#JohnCandy is trending in Canada on Twitter today. I am not sure why. I really loved John Candy movies. He seemed like a genuinely funny and nice guy. He was also Catholic! He definitely left us too soon!
It seems a new religion has emerged. First it was Climate Change and now it's Covid Compliance. People are using very religious language when it comes to this whole pandemic and our obligations to conform. It's actually really strange to be honest. To make things worse, the new Covid religion is being advocated to the injury to other religions. Let me explain how.
I see posts all over the place - Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, various websites, etc - demanding compliance to all the Covid protocols. These posts don't stop at simply asking people to keep distance from one another or to wear a mask. They get right into moralizing and self-praise.
People are getting very self-righteous. "I don't wear a mask to protect me, I wear one to protect you." Some twist the words of Jesus to love one's enemy by making a similar point in the context of the pandemic. "I may not like you, but I will wear a mask to protect you." Oh wow, truly we're living in the time of the Beatitudes!
Anyone not complying to the letter of the ever-changing laws of Covid is deemed to be selfish and immoral. On the other hand, those who comply praise themselves as being loving, caring, and overall great people.
Must be nice to think you are a morally virtuous person because you wear a piece of cotton over your face in public. Every year it seems there is a new morality among the non-religious. One year it's climate change with people proclaiming their moral superiority because they are decrying "others" who pollute. Another year people are patting themselves on the back for being "woke" when it comes to gender. Whatever the topic of the day happens to be, there is an army of people clamoring to show just how virtuous and righteous they are with regards to their ever-changing moral code.
These are all things we have come to expect. But one thing that is new is how these newfangled zealots are not satisfied with simply promoting their cause du jour. They must now intrude on what everyone else is doing and try to stop that as well. It's like they aren't satisfied to live and let live. Perhaps it's out of jealousy. I'm not sure.
So what exactly am I talking about? I'm referring to politicians and others mocking traditional Christianity and telling Christians to just stay home. Using an extremely condescending tone, they are suddenly theological experts who feel qualified to pronounce that you don't need to pray in a church, God is everywhere, you can just pray to him from your house! Yes, because these people know so much about God!
First of all, I feel compelled to respond to this line of reasoning. Should Christians be satisfied to simply "stay home" because God is everywhere and can hear your prayers? Let's break it down. Yes, God is absolutely everywhere. Yes, we can pray to God from anywhere. However, we must delve into the Catholic understanding of worship. The what and the Who.
The Catholic Faith isn't only about a one-to-one relationship with God, where we don't listen to anyone else and we are just free-floating autonomous agents in the world. Rather, we worship both individually and communally. In fact, community is a central part of our faith. In the creed, recited since the earliest days of our Faith, we declare that we believe in the communion of saints. The saints in heaven pray for us here on Earth. We also believe in a communion of believers. This is why we say someone is in communion with Rome. We, the members of the Church, are united to the visible head of Church on Earth who is the Roman Pontiff.
It goes even beyond this. Jesus Christ gave us his body, blood, soul, and divinity in the form of bread and wine so that we can partake of him weekly or even daily. Jesus Christ literally dwells within those who partake of this great gift and sacrament.
“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” – John 6:56
Some people are unable or unwilling to attend Mass in person. For many, this is a painful reality. In many places, people are dispensed from their Sunday obligation. I can definitely understand where these people are coming from. There is nothing shameful or wrong about being unable to attend Mass.
However, it is not up to random politicians to decide how important the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to Catholics. It just really annoys me when some guy or girl, who may or may not even be the slightest bit religious, decides they know what's best in terms our relationship with God Almighty. That is not up to them! How dare someone project their personal beliefs on me when it comes to God. No one gets to say how important in-person worship is to me. That's not for them to decide.
This attitude just represents such unbelievable levels of arrogance. Not only arrogant in that they think they know what's best for everyone else, but also arrogant in they assume the role of speaking for God. I wouldn't even mind as much if they approached the subject with humility but they don't. They approach it with condescension, and even mockery. But God will not be mocked.
It was always my understanding that religion enjoyed a special privilege in society, especially in Canada and the US. It is an inalienable right. And yet, when the slightest thing happens, the slightest infectious disease spreads, all of a sudden our most basic fundamental human rights are thrown out the window for our "safety". We need to really stand up against these tyrants, big and small, if we hope to maintain any shred of independence and religious freedom.
In the early days of the Church, Christians were asked to just make a small "reasonable" offering to a false Roman deity and be on their way. They refused because they did not want to break the first commandment of not having strange Gods before the one true God. Because of this, many of them were martyred. They had such great faith and many are revered to this day. Are we willing to stand up against the tyranny of little dictators in our government?
P.S. I just want to say this is a difficult subject. I'm not setting myself up as an example of someone who always opposes the government. I wear my mask in public places. I am simply saying we need to stand up for our rights and it's not up to politicians to decide for us how important our churches and sacraments are in our spiritual lives.
Readings for Thursday, December 17, 2020 in the Catholic Church
Thursday of the Third Week of Advent
Lectionary: 193
Reading 1
GN 49:2, 8-10
Jacob called his sons and said to them:
“Assemble and listen, sons of Jacob,
listen to Israel, your father.
“You, Judah, shall your brothers praise
–your hand on the neck of your enemies;
the sons of your father shall bow down to you.
Judah, like a lion’s whelp,
you have grown up on prey, my son.
He crouches like a lion recumbent,
the king of beasts–who would dare rouse him?
The scepter shall never depart from Judah,
or the mace from between his legs,
While tribute is brought to him,
and he receives the people’s homage.”
Responsorial Psalm
PS 72:1-2, 3-4AB, 7-8, 17
R. (see 7) Justice shall flourish in his time, and fullness of peace for ever.
O God, with your judgment endow the king,
and with your justice, the king’s son;
He shall govern your people with justice
and your afflicted ones with judgment.
R. Justice shall flourish in his time, and fullness of peace for ever.
The mountains shall yield peace for the people,
and the hills justice.
He shall defend the afflicted among the people,
save the children of the poor.
R. Justice shall flourish in his time, and fullness of peace for ever.
Justice shall flower in his days,
and profound peace, till the moon be no more.
May he rule from sea to sea,
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
R. Justice shall flourish in his time, and fullness of peace for ever.
May his name be blessed forever;
as long as the sun his name shall remain.
In him shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed;
all the nations shall proclaim his happiness.
R. Justice shall flourish in his time, and fullness of peace for ever.
Alleluia
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
O Wisdom of our God Most High,
guiding creation with power and love:
come to teach us the path of knowledge!
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Gospel
MT 1:1-17
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,
the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Abraham became the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah,
whose mother was Tamar.
Perez became the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
Ram the father of Amminadab.
Amminadab became the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Salmon the father of Boaz,
whose mother was Rahab.
Boaz became the father of Obed,
whose mother was Ruth.
Obed became the father of Jesse,
Jesse the father of David the king.
David became the father of Solomon,
whose mother had been the wife of Uriah.
Solomon became the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asaph.
Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Joram,
Joram the father of Uzziah.
Uzziah became the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amos,
Amos the father of Josiah.
Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers
at the time of the Babylonian exile.
After the Babylonian exile,
Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
Zerubbabel the father of Abiud.
Abiud became the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
Azor the father of Zadok.
Zadok became the father of Achim,
Achim the father of Eliud,
Eliud the father of Eleazar.
Eleazar became the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Of her was born Jesus who is called the Christ.
Thus the total number of generations
from Abraham to David
is fourteen generations;
from David to the Babylonian exile, fourteen generations;
from the Babylonian exile to the Christ,
fourteen generations.
This is a very well-written essay by Andrew Coyne. He makes the point that assisted suicide went from being barely tolerated in certain rare cases, to being applied in a far broader way. Coyne argues that the way this new "right" is defined, there is no way it will not end up becoming more and more available.
I will post his article in its entirety. It is very shocking and eye-opening:
Full Article:
Six years ago, before the Supreme Court discovered a right to die in the constitution’s guarantee of the right to life, what most people understood as the case for assisted suicide was something like the following: a mentally competent adult, suffering acute pain from a terminal illness and facing more of the same to the end, comes to a firm and unwavering decision to kill herself – but is physically unable, by virtue of the same illness, to do so unaided, or fears she will be unable to when the time comes.
That was the condition of Sue Rodriguez, whose 1993 Supreme Court appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Criminal Code prohibition on assisting in a suicide, though unsuccessful, first brought the issue to public attention. It was also the condition of Gloria Taylor, the woman on whose case the Court based its 2015 decision legalizing the practice (Lee Carter, whose name is attached to the decision’s short-form title, was merely a co-appellant).
Had you predicted then that the right to an assisted suicide would soon come to apply, not only in cases of physical pain but psychological, and not only to patients in the last agonizing stages of death but those who were nowhere near it – had you predicted, indeed, that a patient’s request to be killed would not even have to be repeated and persistent for a doctor to act on it, that the whole process could be telescoped into a single day – you would have been accused of “slippery slope” thinking.
Had you predicted that, by 2019, just the third full year after it was legalized, nearly one in 50 deaths in the country would be by assisted suicide, even on the (almost certainly underreported) official numbers; and that, this having been accomplished, talk would turn to extending the procedure – not just to competent adults, but the mentally ill and even children – you would have been carted off.
Yet that, incredibly, is where we are. The cautious, limited exceptions that people understood the issue to involve at the start – what most people understand it to involve even now – have been overtaken by an accelerating drive toward death-on-demand. Had the public known this was where we were headed, they might have objected. Instead it has been done in stages, a series of bait-and-switch routines in which the courts and legislatures have taken equal part.
The irony is that the very foundation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter was that there was no such slippery slope. Perhaps assisted suicide, once legalized, might have spread and metastasized in other countries, barbaric places such as Belgium and the Netherlands, to include children, people suffering depression, prisoners serving life sentences, and so on – but that, the Court was certain, could not happen here. The evidence was “anecdotal.” The “medico-legal culture” was altogether different.
And yet the Court immediately undermined its own premise. Though the decision ostensibly applied only “in the factual circumstances of this case,” i.e. to “people like Ms. Taylor” or “persons in her situation,” i.e. “wracked with pain” and near the “end of life,” by the time the Court got around to working out the general principle to be applied in such cases it had ditched any requirement that a patient’s condition be either terminal or physical; rather just “grievous and irremediable.”
Still, the decision did not preclude governments from imposing such a rule, even if the court declined to do so – if not that death be at hand, then at least “reasonably foreseeable,” in the language the Trudeau government adopted in subsequent legislation. So when a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled that provision unconstitutional in September, 2019, she was essentially freelancing.
The government had ample grounds to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Instead, it drafted legislation – Bill C-7, which it is now attempting to rush through the House of Commons in time for Christmas – that obediently accepted the Quebec court’s opinion as its own. Worse, it went further.
No longer would there be a mandatory 10-day waiting period between a request for assisted suicide and its execution, to allow for a change of heart. (According to Health Canada, 263 such requests were withdrawn in 2019.) Neither would two witnesses be required: henceforth, one would suffice.
And the Justice Minister promises more: to the objections of some that the bill excluded those suffering exclusively from a mental illness, the minister promises this will be the subject of a forthcoming review. As will the idea of extending it to “mature minors.”
Well, of course it will. It was obvious it would from the start. This is the point “moderate” proponents of assisted suicide are either unable to recognize, or unwilling to disclose. There is a fundamental disjoint between the idea, on the one hand, that people have an absolute right to autonomy over their own lives, and on the other, that this can be hedged about with all sorts of limitations.
Assisted suicide was sold, initially, as a sort of conditional right, like the right to drink or drive or vote, which could be limited to certain sorts of people. But the logic of assisted suicide does not permit it. It presents suicide not as a tragedy we should wish at all costs to prevent, but as a blessing, a release from intolerable suffering – so much so, that we should not merely allow people to end their own lives, but others to do so on their behalf; and not merely allow it, but require it – even subsidize it. So it is that, in the space of a few years, assisted suicide has gone from a crime to a right to a public service.
It could not be otherwise. And if such a right is not conditional, but inherent, a basic human right, how can it be limited: whether by the severity of the pain, or the proximity of death, or the identity of the sufferer? On what principle of justice do we tell a person they may seek relief from endless torment on the basis of a physical disability, but not mental illness? How do we extend such mercy to an adult, but not a child?
Perhaps once, we might have held the line. But it is too late for that now.
Hungary has taken the morally good step to recognizing the true definition of marriage and family. This continues a trend in the country to create a Christian and specifically Catholic society. They are not welcoming in droves of Muslim immigrants, and they are now defining marriage and families as they ought to be: a man and a woman raising children.
There are other aspects to the laws being passed:
Okay, I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, but how is this a major issue for Catholics in the world? It just seems rather than teaching the Catholic Faith, Pope Francis is more concerned with promulgating his socialist economic theories. As mentioned before, these issues may be indirectly linked to Catholic teaching, but they are not the core of what the Church is about. All I ever hear from this pope is social justice commentary.
If Bergoglio wasn't the pope and said the same things, he'd be viewed a modern-day social justice warrior. Perhaps an idealistic, pie-in-the-sky activist who just makes random pronouncements about "making the world a better place".
He uses what Patrick Coffin calls "weaponized ambiguity". He continually talks in terms of solidarity, fraternity, community, etc. It's a very vague emotion-based approach. People can attach to whatever he says any meaning they want.
A quote from the news article:
The meeting is an event that “challenges every person of good will to rethink, even more today, the relationship between man, nature and the Creator as a factor of profound balance and communion,” the pope said, “in the search not for the logic of profit, but of service, not of the exploitation of resources, but of care and attention for nature as a welcoming home for all.”
What is the "logic of profit"? Can that be explained? Or are we to simply assume and attach our own ideas?
He says in search, not of exploitation of resources, but of care and attention for nature as a welcoming home for all. Again, what does this mean?
Think about it. What is exploitation? It has a negative connotation, meaning to just take advantage of someone or something for our own personal gain without considering the other person. Okay, so how does this apply to agriculture?
Imagine a farmer who grows carrots on many acres of land. He listens to the pope speaking on this subject. How does he implement what the pope is saying? How does he plant and harvest his carrots so that he is not "exploiting" the resource of carrots but instead he is searching for care and attention for nature as a welcoming home for all?
Does he go into his carrot field and shout out, "This carrot field is here for the care and attention for nature as a welcoming home for all!"
My point is what he is saying is meaningless. Does he think profits are bad? I would say he probably does. He has never spoken positively about them. So why not just come out and say he believes in a planned economy in which prices are determined and workers are compensated based on planned wages. At least then we'd know what he is saying. But he speaks in code. Half of what he says barely makes any sense. By and large, it just seems completely meaningless.
To be fair, I guess he is criticizing his impression of how agriculture works. In his mind, a farm owner goes to a place and takes over massive amounts of land. Probably in the process of doing so, he uproots many poor people who have nowhere to turn. In fact, the land is probably currently providing a sustainable life for hundreds of small farmers, who although not rich, have plenty to eat and can enjoy a good life.
So the rich man just kicks them all off the land. You see, rich people can do whatever they want and poor people are forced to comply. Once this rich person owns hundreds of acres of land, he employs people to work the land. Many of the workers he hires used to own the land themselves but now they work for very little. On top of this, hundreds of other poor people with no other choice but to work for him start doing the extremely difficult tasks while the rich landowner sits back in comfort in his huge mansion.
He pays everyone almost nothing, since the wages he pays are just based on a whim. Is he feeling stingy and paying them ten cents per hour or is he feeling generous and giving them a whole twenty cents an hour? It doesn't matter what he decides, workers have no other choice but to accept this wage.
The owner then has a massive harvest in which he sells his carrots or whatever else at a huge profit, again to very poor people who can barely afford what he is offering. For example, they make $20 per week, but he charges them $1 for a single carrot. What else can they do? The farmer incurred total expenses of a million dollars, but he will now sell his products for $100 million. He gets $99 million for himself. Meanwhile his workers are on the brink of starvation.
Eventually after several decades of making hundreds of millions of dollars and paying no taxes (because the rich never do), the rich man fires everyone and retires. Of course, he abandons the land and stops tending to it. In his thinking, he owns it, he can do whatever he wants with it! Soon after, the land dries up and everything dies. It becomes a sort of desert, devoid of all life.
In this cartoon world, as Tom Woods might call it, it's pretty simple. Maybe in this context the words of Pope Francis could have some discernible meaning? Hard to say really. But this isn't reality. In reality, capitalism is far more complex than this, and has benefitted people more than any other economic system by far.
A few points:
How can anyone see the world and truly believe that capitalism makes people worse off? In communist countries you have bread lines. In capitalist countries you have lines and lines of various breads.
The pope's duty and mission is to spread the Gospel, to spread the Church and the message of Jesus Christ. Our Lord came for our salvation, not to tell us profit is a bad thing.
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/21263948-catholic-memes
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of our death.
Latin Version:
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Further Information about the Hail Mary Prayer:
The Hail Mary or Ave Maria Prayer is one of the most popular Catholic prayers and I would like to explain a little about its importance.
The Hail Mary comes from the words of the angel Gabriel during the Annunciation to Mary that she would bear a son named Jesus. The words of the first part of the prayer come from what the angel said to her. The second part of the prayer which begins with Holy Mary proclaims that she is the Mother of God and we ask her to pray for us now and at the hour of our death before our hopeful reunion with Our Lord. When reciting the prayer with others, typically one person will recite the first part and everyone else will recite the second part.
As you can see the prayer is Biblical. Everything in the first section comes directly from an Archangel of heaven. The second part is simply saying Mary is the Mother of God and asking her to pray for us.
We need to clarify a few points about this prayer. First, Catholics believe in the communion of saints, meaning we can ask for the intercession of saints in heaven just like we'd ask for the prayers of our friends and family on earth. We do not believe that death disconnects us from those who enjoy the beatific vision. Therefore there is nothing wrong with asking for saints to interceded for us. Mary, being the holiest human being who is perfect in all virtue, and the mother of our Savior is the best person of all the saints to ask for intercession. She knows her son better than any other human person. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to ask her to pray for you to her son.
Another point that requires some clarification is the appellation of Mary as "Mother of God". There is a simple syllogism which makes this point quite simple:
1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ
2. Jesus Christ is God.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
It's straightforward. But some people have gone too far in alleging that Catholics are saying more than we actually are. By Mother of God, we are not saying Mary precedes God or brought God into existence or any such thing. Despite being the holiest and greatest of all creatures, Mary remains a creature and is not divine. She is not the fourth person of the Holy Trinity, nor is she equal to God. We give her great honour and respect, but never worship as that would be against the First Commandment and Catholic teaching.
I hope this explanation gives some clarification about the Hail Mary Prayer. Most prominently, the prayer is featured in the Holy Rosary which Our Lady in her appearance at Fatima tells people to recite daily. The Rosary is a beautiful collection of prayers. No one can love Our Blessed Mother more than Jesus does. Therefore there is no danger in asking for her powerful intercession. She loves us all like a Mother since she is the Mother of all Humanity.
Readings for Wednesday, December 16, 2020 in the Catholic Church
Wednesday of the Third Week of Advent
Lectionary: 189
Reading 1
IS 45:6C-8, 18, 21C-25
I am the LORD, there is no other;
I form the light, and create the darkness,
I make well-being and create woe;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
Let justice descend, O heavens, like dew from above,
like gentle rain let the skies drop it down.
Let the earth open and salvation bud forth;
let justice also spring up!
I, the LORD, have created this.
For thus says the LORD,
The creator of the heavens,
who is God,
The designer and maker of the earth
who established it,
Not creating it to be a waste,
but designing it be lived in:
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Who announced this from the beginning
and foretold it from of old?
Was it not I, the LORD,
besides whom there is no other God?
There is no just and saving God but me.
Turn to me and be safe,
all you ends of the earth,
for I am God; there is no other!
By myself I swear,
uttering my just decree
and my unalterable word:
To me every knee shall bend;
by me every tongue shall swear,
Saying, “Only in the LORD
are just deeds and power.
Before him in shame shall come
all who vent their anger against him.
In the LORD shall be the vindication and the glory
of all the descendants of Israel.”
Responsorial Psalm
PS 85:9AB AND 10, 11-12, 13-14
R. (Isaiah 45:8) Let the clouds rain down the Just One, and the earth bring forth a Savior.
I will hear what God proclaims;
the LORD–for he proclaims peace to his people.
Near indeed is his salvation to those who fear him,
glory dwelling in our land.
R. Let the clouds rain down the Just One, and the earth bring forth a Savior.
Kindness and truth shall meet;
justice and peace shall kiss.
Truth shall spring out of the earth,
and justice shall look down from heaven.
R. Let the clouds rain down the Just One, and the earth bring forth a Savior.
The LORD himself will give his benefits;
our land shall yield its increase.
Justice shall walk before him,
and salvation, along the way of his steps.
R. Let the clouds rain down the Just One, and the earth bring forth a Savior.
Alleluia
See IS 40:9-10
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Raise your voice and tell the Good News:
Behold, the Lord GOD comes with power.
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Gospel
LK 7:18B-23
At that time,
John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask,
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?”
When the men came to the Lord, they said,
“John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask,
‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’”
At that time Jesus cured many of their diseases, sufferings, and evil spirits;
he also granted sight to many who were blind.
And Jesus said to them in reply,
“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard:
the blind regain their sight,
the lame walk,
lepers are cleansed,
the deaf hear, the dead are raised,
the poor have the good news proclaimed to them.
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”
First of all, if you were to tell someone from 50 years ago that these laws were being proposed, they'd probably look at you very strangely and wonder why on earth such laws were needed.
Person from 50 years ago: "Um, so you are proposing that men can't participate in women's sports... and that if a baby is born alive, we shouldn't kill him? Those two things aren't already obvious 50 years from now?"
That's how I imagine it would go. But the sad reality is that abortion absolutism has gotten so bad that even common-sense legislation is seen as extreme. I'm pretty sure Tulsi will be attacked for even mentioning this legislation, let alone actually officially putting it forward. The Democratic party, by and large from what I have read, has fully embraced abortion in any and all situations. They seem to believe that even the slightest restriction on this procedure will threaten the entire thing. Of course, that's not a bad thing. But what I mean is they are so fixated on an absolutist position that they won't allow even the tiniest disagreement. It's rather shocking when you think of it.
I'm glad to see a Democrat stand up for what's right. I know people will have an all or nothing approach, that relatively few babies are killed by being denied medical treatment after an abortion, and although I generally hate this expression, but if even one baby is saved because of this it will certainly be worth it.
Tulsi also proposed a law stating that biological men cannot compete with women. Captain Obvious approves. But again, our society in general has strayed so far from the idea of objective truth that even this is controversial. Regardless of the whole gender debate, one thing is obvious: in sports, players are not competing against gender identities, they are competing against bodies and minds. Therefore, if the body is that of a male, regardless of how that male perceives himself, it is simply unfair and uneven for a woman to compete against this male. In various areas, men are superior to women. Women are also better than men in various areas as well. Saying they are both the same is absurd and patently false.
Let's hope this is the start of the injection of some common-sense into the Democratic party in the United States.
Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."
