As more Americans, especially the unemployed, come to rely on government to take care of them, we risk losing our independence.

The Washington Times reports American reliance on government is at an all-time high. This is not our Founders’ America. We seem to have declined from a “can-do” spirit, to “can’t do” — at least without government — and soon, unless we change our ways, “won’t do.”

Our forebears practiced self-reliance, living within one’s means and helping neighbors. Much of our modern economy is built on overspending, satisfying desires, pretense, envy, greed, and a sense of entitlement. Politicians who do not wish to disabuse us of such things keep seeking ways to prop up the falling house of cards. Who is brave enough tell us we can’t go on living — and spending — like this?

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has temporarily replaced Dick Cheney as the Darth Vader of America. His one-man blockade of unemployment and COBRA benefits stems from his belief that we can’t keep spending money we don’t have and that any extension of unemployment benefits should be paid for. Big media and liberal Democrats, many of whom denounced the far smaller Bush administration deficits, pilloried him. Having made his point on fiscal responsibility, late Tuesday, Bunning agreed to allow a vote on extending unemployment benefits, highway construction funding and spending on other federal programs. In return, Senate leaders agreed to allow votes on amendments Bunning will introduce to cut enough spending in other areas to pay for it all.

In The Washington Times story, Harm Bandholz, an economist at Unicredit Markets, told writer Patrice Hill that our massive shift from self-reliance to dependence on government may have been essential in order to have promoted last year’s economic revival, but he says it has merely delayed an ultimate day of reckoning for consumers “who went too far into debt to maintain their lifestyles during the boom years.” This is not only the story of many individuals; but the story of state and federal governments that go on spending sprees during the good times and hike taxes and engage in “painful spending cuts” during lean years. Continue reading →

The hardest thing in psychiatry is to keep an open mind while sitting with a patient, who might be trying to provoke and manipulate the doctor, day after day, month after month. We want to understand troubled people, but people are complex. Psychiatric diagnoses are just reasonable guesses. Most human beings are much too mixed, much too complicated, and much too interesting to reduce to just a checklist.

fanatic type – including paranoid features. A severely narcissistically wounded individual, usually with major paranoid tendencies who holds onto an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting the reality of their insignificance and lost value and are trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition of support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

Good luck to all of us.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/obamas_malignant_narcissism.html

WSJ: “Robber baron” became a term of derision to generations of American students after many earnest teachers made them read Matthew Josephson’s long tome of the same name about the men whose enterprise drove the American industrial age from 1861 to 1901.

Josephson’s cast of pillaging villains was comprehensive: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor, Jay Gould, James J. Hill. His table of contents alone shaped impressions of those times: “Carnegie as ‘business pirate’.” “Henry Frick, baron of coke.” “Terrorism in Oil.” “The sack of California.”

I say, bring ‘em back, and the sooner the better.

http://www.breitbart.tv/wsjs-henninger-bring-back-the-robber-barons/

House and Senate Democrats are moving full speed ahead with their healthcare overhaul after last week’s lengthy summit.

Yesterday, President Obama said “no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health-care reform,” abstaining from using the word reconciliation but calling for an “up or down vote.”

But before leadership can go forward with the legislative process known as reconciliation or the “nuclear option” in the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must once again round up the 218 votes needed for the bill to pass in the House, putting a bright spotlight back on the 54 so called fiscally conservative Democrat members in the Blue Dog Coalition who should oppose the $950 billion dollar package.

The House last voted on healthcare November of last year, passing it with a razor-thin margin of only three votes (220).  The Blue Dog coalition was split with approximately half of the members voting for the bill (See Blue Dogs who voted for government run healthcare here).

This time around, if just a handful of Blue Dogs who voted for it in November switch their vote, there is a chance to stop the latest rendition of Obamacare making moderate Democrats, yet again, a crucial voting bloc.

President Obama and the Democrats leading Congress have made it very clear that they will do whatever it takes to pass their government run healthcare agenda despite objections from Republicans and over half of the country. Obama doesn’t care if this unpopular bill renders him a one term president and Democrat Congressmen and Senators have been instructed to “take one for the team” if a “yes” vote would kill any re-election probability in the fall.

It’s important now — more than ever — that the Blue Dog Coalition is held accountable should they buck the values of their constituents that they have sworn to uphold by voting in lock step with Pelosi as they have done 78% of this Congress.

Blue Dogs claim to be “particularly active on fiscal issues, relentlessly pursuing a balanced budget and then protecting that achievement from politically popular ‘raids’ on the budget,” according to their website. But as I have written before, since the beginning of this congressional session — which has spent more tax dollars than any other in the history of the United States — it’s been hard to see how valid their claims to fiscal conservatism are.

Of the bills that fiscal conservatives cared about most this Congress said “Blue Dogs” did little to help. Ninety six percent of Blue Dogs voted for SCHIP, 82 % voted for TARP (the bailout), 80% voted for the Stimulus Package, while only two of (at the time) a 52 member coalition voted for the Republican alternative to the Stimulus Package.

Last week Democrats Jane Harman (CA-36), Leonard Boswell (IA-03),  Dennis Moore (KS-03), Loretta Sanchez (CA- 47), Adam Schiff (CA-29), David Scott (GA, 13) and  Mike Thompson (CA-01) were all rated 0% by the American Conservative Union for their votes in 2009. These Blue Dogs voted not only for the healthcare bill in November, but also for the bailout, the Stimulus Package, Cap and Trade and SCHIP. How can they accurately associate themselves with anything fiscally responsible?

(see all Blue Dog ACU ratings here)

The Blue Dog Coalition website states that “In the 111th Congress, the Coalition continues to make a difference in Congress by forging middle-ground, bipartisan answers to the current challenges facing the Country…The group also expects to be involved in a variety of issues, where the stale extreme left vs. right approach requires a breath of fresh air.”

Harmon, Boswell, Moore, Sanchez, Schiff, and Thompson have voted with Nancy Pelosi, who is most certainly part of the extreme left, 100% of the 111th Congress based on 10 crucial votes. What grounds do they have to call themselves “Blue Dogs?”

The GOP has already begun to rally against the Blue Dog Coalition and the National Republican Trust PAC has put together a chart in which constituents can evaluate how their representative has voted. Different than HUMAN EVENTS previous evaluations of the Blue Dogs, NRT PAC also has indexed which Blue Dogs are in districts that voted for Sen. John McCain in the last presidential district. According to NRT PAC 18 Blue Dogs are especially vulnerable.

It’s time to hold the their feet to the fire. Yesterday Obama, on healthcare, said “in the end, that’s what this debate is about — it’s about the kind of country we want to be.” What kind of country do the Blue Dogs want it to be?

(Since the last time HUMAN EVENTS highlighted their actions members Betsy Markey of Colorado, Scott Murphy of New York and Kurt Schrader of Oregon have joined the Blue Dog Coalition while one member, Parker Griffith of Alabama, left the Democratic Party and joined House Republicans.)

Miss Oddis is Assistant Managing Editor at HUMAN EVENTS. Before working with Human Events she was a researcher for syndicated columnist and author Robert Novak. Ms. Oddis has appeared on FOX News Hannity and Colmes, and The O’Reilly Factor. She has a bachelor’s degree in English from Eastern Connecticut State University.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35884

….Artificial contraception changed all that. “Reproductive freedom” allowed women to enter the workplace. Families enjoyed a double income. Increasing affluence and fewer children meant the smaller families were more manageable and less dependent on the extended family. As a result, the nature of the American family changed…..

By Rev. Dwight Longenecker, Inside Catholic, March 4, 2010

“I’m not disillusioned in Obama because I was never illusioned.”

OBAMA, DEMOCRATS MAKE IT OFFICIAL: RECONCILIATION TO PUSH PRO-ABORTION HEALTH CARE
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress made it official today — saying they will use the controversial reconciliation process to railroad the pro-abortion health care bill through Congress. Under the process, the House will attempt to pass the pro-abortion Senate health care bill.

DEMOCRATS SCRAMBLING FOR VOTES FOR PRO-ABORTION SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Now that President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress have officially decided to use reconciliation to force the Senate pro-abortion health care bill through the House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi begins the task of finding enough votes for the bill to get it approved on a majority vote.

PELOSI AGAIN DENIES ABORTION FUNDING IN HEALTH CARE BILL: I TALKED WITH THE BISHOPS
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mislead participants last week at the White House health care summit when she said the Senate health care bill doesn’t fund abortions. Now, comments from a late Friday press conference are surfacing where Pelosi exploits the Catholic bishops to justify her claim.

BART STUPAK: SIDEBAR BILL COULD CUT ABORTION IN HEALTH CARE, PROSPECT UNLIKELY
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Rep. Bart Stupak, the leading pro-life Democrat in the House, said in an interview with MSNBC today that pro-life Democrats are holding fast against the Senate health care bill. He also mentioned the possibility of a sidebar bill that could cut abortion in health care but its prospects seem unlikely at best.

TOP HOUSE DEMOCRAT FALSELY CLAIMS SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL DOESN’T FUND ABORTIONS
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – With President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders looking to push the government-run health care bill through reconciliation, and with abortion funding as a major issue causing pro-life Democrats to consider voting against the Senate bill, a top Democrat is peddling the myth that the bill doesn’t fund abortions.

POLL WILL SHOW VOTERS IN PRO-LIFE DEMOCRAT DISTRICTS OPPOSE ABORTION IN HEALTH CARE
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A major pro-life women’s group plans to release the results of new polling tomorrow showing that residents of Congressional districts represented by pro-life Democrats don’t want abortion funding in health care. The poll is designed to encourage those members of Congress to oppose the Senate bill.

PRO-ABORTION, PRO-LIFE GROUPS TAKE OPPOSITE SIDES ON SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Now that President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress will attempt to railroad the pro-abortion health care bill through Congress, key pro-abortion and pro-life groups are on opposite sides of the debate in terms of whether the House should adopt the Senate bill.

PAM TEBOW SHARES STORY OF NON-ABORTION OF TIM TEBOW AT PREGNANCY CENTER EVENT
Atlanta, GA (LifeNews.com) – Pam Tebow, the celebrated mother of college football superstar Tim Tebow, shared the story of her decision against an abortion as the guest speaker at the Sav A Life Ministries annual banquet. Tebow’s appearance at the central Georgia event is a prelude to her speaking at two other pro-life events.

SOURCE: By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, March 2, 2010

EXCERPT:   …..Democrats have been discussing plans on pushing through the pro-abortion health care bill by their Easter recess.

Ben Smith, a Politico reporter, highlighted a Democratic memo he received with the timetable.

“Step one: The House passes the Senate’s health reform bill by March 19. The bill then goes to the president for signature without going through conference….After the Senate bill becomes law, the House then amends the Senate bill through a reconciliation bill, to be passed by March 21. That bill would be the only opportunity to amend, add or strike provisions in the Senate bill. Step three: The Senate begins debate on the reconciliation bill by March 23. Debate is limited to 30 hours. Votes begin March 26, the first day of Easter recess,” it says.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, a pro-life Arizona Republican, talked about that timeline in an interview.

“This thing is losing support every day,” Kyl said during an interview on Fox News. “And I think what they’ll try to do is move it up against the Easter recess so that the members won’t have time to go home and have a full recess period before they take the vote.”

“If they run up to the vote and then have a recess, they go home, they’re going to get an earful from their constituents,” Kyl said. “I don’t think they could pass it, then, when they got back from recess.”

“So my guess is the Speaker is going to make them stay here and vote for it before they have a chance to go back home and talk to their constituents about it,” the minority whip added…..

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6059.html

Then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, in his own words, promising abortion as part of a public health care plan. For more information, visit www.nrlactioncenter.com.

Something is really amiss when these types of decision are being made.

Click on these links to read Garrison Keillor’s comments about abortion, same-sex “marriage” and Christians.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Bye, Bye Byrd Plea

To the casual observer, “reconciliation” must seem like a funny term for what’s happening on Capitol Hill. Unlike the dictionary definition, nothing about this process seems to be bringing people into greater agreement or harmony. On the contrary, this complicated push for a simple majority is driving an even deeper wedge between parties and the public. Part of the reason for confusion is because this approach was never meant to decide issues on this scale. Back in 1974, reconciliation was born to balance the budget (which is somewhat ironic since this $2.5 trillion health care bill would have the exact opposite effect).

Like members on both sides of the aisle, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) believes that forcing this course on health care reform is a direct assault on the democratic process. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, he quotes Sen. Robert Bryd (D-W.V.), who was an original architect of this policy. “I am certain,” Sen. Byrd said last year, “that putting health care reform… legislation on the freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” The Democrats’ current strategy is to muscle the original Senate plan–with its kickbacks and abortion bailouts–through the House. After it lands on the President’s desk, a separate bill with all of the leadership’s changes would lag behind to “fix” the plan.

But, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday, those “compromises” won’t include a change to the billions in taxpayer-funded abortion. “Under the budget resolution, you can only take up issues that are central to the budget. None of these [abortion ] issues… is central to the bill.” Well, she’d better be reconciled to the fact that abortion is central to her party’s hopes of passing the legislation. At last count, at least a dozen House members from her own party were willing to block the plan until Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) abortion ban is added.

Speaking of things that might be included, President Obama released his latest suggestions for reform, which supposedly took into account the GOP’s recommendations. Instead, he threw crumbs at the Republican party by offering a few changes that were nothing more than window-dressing. For instance, he suggests launching random investigations of health care providers to expose fraud. The administration already has the tools to rein in these abuses but chooses not to use them. Like his other “concessions,” President Obama is fully aware that the Republican proposals he adapted wouldn’t be eligible for inclusion under the reconciliation process that he insists on using. If President Obama really wanted to offer an olive branch to Americans, he would take an idea from someone within his own caucus, Rep. Stupak, and guarantee that the federal government isn’t funding abortion. Like so many other missed opportunities, the President let this one slip by. Meanwhile, FRC Action will put more pressure on the upcoming health care votes by scoring each one. Going forward, members have to understand that any vote for health care is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. For a more specific explanation of reconciliation and the possible scenarios, check out The Cloakroom Blog.

On D.C. Marriage, More Cold Feet

In plain view of the U.S. Capitol, homosexual couples started lining up at the D.C. Superior Court this morning to take advantage of Congress’s indifference to marriage. When the office opened its doors to accept the city’s first same-sex “marriage” applications, couples were greeted with “congratulatory hugs, commemorative pens, and cupcakes.” Over at the U.S. Supreme Court, the mood was more solemn. After conceding that Stand for Marriage D.C.’s argument for an injunction had “some force,” Chief Justice John Roberts was forced to deny the request. “…A joint resolution of disapproval by Congress would prevent the Act from going into effect, but Congress has chosen not to act“–a fact that Bishop Harry Jackson’s marriage coalition knows all too well.

Although he leaves the legal questions to the local courts, Justice Roberts doesn’t rule out an eventual challenge in his court. “…[P]etitioners will have the right to challenge any adverse decision through a petition of certiorari in this Court at the appropriate time.” Meanwhile, Stand for Marriage D.C. is turning its attention to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which is considering the ballot initiative on marriage that the District’s Board of Elections denied. As of today, D.C. is the sixth U.S. jurisdiction to legalize same-sex unions–none of them by popular vote.

Charlie’s Angel?

Two days after FRC Action started a petition calling on Rep. Charlie Rangel (D) to step down as head of the Ways and Means Committee, the New York congressman finally surrendered his chairmanship. While it is a victory, Rep. Rangel hasn’t ruled out a return to the House’s most powerful post after the November elections. In his press conference this morning, Rep. Rangel showed little regard for the rules by calling it a “leave of absence.” How and when the leadership will replace him is unknown. What we do know is that this messy incident doesn’t bode well for his biggest cheerleader, Speaker Pelosi, who refused to take action against Rep. Rangel despite his many indiscretions. So much for “the most ethical Congress in history!”

http://www.frc.org/

The president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, has highlighted the importance of a mother in the home caring for her family and has suggested economic compensation or tax reductions for those women who choose to do this.

Speaking on the theme of “Family and Business, Vital Cells of Society,” at a meeting of the Catholic Union of Businessmen and Executives (UCID) in Rome last week, the cardinal noted that many of the societal problems today, especially those concerning children and youth, are a result of the fact that both parents work outside of the home.

He observed, “The self-realization sought by the woman in a job, in a career, in social success has as a cost the renouncement of the marriage and children.”

The Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano reported that during his address the cardinal stressed that “domestic work deserves economic recognition” and that “numerous families deserve special reductions and financial facilities,” pointing to the examples of France and Germany where “families with three children pay €2,000 [$2,720] or €3,000 [$4,080] less” in taxes.

Cardinal Antonelli also addressed the problem of the effects of a missing father figure on children, and cited statistics from the U.S. which he said illustrate a trend in many parts of the Western world to single parent families.

“Ninety percent of homeless people, 72 percent of adolescent suicides, 60 percent of rapists and 85 percent of youth in jail grew up without a father present,” the Cardinal said.

“The traditional family,” Cardinal Antonelli continued, “is even being considered oppressive injustice, and matrimony and maternity are viewed as things from which a woman must liberate herself.”

The Cardinal pointed out that while raising a family and seeking a career outside the home are not incompatible for women, support services and a “variety of opportunities in professional work: part-time work, telework, flexibility of hours and vacations” are crucial to a successful outcome.

To maintain a family, he concluded, “you need reasonable economic security,” and the essence of this security should be provided through “mechanisms of protection.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030313.html

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” –James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, 1792

LifeSiteNews.com, March 3, 2010

The Obama administration has endorsed a proposal to create a new U.N. bureaucracy dedicated to restructuring relations between the sexes along radical feminist lines.  The new super-agency is supported by a consortium of feminist organizations called the Gender Equality Architecture Reform Campaign (GEAR).

The surprise move came late Tuesday at the meeting of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, currently underway in New York.  Both the Obama administration and the European Union immediately seconded the proposal to create a new U.N. super-agency, which thus appears to have a good chance of passage.

Radical feminists have long been discontented with the alphabet soup of relatively low-level offices and commissions that exist in the U.N. to advance their agenda.  The new agency would amalgamate four existing entities – the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, the Division for the Advancement of Women, the United Nations Development Fund for Women and the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women – into one super-agency.  The Division for the Advancement of Women, in particular, has a universal U.N. mandate that would then be at the service of the new bureaucracy.  To give the organization even more clout, an Under-Secretary-General, who would report directly to the U.N. Secretary-General, would head it.

The draft proposal urges that the agency be set up before the end of the current session of the General Assembly, and that it be dedicated to “gender equality” and the “empowerment of women.”  In the past, such code words have been used to justify such actions as admonishing Belarus for celebrating Mother’s Day because this “reinforced traditional stereotypes of women.”  Even liberal Denmark has been chastised for having too few female generals in the ranks of its military.  The supporters of the new U.N. agency revealingly refer to it as “Gender Architecture,” or GEAR.

Radical feminists believe that such a super-agency would give them access to both the money and power they need to advance their agenda.  “We need money, we need a billion dollars for this to be effective on the ground level,” says Charlotte Bunch, the representative of GEAR.  Bunch went on to note that this first billion would just be “catalytic,” only what would be needed to get the organization off the ground. Continue reading →

Father Andrew Mulcahey, LC

Luke 16: 19-31

Jesus said to the Pharisees “There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man´s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, ´Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.´ Abraham replied, ´My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.´ He said, ´Then I beg you, father, send him to my father´s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.´ But Abraham replied, ´They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.´ He said, ´Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.´ Then Abraham said, ´If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.´”

Introductory Prayer: Lord, although I cannot see you with my eyes, I believe you are present to me now, in my innermost being, and that you know me far better than I know myself. I also know that you love me much more than I love my own self. Thank you for loving and watching over me, though I don’t deserve your love. In return, I offer you my sorrow for my sins and my hopes to love you more each day.

Petition: Lord, help me to be generous and serve the needs of my neighbor.

1. Self-centeredness Is Useless and Sinful The rich man lived in isolated luxury, absorbed with the latest in fashion and the finest in dining. He did not hurt anyone: He didn’t run Lazarus off his property. He didn’t mind Lazarus hanging around his table for the leftovers. He didn’t criticize him for not getting a job to earn a living. Then what was the rich man’s sin? He didn’t treat Lazarus as a person. To the rich man, Lazarus was simply a part of the landscape. How many people do I come in contact with, perhaps repeatedly, who are nothing more to me than part of the landscape?

2. Suffering Helps Us Grow Our words “compassion” and “sympathy” come from Latin and Greek roots that mean to “suffer with.” Our personal suffering makes us more humane and opens us up to the plight of others. Our vision becomes more perceptive of other’s hardships, and our hearts become quicker to respond compassionately. Yet suffering can be a double-edged sword. It can also push us into envy, hatred, bitterness and isolation if we are proud, or if we forget that God permits trials to purify our love. How have I responded to suffering in my life? Has it made me more compassionate or more bitter and self-centered?

3. The Is More to Life Than Riches Suffering also makes us more zealous for souls, more apostolic. Unfortunately for his brothers, the rich man’s zeal was a “zeal come lately.” Because he spent all his energy and fortune in avoiding suffering, he was totally absorbed in self. The meaning of his life was completely temporal, and in the end he had nothing to show for it. One of our greatest sufferings in purgatory will be the realization that we could have done so much more for the salvation of souls.

Conversation with Christ: Lord, I have had a chance to look more seriously at myself in this meditation and to examine if my heart is set on you, if you are my treasure. Perhaps in some areas I still cling to the treasures of this world. But now I want to get rid of them completely. I know that my heart can be set on only one thing and that it will radiate with whatever fills it. Fill me with yourself, so that I may radiate you. Anything that is not you cripples my efforts to give you to others. Rid me of my selfishness. Make me your apostle.

Resolution: I will pray for someone who is difficult for me to love, and I will be kind to a stranger.

http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302

The program for the Church of the Third Millennium “focuses on Christ himself, to know, to love and to imitate”, so as to transform history with Him, until its fulfillment in the heavenly Jerusalem. Thus, quoting the letter “Tertio Millennio Ineunte of his predecessor John Paul II, Benedict XVI recalled the true ideal for all Christians. Before 8 thousand faithful in the Paul VI Hall, the Pope presented the figure of St. Bonaventure during today’s General Audience, calling the great Franciscan theologian of the thirteenth century, “a man of action and contemplation, of deep piety and prudence of governing.” Christ, he added, has always held a central role in the life and teachings of St. Bonaventure, …