"Where have you taken Him?"

Mary Magdalene was in distress and she was weeping.

She, with some other women, wished to visit Jesus grave site only to find that His body is missing and they have no idea who took it. Two angels appeared to her and ask her the reason for crying and she replied, “They have taken my Lord away, and I do not where they have put him.” At that instant Jesus appeared to stand behind her and ask the same question, “Why are you crying?”, as He continued, “Who is it you are looking for?”. She turned around and without recognizing the Lord, mistaking Him to be the gardener, replied, “If you took Him away, sir, tell me where you have put Him and I will go and get Him.” 

The tomb is empty.

The stone cover is removed.

The linen cloths are lying around.

The head cloth was rolled up by itself.

The angels stood guard to announce the good news.

The Lord is risen.

His ultimate victory over sin and death is consummated.

His mission of salvation is complete.

The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all gave beautiful stories and narratives of Jesus’ life after death that any Christian would have wished that the New Testament part ends on that note – the triumphant resurrection and glorious ascension of the Lord. And yet we all know that Christ’s mission and commission to all parts of the world has actually just started for His disciples.

Indeed, this is still true for us living in our present time.

Christ’s mission is very much on-going.

And we might very well ask ourselves these questions:

Where have I taken the Lord in my life up to now? Is He truly resurrected or just a passing Lenten tradition? After this Lent is over, will I go back to the dark graves of my envy, lust, jealousy, hatred and greed? Will I roll back the stone cover of indifference and apathy to my own grave, with the intent of keeping out the light of Jesus to shine on me?

When we pondered on our answers to these questions, will we weep bitterly in realizing that Jesus has not really been resurrected yet into our hearts? That Jesus is like the unrecognized gardener near the tomb or the stranger walking between two believers on the road to Emmaus. Even His apostles who were fishing on the Sea of Galilee barely know it was Him until He made Himself known to them. Do we even act out like Thomas who was never prevailed upon to believe despite his friends’ testimonies that the Lord indeed is risen?

Or are we going to feel joy and peace in our hearts knowing that despite our frailties and weaknesses, Jesus is well and alive in our lives? We may fail at times but we believe that the Lord does not look at our iniquities but on our true value and our heavenly destination. We look forward to each day, full of hope and love to share; gifts which we received first from the Lord.

So let us take the Lord, first and foremost, into our own heart.

Afterwards, we can we effectively take Him to others.

Maligayang Pasko po ng Pagkabuhay.

God bless.

Economics, Reproductive Health and the Integrity of the Family

Headed the Way of Greece  By Arland Nichols and Donald DeMarco

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 28, 2012 (Zenit.org).- The term “economic” is derived from the Greek oikonomia, pertaining to the management of the household. In this sense, the term has considerable breadth inasmuch as it deals not only with finances, but all the human complexities involved in managing and caring for all the members of the family.
Today’s economist is, in general, not particularly concerned with the family. He is not interested in those realities that are beyond the reach of data. At a macro level an economy is said to be “healthy” when GDP, interest rates, and unemployment stabilize at acceptable levels. In our modern use of the term, it is possible to have a healthy economy in a sick society. Thus, a “healthy” economy at the macro level can coexist with the use of contraception or abortion by families seeking to avoid another mouth to feed. 
The modern economist who restricts his professional interest to financial data displays a much narrower view of economics than has been characteristic of the Christian tradition. As Pope Pius IX stated in Quadragesimo Anno, “Economic life must be inspired by Christian principles.” This includes the reproductive realm. In writing Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI was guided by an ever-present concern for a “integral vision of man.” In section 7 of the encyclical, Paul VI writes:
The problem of birth, like every other problem regarding human life, is to be considered…in the light of an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation.
From this perspective, Pope Paul accurately predicted what would happen if the use of contraception became widespread. He warned of a general lowering of moral standards throughout society, an increase in marital infidelity, a lessening of respect for women by men, and the coercive use of contraceptive technologies by governments. 
Leaving aside the obvious connection between this fourth prediction and the current “contraceptive mandate” in the United States, Paul VI could not possibly have predicted the radical impact “reproductive health” initiatives would have in changing the demographic and economic landscape through the world. For years the world has wrung its collective hands at the disastrous economic situation in Greece. Few know, however, that Greece is also demographically insolvent. Fertilityrates in this country have dropped from 2.2 children per couple in the 1980s to less than 1 child today. As Mark Steyn recently characterized the problem: “In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren – i.e., an upside-down family tree…if 100 geezers run up a bazillion dollars worth of debt, is it likely that 42 youngsters will ever be able to pay it off?” No amount of aid, restructuring of debt or infusion of financial capital can offer a long-term solution to the situation in Greece. Only human capital can remedy—perhaps “could have remedied” would be more accurate—the impending collapse. A vibrant economy is only possible through an “integral vision” of economy as oikonomia. In other words, Greece must address the family and demographic collapse if its financial crisis is to be ameliorated.   
Another country with looming debt problems seems insistent on pursuing a similar course as Greece: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the United States the economy is projected to shut down in 2027 as the nation will be unable to meet its trillions of dollars in debt obligations. By the middle of the 21st century the CBO notes that interest payments on the debt will exceed federal revenues. The specter of collapse looms large. 
Clearly guided by a truncated anthropology and economic vision, political leaders in the United States have chosen to throw gas on this proverbial fire. Though the United States already gives birth to children at a rate (1.9) below replacement level (2.1), prominent political figures have decided that the solution to economic woes is more “reproductive health” i.e., more abortion and contraception. Nancy Pelosi gave voice to this approach when justifying the “economic stimulus plan” of 2008 that included hundreds of millions of dollars toward provision of contraception to the poor. 
In an interview with George Stephanopolis, Pelosi argued: “Well the family planning services reduce costs, it reduced [sic] costs. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now.” Categorizing “family planning,” provision of children’s health, education, food stamps, and unemployment insurance together, Pelosi noted that these initiatives “are to help the states meet their financial needs…the contraception will reduce costs to the State and to the federal government too. No apologies, no…We have to deal with the consequences of the down turn in our economy…there is more bang for the buck [with such initiatives].” To put it simply, poor children cost the government money, and since we have the goal of saving money, we need the poor to have less children.
Contraception as economic stimulus was eventually removed from the economic stimulus that would pass in the United States Congress, but the prevailing economic and sexual ideology expressed by Pelosi has continued to hold sway in the debates concerning the economically strained health care industry. This ideology was apparent in the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs should be part of free “preventive health care” for all women. 
Their mandate explicitly forbade the use of costs as a justification for a recommendation. “Cost was explicitly excluded as a factor that the committee could use in forming recommendations, the committee process could not evaluate preventive services on the basis of cost.” It is of no little coincidence that the committee went on to argue the following to justify “free” provision of all sterilization and contraception: “contraception is highly cost-effective. The direct medical cost of unintended pregnancy in the United States was estimated to be nearly $5 billion in 2002, with the cost savings due to contraceptive use estimated to be 19.3 billion.” In other words, on a macro-level, children are an economic liability and the government has a vested interest in ensuring that on a micro level women (especially poor women) use contraception.     
Continuing in this vein, the argument that the HHS mandate is justified by economic benefits has been repeated on a number of occasions. President Obama noted it in his announcement of his “accommodation” that was anything but, and Kathleen Sebelius has asserted that “the reduction in the number of pregnancies is [sic] compensates for the cost of contraception.”
As we have seen in countries facing demographic collapse, preventing more births does not, in fact, buoy an economy. Aside from what has already been noted, contraception adds further strains on a country and the health care system in particular. Allow us to note just a few examples: 
Out of wedlock pregnancies and divorce rates in the United States are positively correlated to the increased use of contraception and availability of abortion. Yet we continue to hear the tired refrain that contraception brings about “stronger marriages.”
Further, the negative side effects of combined oral contraceptives creates a host of unnecessary costs. These negative effects include increased risk of breast, cervical and liver cancer, stroke, heart attack, and blood clots. As noted in a recent “LifeWatch” column, it is estimated that in one year 50,000 women experience blood clots because of the use of combined oral contraceptives. That’s one year alone and only one health issue! And aside from the obvious human cost, the economic toll is clearly staggering. 
Consider also numerous studies that indicate that contraceptives are correlated with the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, such as the study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases that indicated that women who use contraception and men whose partners use it were twice as likely to contract HIV/AIDS than non-users. 
The destructive impact that contraception has on marriages, the family and the health of women is well documented—if not well known. 
The ideology of certain members of the media and politicians has prevailed where it pertains to the importance of children for society, the economy, and families. Children are viewed as a liability to a thriving economy or robust family life, and contraception presented as the remedy. This is both misleading and dangerous. To strengthen the integrity of the family and economy we would do well to hold an integral vision of economics as oikonomia. The modern economist may not be expected to share this broad vision, but he is surely under no obligation to oppose it. Contraception is hardly a panacea. On the contrary, a culture of contraception carries a significant array of problems that warrant attention. Most fundamentally, however, we must cease to view children as an economic liability. Unless we relish the prospect of going the way of Greece and other EU nations reaping contraception’s demographic desserts, we must recognize children as the most precious good of the family and greatest treasure of a healthy economy.
* * *
Arland K. Nichols is the National Director of HLI America, an initiative of Human Life International. Donald DeMarco, PhD is a Senior Fellow of HLI America, and Professor Emeritus at St. Jerome's University in Waterloo, Ontario and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College & Seminary in Cromwell, CT. Some of their recent writings may be found at HLI America's Truth and Charity Forum.

Vatican Approves Blessing for Child in the Womb

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 29, 2012 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican has approved the publication of the "Rite for the Blessing of a Child in the Womb," which will be printed in English and Spanish, according to a press release from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
It will be published as a combined booklet and should be available for parishes by Mothers' Day.
The approval came from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome.
"I'm impressed with the beauty of this blessing for human life in the womb," said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the USCCB.
"I can think of no better day to announce this news than on the feast of the Annunciation, when we remember Mary's 'yes' to God and the incarnation of that child in her the womb that saved the world."
The blessing was prepared to support parents awaiting the birth of a child, to encourage parish prayers for and recognition of the precious gift of the child in the womb, and to foster respect for human life within society. It can be offered within the context of the Mass as well as outside of Mass.

- from Zenit. org

How to Survive A Storm

Most of us know that penguins are the only bird species that can withstand the coldest of cold condition in the Arctic region. Their body structure enables them to generate heat by shutting down functions of body organs when not in use and retaining it with their high-fat layers of skin. But what I later just learned (courtesy of a National Geographic feature story) is that even with their natural ability to survive the cold, they can still become vulnerable whenever a snow storm comes with howling gustiness of super cold wind enveloping their habitat.

So how do they go through those storms?

This is the most interesting part. They do not take cover under the floor of ice or even dive underwater. They do not hide behind a glacier wall.

They stand outside facing the storm.

But they don’t do this by themselves or in small groups.
They do this altogether, as in one colony, staying very close to each other. According to these researchers, the penguins may very well be shielding each other from the brunt of the cold winds and at the same time, sharing their own heat to each. They know that their very own survival depends on the others.

I can relate to the weak penguins in the middle of the colony.

A few years ago, my family went through a severe storm that put us in such unchartered pain we never know. I can honestly say that without the warmth of the people who stayed with us, wept with us, condole with us, and loved us in their own ways, there was a good chance we would have faltered. We maintained a “safe-distance” from God but God himself made His presence more felt. We survived because of God’s love through these kind-hearted people. Day by day, we still undergo healing even if we already regained most of our emotional strength.

Do you know someone going through a storm in his/her life?
Give warmth.
Say a kind word.
Give a loving advice.
Or just be there to listen or be a shoulder to cry on.

Are you going through a storm yourself?
Don’t put on a mask and pretend you are OK.
Call someone.
Ask someone to stay with you.
Confide to your trusted friend.
Accept the warmth of other people.
You don’t have to go through it alone.

If the penguins with their natural ability needed each other to survive a storm, then we human beings should and, most certainly, must also have one another in times of need. It’s just the way God created us, - that we become extensions and recipients of His love through one another (1 John 4:7-8).

God bless.



Cathechism of the Catholic Church

1878 All men are called to the same end: God himself. There is a certain resemblance between the unity of the divine persons and the fraternity that men are to establish among themselves in truth and love. Love of neighbor is inseparable from love for God.

1879 The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.