When a good man says or does something bad, do we discover the “real” person? “When only curruption is authentic” is Eloquently written by David of Be Here Mondays
“No matter the terrible thoughts that beset a man, they do not represent him truly, unless he pertinaciously and characteristically indulges them. A man’s character, after all, is what he wills of himself.”
I hope all (to spare him of a long and harsh public scourging) of it isn’t so! The black pot media found a golden opportunity to support it’s suspicions that Mel Gibson is among the many Christian “hypocrites” who commit the very same sins they condemn. Ironically (but not surprisingly), I see the biased media playing both sides of the anti-semitic “fence”, blaming Israel for all of the problems in the Middle East, and using their own bigotry and predjudice as a tool against others they see as their moral enemy.
So what is the difference between the “hypocritical” Christian and the modern media of relativism? One hopes to acknowledge and repent for the wickedness of a prideful heart while the other celebrates a personal victory with their own sense of self-rightousness. The goal of one is humility while the other is….. (relative to the individual)?
Earlier this week, Sandro Magister published an article about a proposal for allowing divorce and remarried persons access to the Sacraments when the previous marriage is valid. Currently the only way this can be allowed is when the couple agrees to live together as brother and sister.
This proposal is from Fr. Alberto Bonandi, a moral theologian from the Archdiocese of Mantua. Magister says that he is a leading authority in the field of fundamental moral theology. The curious things about this proposal is that it fully recognizes that the first marriage is the only licit marriage, so in essence the second marriage is one of concubinage. Even so, the proposal suggests a host of careful procedures for a process of penance and reconciliation over a long period of time. After this time of penance, the priest, and not the individual/couple, with a charter from his bishop, is allowed to readmit the spouse/couple to the Sacraments.
First, I must say that I fully recognize the great tragedy of the situation of divorce and the situation in which a remarriage has produced children. I understand that separating the couple would damage the children and so the couple must be allowed to remain together (though I do not think that this is the case if the marriage has not produced children). I have a family member in this situation which makes this much more than an abstract problem for me.
Nevertheless, I find this proposal disconcerting. Just from a practical perspective one can see that it is unworkable. The possibility that the precisions of the sort proposed by Fr. Bonandi could be transmitted to the faithful at large is dubious at best. Just look at our Friday fast. I would guess that the percentage of Catholic who abstain from meat on Fridays throughout the year is very small. The majority do not because they have been told it is not obligatory. True enough, but there is an obligation to substitute some other penitential practice. My experience suggests to me that almost no Catholics have heard this very simple precision. The possibility that anything of the sort that Fr. Bonandi proposes would be implemented in practice, is inconceivable. In essence, most Catholics would eventually believe that a priest can allow them to remarry if they get divorced and I suspect that this is what would end up happening in practice as well.
Moreover, in the short translation that Magister provides, Fr. Bonandi’s rationale is not made clear. Bonandi almost seems to be saying that since we allow cohabitation without sex in irregular marriages and that this situation therefore separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the union then it is only just to allow the integral aspects of a pseudo-marriage. I find this incomprehensible. First, the admonition that they live together as brother and sister does not seem to suggest the type of relationship that Fr. Bonandi presupposes. Regardless, this proposal seems to me to be nothing other than a proposal to tolerate fornication. After all, it is the fornication that prevents access to the Sacraments in the first place. The inability to approach the Sacraments when in a state of grave sin is not simply a matter of Church discipline; it is a matter of revealed truth. Every act of intercourse with someone who is not one’s spouse is another grave sin. This is not to mention that there would be no purpose of amendment. I don’t see the liceity of this proposal. It appears to base itself on the Orthodox oikonomia, which I find problematic because it seems to presuppose that God can overlook human rejection of the truth which falls prey to voluntarism it seems to me, and that grace is insufficient to overcome human weakness.
If the persons in these situations can be brought to the level of spiritual maturity that Fr. Bonandi proposes, prior to their readmittance to the Sacraments then it seems to me that they could also be brought to the maturity to accept, and through the grace of the Sacraments live, a celibate life.
My heart breaks for broken marriages and for those in irregular marriages who now desire to reconcile with the Church and receive the Sacraments. I do not know the answer, but I do know that as I understand it, this proposal is not it.
“A UK fertility clinic has been given the green light by the country’s fertility authority to allow women undergoing in-vitro fertilization to trade costs of the treatment in exchange for any surplus eggs. The eggs are to be fertilized, and the resulting embryonic babies mined for cells to be used in research.The decision marks the first instance where human eggs are being legally sold as items of commerce.”
Kind of like letting the fox in the hen house.
LifeSite Source
Godspy has posted a fascinating interview Paola Binetti. Binetti is a member of Opus Dei and of the Center-Left Governing coalition in Italy. She is a former psychoanalyst, with many published articles, who is pro-life. She has some interesting insights regarding the current political debate regarding homosexuality. This debate is, in her eyes, “reductive” and unhelpful. She opposes “gay marriage” and homosexual adoption, yet she is not happy with the level at which the political debate on the issue is carried out.
She claims that there is still room for a Christian voice in left-wing politics in Europe. Christians have not yet been completely banned, as they have been by the Democratic party in the U.S., from substantive participation in the coalition of left-leaning political parties. The article ends with a vehement defense, on her part, of the transcendental importance of beauty. It is certainly worth a read…
Many know that Msgr. Stuart Swetland has been reassigned from St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the University of Illinois to Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, MD. One of his last articles he wrote I think is “spot on” so I thought I would share it:
Putting First Things First
Rev. Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland, S.T.D.
Every now and then I will wander around the ‘blogosphere’ to get a sense of the latest concerns of that part of society. For those who do not know, the blogosphere is the internet environment in which people set up web logs (blogs) that are an ongoing series of entries on whatever topic the author chooses to focus. In addition to staying current, one thing I like about blogs is that I sometimes happen upon good insights. This was the case for a blog post discussing C.S. Lewis’ 1942 article, “First and Second Things.â€
C. S. Lewis was a brilliant, 20th century Christian writer who demonstrated uncanny insight into the human condition. In this wartime article, Lewis began by discussing some Nazi errors that boiled down to sacrificing the greater good in pursuit of a lesser good. He showed that the irony in doing this is that both goods are lost. The details of his Nazi focus are not important here but Lewis’ insight into the relationship between first and second things is timeless. His law of first things states:
Every preference of a small good to a great, or partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made. Apparently the world is made that way. If Esau really got the pottage in return for his birthright, then Esau was a lucky exception. You can’t get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first.
Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time†is a classic example. In appeasing Hitler, Chamberlain and other European leaders sacrificed justice for the sake of peace; they got neither. Of all the good that modernity has brought, a major fault has been its elevation of freedom to a first thing. Freedom is a necessary condition for human flourishing, but when it comes prior to truth both are lost. I would argue that the pursuit of freedom without reference to moral truth is at the root of many of today’s social problems and leaves mankind without either authentic freedom or life-saving truth.
What then are the things that ought to be sought first? Christians understand the very first thing is right relationship with God. Jesus taught us that the greatest commandment is to love God with one’s whole heart, soul and mind. The second is to love one’s neighbor as oneself (cf. Matt 22:36-39). It is love for God out of which all other love, including authentic self-love, finds its proper ordering. Second things follow from the first.
For those of us in the clergy, this ought never to be forgotten. “First things†for a pastor of souls is their salvation. Helping people to live an intense relationship of love for God must be our first priority. Too often churchmen, including this one, are tempted to treat as first things, very important but still second things such as immigration reform, ecology, and the struggle for social justice. I suppose too that looking back over the years, many of my articles might be criticized as appearing to focus solely on second things. It seems that the more we focus solely on these issues the further we slip behind both in the pursuit of justice as well as in the numbers of believers in our pews. Lewis’ law continues to hold. The more we short shrift first things for second, the more we fail to achieve either.
I suspect C. S. Lewis would admonish us that as pastors of souls, while certainly not ignoring second things, our primary focus ought to be on evangelizing, catechizing, and strengthening the faith of those souls entrusted to us. Love and concern for our brothers and sisters in the human family flows more readily from a strong love of our common Father. I suspect that when we as leaders in the Church focus on first things first, then the faithful will be in better condition to take care of the rest. After all, Jesus himself taught in the Sermon on the Mount, “seek ye first his kingdom…†(Matt 6:33).
Did the Baby Boomers make a Faustian bargain that they have come to regret? This article, from Newsweek of all places, claims that they did, indeed, have their own Mephistopheles. And, it claims, they have come to a point of “Faustian bewilderment,” looking back regretfully at the excesses of their lives and the revolution that they wrought.
This article brings to mind a fact about the Boomers, or at least the most vocal segment of them, that has, in recent years, become a point of vexation for me: they suffer from a collective delusion of grandeur so severe that one wonders if Napolean himself had a tighter grip on reality than the typical, “elite” Boomer. Even in this article, where self-doubt is manifest, they seem to overestimate themselves. Also, self-loathing has always been a fact of life for the elite Boomers, if only under the surface. So, it is no wonder that, as they near the not-so-golden years of their lives, they would ask themselves, self-importantly and ruefully: “What have we done to the world?” 
Antony Outhwaite recently let me know about a new book that he has published on the Rosary entitled, Rediscovering the Rosary. What interests me about this book is that what Antony has done is to actually apply the recommendations that John Paul the Great made in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae. Most realize that the Letter suggested adding the Luminous Mysteries and realigning the days of the week for which each of the mysteries are said. However, there was much more that he suggested.
John Paul wanted to refresh and enliven the spiritual fruits of the Rosary for the faithful by explaining more about it and suggesting ways to make praying the Rosary more meaningful and fruitful. His added recommendations included a Scripture reading for each decade, a mediation, an added clause for each Hail Mary which would center the prayer on Christ and His life, and a final prayer. This was done around seven different themes. Here is what I recommend: go look at the preview for the book to get a sense of what he is up to, then go read through JPTG’s Letter, then consider buying the book and putting into practice the advice of the Mystical Master we had for our previous pope.
Surprised?
Before completing an application, students looking to enter the Harvard Business School MBA program are asked to fill out an online profile that offers three choices of gender: female, male, or transgender. The form also asks prospective applicants if they would be interested in learning more about the school’s “lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender” community.
If you think about it, Harvard appears to be taking the position that “transgenders” no longer (like all other human beings) have a legitimate sex.
Agape Press Source
I think you guys might appreciate sheepcat’s experience at Auschwitz as much as I did. “To try to grapple through … the depth of evil in this world”.
Please keep Cardinal George in your prayers as he undergoes cancer surgery tomorrow!
(H/T Open Book)
Another article that I found interesting by Dr. Jeffery Satinover, discusses the reasons that many suffering from SSA disorder continue to be misled into thinking that they not only ought to, but must accept their condition. Some interesting snippets:
Fairytales remind us of those simple truths that, as adults, we no longer wish to accept. “The Emperor’s New Robes†shows us that in every generation, on certain matters, a whole society—its experts, its most admired, respected, and trusted leaders and counselors—will adopt as authoritative a complete illusion. Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past thirty-five years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that derives from the public’s belief that these robes exist. In particular, they have claimed to the Supreme Court that the scientific data show that homosexuals form a “class†whose boundaries are defined by a stable “trait.†This presumption is false, yet the recent Supreme Court decisions pertaining to same-sex marriage have taken it for granted.
[snip] It seems that one person can make quite a difference!
A lifelong hard-left political activist, the psychologist Evelyn Hooker is more than anyone else credited by believers with having demonstrated that homosexuality is normal. Even today, almost fifty years after its publication in 1957 in Projective Testing, her “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual†is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of Gay and Lesbian issues, as it attempts to make the case that there is no evidence for an association between homosexuality and psychopathology.
Crucially, her study was one of the two upon which in 1973, the APA decided to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders in the DSM and the one study discussed in the APA’s brief in 2003 in the Lawrence case. It claims to show that “homosexuals [are] not inherently abnormal and that there [is] no difference between the pathologies of homosexual and heterosexual men.â€
Yes, so the APA used Kinsey’s disreputable data “fenced” through an intervening study to come to it “unscientific” conclusion that SSA is not a disorder. And now, this activist is put in a very influential position.
Eight years after her landmark study, she found herself chair of a newly-established National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality, hand-picked by Judd Marmor, an influential psychiatrist at UCLA. The only other “mental health†representatives were Alfred Kinsey’s close colleagues Paul Gebhard, and John Money, the latter a psychologist from Johns Hopkins and an early (but recently discredited and fired) proponent of transsexual surgery. In 1969 the Task Force issued its report. It claimed, parroting the Kinsey reports almost word-for-word, that sexuality was a continuum from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality, and that some degree of bisexuality was the human norm. Without evidence, it stated that any homosexual suffering was caused by societal prejudice. (It avoided mentioning, however, that in Kinsey’s view, human sexual taste was almost infinitely malleable.) Thus, there was nothing problematic with homosexuality per se.
[snip] And what was the panel that got the ball rolling on changing the APA’s policy? Well, it wasn’t made up of psychiatrists:
One can see the beginnings of a coordinated effort to corrupt this ethos at the APA’s 1970 annual meeting, when a most eminent and respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst (and later a founder of NARTH) presenting a paper on “homosexuality and transsexualism†was interrupted by an outside agitator who had been secretly bought into the meeting.4 Acceding to pressure, the organizers of the 1971 conference agreed to sponsor a special panel—not on homosexuality, but by homosexuals: (N.b.: The state of sexuality constituted their sole purported expertise to speak professionally, just as though being tall made one an expert in the mechanisms of cell growth, or having cancer.) The program chairman had been warned that if the panel was not approved, homosexual activists would ruin the entire convention. The APA caved. The only psychiatrist at this presentation would be the moderator, Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, a sympathizer in large measure on “civil rights,†not scientific grounds, in his later recollection.
[snip] And how much credibility is one to put in the final committee that took SSA off of the list of disorders? Not much:
The activists soon secured an appearance before the APA’s crucial Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics, responsible for publishing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Loosely coordinated with the international classification of medical diseases, the enormously influential DSM had defined homosexuality medically, on a par with many other sexual “deviations†because homosexuals did not have an adult person of the opposite sex as their primary object of sexual interest. The APA was now being pressured—both from within and from without—to change its classification, and created a special task force comprised almost entirely of the same people from the Kinsey Institute who had packed the NIMH committee. Judd Marmor was now APA Vice-President, while the President-elect was a homosexual who would keep that fact secret…
[snip] And the committee was presented with Kinsey’s biased data:
Silverstein led off with Hooker’s work. He also introduced some of Kinsey’s arguments—but only some. He emphasized Kinsey’s claims about the frequency of homosexuality, but like the NIMH committee before him, passed over in silence the fact that Kinsey consideredsexuality to be mutable. Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the first Kinsey volume and (like all his male colleagues) one of Kinsey’s lovers, argued that the Kinsey data found that homosexuality was not associated with psychopathology and that all other studies of homosexuality were intrinsically flawed because they were based on “clinical†samples rather than samples from the regular population—as though this were not precisely what a quantitative comparative pathography would require. Even so, both statements were flat falsehoods, especially outrageous in that the Kinsey data itself—for which he himself was largely responsible—was fraudulently skewed by blatant population sampling biases, and the badgering and even bribing of its imprisoned and largely otherwise institutionalized subjects, which were not reported as such. Pomeroy admitted this in a book published shortly before this very meeting—which even so, he neglected to mention.
[snip] So here is the what the final decision was based upon:
Spitzer presented NIMH’s official position on homosexuality. According to PsychiatricNews, it was “essentially upon the rationale of Dr. Spitzer’s presentation that the Board made its decision.†In it, he argued for normalizing homosexuality because: 1. “Exclusive homosexuality†was a normal part of the human condition, a claim based on Kinsey’s data. 2. Homosexuality did not meet the requirements of a psychiatric disorder since it “does not either regularly cause subjective distress or is regularly associated with somegeneralized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning [sic].†3. Marcel T. Saghir and Eli Robins’ recently published Male and Female Homosexuality showed that homosexuality was normal. (Their research—which was astoundingly shoddy—was roundly criticized by colleagues at the time, but no critique was addressed by the presenter or the committee.)
How many will continue to suffer before the modern perveyors of medical phlogiston and ether (actually these falsified theories were on much more solid ground than is the current fiction that SSA is “normal”) are debunked and the rest of medical science wakes up and is able to see nature as it is given?
She claims to be the from the “sacred bloodline”, a blood relative of The Son of God. She is ready and willing to cope with the people who think she’s crazy or a heretic. Hold on now…, she said she has the proof.
Simon & Schuster is spending $275,000 to promote The Expected One and is sending the author on a cross-country tour beginning Aug. 3 in Los Angeles. But when it comes to McGowan’s claims about her own bloodline (which she mentions in the novel’s afterword), the publisher is treading lightly, with no plans to promote the author’s personal story.
Father Neuhaus, in the latest issue of First Things (August/September 2006, in “The Public Square,†66-8), reports on an ominous AmChurch initiative known as the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management. Led primarily by Geoffrey Boisi, a mover and shaker among New York financiers, the Roundtable “is a collaborative effort of wealthy East Coast Catholics, academics, editors, and Church activists who are determined to devise a strategy for establishing a major role for the laity in the governance of the Catholic Church in this country†(Neuhaus, 66).
It is this group that infamously met at the JP II Center in July, 2003, with Cardinal McCarrick in attendance. Though they now claim not to be seeking to undermine Church doctrine – pushing for women’s ordination, etc. – word got out at the time that this meeting was all about promoting a movement subversive of the Church’s controversial teachings. After all, the attendees, there by invitation only, were dissenters and pseudo-Catholics, AmChurch representatives each and everyone. When word of the meeting was leaked to the press, an uproar ensued among orthodox Catholics.
Because of the furor that resulted from this press leak (it is said that the JP II Center was besieged with angry phone calls), and not wishing to have his movement seen as a liberal conspiracy, Boisi held another meeting to which orthodox Catholics were invited. As Neuhaus says, this later meeting “did not go well.â€
Neuhaus reports in a very measured tone about this group and its activities. He does not, himself, claim outright that the movement is ominous. He notes that its spokespersons have come to pronounce themselves guardedly about their initiatives. As Francis Butler put it, another mover and shaker in the movement, they seek only to “marshal the talent, education, and experience of the best lay Catholic leaders in government, business, charitable, and other sectors to help chart a course of reconstruction in the church’s administrative life†(Quoted by Neuhaus, 67). Though, if I may add, the stated and grandiose desire to “chart a course of reconstruction in the church’s admistrative life” raises a glaring red flag.
Neuhaus himself does, of course, tell us that there are clearly troubling aspects to the movement. For instance, they have developed a “permanent assembly” which, it is envisioned, will meet annually, in the manner of the meetings of U.S. bishops. There have been some lay activists who claim that the outcome of the Roundtable would be “to create a small elite of wealthy lay people and progressive activists falsely claiming to represent the millions of lay faithful†(67). Moreover, Neuhaus notes, some progressive lay activists are particularly upset, worried that their causes have been co-opted by a group of corporate financiers.
Neuhaus raises his own objection at the end of the report: “ ‘far-reaching changes in ecclesial governance,’” he says, which are the stated goal of the Roundtable, “would be less problematic were it more obvious that those pressing for such changes have a firm understanding of and commitment to the ecclesiology by which the Catholic Church is constituted†(68). Amen.
Here is an interesting article by the late Dr. Charles W. Socarides. Dr. Socarides was a clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York. As you might imagine, he was much maligned by those who have a vested interest in the “gay” cause.
In the article he presents a synopsis of the rapid manipulation of thought about SSA in the U.S. and why it happened. He also discusses his approach to treating those with SSA and his success rates. Here are some notable snippets:
It was all part of a plan, as one gay publication put it, “to make the whole world gay.” I am not making this up. You can read an account of the campaign in Dennis Altman’s The Homosexualization of America. In 1982 Altman, himself gay, reported with an air of elation that more and more Americans were thinking like gays and acting like gays. There were engaged, that is, “in numbers of short-lived sexual adventures either in place of or alongside long-term relationships.” Altman cited the heterosexual equivalents of gay saunas and the emergence of the swinging singles scene as proofs that “promiscuity and ‘impersonal sex’ are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women.”
[snip]
And now, what happens to those of us who stand up and object? Gay activists have already anticipated that. They have created a kind of conventional wisdom: that we suffer from homophobia, a disease that has actually been invented by gays projecting their own fear on society. And we are bigots besides, because, they say, we fail to deal with gays compassionately.
[snip]
But my wife’s casual observation only reminded me of a brilliant tract I had read several years ago and then forgotten. It was called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once catalogued by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.
In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth. The authors knew the techniques had worked in China. All they needed was enough media-and enough money-to put them to work in the United States. And they did. These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.
They would desensitize the public by selling the notion that gays were “just like everyone else.” This would make the engine of prejudice run out of steam, i.e., lull straights into an attitude of indifference.
[snip]
Excuse me. Gay is not good. Gay is not decidedly free. How do I know this? For more than 40 years, I have been in solidarity with hundreds of homosexuals, my patients, and I have spent most of my professional life engaged in exercising a kind of “pastoral care” on their behalf. But I do not help them by telling them they are O.K. when they are not O.K. Nor do I endorse their “new claim to self-definition and self-respect.”
[snip]
Their former promiscuity may have looked a lot like “liberation.” But it was not true freedom. It was a kind of slavery. And it was not a lifestyle. With the onset of AIDS, as the playwright and gay militant Larry Kramer said in a 1993 interview, it turned out to be a death style. I have had some patients tell me, “Doctor, if I weren’t in therapy, I’d be dead.”
[snip]
And, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children. An exaggeration? Well, what are we to think when militant homosexuals seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of 14 (as they did in Hawaii in 1993) or 16 (as they tried to do in England in 1994)? In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, “We’re here. We’re queer. And we’re coming after your children.”
What more do we need to know?
Indeed!
Male Attorney Rob Moodie, while in the middle of a court case involving a death, decided it would be an appropriate time to express his, “innate understanding of the female sex“ by wearing women’s clothing. He blamed the case for causing him “to reflect on what it means to be a male in this country”, and decided he didn’t want to be part of “that ethos“.
I think this a trend found in many of the sexually afflicted, in that there is a deep seeded narcissism that distorts their sense of reality. Their focus is so self-centered that they are unable or unwilling to see the consequences of their actions on others (i.e. this guy’s timing of making a statement of his femininity while the focus should be on his clients and their case, then blaming the country and the trial for pushing him into wearing womens clothing, again!).
In case you’re wondering, “He wore a navy blue two-piece suit, with ankle-length skirt (thankfully), patterned blouse and a diamond-studded brooch. Lace-gartered stockings covered his legs (that’s quite enough, stop it!). He carried a handbag.” But did his shoes match his purse?
A man suspected of stealing money from a chapel was recognized by a couple of nuns so they invite him in for a drink, so they could call authorities. The scoundrel did what any other crook would do and took off on a stolen bike. “The nuns then grabbed their own bikes and gave chase. They tried to grab him, but he managed to escape into a residential neighborhood and they lost him. Police hunted for the man in the neighborhood but could not find him.”
Michael Wilk was tossing back a few beers with friends when he saw God on the side of his 4-foot-long pet alligator.
Photo: David Trotman-Wilkins/CHICAGO TRIBUNE
.jpg)
Theology of the Body Resources
