Sunday, April 25, 2010

Incredible

From Domenic's dad (the boy in Sweden who was state-napped a year and a half ago and still hasn't been returned to his parents - their crime?  Homesschooling him):
I had a conversation with the head of the ss the other day, Marika Gardell, I said, according to your belief and the social services, Domenic is not a changed and scared child after what has happened to him. Insecure and lost after losing his real parents and so on. She said no, that's not why he has trouble after the kidnapping, it is because of you and because he missed the community school for one year and bla bla bla! They also believe that a child suffers from growing up in a normal mix of children and adults, they call that isolation. We call it living outside the city, and it's still legal I hope.
So, according to Social Services, the kid is not doing badly because he has been taken away from his parents, but because he is still suffering from their influence, and from having missed out on a year of public school and lived in the country.


Incredible.  Just incredible.  Makes one want to go there, mount some super rescue mission à la Bourne trilogy, and get the kid and the parents the he** out of there for good.  Too bad they didn't make it the first time. (Kid was kidnapped from the plane, as they were headed to India.)  How can this be happening in a supposedly free country?  Poor Domenic is only allowed one supervised hour visit with his parents every month and a half.  HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?


Time to wake up Sweden!


For more info http://www.facebook.com/coucoumelle#!/group.php?gid=346022854609


Sign petition to free Domenic http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/return-dominic-johansson-to-his-parents

Thursday, April 22, 2010

My birthday is coming up...

Despite logic that would influence me otherwise, I happen to enjoy the Twilight series. I've been window-shopping this book.

I just need an escape from the real world.

(Edited July 11, 2011) I bought myself this book some time ago, and enjoyed it.

Testing - One, two, three

Just testing the Networked Blogs app on Facebook.  If this shows up on my Facebook wall and on everyone's home page, it's because it worked.  :)

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Catholic Publicity in Québec Schools Banned

I found out from Maryssa's catechism teacher last night that the parishes are no longer allowed to send announcements for catechism through the school system anymore.  So, parents who want their children to go to catechism will no longer be informed of the availability of classes, nor the inscription times.  The parish will have to rely on ads in newspapers from now on.  (If that doesn't get banned too in future)

Now if no one were allowed to put publicity through schools, that would be one thing, but I happen to have sent publicity through my kids' school myself, in hopes of recruiting new players for my daughter's soccer team.  I have also received all kinds of publicity from summer camps and other places through the school.

So it's quite obvious that we are only banning one group here.

Wouldn't you call that discrimination?

I sure do.

What about my right to information?  Why is it that a minority "élite" can decide for me what kind of information I, as a parent, can receive through the schools?

If I can be solicited by a soccer club and a nature summer camp, why can't I be solicited by catechism classes?  No one is going to force me to register my children in any of these things.  But I might like to know that they exist.

I can tell you, from experience, that it is not the catechism classes that are going to suck the most time and money from you.  Oh no.  It's the sports that suck the most time and money from you.

Sports are the new religion.  You sign up, you come to practice, you play games, you pay thousands of dollars to join, you get sucked into tournaments and amical matches, and volunteer work.  Then you have to do fundraising, sometimes door to door.  The practices are often the same repetitive thing over and over again.  Practice makes perfect after all.  One game resembles another.  Always the same number of players, always the same rules, always the same field or court.  All in pursuit of the ball, or the puck, or...

Soccer clubs are ruled by committees with Presidents, vice-presidents etc and general directors, who in turn, are ruled by soccer associations, with all of the same, who in turn are ruled by the Québec Federation of soccer, which comes under the Canadian Soccer Association, which is ruled by the FIFA.  This all creates a very political and dangerous HIERARCHY.

Oh, and then there are the pedophile coaches.  Sound familiar yet?

Yes, we recently had a coach charged with sexual abuse in our club.  He pleaded guilty, and will never coach again.  No one stood outside our club to protest, it didn't even make the news, people are still sending their kids to get coached.  No one is blaming the FIFA for the man's actions.  No one looks at any of the other coaches as if they were about to follow suit.  Oh, and The pedophile ex-coach wasn't even celibate.

Clergy abuse scandal engulfs plans for Latin Mass at D.C. Basilica



Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
It was planned as a solemn event -- a chance to experience the sacred liturgical roots of Catholic tradition at one of the country's most prominent churches. But after three years of fundraising and careful coordination, an elaborate Latin Mass scheduled for Saturday at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington has been dragged into the clergy abuse scandal.
Advocates for abuse victims voiced outrage Tuesday that the former Vatican official invited to lead the Mass -- Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos of Colombia -- once praised a French bishop for not telling police about a priest who had sexually assaulted children. Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests sent letters Tuesday to Pope Benedict XVI and Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, calling on them to condemn Castrillón's remarks and replace him in the Mass.
So, what do you do?  I admit to being a bit baffled at some of the conservative reaction to this.  Protest the protesters?

It is obvious to me that this Bishop made a grave error.  But what to do?  I admit to having a headache just thinking about it.  On the one hand, the scandal of abuse by priests has been completely blown out of proportion.  On the other hand, in the few cases where it did happen, are we to stand back and do nothing about it?

On the one hand, these poor people have been trying so hard for three years to finally have a traditional Latin mass, and this is one of the few bishops available who can say it.  The sins of the Bishop don't make the mass less worthy.  The holy sacrifice of the mass is independent of the sins of those saying it, otherwise we would never have a good and perfect mass.

Does this bishop not say mass every day anyway, like all other priests?  So what's one more?  Why does this one mean anything special to the protester anyway?  Would they have gone otherwise?  It is highly unlikely.  It is only special to those who want to experience a traditional mass.  You see, it's not about the bishop.  It's about the MASS.

On the other hand, is it worth creating even more scandal to go on with it?  Could they postpone it and/or get someone else?  Could the Bishop apologize and repent?  (Not that this would be enough for some of the protesters.)

I admit to being rather scandalized at the Bishop myself.  That one would congratulate another for not going to police to denounce a child-abuser is horrifying.  Truth has a way of creeping up on a person.  Sometimes it takes years, but to avoid scandal now is to risk creating even greater scandal later.  But such was the mentality of the Church back then.  NOT SO NOW.

Still, what to do?  What do you think?

Why humanists shouldn’t join in this Catholic-bashing


The reaction to the paedophile priest scandal is as guilty of scaremongering, illiberalism and elitism as the Catholic Church has ever been.

Brendan O’Neill

Monday 29 March 2010
With all the newspaper headlines about predatory paedophiles in smocks, terrified altar boys and cover-ups by officials at the Vatican, it is hard to think of anything worse right now than a sexually abusive priest. Yet today’s reaction to those allegations of sexual abuse is also deeply problematic. For it is a reaction informed more by prejudice and illiberalism than by anything resembling a principled secularism, and one which also threatens to harm individuals, families, society and liberty.
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, unwittingly reveals what draws the new atheists towards the Catholic-abuse story: their belief that religion is itself a form of abuse. ‘Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place’, he argues. He admits that physical abuse by priests is rare, but only to flag up what he sees as a more serious form of abuse: ‘Only a minority of priests abuse the bodies of the children in their care. But how many priests abuse their minds?’ In this spectacularly crude critique of religion, no moral distinction is made between being educated by a priest and raped by one – indeed, the former is considered worse than the latter, since as one Observer columnist recently darkly warned: ‘We have no idea what children are being taught in those classrooms…’
If ‘bringing a child up Catholic’ is itself abuse, there can only be one solution: external authorities must protect children not only from religious institutions but from their own religious parents, too. One new atheist has proposed an age of consent for joining a religion: 14. In an Oxford Amnesty Lecture popular amongst new atheists, a liberal academic argued that children ‘have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas’, and parents ‘have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose’. Here, a simplistic leap is made from protecting children from paedophile priests to protecting them from their own parents, since in the new-atheist view strong beliefs and freedom of religion – which, yes, includes the freedom of parents to bring up their children as they see fit – are the real problem. They exaggerate the extent of Catholic sexual abuse in order to strengthen their prejudicial arguments.
Whatever you think of the Catholic Church, you should be concerned about today’s abuse-obsession. Events of the (sometimes distant) past which nobody can change are being used to justify dangerous trends in the present. A new kind of society is being solidified on the back of exposing abusive priests, one in which scaremongering supersedes facts, where people redefine themselves as permanently damaged victims, where freedom of thought is problematised, and where parents are considered suspect for not adhering to the superior values of the atheistic elite. Seriously, radical humanists should fight back against this.
Read all

My comments:  It is this type of emerging mentality that scares me.  I foresee a future in which an elite minority will try to do just that, prevent parents from indoctrinating their children with religion.  I foresee a very near future in which, in cases of christian/atheist couples with children, the atheist could easily go to court and win their case against allowing their children to be brought up Christian.  There would be nothing the Christian could do about it.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

A letter from my Uncle Edward Mullen

Dr. Warren Veale, Interim Pres. U of Calgary

Dear Sir;

The fact is that Albertans are overwhelmingly in favour of protection under law of unborn children from any form of violence against them, whether attacked by knife-wielding boyfriend of the mother, or the forceps and cutting devices of an abortionist. Lack of protection for the child in Canadian law, however, should not deter a discussion of law, with life or death implications, especially at institutions of higher learning. Surveys favouring protection of unborn children range from 75% to over 90% in Alberta, depending how the question was asked. Albertans understand that the unborn children have a high probability of suffering death from lack of law in Canada and they want the situation changed.

As a former unborn child, if the present state of lawlessness was present when your mother carried you in her womb, perhaps you'd have been the victim. Instead, you can thank her on Mothers Day. I urge you, on behalf of Albertans and unborn children everywhere in Canada, to put your best instincts into action to stand up to the radical leftists who protest that conversations may not be held on U of C campus on this subject. Take the steps to establish a civilized dialogue at U of Calgary about the rights of children to be kept alive until their birth.

The young people you have allowed to be persecuted by Student Union, radical leftist university staffers and professors, should be treated with respect, if not with awe, for their courage in defense of voiceless victims. Two hundred thousand per year is the rate at which innocent babies die in Canada. Are they dying for population control, to please United Nations? Canada needs more people, not less! Is their cause of death an ideology that has no right or wrong? Since when does Canada not have a conscience? What is the university doing to discover why babies have to die, when over 100,000 couples per year apply to adopt a child? What a crime, that no Canadian babies are available for adoption because of no protection in law during gestation.

Surely, expelling your best and brightest students does not add to a solution for the brutality of abortion. I say best and brightest because they are the ones who see the issue clearly and have the ability to express for the unborn, in a thought-provoking and articulate manner, that God-given rights are violated and lives are unnecessarily taken, when institutions like yours become blind and heartless.
Kindest regards,

James Edward Mullen
BSc. '62, U of A

My soccer dudes

Gabriel

Maryssa

SHR 2002 M - Gabriel's team

Gabriel's team did extremely well for U8 recreational playing against U9 competitive (one team they played against was actually one that plays in a U10 league).  They lost all their games, but they still did great passes, good feints, controlled the ball and made it past center line on numerous occasions.   Good job boys (and girl)!

Celtix 2000F A - Maryssa's team

Maryssa was the goalie during the April tournament at the Stade du Haut-Richelieu.  She did a good job!

For future reference

Just wanted to write this out, in story form, so I can use it later, if I ever need to write a scene in which someone gets hurt.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't set out purposely to hurt myself, but hey, there is no point in not taking advantage of it when it does happen.

Later, the scene would unfold in J's head, without her being quite able to pinpoint exactly how close she had been to the ball.  She had been running towards it, but couldn't remember being very close to it.  She must have been close enough though, because suddenly, out of nowhere, the goalie from the other team threw himself on it, right in front of her.


One minute she was running, the next her belly was sliding over his back.  Her hands stretched in front of her, she intended to simply tuck her head in and roll.


Her left hand struck the ground just before the right.  She must have been going too fast, because her elbow turned just slightly to the left.  She heard a crack.  Then it turned just slightly to the right. Another crack.  


"That's funny," she had just the time to think, "it cracked!"  And then the pain hit and it wasn't funny anymore.  Intense, searing, hot pain hit her elbow, and she was already screaming before she hit the ground.


"Shut up!" she told herself, "You sound like a girl!"  She made herself stop screaming.  But then sobs came.  The pain was still intense, still searing her elbow.  It didn't slack off.  She made herself stop crying.  Her eyes were closed, her teeth were clenched.  There was nothing but pain.  Somewhere, out there, around her, there were people, but she couldn't make out what they were saying through the pain, couldn't see them.  


All the muscles in her body were rigid with pain.  She couldn't move.  She heard someone mention ice.  Later she couldn't quite remember if someone had asked where it hurt, nor if she had answered, but she thought it quite possible.


She had expected the pain to let up, as it usually did when she had broken something before, but it did not.  It felt like the last contractions before giving birth, only it had been immediate in its intensity, there was no building up of pressure and no release.  It was a like a fierce contraction that just went on and on.  Later, she would have no idea how long she lay there.  


Close to her head, she heard D's voice, "Bring your arm down, we're going to turn you."  He said.  He must have been kneeling close to her head.  His voice was like a link to the sane world, a world in which pain this bad did not normally exist.  She tried to move her hurt arm, but he said, "No, the other one."


J realized she was lying on top of it.  She brought it down to her side, and felt herself being rolled over.  The tiny plastic "rocks" from the stadium's artificial turf were in her mouth and she spat them out and  rubbed her mouth on her shoulder to get rid of the rest.  


"It looks like everything is in place." said F.


"I'm sure it's broken."  She managed to gasp out.  "I heard it crack."


By now, whoever had gone to get ice was back, and J held it to her elbow.  The pain almost instantly diminished by half.


"Do you think you can get up?"  D asked.  J nodded.  She felt herself being pulled to her feet.  Her vision took in the rest of the field again, instead of just the immediate space around her.  She walked, unaided, to the player's bench, while people in the bleachers clapped.  Normally, that would have embarrassed her, but she barely cared.


Sitting on the bench, with nothing to lean against was tiring.  J suddenly felt extremely tired.  Her muscles had been so rigid, she now felt tired all over.  She just wanted to lie down, or lean against something.  She got up and half sat, half lay against her bag, until D came and said she shouldn't stay there, someone might trip on her.


Later, H would admit to having been even more worried at seeing her lying there.


The game ended 10 minutes later.  J's muscles were starting to go numb.  Her teammates were deciding what to do with her, and she could barely concentrate on what they were saying.  The circulation was almost cut off in her left arm, and her right arm and both her legs were also going numb.  It must be that having held them so rigid for so long was now having an effect on her.  


J tried not to panic.  She imagined the worst,  a limb full of gangrene, then told herself to calm down.


It was decided that JM would drive J to the hospital, while J's husband would come pick up the kids.  J still had some trouble following the conversation and just went along with whatever the others decided.


By the time they arrived at the hospital, the pain had become a dull ache, and the numbness had disappeared.  J was able to converse intelligently with JM and even joke a bit.  He stayed with her for about an hour, then left.  J's husband walked in, not long afterwards. 

Monday, April 12, 2010

Maryssa's Birthday

Finished product of Maryssa's creativity
 Maryssa turned 10 on March 30.  She wanted a hot air balloon pinata for her birthday this year, so I started on that.  Then I thought it would be nice to do pinatas for her soccer team as well.

The Easter egg pinatas
Maryssa wanted to do one of them, so I let her do pretty much everything.  She did all the layers of paper maché herself, without making a mess.  I help put the string on and reclose the hole we made to put the candy and stuff in, but she did all the rest by herself.  She also painted it herself.  I did the hot-gluing of the ribbons, but those she chose, as well as where to put them.

The hot air balloon pinata
We decided to make Easter eggs, as Easter was coming up.  We brought the finished pinatas to Maryssa's soccer practice on the Thursday before Easter, three days after her birthday.

We had Maryssa's birthday party on Easter Monday.  The kids painted ceramic plates and cups with my friend Tania from Gazouillis.  The kids loved it, and the dishes are microwavable, dish-washer safe and can be eaten off of.  The paint is non-toxic.

Afterwards, they all ate cake and went out to hit the  hot air balloon pinata.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Religion

One of my pet peeves is hearing the typical atheist/agnostic come up with the war between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland as an example of how religion spurs war.

Let's review this shall we?  Englishmen crossed the waters to Ireland and conquered it.  Most of Ireland managed to boot the English out eventually and become their own country again.  Unfortunately, a small parcel was not so lucky.  The English stayed.

A hundred years pass.  Two hundred years pass... The descendants of the original Irish are still Irish.  The problem is, the descendants of the English can no longer be considered English.  For generations, they have not lived in England.  Therefore, they too are Irish.

However, all is not well in the state of Northern Ireland.  The conquerors (aka the descendants of the English) are still nagging the conquered (aka the descendants of the original Irish) and this is creating a little unrest.

Now, we could have called the two groups conquered and conquerers, but I suppose that sounds a little pejorative.  We could have called them descendants of the original Irish and descendants of the original English, but that's a bit of a mouthful.  So somebody settled on a much easier way to distinguish between the two.

It just so happens that, (and this has nothing to do with the real reasons for the original conflict by the way) the original Irish were Catholic, and the original English were protestant.  The descendants of both groups have retained their denominations.  Hence the descendants of the Irish become "The Catholics" and the descendants of the English become "The Protestants".

And voilà!  You have now created for yourself a religious war!  Observe how religion is a horrible thing, and should be banished to Hell for all the wars it creates.

This is not the only example Atheists have, but certainly the silliest.  The other examples, when reviewed historically and put into context can equally be explained.

Atheists like to bring up the Inquisition (especially the Spanish Inquisition) and the mutual murdering of Protestants and Catholics in England for example. I find it funny how in the Catholic Church, it is the Mother Theresa's and the Maximilian Kolbe's, and not the actual murderous people who killed in the name of religion who are venerated as saints.  Could it possibly be because Catholics do not consider these actions to be Catholic?  The people burning heretics or other denominations at the stake, are those the people who spent their lives in humble prayer?  Or are they the "pharisees" who didn't get it, and were only in it for the power and the glory and the personal recognition?

Let's talk briefly of the crusades.  Athesists love the Crusades.  Especially Christian-hating atheists.  The popular version these days is that the Christians, totally unprovoked, attacked these poor, peace-loving muslims who never saw anything coming.

Fact: Muslims invaded Catholic territory (Spain) in 711.  Now, I am willing to give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt on this one, and say that their leaders were probably as power-hungry and ruthless as any that Christian kingdoms may have seen, and that they cannot be considered good representatives of the Muslim faith any more than many Christian Kings could be considered good representatives of the Christian faith.  (Take Henry the VIII for example.  I highly doubt that there is a clause anywhere in the gospels that says killing off or divorcing all your wives is permissable.)

Fact:  Spain was not the only previously Christian country to be attacked and conquered.

Fact: It was getting pretty darn near impossible for anyone to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land anymore.  (Through what used to be Christian lands.)

Fact: Everyone was barbaric in those days when at war.  War is barbaric.  It isn't until very recent times that anyone has even been concerned about innocent civilians during war.  Just ask the civilians of Hiroshima and London if World War II was good to them.  The innocent civilians in Vietnam in the even more recent 70's were no better off.  The funny thing is, when Christians fight Christians in wars such as the Scottish with William Wallace fought against the English and Edward the Longshanks, nobody considers that religion made them do it, and no one is surprised that either side was barbaric in it's methods.

So, barbarism aside, when does the first of the Crusades start?  1095.  Yes, after 300 years of constant Muslim invasion, the Christians finally strike back.  The question here is not "What made them do such a barbaric thing?"  but rather, "What took them so long?"

No offense to the Muslims.  The peaceful ones I mean.  Like the ones I personally know, who actually participated in our CHRISTMAS parties, invited us to their Eid Al Fihr and naturally expect to be wished a merry Christmas in Canada without being in the least insulted by it.

Tolerance, social justice, even the idea that women are worth more than just as possessions... these ideas come from faith in a God of love and peace and justice.  Maybe what the world needs is a little MORE religion, not less.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

My last post here

From Juana la Cubana's desert isle:

This is the last post I will be posting here. I have moved to my own blog: http://juanitacubanita.blogspot.com/

This should make Coucoumellisms a lot simpler to navigate, and make it easier to express myself without the confusion of there being two personalities.

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

The Empty Tomb Changes Everything



Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 20:11-18.
Mary Magdalene stayed outside the tomb weeping.  And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb and saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had been. 

And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken my Lord, and I don't know where they laid him." 

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus there, but did not know it was Jesus. 

Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" She thought it was the gardener and said to him, "Sir, if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him." 

Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni," which means Teacher.

Jesus said to her, "Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Mary of Magdala went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and what he told her.
Copyright © Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, USCCB



The Empty Tomb Changes Everything
The Guelph Mercury, April 3, 2010

by Royal Hamel
watchman2003@sympatico.ca



Imagine with me that on Easter Sunday morning 2000 years ago when Mary reaches Jesus’s tomb she finds its mouth still covered by a stone, and the soldiers there, alert and still on guard. And when she finally finds someone to roll away the stone she discovers the body of Jesus, still wrapped carefully in the linens, and in exactly the same place he had been lovingly laid after being taken down from the cross. What difference would such a scenario have made to modern Christianity?

Well according to the liberal branch of Christianity that largely rejects the supernatural, it would make no difference at all. In this view Jesus didn’t literally rise from the dead, but he did so in spirit, and in the end that’s all that counts. But according to the Bible and historic Christian belief this liberal non-belief is a mockery of true Christianity. It is, in fact, a form of unbelief that makes the cross into a monumental tragedy, plunders any hope for our lives after our own death, and pretty much leaves man in the same lost state that he was in before Jesus came. For if it’s only in this life that we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all other men.

But if Jesus did not rise from the grave it would mean that he was just a man like any other man. He lived, he spoke inspiring words, he drew some followers, but in the end he was no different from the rest of us. And all of his talk about forgiving sin, all of his talk about a future hope in heaven, all of his talk about his coming back, would have proved to be just talk or even worse. For it was the contention of C. S. Lewis that he was either, “liar, lunatic or Lord of all”. Yes he might have attained some kind of hero status that would have lasted for a few years, but it’s very unlikely we would still be talking about him today. Indeed to paraphrase scripture, our faith is useless if Jesus has not been raised.

If Mary had found Christ’s dead body on Easter morning there would have been no resurrection appearances to the disciples. None would have seen him, none could have put their hands into his wounds, none would have heard his voice of encouragement and hope, and no one could have heard his call to mission.

If Jesus body had remained in that tomb there would have been no Christian church. The apostles were charged with the mission of proclaiming a risen Saviour, but it is beyond belief that these men would joyously go to their deaths preaching the truth of Jesus’s resurrection if in fact they knew it to be a lie. They had nothing to gain by their itinerate preaching across the Roman Empire except persecution and death. This they gladly accepted because they had met their risen Lord face to face.

When Jesus rose from the dead he vindicated everything he ever taught and proved that he was not a mere talker, but a Saviour with power to deliver himself and his followers from the grave. Tim Keller who pastors one of America’s most influential mega churches comments, “If Jesus rose from the dead you have to accept all he said, if he didn’t rise from the dead then why worry about anything he said…If Jesus rose from the dead, it changes everything.” After all the founders of all the major religions are still in their graves, all, except for one. Jesus Christ is the only one who came back from the dead.

The cross on which Jesus died and its significance has always received much attention. But oddly enough in virtually all branches of Christianity the resurrection has received much, much less focus and attention. Indeed, some churches only hear about his rising from the dead on Easter Sunday which is but once a year. This is a tragedy of no small order. Most of the sermons recorded in the New Testament have a clear focus on Jesus as a risen Saviour who is now at the right hand of the Father. Church leaders have plenty of biblical content to speak on this amazing truth from Easter Sunday right through to Pentecost. Indeed that’s exactly what they should do.

Mary found no body on Easter morning; the tomb was empty. That simple fact changes everything. Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.

Évangile d'aujourd'hui


Evangile de Jésus-Christ selon saint Jean 20,11-18.

Marie Madeleine restait là dehors, à pleurer devant le tombeau. Elle se penche vers l'intérieur, tout en larmes, et, à l'endroit où le corps de Jésus avait été déposé, elle aperçoit deux anges vêtus de blanc, assis l'un à la tête et l'autre aux pieds. Ils lui demandent : « Femme, pourquoi pleures-tu ? » Elle leur répond : « On a enlevé le Seigneur mon Maître, et je ne sais pas où on l'a mis. » Tout en disant cela, elle se retourne et aperçoit Jésus qui était là, mais elle ne savait pas que c'était Jésus. Jésus lui demande : « Femme, pourquoi pleures-tu ? Qui cherches-tu ? » Le prenant pour le gardien, elle lui répond : « Si c'est toi qui l'as emporté, dis-moi où tu l'as mis, et moi, j'irai le reprendre. » Jésus lui dit alors : « Marie ! » Elle se tourne vers lui et lui dit : « Rabbouni ! » ce qui veut dire : « Maître » dans la langue des Juifs. Jésus reprend : « Cesse de me tenir, je ne suis pas encore monté vers le Père. Va plutôt trouver mes frères pour leur dire que je monte vers mon Père et votre Père, vers mon Dieu et votre Dieu. » Marie Madeleine s'en va donc annoncer aux disciples : « J'ai vu le Seigneur, et voilà ce qu'il m'a dit. » 


Extrait de la Traduction Liturgique de la Bible - © AELF, Paris 

Friday, April 02, 2010

The elbow is fractured

So, it turns out that I have been walking around with a broken elbow for a week and a half after all.

I went to see a doctor at a clinic Wednesday, because I needed one to fill in insurance papers so I could have physiotherapy if I needed it, and because the doctor at emergency said to consult if it was still hurting in a week.  (It was.)

Given the bruising and tenderness, this doctor wanted me to get more x-rays done to make sure I did not have a fracture, because sometimes you can miss it.  So I did that Wednesday afternoon.  Thursday, she called to say that the radiologist could see no fracture but thought that there was one anyway because of all the liquid she could see in the articulation.  So I got an appointment in orthopedics this morning, where the doctor there confirmed that it was indeed a fracture, so no physiotherapy for another two weeks at least.

No cast either.  I kind of feel cheated of all the sympathy a cast would have garnered for me, as the obvious symbol of serious injury.  Here I have injured myself seriously and noone around me knows... In secret, I crave attention.  (Sometimes)  Also, a cast would be a constant remeinder to my kids that my arm DOES hurt and they should avoid pulling at it, bumping into and generally mis-handling it.  It is soooo easy to forget this simple rule... sigh...

Why did Judas betray Jesus?

Here's an interesting, insightful article:  http://www.thenazareneway.com/holy_week/why_did_judas_betray.htm

Judas is often identified as a Zealot, an attribute held by only one other disciple, Simon the Zealot. We know that Judas was probably a Zealot by his surname, Iscariot. Researchers believe this is a form of the title sicarii, meaning "dagger-men," a group of ultra-Zealots who carried a knife with them at all times to be prepared to assassinate traitors and capitulators. In English, we could call him Judas the Daggerman.
Though motivated primarily by socio-economic and political factors, the Zealots also had prophetic ideas driving them. They believed that if they turned Israel back to God and incited war against the Romans, the Messiah would arise to lead them and establish His Kingdom. This "understanding"resulted from misinterpreting many prophecies concerning Christ's teachings. In short, the Zealots ignored many of the prophecies regarding His first coming and completely mis-timed those about the second.