raising the spectre of the scandal.

The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying.

Paragraph 11. What else? The scandal.

In yet another attempt at rationalization, the nation’s Catholic bishops — a group Dolan is now in charge of — put out a ridiculous five-year-study last month going with the “blame Woodstock” explanation for the sex-abuse scandal. The report suggested that the problem was caused by permissive secular society rather than cloistered church culture, because priests were trained in the turbulent free-love era. It concluded, absurdly, that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality were causes.

Paragraph 12. The scandal again rears its ugly head.

In another resistance to reform, the bishops voted on Thursday to keep their policies on sexual abuse by the clergy largely the same, with only small revisions, ignoring victims’ advocates who were hoping for meaningful changes.

Paragraph 13. Is anyone else getting tired of this?

At their meeting in Bellevue, Wash., one retired archbishop from Anchorage actually proposed an amendment to get rid of the “zero tolerance” provision on abuse so some guilty priests could return to parishes. That failed, at least. 

Paragraph 20. Don't worry, it's almost over.

And how about the right of a child not to be molested by the parish priest?

Paragraph 22. And a parting poke in the eye in the last paragraph.

Worn out by the rampant sexting of Anthony Weiner and the relentless blogging of Archbishop Dolan, I’m wondering if our institutions need to rejigger: Maybe pols should be celibate and priests should be married.

So let's see, that's 7 out of 22 paragraphs of an article ostensibly about the issue of homosexual "marriage" which ends up with nearly one third of the content raising the issue of the priest sex scandal. Come on Maureen! I'm sure you can do much better than that. Next time shoot for greater than 50%. Make the anti-Catholic crowd truly proud of you.

And in paragraph 17 you refer to Archbishop Dolan as the "Starchbishop"? I missed that one until it happened to get highlighted as a misspelling. Name calling? Really? Do you still attend Mass? Why? What could you possibly get out of it?

Abortion kills black babies

The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.
– Isaiah 49:1

This is the latest billboard from the Radiance Foundation, a group that is bringing attention to the connection between abortion and racism. The connection is eugenics. This is the hidden agenda behind "population control"; it is the plan behind Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. In this interview in 1957 with Mike Wallace she outlines her objectives. She speaks in a coded language, but it is not too difficult to interpret what she means. Its no coincidence that Planned Parenthood tends to target its abortion centers at minority communities.



In this secret tape of Richard Nixon in 1972, he speaks much more plainly. Its the difference between a private conversation and a public statement. As Lila Rose has unveiled, there can be a huge difference in what the eugenic supporters of Planned Parenthood will state in public and what they say in private.



Jesus says of those who refuse to believe in Him:

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me."
 –  John 8:44-45

For more information go to www.toomanyaborted.com.

Related articles:

• Abortion and eugenics
• Maafa 21 Black Genocide In The 21st Century
• Lila Rose and the Crusade for Life
• Agnostica Eugenica Transhumana - A Dragon's tail

Is Cuomo Catholic?

"Now, those who deny that marriage is holy, and who relegate it, stripped of all holiness, among the class of common secular things, uproot thereby the foundations of nature, not only resisting the designs of Providence, but, so far as they can, destroying the order that God has ordained. No one, therefore, should wonder if from such insane and impious attempts there spring up a crop of evils pernicious in the highest degree both to the salvation of souls and to the safety of the commonwealth."
– Excerpt from Pope Leo XIII "On Christian Marriage" (1880)

Cuomo and live-in girlfriend Sandra Lee after both received communion from the Bishop of Albany Jan 2, 2011

The subject of "gay marriage" is once again in the headlines. This time it is a push by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo to legalize "gay marriage" in New York. This is despite the fact that Cuomo claims to be Catholic.

Archbishop Dolan of New York has published a statement on his blog against legalization of "gay marriage", but in my mind his statement is weak and deeply flawed. He seems to be saying that gay couples should have all the legal rights of a married couple except that their relationship shouldn't be called a marriage. This is basically the "civil union" concept which we have seen is just an intermediate step towards gay marriage. Why for example should a gay sex partner be entitled to health insurance? Who will ultimately pay for this added benefit? What will keep someone from declaring to be a "partner" just in order to get the benefits?

And not surprisingly, Cuomo is also pro-abortion and supported by Planned Parenthood. Dr. Edward Peters, a top expert in Catholic Church law said, "based on what is widely reported about the governor’s consistent support for abortion in New York, I see no other way to interpret his abortion-related conduct except as sufficient to warrant withholding of holy Communion from him under Canon 915." Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the highest court at the Vatican said, "We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself publicly in this manner."

I have to say that I'm very disappointed in Archbishop Dolan. Not only is he the Archbishop of New York, but he is also the recently elected head of the American Bishops. He needs to demonstrate more leadership on this issue. In addition, to everything else there has been an ongoing controversy over whether Governor Cuomo should be allowed to receive communion since he is divorced and living with his girlfriend. The teachings of the Catholic Church are quite clear on this matter and yet no one in the New York Catholic hierarchy has stepped up and confronted Governor Cuomo. Is excommunication a thing of the past?

In contrast former New York Giant David Tyree (who is Christian but not Catholic) has come out with the following strong and heartfelt video statement in support of marriage as defined by human society throughout history. He is very clear that underlining his support of marriage is his strong religious beliefs. And he states clearly that changing the definition of marriage will have profound effects on American society and our practice of religion.



Related articles:

• Gay "marriage": war against religion
• On marriage
• Prop 8 Round 3
• The end of "one man, one woman"?
• The meltdown of the family
• "What is Truth?"
• The Manhattan Declaration
• The attack of the "humanists"
• Pope Leo XIII on marriage
• Marriage and the Mass

The Word made Flesh

Baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.... For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
 – John 1:1,14,17

There is no doubt that St. John intends us to compare this opening statement in his Gospel with the first line of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

I was contemplating on "the Word" this morning trying to understand why John used that term in describing the Son, and it seemed to me that what he was saying was that along with the physical world there is also a spiritual world that has always existed. I also recalled from Genesis that God created Man in His own image. (Genesis 1:27)

The one thing that truly sets Man apart from the other animals is his ability to reason. So it seems to me that this is a clue about the sense in which Man was created in the "image" of God.

This brings us back to "the Word" which is normally associated with language. Words, language, ideas, thoughts, concepts. This is as close to God as we can come while we are still living on this earth.

I imagined springing from "the Word" all the ideas, thoughts, concepts that ever were and ever shall be. "The Word" then is Truth. It is the fountainhead of Truth from which all other truths flow.

But rather than a fountain, I envisaged something more like a tree with branches reaching up into the sky. And when we think we have invented something new, it is just that we have discovered a new branch of that tree.

I wasn't thinking of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" of Genesis, but now that I write down these thoughts it does seem like there is a similarity.

(And here is something else to think about. Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating from the Tree, but Christ welcomes us to eat His Flesh.)

I was also thinking about how as Man acquires knowledge, he is then faced with the challenge of using that knowledge for good or evil. And also that there is some knowledge that seems to be inherently evil. And yet it must all arise from the same source of Truth, which is God.

When God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden, he placed an angel with a flaming sword to guard the Tree of Life.  (Genesis 3:24) The Tree of Life is the other tree in the Garden of Eden that was forbidden. If Man was to eat its fruit then he would have eternal life.

US Air Force: Flaming sword patch from 1946

Providentially, there was an angel with a flaming sword that appeared in the third message of Fatima. It threatened to destroy the world, but Our Lady interceded and kept the angel from setting the world on fire.

Considering that mankind is uncovering the secrets of Life itself through biotechnology, could this angel of Fatima be the same angel described in Genesis that is protecting the Tree of Life?

Common sense says that genetic sciences should be approached with extreme caution. And yet we have plunged headlong into this new science as if it was just another new technology that could be exploited for profit and personal gain.

From contraception, to population control, to eugenics, to IVF, to stem cell research, to cloning, to transhumanism – nothing is declared totally off limits.

Technology is the new idol. Progress is the new goddess.

Painting (1872) titled "American Progress" (notice the telegraph line)

In ancient times the Bible tells us that men built a tower to try to reach Heaven. This was the Tower of Babel which God condemned.

Now, once again we try to be like gods through our technology. We seem headed towards a technological apocalypse called the Singularity. Increasingly it seems that we are no longer masters of our own technology, rather it is technology that has become our master.

UPDATE – June 16, MMXI:

After writing this post I did an online search for 'Jesus' + 'Tree of Knowledge'. I found that Jesus is most associated with the Tree of Life rather than the Tree of Knowledge. Indeed Jesus comes to bring us eternal life. Not wishing to give up on my idea of an association of Jesus with the Tree of Knowledge, I imagine that there is a link through Jesus' statement, "I am the Alpha and the Omega." (Revelation 1:8) So that the Tree of Knowledge becomes the Alpha (the beginning) and the Tree of Life becomes the Omega (the end).

This also fits in well with the fact that Revelation (the last book) speaks of the Tree of Life in the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 22:2) And in the final chapter of Revelation Jesus repeats the statement made in the first chapter of Revelation, "I am the Alpha and the Omega." And this time Jesus adds,  "the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

The next verse from Revelation affirms, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the Tree of Life and that they may enter the city by the gates." Clearly this is a reference to Jesus being the Tree of Life which grants eternal life.

The book of Revelation continues, "Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." The reference to "sorcerers" could very well be applied to some of the scientists of today who claim that God does not exist. I'm thinking specifically of recent statements by Stephen Hawking. This type of statement goes beyond science which must rely on proof and wanders into a practice of pseudo-science which makes claims which are not based on rationalism, but on preconceived beliefs which are inline with ancient sorcerers that conjured up evil spirits to do battle with God.

Anyone who really loves the Truth must understand that there are areas of knowledge that are beyond the limited scope of human science.

And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."

"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
 – Revelation 22:10-15

Jesus, help me

The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord... Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! ... Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.... You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
 – excerpts from 1 Corinthian 6:13-20

I was watching Women of Grace on EWTN, which I highly recommend to everyone, and the topic was pornography addiction. This is perhaps the most pervasive addiction of our times.

If ever there was an addiction which is satanic in origin, it is most certainly the addiction to pornography. And the only effective form of healing for this is through the help of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The effect of this malady of the soul is the degrading of the individual person as he or she feels the shame of this addiction, and the degrading of others who are viewed as mere sexual objects. The effects are felt throughout society as men and women begin to view their relationships through a distorted lens; and ultimately families are afflicted by divorce, and children suffer through the pain and humiliation of a broken home.

As someone who is recovering from a pornography addiction, I can tell you that for me it was impossible to tackle this addiction on my own. By myself I would never have been able to climb out of the hole of self-destruction that I was in. It was only through the grace of Christ that I was able – not to climb out, but to see the walls of my spiritual prison just disappear.

It would be wrong to say that I was set free. In fact I accepted to voluntarily – through my own free will – become a servant of Christ. I gave up the "freedom" that the world offers. Instead, I chose to follow Christ along the narrow and hard path; I chose to become one of his sheep and join his flock; I chose to answer the call of the Good Shepherd.

We need to strengthen ourselves every day through prayer, but we also need to remember to ask for God's help at the moment of our temptation. We need to ask Him through our daily prayers to "lead us not into temptation", but we also need to remember to ask Him when we are confronted with temptation to "deliver us from evil"; to free us from the snares and traps of the devil.

At those times we should not be ashamed to say, "Jesus, help me. Give me your strength." He can break any chain and free us from any prison. He is the rock that we can climb on to save us from drowning in a raging sea. He is our shelter from the storm and our strength.

This is the reason that He came to earth and suffered and died for us; to save us from sin and to redeem us when we have fallen; to lead us along the path to eternal life.

+ In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

 -----

Epilogue

Why is the bottom line on the Orthodox Cross above slanted? I read a few explanations which I found to be unsatisfactory.

For me it represents the path from earth to heaven, by following in Christ's footsteps. That is why it is inclined, and why it is at the level of Christ's feet. Or another way of saying the same thing is that Christ is "the way" to heaven. He is the bridge between our temporal earthly lives and our eternal lives in heaven. This is a reminder of when Christ says "I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me."

It also recalls Revelation 21 and the new Jerusalem. On one side is the old earthly Jerusalem where men sacrificed animals at the altar, and on the other side is the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven where the Lamb of God is sacrificed at the true altar of God.

Finally, it recalls the words of the Messiah, "Follow me!" Jesus repeats these words over and over in the Gospels. It is the last thing that He says to Peter in the Gospel of John. It is the first thing he says to Simon Peter and his brother Andrew in the Gospel of Matthew. And He affirms in John 10:27-28 that if we respond when He calls out "Follow me!" then we will be given eternal life.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.
 – John 10:27-28

Like any Icon, the image is intended to be contemplated on, and to become a "window to heaven".

Do you love me?

St. Peter with "the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven"

"Simon, son of John, do you love me?"
 – John 21:17

I was thinking about Fatima again. And I was trying to understand the desire of Francisco Marto (one of the three shepherd children of Fatima) to console Jesus. I found it so strange, that I thought that he must have -- because of his young age and immaturity -- misinterpreted the visions.

And yet that seemed like too simple of an answer. There must be something to Francisco's  desire to console Jesus that I did not understand. After all Francisco and his little sister have been beatified by the Church and so he couldn't be totally mistaken on this very important point.

The answer came to me -- somehow, I don't remember exactly how -- that Francisco was responding to the many insults hurled at Our Lord. Just think about the multitude of insults hurled at Jesus and the Church daily in our modern society that denies the very existence of God.

And yet Our Lord is forgiving and only desires for us to come to him in a sincere and humble act of faith.

I'm not saying that we should think of Jesus as being sad and therefore in need of consolation, but I think we should consider that He is being crucified again and again. And in that spirit we can offer our prayers for Him. Actually, I had an image in my mind of His Sacred Heart receiving multiple wounds -- like arrows.

He gladly suffers to redeem our sins, but these are like rocks thrown at Him by the very ones that He is trying to save from eternal damnation. I'm reminded of the words of Jesus to St. Paul, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Tonight as I was reciting the Our Father slowly and deliberately, I heard a new meaning in the words, "forgive us our trespasses".

I had been thinking in terms of offenses that I might have committed against others -- especially since this is followed by, "as we forgive those who trespass against us". But I now think of this more clearly as offenses against God Himself.

When we ask God to "forgive us our trespasses", we recognize His authority. And this is one way that we can console Our Lord. We can also offer prayers as Jacinto did asking that we may bear the suffering of others, for their "trespasses" against the Lord. We can make small sacrifices in our lives and offer them as a consolation to Our Lord, to help heal His wounded heart.

Jesus asked Simon Peter three times, "Do you love me?" And after Peter's replies Our Lord responded:
 – "Feed my lambs."
 – "Tend my sheep."
 – "Feed my sheep."

If we truly love Jesus -- as we say we do -- then we must be willing to sacrifice ourselves for others. This is what the "good shepherd" does for his flock. And like Peter we are called by Christ to sacrifice ourselves for the good of others.