Prayer for Abdominal Pains and Stomach Cramps (Also Labour Pains and more)

An interesting saint I discovered today was St. Erasmus of Formia also known as St. Elmo. He is invoked in prayer for those suffering from abdominal pain and stomach cramps. I'll get into why he is the patron of these ailments and maybe talk a little about my theory as to why this is the case.

He is also the patron of women in labor and those with appendicitis. Basically anything to do with abdominal pain in general.

But first of all here is the prayer:

The prayer that I found to St. Elmo speaks of his valiant faith. He maintained this faith in the face of great persecution and suffering. 

Prayer to St. Elmo for those suffering from Abdominal Pains or Stomach Cramps

O God, grand us through the intercession of Your dauntless bishop and martyr St. Erasmus, who so valiantly confessed the Catholic Faith, that we may learn the doctrine of this faith, practice its precepts, and thereby be made worthy to attain its promises. We ask all this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Prayer I composed to St. Elmo for healing:

O Great St. Elmo, Through your powerful intercession, you have brought healing to many of those who suffer from various ailments and pains of the abdomen, the pains of childbirth, those suffering from stomach cramps and many other ailments.

You yourself suffered great persecution and tortures in your holy witness of the Catholic faith. I ask your intercession for the intention of ___________ (state intention). Please intercede for me to God, our loving Father, that he may bring healing in body, mind, and soul. May I follow your example of great faith in the face of adversity and may God bless me with his abundant Grace.

I ask these prayers in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Please let me know in the comments below your thoughts on the prayer I composed. It was written in my own words, so please let me know if I am missing anything or if I said anything improperly.

So, back to St. Elmo. St. Erasmus was the bishop of Formia, Compagnia, Italy. During the prosecutions on Christians by Diocletian, he fled to Mount Lebanon to live a life of solitude. It is said he was fed by a raven who visited him. But the emperor discovered his whereabouts and threw St. Elmo in prison and had him tortured.

Let's just think about that for a minute. The emperor was so rabidly and violently opposed to Christians, he sought them out in mountains where they were in seclusion. Sometimes we think we have it bad in our day and age with Christians being persecuted, and we certainly are, but those times were so much worse. However, despite anything these terrible emperors tried to do, they had no impact. In fact, their attempts at stamping out Christianity only made it stronger. So be thankful for prosecutions because as we see in history, it strengthens the faith. The Roman empire no longer exists, but the Church most certainly does. Put your trust in God, not in temporal powers.

Back to the story. St. Erasmus was arrested by Diocletian, but he was able to escape. It is said he did so with the help of an angel.

St. Erasmus moved from Formia to Gaeta, both on the west coast of Italy. Because they were both on the coast, St. Elmo was invoked by sailors for his protection as they frequently visited the ports where he resided. Eventually during storms at sea, sailors would sometimes see electrical discharges. They saw these as indicators of St. Elmo's protection and thus became known as St. Elmo's fire.

According to Wikipedia, St. Elmo's fire is a weather phenomenon in which luminous plasma is created by a corona discharge from a sharp or pointed object in a strong electric field in the atmosphere (such as those generated by thunderstorms or created by a volcanic eruption).

Wow:

.

So eventually St. Elmo was again arrested and executed by the evil emperor. He was disemboweled.

Back to my theory. Why are saints often the patrons of their method of death. My theory is that once a saint dies and is in heaven, they receive a glorified body without any blemish or issue. Technically though, it's the same body they had on Earth, yet it's glorified. This means that their body had to undergo a transformation. The body parts were transformed from diseased and damaged to perfect and without issue, in fact, glorified. Therefore, that particular saint has intimate and holy knowledge as to how God can bring perfect healing both physically and spiritually.

Thanks for reading and until next time. Look forward to all comments!

USCCB takes a couple of good steps, but is it consistent?

The head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Archbishop Jose Gomez has issued some statements concerning Joe Biden and his possible presidency. First of all we all need to remember that Joe Biden isn't officially confirmed as president yet. And plus there are many lawsuits that are currently being undertaken which could see reversals and so on. So we shouldn't jump to any conclusions which it seems the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is currently doing.

Anyway, I just read this article where the conference is welcoming Joe Biden as the successor of Donald Trump. However they are expressing concern over his stance on abortion. This is obviously a fantastic development that they are actually speaking out. However there are still issues with this in terms of how it's being done.

Once again first and foremost it's fantastic that the USCCB is actually issuing a statement condemning abortion and condemning Joe Biden's approach to it. As we all know Joe Biden is very pro-choice and has no issue with abortion up to the moment of birth. In fact his party, the Democratic party, wants to increase access to abortion and eliminate anything that stands in its way.

From a Catholic perspective and from a basic perspective of morality, abortion is an absolute evil. There are no circumstances under which a direct abortion can be morally licit. It is murder. This is where the problem comes in with the statement by the Bishops. The problem is that in the same pronouncement in which they express concern over Joe Biden's stance on abortion they also congratulate him on many far less important issues and which I would argue don't have anything really to do is Catholicism at all. For example they say that he is doing a good job when it comes to climate change, racial justice, and immigration issues.

First of all let's talk about climate change and immigration issues. Those issues are ones which do not have solid Catholic doctrine behind them. For example how we should deal with climate change is definitely up for debate. In Catholic theology, human beings are the most important things on the Earth. We do not worship the Earth because the Earth is meant to serve humanity. This goes for animals of the Earth and all of the resources of the earth. Their ultimate end is to help humanity. And so the only correct understanding of our place in the world is that humanity must be placed first. Therefore, if our goal in reducing climate change is for the betterment of humanity overall then it can be acceptable. But often times climate change rhetoric looks at human beings as being some kind of parasite or disease of the earth which must be eradicated. Many climate change advocates demand less humanity and fewer people on the Earth and this is completely contrary to Catholic morality.

Also, as I've alluded to, the measures taken to lessen climate change must always be weighed against the negative effects these measures will have on humanity from a Catholic perspective. For example, if implementing climate change protocols will lead to great levels of hardship and possibly even starvation of many people it can in no way be considered. However, this is rarely the case when it comes to global warming.

As an example of this way of thinking I remember watching a show about very poor people in Africa and this United Nations institution was helping them build solar panels and other green energy technology in their Village. These people could not even access clean drinking water and they did not have access to electricity. But the primary focus of the UN was that these people use renewable energy even though renewable energy would be far more expensive than conventional forms of energy.

Countries and people must be allowed to evolve in terms of their technology. Perhaps once a society reaches a very advanced level they can start implementing green energy policies. But if they do so prematurely this actually ends up harming people far more. I remember reading an article about how every developed Nation at one point was very polluted and used very dirty forms of energy but after they had achieved a certain level of economic status they were able to implement cleaner forms of energy. But the point is if people are starving to death that is not the time to force them to have very expensive forms of energy at the expense of their development.

Similarly, when it comes to immigration, this is a matter of prudential judgment that each person with influence must make for themselves. Of course we must be compassionate and welcoming of refugees and people suffering under difficult situations but when it comes to the policy of a country concerning immigration this is not a moral issue but rather a prudential issue. One could reasonably argue one way or the other when it comes to this topic. No country is morally obliged to take in an unlimited number of people. As happens often, these discussions can become very polarized. One side says we need to have unlimited amounts of immigration while the other side insists there should be absolutely no immigration. My point is that the level of immigration that a particular country embraces can be the matter of discussion and debate and not something which should be seen as an absolute moral issue. Who is to say that taking in 100,000 immigrants is morally inferior to taking in 1 million. This is something that people must decide on their own and with the leaders of their country. Immigration policy does not involve Catholic doctrine or any kind of absolutes in that way.

This is far different from abortion which is an absolute evil. It is wrong to place these two issues on the same footing as it seems the USCCB is doing. This is causing great confusion to uncatechized Catholics. They falsely take on the idea that immigration policy is of the same importance as abortion policy. And so they weigh out their two options in that way. For example, they may say well one candidate is pro-life but he's also opposed to high levels of immigration, while the other candidate is pro-choice but embraces high levels of immigration. Based on the statements of the USCCB, someone who is not well-informed could reasonably think that both candidates in this case were equal, morally speaking. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Racial Injustice is definitely something of importance. However it is my belief that this issue has been blown completely out of proportion. The Catholic Church is probably the most diverse institution on the face of the planet. We have laity, priests, and bishops from all over the world, of all different nationalities, speaking dozens of languages. There is hardly a place on Earth that doesn't have the Catholic Church. And the two places where the church is growing fastest are Africa and South America. Clearly these people do not feel the Catholic Church is a racist Institution. So I think it's a poor prudential judgment for the bishops to be aligning themselves with groups such as black lives matter which stands firmly against most of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. I know the church has not officially aligned itself with BLM but at the same time they are making statements talking about our Collective guilt when it comes to these issues. I'm not saying there's nothing that should be done but to make it sound like racism is an ever-present threat to every non-white person is rather absurd. Of course racism is wrong but the demand for racism in order to advance certain ideas is far greater than the supply.

Overall, I believe that bishops conferences have become far too political. There are potentially thousands of sins one could commit. Yes, racism is one of them. Yes, maliciously destroying the Earth is a sin. But these are but two out of thousands of sins. We need to get back to the traditional teachings of the church. We need to talk about the seven deadly sins, about sins of pride, sins of gluttony and lust and so on and so forth. We rarely hear about these things. Instead of aligning itself with the state, the Church needs to separate itself from the state. Although we do not believe in the separation of church and state, the Church needs to act completely independently and have no ties to the state that would curtail its activity. The Church is appointed by Jesus Christ to pass judgement on the state and to tell those within it whether they're acting in a moral or immoral way.

The Simple Solution of World Hunger and Poverty

I've heard many religious people preach on poverty and world hunger and offer their simple and easy way to beat it. It's the billionaires and millionaires! If only those greedy businesspeople would give a tiny part of their wealth to the poor, we'd eradicate poverty and all would be great!

It sounds so simple. Rich people have "too much" and poor people have too little. So the rich just have to give money to the poor and bam, problem solved. I have many issues with this sentiment and I believe it causes more harm than good.

These days everyone seems to want to save the world. They want to end world hunger, end pollution, end fossil fuels, save the whales, end global warming, etc. People seem to think in the grandest and most grandiose of terms. Why go for something small like helping your neighbor with something when you can save the entire planet!

It's a very enticed proposition and one that leads to great damage in my opinion. Let me explain why.

I have heard this phrased in various ways, but how can someone expect to "change the world" when they can't even change the sheets on their bed. It's a legitimate question. Think of yourself. Think of a negative characteristic or issue you've been dealing with. Perhaps you are impatient, maybe you are messy, perhaps you are rude or inconsiderate. Maybe you don't do your fair share of chores. The list could go on. Now, just think of the difficult you had or are having in overcoming this relatively minor flaw. So you can't even overcome something this small and yet you expect at the flick of a finger, you can change over 7 billion people? You must be a real optimist!

By trying to change the world and not ourselves, we are passing the buck on to everyone else while convincing ourselves that we are morally upright and perfect. We adopt a sort of relativist mentality whereby our failures are insignificant and meaningless and we are doing our part to rescue every man, woman, and child on the Earth. Wow, what a sense of moral superiority one can achieve through this!

In fact, many people neglect to do even small things as they are too busy focusing on the big things. Yet, they probably have little if any real impact on the so-called "big things", despite what they tell themselves. People try to convince others to vote a certain way. They spend dozens of hours informing themselves, discussing their opinions to others, etc. In the end, most likely they will get the influence of exactly one vote and have no other impact. Yet they could have spent those countless hours helping out a neighbor, visiting family, or working on becoming holier.

The issue of global poverty is not as simple as saying well look at this huge corporation that had profits of $X Billions of dollars. They simply have to transfer that money and poof, problem over. Again, when we think this way, we shift all the responsibility to everyone else. "I'm not responsible for poor people, that's the responsibility of billionaires." I'm not saying billionaires shouldn't help if they have the means, but I am saying we shouldn't scapegoat our own responsibility on them.

Global poverty is a complex issue. It will not be solved simply by throwing money at it. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have pledged to give tens of billions of dollars toward eradicating poverty. Will poverty be over once this happens? Of course it won't. I'm not holding them up as moral paragons as there are many issues we could discuss. But I am talking about the concept of money solving all problems.

As Catholics we believe in the value of work. It's better for a man to work and earn money to provide for his family rather than become permanently dependent on someone else to support him. Jesus said to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. But he meant it in a personal one-on-one way, not please advocate for rich people to give stuff to the poor.

The other part is that we don't know how rich we are. If you are reading this from a computer or expensive mobile device, you are relatively rich. In fact, to be among the global one percent, you only have to earn something like $36,000 per year. That's really not that much. What if someone from a poor country was speaking to you and said you should support them because you are among the 1%?

Sure, you could say you may be in the 1% but others are richer. First of all, that's got nothing to do with you. You are given commands by God Almighty. They can't be deflected onto someone else. Secondly, could someone with $10 million say they are not responsible because there are billionaires out there with much more? Could someone with $1 billion say he isn't responsible because Jeff Bezos has almost $200 Billion? Of course that would be absurd.

I also think we as human beings are designed to help those around us first. It has to be a personalized approach. I heard this as one of the key problems with government poverty-reduction strategies - it's completely impersonal. If you know someone who is struggling financially, you can help them but more than financially. Maybe you can help find them a job. Perhaps you can help them with any addiction issue they may have. Perhaps you can provide a place to stay in some circumstances. But you are an accountability partner and you can do much more good than them receiving a paycheck from an anonymous source.

Another point is that poverty is not a simplistic issue. Tens of billions of dollars have been given to poor people and poor countries and yet there is still much poverty. Poverty is going down a lot globally though, but this decrease has very little to do with charity. It has more to do with a global market for products and services and increased efficiency brought by capitalism. Charity definitely has its place, but again I think it mainly has to be personalized.

Stop blaming everyone else for the problems of the world. Help out a relative you've neglected, make amends with an old friend, help out someone who is hard on their luck. Don't think you have to change the whole world and demand others to do your work. Look forward to seeing your comments and have a great day!

Prayer for Those Suffering from Pneumonia and/or Covid

 

St. Bernardino of Siena - Patron Saint of Those Suffering from Respiratory Illness

I would like to share with you a prayer that I wrote for the patron saint of respiratory illnesses, St. Bernardino of Siena. I wrote this myself so please pardon me if it is not the greatest of prayers.

I am writing this prayer because pneumonia is a highly-searched illness and I wanted to provide a Catholic prayer in response to it. Covid is also a respiratory illness so one can also pray this prayer for that intention as well. Without further ado, here is the prayer I composed:

Prayer to St. Bernardino of Siena (Patron Saint of Respiratory Illness)

Lord, Father all-powerful and ever-living God,
You led St. Bernardino of Siena to help those suffering during the Plague.
Lord, you also assisted and cured St. Bernardino of Siena of his respiratory illness.
You gave St. Bernardino strength and courage to preach beautifully to the people of Italy.
I ask you, St. Bernardino, through your powerful intercession, to pray to God Almighty
For the intention of (State Intention Here)
Pray that the Lord brings healing, peace, love and joy to this person.
I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.

Update: Thank you for viewing.

Civil Unions for Homosexuals? (10/21)

Well-done homily on the subject. Worth listening to.

Is Pope Francis Starving For Attention? His latest disheartening comments about gay civil unions.

Pope Francis has once again made headlines over his careless comments. The mainstream media and world in general is fawning over his latest remarks in which he advocates civil unions for gay people. Rather than defend and explain Catholic doctrine, which he should do since he's, you know, THE POPE, he just randomly goes on some tangent about giving legal rights to gay people, etc.

His exact words in new documentary titled Francesco, state:

“Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”

Why is the pope even commenting on this? Gay people do not have a "right" to a family. What does this even mean. People have the right to start a family, but gay people can't even procreate. So what does this mean? Does it mean a gay man has the right to live with another gay man and have a child or children live there as well? How is this a "right"?

Has Pope Francis forgotten that homosexual acts are sinful and condemned by the Church he leads? Affirming people living in sinful situations does not help them! I don't mind if he affirms their inherent dignity or says they have the right to respect, etc. That all makes sense. But to say a state has the obligation to create a special type of "marriage" for gay couples is absurd.

Again, it goes back to the basics. What is marriage? Is it any combination of consenting adults? Is procreation an aspect of marriage? Is a business partnership a marriage? I mean, marriage has a definition. If it doesn't have a definition, then it's meaningless. Why even have a word?

But if it does have a definition, what is it? Is it the union of 2 consenting adults? Okay, why not three consenting adults? Why are you limiting it? So if it can be any number of people, what else is in the definition? Does it have to be procreative? Well if it can involve gay people, then the answer is no. So now what is it? It's nothing. So what is there to want?

Some might say it's a legal arrangement. Well, you can have legal arrangements that aren't marriage. But marriage has always been something that is special and unique. It pre-exists Christianity. But it has certain key factors. It has been used around the world to create and sustain families. Gay marriage does none of this and it violates basic natural law.

This all boils down to a problem of non-specificity, a lack of clarity. St. Thomas Aquinas would define all of his terms and be very precise. He would use exact language. Fr. Ripperger points this out as well in many of his talks. He too will often define a word when using it so that everyone is on the same page.

On the other hand, look at Pope Francis. Specifics are his Kryptonite. As Patrick Coffin puts, he uses weaponized ambiguity. You can't just start with one premise and then throw the baby out with the bath water based on it. To put it concretely, just because gay people are human beings loved by God, it doesn't mean we throw out the definition of marriage that we have had for centuries. Just because we must respect everyone, it does not mean we must condone all activity. We need clarity on these things.

The pope has reneged on his duties. Is he waiting for someone else to preach sound doctrine? Has he forgotten that he is the pope, our spiritual father? It seems he has. 

I feel as though Pope Francis has abandoned his spiritual children. He has gone off seeking the approval and affection of "others". In this case, the "others" are the media, the secular world, etc. He is doing everything he can to get in their good books. He doesn't realize they are just using him. Does he think his actions are attracting the enemies of the Church into the Church? If he thinks that, he is sorely mistaken.

Men who leave their families to be with another woman almost never end up marrying that woman in the end. Once the other woman was done with him, it was over. So it is with the evil secular world. They will try to attract you, but once you're in, they spit on you and leave you in the dirt.

I recently read a quote from Pope Benedict XVI concerning Pope John Paul II. To paraphrase, he said Pope John Paul II never sought popularity or to be liked. He was willing to present the unadulterated truth and to "take the blows" that came with it.

Sadly, it seems we now have the opposite of this in Pope Francis.

P.S. I hate to be so harsh. I just feel upset by all of this. I hope the pope realizes soon what he is doing. In the meantime, we must always pray for him.

Trump and Biden Debate

I watched much of the debate last night featuring Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I will first and foremost say that I prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden for many reasons. Whatever Trump may do during the debate does not change the substance of their positions. Having said that, let's take a look at the debate and what happened.

From my point of view, I cannot defend the actions of Donald Trump during this debate. He continually interrupted, made irrelevant points, etc. I think he discovered that he could flummox Biden by interjecting random comments. Biden often took the bait. He would go off his planned speech and try to address whatever word or phrase Trump through out. Trump used this to knock Biden off-kilter.

People were saying Trump was debating Chris Wallace along with Biden. I kind of get where they are coming from. Biden seemed like he was being attacked by Trump and so Wallace would step in to defend him. One commentator asked, why not just have the candidates in a room without a moderator and just have at it. At this point, that's almost what it was.

These are not just the actions of Mr. Trump. I have noticed this type of comportment in various debates, whether in the US or Canada or locally. Instead of both parties having an understood agreement that they will let the other speak, they seem to be using tactical bullying and talking-over to get their points across. It's more of a battle than simply a battle of words.

More civil debates seemed to rely on the premise that "I will let you speak and get your full point across. Ultimately I don't want people following you, and so it would be better for you to not even say your points of view. However, if I am to get my own point across, I will sacrifice the chance to interrupt you so that I can have a chance to speak myself."

Nowadays, it's more like don't let the other person get a point across lest people may be convinced by his argument. Make the other person look ridiculous, incoherent, etc. Perhaps they are attempting to appear dominant. The person who speaks over the other more wins?

Either way, I think it is a blow to what debates aspire to. As someone I know mentioned, if this were a high school debate, they would both be told to sit back down and get an F.

People choose sides, it's just what people do naturally. But I think you can be in favour of a candidate without condoning his behavior. I definitely do not want Biden to win, I think he has a very dangerous party and dangerous ideas. The style of debate is not the same as the platform of the parties. Therefore, I think Trump should win and lead the country. There is a lot at stake.

If you want to see a big difference from the new style of debate, check out a debate featuring Ronald Reagan. He argues well but he is still cordial and follows the rules of etiquette. If Trump is the proponent of Law and Order, it starts with your comportment.