A 4th of July Call to Action
Published July 3, 2009 | 
Father James Farfaglia, Pastor, St. Helena of the True Cross of Jesus Catholic Church, Corpus Christi, Texas, July 3, 2009
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
Why is the right to life the first of these God given rights?
Many people and many organizations are committed to the promotion of life. The country is filled with millions of unsung heroes who each day work to promote life. Locally, in the city of Corpus Christi, there are many who continue to do sidewalk counseling at the only remaining abortion clinic, and there are the hardworking individuals who are committed to the important work of Hope House, Birth Right, the Gabriel Project, the Society of the Body of Christ and Rachel’s Vineyard. Each year, “Celebration for Life” draws supporters to an evening of fine dining and entertainment and raises the much needed funding to support pro-life activities here in South Texas.
On January 22, 2007 our parish decided to lead a Rosary campaign to close down the only remaining abortion clinic in our city. We pray the Rosary every week when abortions take place.
Prior to our campaign, Dr. Eduardo Aquino was doing anywhere between 40 – 60 abortions a week. Although the clinic still remains, abortions have decreased to less than 15 a week. We plan to continue our efforts as long as abortions are taking place.
Last week I was able to speak briefly with the abortion doctor in a rather strange encounter in front of his clinic. I pleaded with him to come back to the Catholic Church and I told him that there is no need for abortion. Many people in Corpus Christi are more than willing to adopt a baby that a mother with a crisis pregnancy does not want or is unable to care for properly.
The Founding Fathers got it right. They understood that there is a relationship between life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom and happiness are impossible without the fundamental right to life. Why is this so?
Let us remember that no matter how small a little baby may be in the mother’s womb, a new human life begins at the moment of conception. This new human being is entitled to the right to life as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. If anyone has the right to terminate the life of an innocent human being, not only are those who are being terminated no longer equal under the law, but proponents of abortion are laying the ground work for choices to be made about the extermination of other groups of people.
Was this not the case in Nazi Germany? Not only were Jews, Gypsies and Catholics considered less equal than others, but a favored few took upon themselves the right to determine which individuals had the right to live.
Is not this the case of slavery? Not only were Africans considered to be less equal, but also once again the strong exerted their power over the weak, giving themselves the right to choose who would be enslaved and who would go free.
If a woman has the right to kill her baby, what is to keep a sniper from executing his next victim? If a doctor has the right to murder an innocent child, what is to keep a child from killing his own classmates? If a hospital has a right to sponsor homicide, what is to keep a state from supporting terrorists?
The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights depend upon the right to life. Abortion is a horrific evil claiming over 4,000 lives every day.
Man is not autonomous. He is created by God and therefore, must live in union with his creator. When humanity rebels against God the results are obvious for all to see in the news every day.
James Madison, the fourth president of our nation and one of our founding fathers once said, “We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
As you walk up the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, you can see Moses holding the Ten Commandments. As you enter into the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. As you sit inside the courtroom, the Ten Commandments are displayed right above where the Supreme Court judges sit.
The Fifth Commandment states, “Thou shall not kill”. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in America.
A number of years ago, during a parish bible study that I was directing, a young parishioner asked me if I thought that we would soon see another civil war in this country. I answered him by saying that a civil war has already been taking place.
The first civil war took place from 1861 – 1865. The horror of slavery was not the only cause of the war, but it was certainly the main issue at hand. During his famous Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln wondered if the nation could endure. Through his presidency, which cost his very life, his dream did take place: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.
The new civil war has no army and has no set territories. It is a cultural war that knows no boundaries. The battle between the culture of life and the culture of death affects every city, every family, every business, every school, and every church community. This new civil war is even more intense than the first one.
The culture war of today is dramatic and very challenging. What will bring about a new birth of freedom? What will allow our government to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the people? What will keep America as we know it from perishing from the face of the earth?
America will change if Americans get back to God.
Let us remember a passage of Scripture that I refer to frequently: “If my people who bear my name, humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I myself will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land” (Second Book of Chronicles: 7; 14)
British historian and philosopher Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) once said: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder”. Let’s face it: we are in a state of emergency. What is the solution? The solution is not what; it is who. As a people, we need to leave aside our wicked ways and turn to the Lord. Only when this happen, as the Bible tells us, will the Lord heal our land and give us the gift of peace.
The Catholic Church in Poland was able to resist the evils of Nazism and Communism because the Church remained faithful and united.
Today, faithful Catholics face a battle on two fronts: the culture war in society and the polarization in our own Church. Too many Catholics are pro-abortion. Too many Bishops and too many priests refuse to take stand against abortion and against pro-abortion Catholic politicians.
This is a battle that is not easy to handle and it is possible for people to feel discouraged and overwhelmed. What we need from the Bishops and the clergy is leadership and encouragement. They too need to be at the abortion clinics of our nation. It is easy to hide inside our churches and offices. We need to bring the cause of life to the streets. We need to challenge the conscience of a nation.
The Glorious Fourth
Published July 3, 2009 | Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, July 2, 2009
In a letter to his wife Abigail, John Adams told her of the actions of the Continental Congress on July 2, 1776. “The second day of July, 1776 [the actual day the Declaration was signed], will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”As we celebrate Independence Day, as John Adams so aptly predicted, we must not forget nor overlook the intense struggle our Founding Fathers faced. Their Christian faith played a critical role in an era that altered the history of the world.
There is not a better example of this seamless devotion to God and country than Samuel Adams. In his time, Sam was far more famous than his cousin, John. Sam was known as the last of the great Puritans and the father of the Revolution. It was Sam Adams who organized the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence. (By the way, if you’re going out to a Tea Party on Saturday, historians believe that the first tea party, the one in Boston, was organized by Samuel Adams. It was that Boston Tea Party that lit the fuse of the American Revolution).
When Sam Adams was elected to that First Continental Congress and traveled to the gathering of leaders in Philadelphia, he thought the Continental Congress needed to begin its work on its knees–in prayer. But when the motion was made to call in a local clergyman to lead the worship, John Jay of New York and Edward Rutledge of South Carolina objected. We are too diverse, they said. We could never agree on whose prayers to say.
Rising to his feet, Sam Adams spoke: “I am no bigot,” he said, “I can hear the prayer of any man of piety and virtue who is a friend to his country.” Deeply moved, the delegates voted to approve Sam Adams’ idea. The next morning, amid reports of the British moving against the people of his hometown of Boston, Sam knelt in prayer with his fellow delegates, as the Rev. Jacob Duch? prayed.
“Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me, and fight against them that fight against me.”That inspired move by Sam Adams did much to overcome suspicions among the delegates. Joseph Reed of Philadelphia called that prayer “a masterly stroke.” Those Founding Fathers could now work together for liberty.
Soon, Sam Adams would sign the Declaration of Independence. Alongside Sam Adams’ name you can find that of Charles Carroll, a delegate from Maryland. Carroll was the richest man in Congress and the only Roman Catholic. Nowhere else on earth in 1776 could you find an Evangelical like Sam Adams pledge “his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor” alongside a Catholic like Charles Carroll. They both risked death by hanging for signing that great Declaration. But they served the King of Kings and had no fear of King George III.
In our efforts to maintain the freedoms won by our forefathers we must be like them–people of action and prayer.
We must never sever our personal faith from our public stand for faith, family and freedom.After we celebrate our independence as a nation on Saturday, I invite you to join thousands of Christians from across the nation on Sunday as they fall on their knees in prayer as a part of FRC’s Call2Fall, declaring their dependence upon God, just like our Founding Fathers.
Sign Up for Call2Fall
Miracles All Around Us
Published July 3, 2009 | Patrick O’Hannigan, American Spectator, July 2, 2009
On the bottles of its signature drinks, the Boston Beer Company describes Samuel Adams as a brewer and patriot. Although he was instrumental in forming the Boston-area “Committee of Correspondence” that helped spark the American Revolution and was copied by other colonial towns, the beer bottle labels do not identify Mr. Adams as a “community organizer.” Like other heroes of our founding generation including Paul Revere the silversmith, William Dawes the tanner, and Joseph Warren the doctor, Adams never thought of organizing as a full-time occupation; he just lent a hand where he thought it was needed.
This July 4th weekend, my heart is filled with gratitude for the men and women who, like Adams, are untitled community organizers. What they do in their spare time makes our lives better than they would otherwise be.
The lack of title in this context is important. Any card-carrying “community organizer” has yoked him- or herself to assumptions that owe more to Marx than to Jesus, in apparent (if not always conscious) homage to the saying that when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Untitled community organizers, however, are simply people who help others in need. They are part of the remedy for the social ills described eloquently by Elizabeth Scalia, who wrote from a Catholic perspective about how cheaply we often give ourselves away, and “how thoughtlessly we toss our valuables to those who will trash them.”
With the infidelities of a governor and the racy photos of a beauty pageant winner in mind, Scalia wrote that “we allow breeching and encroaching without understanding that our natural or learned boundaries are not prisons but safety zones, the places reserved for ourselves and God and those most beloved to us.” From that thought, she went on to observe that “All are guilty, from time-to-time, of throwing away our Holy Things.”
And why would that be? Because, as Scalia wrote in a subsequent meditation, “We forget we are Royal children.” It’s a fair point. As contemporary philosopher Peter Kreeft once observed, from a Christian point of view, the problem is almost never that we ask too much of God, but that we ask too little.
Fortunately for anyone depressed by the thought of our demonstrably fallen condition, all is not lost. The world is also full of Good Samaritans.
For every Christian denomination that throws evangelization into the slag heap of a study group or gives missionary work the old heave-ho, there are fair-minded people who defend the good names of others, or acknowledge God in unexpected places.
For every partisan hack who trades on the reputation of one of the giants of antiquity by calling Paul of Tarsus a community organizer, there are others who point out that he was, in fact, a tent maker who gloried in the gospel.
That said, there is no need to thank God for those who love their neighbors as themselves by name-checking apostles or American patriots of the Revolutionary era. Past is prologue, and (as friends and neighbors continue to show me) the same point can be made with what songwriter Townes van Zandt once called the “live and obscure.”
If my experience in the aftermath of a recent car accident that could have claimed two family members but did not is anything to go by, those who rally around others in time of need are animated by love rather than economics. They may never give a thought to community organizing as such, but it doesn’t matter. There are people who coordinate meal deliveries for others; people who shop or do laundry for friends who can’t; people who send teddy bears or lend shoulders to cry on; people who pray for strangers in need just because that helps, too.
Scalia is right to say that we often fail to esteem holy things as we should. Begging her pardon for a pun on a fine old lullaby, I think of that problem in Catholic and Latin-infused terms: it seems to me a clear case of “when the wind blows, the credo will rock.”
And yet I want to suggest that there is no need to despair, not only because we are now in a position to answer the apostles’ question (“Who is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”), but also because while we all have occasion to repent of having cast pearls before swine, we also have a confident call to dignity implicit in what Ignatius of Loyola used to pray when he asked for the grace “to give, and not to count the cost.”
Three weeks ago, I could agree with the idea that every visit from a friend is a kind of benediction, but now I know that as a matter of experience. There are miracles all around us, and living when and where we do is only one of them.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/02/miracles-all-around-us
IS THAT RHETORICAL? Helen Thomas: Who Do They Think We Are, Puppets?
Published July 3, 2009 | “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?”.
“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences. It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/helen_thomas_who_do_they_think.html
Independence Day 2009: We Still Hold These Truths…
Published July 3, 2009 | Alexander’s Essay – 2 July 2009 – Patriot Post
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” –Patrick Henry
As we celebrate the 233rd year of our Declaration of Independence, let us look at the common parlance associated with the polar spectrum of current political ideology (while such a review is still permitted by the state), and explore what is meant by “Left versus Right,” “Liberal versus Conservative” and “Tyranny versus Liberty”?
Tyranny v. Liberty (poster available at PatriotShop.US)
First, a little history.
On July 4th of 1776, our Founders, assembled as representatives to the Second Continental Congress, issued a declaration stating most notably: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
In other words, our Founders affirmed that our rights, which are inherent by Natural Law as provided by our Creator, can’t be arbitrarily alienated by men like England’s King George III, who believed that the rights of men are the gifts of government.
Our Founders publicly declared their intentions to defend these rights by attaching their signatures between July 4th and August 2nd of 1776 to the Declaration. They and their fellow Patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as they set about to defend the Natural Rights of man.
At the conclusion of the American War for Independence in 1783, our Founders determined the new nation needed a more suitable alliance among the states than the Articles of Confederation. After much deliberation, they proposed the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788 and implemented in 1789 as subordinate guidance to our Declaration of Independence.
Since that time, generations of American Patriots have laid down their lives “to support and defend” our Constitution — and I would note here that their sacred oath says nothing about a so-called “Living Constitution“ as advocated by the political left.
Given that bit of history as a backdrop, consider the lexicography of our current political ideology.
On the dark side of the spectrum would be Leftists, liberals and tyrants.
(Sidebar: One should not confuse “classical liberalism” with “contemporary liberalism.” The former refers to those, like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated individual liberty, while the latter refers to those, like Barack Hussein Obama, who advocate statism, which is the antithesis of liberty.)
Statism, as promoted by contemporary American liberals, has as its objective the establishment of a central government authorized as the arbiter of all that is “good” for “the people” — and conferring upon the State ultimate control over the most significant social manifestation of individual rights, economic enterprise.
On the left, all associations between individuals ultimately augment the power and control of the State. The final expression and inevitable terminus of such power and control, if allowed to progress unabated, is tyranny.
The word “tyranny” is derived from the Latin “tyrannus,” which translates to “illegitimate ruler.”
Liberals, then, endeavor to undermine our nation’s founding principles in order to achieve their statist objectives. However, politicians who have taken an oath to “support and defend” our Constitution, but then govern in clear defiance of that oath, are nothing more than illegitimate rulers, tyrants.
(Sidebar: Some Leftists contend that Communism and Fascism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Properly understood, however, both of these forms of government are on the left, because both have as a common end the establishment of an omnipotent state led by a dictator.)
Over on the “right wing” of the political spectrum, where the light of truth shines, would be “conservatives,” from the Latin verb “conservare,” meaning to preserve, protect and defend — in this case, our Constitution.
American conservatives are those who seek to conserve our nation’s First Principles, those who advocate for individual liberty, constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, strong national defense and traditional American values.
Contemporary political ideology is thus defined by tyrannus and conservare occupying the Left and Right ends of the American political spectrum, defining the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Though there are many devoted protagonists at both ends of this scale, the space in between is littered with those who, though they identify with one side or the other, are not able to articulate the foundation of that identity. That is to say, they are not rooted in liberal or conservative doctrine, but motivated by contemporaneous political causes associated with the Left or Right. These individuals do not describe themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” but as Democrat or Republican. Further, they tend to elect ideologically ambivalent politicians who are most adept at cultivating special interest constituencies.
That having been said, however, there is a major difference between those on the Left and the Right, as demonstrated by our most recent national elections. Those on the Left tend to form a more unified front for the purpose of electability; they tend to embrace a “win at all costs” philosophy, while those on the right tend to spend valuable political capital drawing distinctions between and among themselves.
I would suggest that this disparity is the result of the contest between human nature and Natural Law.
The Left appeals to the most fundamental human instincts to procure comfort, sustenance and shelter, and to obtain those basic needs by the most expedient means possible. The Left promises that the State will attain those needs equally, creating a path of least resistance for that fulfillment.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Right promotes the tenets of Natural Law — individual liberty and its attendant requirements of personal responsibility and self-reliance.
Clearly, one of these approaches is far easier to sell to those who have been systematically dumbed down by government educational institutions and stripped of their individual dignity by the plethora of government welfare programs.
That easy sell notwithstanding, the threat of tyranny can eventually produce an awakening among the people and a reversal of trends toward statism. But this reversal depends on the emergence of a charismatic, moral leader who can effectively advocate for liberty. (Ronald Wilson Reagan comes to mind.)
For some nations, this awakening has come too late. The most notable examples in the last century are Russia, Germany, Italy and China, whose peoples suffered greatly under the statist tyrannies they came to embrace. In Germany and Italy, the state collapsed after its expansionist designs were forcibly contained. In Russia, the state collapsed under the weight of 70 years of economic centralization and ideological expansionism.
The Red Chinese regime, having witnessed the collapse of the USSR, has so far avoided its own demise by combining an autocratic government with components of a free enterprise economic system. (My contacts in China, including that nation’s largest real estate developers and investment fund managers, believe the Red regime will be gone within five years.)
Of course, there exists an American option for the rejection of tyranny: Revolution. And it is an essential option, because the Natural Rights of man are always at risk of contravention by tyrants. At no time in the last century has our Republic faced a greater threat from “enemies, domestic” than right now.
“Our individual salvation,” insists Barack Obama, “depends on collective salvation.” In other words, BHO’s tyranny, et al, must transcend Constitutional authority. And in accordance with his despotic ideals, Obama is now implementing “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America” that he promised his cadre of liberal voters.
It is yet to be seen whether the current trend toward statism will be reversed by the emergence of a great conservative leader, or by revolution, but if you’re betting on another Ronald Reagan, I suggest you hedge your bet.
Our Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, understood the odds. He wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” and he concluded, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Accordingly, George Washington advised, “We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.”
Indeed we must.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
….Liberals endeavor to undermine our nation’s founding principles in order to achieve their statist objectives. However, politicians who have taken an oath to “support and defend” our Constitution, but then govern in clear defiance of that oath, are nothing more than illegitimate rulers, tyrants….
BHO Meets With Some Members of the Catholic Press; Says Expect a ‘Robust Conscience Clause’
Published July 3, 2009 | CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, JULY 2, 2009
President Barack Obama at a meeting of the Forum on Health Reform. Official White House photo. Credit: Pete Souza
- President Obama promised a “robust conscience clause” in a 41-minute meeting with some members of the Catholic press this morning.
The president met in the White House’s Roosevelt Room with eight members of the press who were picked by the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Initiatives. Attendees included respresentatives of the National Catholic Register, Avvenire/Vatican Radio, Commonweal, America and Catholic Digest.
Obama began the meeting with brief remarks, describing his conversation with the Holy Father just after his election, the National Catholic Register reported. The president said he looks forward to his meeting with Pope Benedict next week, especially to discuss immigration, climate change and the Middle East.
President Obama said he views the Holy See in some ways like a government, with whom he will sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, but also as more than a government, because of the influential role played by the Church across America and throughout the world.
Father Owen Kearns, editor in chief and publisher of The National Catholic Register, observed, “The most noteworthy thing during the meeting was his dispelling of what you might call the expectation of the worst regarding conscience clauses.”
Obama told those gathered that he had only reversed the Bush-administration’s conscience provisions because “it hadn’t been properly reviewed” and there were questions about “how broad it might be and what its manifestations would be once implemented.”
Yet Obama assured people that “my underlying position has always been consistent, which is I’m a believer in conscience clauses.”
Once the review of the “hundreds of thousands” of comments on the clause takes place, “there will be a robust conscience clause in place.” He promised that it will not be weaker than the previous one added by the Bush administration, but admitted, “It may not meet the criteria of every possible critic.”
Father Kearns also commented on Obama’s treatment of the divide between conservative and liberal Catholics. “After the first question, from the National Catholic Reporter‘s Joe Feuerherd, the president jokingly asked, ‘Was there really [a controversy at Notre Dame]?’”
Regarding the division of opinions within the Church, Obama said he believes that “the American bishops represent a cross section of opinion just like other groups do,” said the National Catholic Reporter.
“The president said he had fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin and that when he started his neighborhood project, they were funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” the Register said, noting the president’s remarks about U.S. bishops of that time speaking about the nuclear freeze, immigration, and the poor.
Obama recalled how “Cardinal Bernardin was pro-life and never hesitated to make his views known, but he had a consistent ‘seamless garment’ approach that emphasized the other issues, as well. The president said that that part of the Catholic tradition continues to inspire him. Those issues, he said, seemed to have gotten buried by the abortion debate.”
According to The National Catholic Reporter, Obama again made references to finding common ground on the issue of abortion, saying he soon expects to hear recommendations from a working group including advocates from both sides of the abortion debate.
“On the idea of helping young people make smart choices so that they are not engaging in casual sexual activity that can lead to unwanted pregnancies, on the importance of adoption as a option, an alternative to abortion, on caring for pregnant women so that it is easier for them to support children, those are immediately three areas where I would be surprised if we don’t have some pretty significant areas of agreement.”
While acknowledging disagreement in areas such as contraception, Obama went on to say that “to the extent that we can help women avoid being confronted with a circumstance in which that’s even a consideration, I think that’s a good thing.”
Founder’s Quote Daily
Published July 3, 2009 | 
“Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto
all the inhabitants thereof.”
–Leviticus 25:10 Inscription on the Liberty Bell
Patriot Post
GOSPEL & MEDITATION: “My Lord and My God!”
Published July 3, 2009 | Father Robert DeCesare, LC
John 20:24-29
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”
Introductory Prayer: Lord Jesus, thank you for the gift of faith I received with baptism. I believe all that you have revealed though I recognize that my faith is still small. So I submerge my weak faith now in your overflowing goodness and mercy and trust in you completely. I love you my Lord and my God with all my mind, heart, soul and strength.
Petition: Lord, increase my faith.
1. “I Will Not Believe” Lord, I live in a culture where I have to know everything. If there are no facts, if I lack evidence, then I refuse to believe. At times, Lord, even with facts and evidence in front of me, I still refuse to believe. I know, Lord, that faith calls for man “to commit his entire self to God” (Dei Verbum5). Thomas refuses to do this when the apostles share the exciting news: “We have seen the Lord” (John 20:25). But their news does not correspond to what Thomas knows. He knows that you died. Maybe he went to the tomb on Saturday. He would have seen the mounted guards there and possibly imagined that there would be no way to take you from the tomb. Do I come up with convincing reasons not to believe? If I do, how can I answer better through faith?
2. “Do Not Be Unbelieving, But Believe” Lord, Thomas looks at you in the Upper Room as you say this. I recall the words: “Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32). You invite Thomas to take that step of faith: to leave behind what he knows and to accept your Resurrection. He had seen you raise Lazarus, and now you invite him to believe that you yourself are forever alive. You are God, both living and true. There in the Upper Room, you invite me as you did with Thomas, to believe that you are alive in my life. Lord, I want you to have a strong presence in my life.
3. “Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen, and Have Believed” Lord, I cannot make it to heaven without faith. Your words to Thomas allude to what lies in store for me if I believe until death. I was not present when you walked on the earth, but in the light of what you say to Thomas, this gives me all the more reason to exercise my faith and pray as Thomas did: “My Lord and my God.” You desire my faith, Lord, just as you desired Thomas’. How great you are, Lord! “Faith is first and foremost a personal adherence of man to God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 150). I want to adhere to you, my Lord and my God.
Conversation with Christ: Lord, I believe that you want to be a great part of my life. You want to be the Lord of it. My faith is so little. Help me to increase my faith. Give it what it needs to grow.
Resolution: Today, during the day I will read numbers 150-152 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church about faith, so as to work to increase my faith in God.
http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302
SAINT OF THE DAY: ST. THOMAS, APOSTLE
Published July 3, 2009 | 
St. Thomas is most famously known for having doubted the news of Christ’s Resurrection, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)
He believed a week later when Christ presented Himself and said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” When Thomas did so he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!”
But Thomas was also the Apostle who was ready to die with the Lord when Jesus said that he would go to Judea to visit His friend Lazarus, a journey that was clearly perilous because the Jewish authorities were looking to kill Him: “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (John 11:16).
St. Thomas, as tradition has it, is said to have been the Apostle who preached the Gospel in the East, to the Persians and Medians, and all the way to the southern coast of India. The Syro-Malabar Catholics, of southern India, claim that their church was founded by the Apostle Thomas in 52 A.D. and he is said to have been martyred in the year 72 by being struck by a spear.
Pope Paul VI declared St. Thomas the Apostle of India in 1972. He is the patron of architects, carpenters and builders.
Palin Stepping Down; Speaks From the Heart w/No Teleprompter!
Palin Stuns With News She’s Stepping Aside as Governor
At an 11:00 a.m. press conference today, Governor Sarah Palin announced that she would not seek a second term as governor. The governor continued, saying that by the end of the month she would resign from the governorship. On a day that most public employees have off, Palin sent out an early morning press release indicating that she would be giving an announcement from her home in Wasilla. Joining Palin were her parents, family and state commissioners. Palin announced that she will transfer power to Lt. Governor Sean Parnell. Parnell will be sworn in during the upcoming governor’s picnic in Fairbanks on July 25.