Mary, the Mother of Jesus

The Bible that is used by Christians tells us that Jesus was born of Mary. I do not think anyone in the Christian faiths disagrees with this.

All of the main line Christian faiths appear to state that the Trinity, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, are one.

The Catholic Church, based on Mary being the Mother of Jesus, and God/Jesus/Holy Spirit being one entity, calls Mother Mary, the Mother of God. (Mainly in the Hail Mary/Rosary.) Is that a far stretch? I hear many Protestants complain that Mary is NOT the Mother of God. Do they believe that the Trinity of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is one entity as their faith professes (in most cases)? If so, how far of a stretch is it to say that Mary is the Mother of God? At least in His human form?

Mary, in an effort to bring the people of God BACK to God, has been reported to appear before many people over the years. In each of these apparitions, she has requested that people come back to the beliefs of the Church created by her Son, Jesus Christ. In each case her message was about Jesus and coming back to him. She would often have the person(s) she was talking to do something to help improve and grow the Church in the name of her Son. (At least those apparitions that have been approved by the Catholic Church.) Many of these apparitions and the messages associated with them brought healing to the recipients.

The Catholic Church believes that Mary was of Immaculate Conception, meaning that she was born without sin, and that she lived a life without sin. This declaration was proclaimed in 1854, and in 1858, St. Bernadette, an uneducated little girl at the time, who had not heard those words before, received the words, “I am the Immaculate Conception” from an apparition of Mary who gave her various instructions to follow. These instructions again tried to point people to the Church and to help grow the Church.

The Catholic Church believes that Mary was ever Virgin. That she had no children after Jesus. Records, such as Protoevangelium of James, that were created in early times (in the case of Protoevangelium of James, it is estimated to have been completed within 60 years of the death of Mary), indicate that Mary was dedicated by her Mother Anna to the Church of God, and that she lived and worked in the Church as a virgin until she was of age and then was to be married to Joseph as her protector, who was an older male with offspring of his own already (wife was deceased). The original Greek word of “Brethren” used in the Bible transcripts meant includes half brothers/sisters, cousins and other close relatives, as was the custom in that time. While the Bible states that Jesus’ brethren were out side, it could well include His half brothers/sisters through Joseph, His cousins, etc. It is curious to me that there is never, in any of the transcripts from that time, that I have read or heard of, telling of Mary ever being pregnant again, and of her having any other child. The early Protestant Reformers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, all believed in the Ever Virgin status of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. It was their followers that sought to distance themselves even further from their Parent Church for various reasons that removed that doctrine from their faith.

In conclusion, many people of the Catholic faith, put a lot of faith and trust in Mother Mary, talk to her (pray) often and ask her for her intercession with Christ for a better life, or help in life. Who better to ask for intercessory pray that the Mother of Jesus?

Intercessory Prayer

For the past 20ish years, and even more so this past five or so years, I have heard people say that Catholics worship Mother Mary and the other Saints above God. While this may be true for some who claim to be Catholic, those that understand the Catholic faith and live by that faith in fact do not.

Most Christian people, be they Catholic, Methodist, Nazarene, etc., believe in Intercessory Prayer. That is, the process of asking someone else to pray on their behalf, or for something they feel needs prayer. For example, if someone in their family is having health issues, they may ask their Church, friends and family to pray for the improved health of that person. This is very common by most Christians. I have even heard of many Christians talk about “talking to their deceased Mother/Father/Brother/Grandfather/Grandmother” asking them for advice/etc.

Christians, by their faith, and remember, Catholics are the first Christians and are still Christians, believe that when you pass away from this world, their soul is brought up to heaven and they live on forever at the feet of God. Many Christians believe that those that have gone on to Heaven are able to watch us and hear us here on Earth…

Catholics select those Holy people that lived a very Christian life and whom they believe have been Sainted by God as a role model for their own life. In many cases they talk (pray) to that Saint asking for their intercessory prayers to God. (Who better to talk to God on your behalf than someone sitting at His feet?) The same goes to Mary, Jesus’ Mother, and our Mother, as per Jesus Himself. Being a mother, Catholics are pretty sure she has Jesus’ ear. We ask her to intercede on our behalf with her Son and ask her to help guide us towards those things that will make her Son happy with us.

Now, if a Catholic forgets to add to their prayers a prayer directly to God, they are remittances as to their faith and may need to learn more about their faith, but as a group, they are not placing the Saints or Mother Mary above God, just asking their help in communicating with God.

You may see many Catholics wearing a medal of a Saint or of Mother Mary, and in most cases it is because that is who they wish to emulate in their actions in order to get closer to God.

Dressing right for the occassion…

When you go to visit the President of the United States at his house, you will more than likely be dressed to the best you can. If you were invited to meet the Queen of England you would put on your best suit or dress and get all cleaned up for the event. If you go to visit the President, King, Queen or leader of any nation at their home, I am pretty sure in most cases you will dress up for the event.

These last few years I have seen the clothing at the Christian churches I have gone to or go to diminish to the point of people wearing shorts, t-shirt, and shower shoes. (I don’t care what you say, flimsy, plain (and in many cases “designer”) flip flops are shower shoes. Not street shoes…) Now, I am told by many that I should be happy that the person is even coming to Church. This I have to agree with. But I don’t agree with the clothing choice, and what I feel is disrespect they are showing to God. It looks like to me they are saying “Oh, I guess I better go make an appearance, so let me through my comfy cloths on so I am at least comfortable while I am there.”

The Christian faith, in general, considers God our King. The Church is by biblical announcement the House of God, our King. Give our FOUNDING King the same respect we give our Secular Kings, if not more respect! Church is not a place to be comfortable and all relaxed. It is a place to worship God in community and a place to show your respect to God. Do so with your clothing, your thoughts and your actions, not just your actions (of showing up).

Now, don’t get me wrong. If you are of low income and can’t afford a suit, nice dress, etc. Clean your best clothes you have and come to Church. BUT, if you have a nice dress or a nice suit, or can afford the same, wear it in respect of your true King!

Look back at the pictures of prior to about 20 years ago of people in the US and around the world. (I don’t know if this is happening all over the place, but it sure is all over the US as I see it!) You see each person, from the youngest child to the oldest person present wearing, proudly, their best clothing. They are PROUD of what they are wearing and they are HAPPY to wear it. Now, I understand the kids, and many of the adults, can’t wait to go home and get out of these “uncomfortable” clothes, but they are proud of what they are wearing to Church.

I can remember seeing people wearing those clothes to the after Church events such as picnics, etc, playing in the Church yard, etc. After Church and the events afterwords were over they went home and changed. If the Church had a Church meeting that evening, they remained dress and would go back to Church again, still dressed up.

Why have we gotten so self centered and moved away from showing God, our King, the respect we would show our secular Kings (Presidents/etc)?

In Christ…

Jesus’ command to be one Church…

One thing I like about the Catholic Church is that you can go to any Church, anywhere in the world on the same day and hear the same readings from the Bible. If you go to Mass every day of the year, you will have been read the Bible pretty much completely through.

One of the things that has been foremost on my mind for about three years, is the number of Christian based religions that all say they are the true Christian Church, yet most of them are less than 500 years old. The oldest Christian Church is the Catholic, or Universal Church. This Church has stated that it wants to bring all the Christian Churches “back home”, yet does many things to stop that from happening, based on comments, actions, and in some cases doctrine. (Priest not being able to marry being one such doctrine that has many outsiders, and some insiders not happy.)

Today’s Gospel reading is John 10:11-18 [show]John 10:11-18 [11]I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. [12]He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. [13]He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. [14]I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, [15]just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. [16]And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. [17]For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. [18]No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." (ESV)
, which points even harder to merging the Christian Churches back into one Church, specifically: 16: “…and there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

Actually many of my readings of late keep pointing to the need for the Christian Churches to merge again and become one in Christ, with one Shepherd.

How do we make that happen?

Say it isn’t so!!?? AGAIN!!

I received an email from the Knights of Columbus Supreme Chapter of which I am a Knight that reads in it’s entirety here, my comments below:

Religious freedom under attack in Connecticut

(March 10, 2009) – A First Amendment storm is brewing in the Constitution State.

Without any consultation with its bishops, a bill under consideration in Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee threatens to forcefully reorganize the Catholic Church, taking authority away from pastors and bishops and placing governing decisions in the hands of boards of directors from which clergy would be excluded.

The Judiciary Committee, co-chaired by State Senator Andrew McDonald and Assemblyman Michael Lawlor, will hear evidence on Raised Bill No. 1098 on Wednesday. The bill would revise current governance provisions applicable to the Catholic Church in Connecticut. If passed, it would strip a bishop of control of his diocese.

“I think that (this bill) would be very problematic under the First Amendment,” Erwin Chemerinsky told Headline Bistro. Chemerinksy is one of the nation’s foremost authorities on First Amendment law and dean of the Law School at University of California Irvine.

Chemerinsky said the law is problematic “partly because it targets one religion and partly because it enmeshes the legislature in the workings of a particular religion.”

Catholic reaction to the bill has been swift as well.

In the Archdiocese of Hartford and the Diocese of Bridgeport, statements were read from every pulpit last Sunday by Archbishop Henry Mansell and Bishop William Lori respectively.

Calling the bill “irrational, unlawful and bigoted” and a blatant violation of the First Amendment, Bishop Lori’s statement hit back hard.

“This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day,” Lori said, pointing out that no other religious organization is targeted by the measure. “The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church.”

Mansell called on each parish in his diocese to send a delegation to the bill’s public hearing in Hartford on Wednesday.

The laity has been equally appalled.

Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, founded and headquartered in New Haven, Conn., called the bill a throwback to the extreme anti-Catholicism that pervaded America’s early history.

“Whatever their reasons for introducing this bill, there is no doubt that these Connecticut politicians find themselves not only on the wrong side of the First Amendment, but on the wrong side of history, as well,” Anderson wrote in an op-ed in the Stamford Advocate Tuesday.

Background for the bill

The New Haven Register quoted Assemblyman and Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike Lawlor as saying he was approached by “very devout Catholic” constituents asking for greater transparency in terms of diocesan funds.

Misappropriation of parish funds is rare. But in 2007 a priest from the Diocese of Bridgeport pleaded guilty to defrauding his parish of over $1 million. That same year, a Greenwich priest resigned after an audit found $500,000 in unaccounted for spending.

The diocese responded by implementing safeguards and launching thorough investigations and financial audits.

“The pastors of our diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners,” Bridgeport Bishop Lori said in his statement. “For the State Legislature – which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year – to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense.”

Doctrinal differences also seem to have a role in the current controversy as well. Reports from newspapers and blogs link the bill’s origins to a lay group with a history of challenging the Church’s structure.

The New Haven Register credits Connecticut attorney Thomas Gallagher as spearheading the bill, and an article by an officer of the dissident Catholic group Voice of the Faithful in the Diocese of Bridgeport stated that Gallagher had been in dialogue with legislators on this issue since 2007.

The article’s author, James O’Callaghan, encouraged the group’s members early on to “lend their support” to this effort of overhauling current regulations on religious corporations.

Among the stated purposes of Voice of the Faithful is to “shape structural change within the Catholic Church.”

In 2002, the same year the group was formed, Bishop Lori banned Voice of the Faithful from meeting on Church property in his diocese. While he has “consistently supported greater involvement of the laity in the activities of the Church,” the bishop said he could not condone a movement that rejected core Catholic teachings on issues such as sexual morality, celibacy “and a view of conscience contrary to the traditions of the Church.”

First Amendment scholars take exception

In addition to Chemerinksy, many other Constitutional law experts have expressed shock at the proposed law.

In a letter to Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee, Philip Lacovara, who has taught law at Columbia and Georgetown and is now senior counsel at the law firm of Mayer Brown, wrote that even his first year law students would have “little difficulty seeing why the bill goes well beyond the powers that the Constitution allows the States to exercise in dealing with organized churches.”

Kevin Hasson, president of the interfaith Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, likewise issued a stinging statement against the bill, which he called “truly a monstrosity.”

“It would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment even if it applied to all churches,” he said. “But the fact that it applies to only one church – the Catholic Church – makes it unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment besides.”

Legislators have also expressed shock at the bill.

Republican State Senator Michael McLachlan was outspoken in his blog.

“I pray fervently that we can dispense with this brutal attack on the Roman Catholic Church very quickly,” he wrote. “Catholics don’t deserve this attack and the proponents of this bill will hopefully hear this message loud and clear.”

Trusteeism

The Church has been the target of such laws before – albeit over 150 years ago.

The concept of lay “trusteeism” was a persistent problem for the Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as some American Catholics – influenced by Protestant congregationalism and aided by groups like the “Know-Nothings” – tried to take control of Church structure.

The Know-Nothing party specifically tried to lessen the influence of the Church using “trusteeism.” They actually succeeded at times – passing the Putnam Bill in New York, for example, in 1855. Overtly anti-Catholic in its purpose, that bill – similar in content to the bill being considered in Connecticut – remained on the books until the need for Union Army recruits from the Catholic population forced New York legislators to think better of it in 1863.

At its worst, trusteeism caused riots and sent some parishes into schism, as trustees asserted their authority over a parish’s temporal matters – often with implications for spiritual matters as well.
Experts warn the religious consequences would be profound today as well.

“Make no mistake, the effect of such a law – if enforced – would be the balkanization of the Catholic Church. Our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church would no longer be apostolic, with bishops losing the say in the administration of their dioceses,” Anderson wrote in his op-ed.

“Rather than ‘one’ and ‘catholic’ our Church could become many and inconsistent as trustees forced their version of theology on a parish under the very real threat of confiscation if their ideology were resisted,” he added.

Msgr. Francis Weber holds a PhD in Church History and serves as archivist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

He told Headline Bistro that the trusteeism being proposed in Connecticut is “even worse than the normal kind” because it totally excludes priests and bishops from even voting. Historically, Weber said, “the Church has had all kinds of trouble” with the trustee system.

In terms of the current law under consideration, Weber was clear: “This is a takeover,” he said.

Both Bishop Lori and Archbishop Mansell noted in their statements that the bill is “contrary to the Apostolic nature” of the Church by disconnecting parishes from their priests and bishop. Bishops provide the unifying charter of an apostolic church, and assure doctrinal consistency.

Unlike some Protestant denominations where congregations influence doctrine, “Ours is a doctrinal Church,” Weber said. “We don’t have doctrine up for grabs.”

It is my understanding that the Government, of any level, be it Town, City, State, or Federal does not have any control or say in Church actions and management!? How can something like this make it through today’s system, and how can the Church listen to it if it does happen? If the people of a Church, any Church or denomination don’t like what happens in that Church, move on and find one that meets your needs. Don’t go about trying to change the one you are in.

The Catholic Church has it’s share of problems. Because it is as big as it is, and has the wealth that it has in Real Estate, art, money and other items, it gets talked about a lot more than other denominations and groups, but those other groups have the same problems. And proportionally just as big.

There is no way that the State Government should be allowed to even attempt to take this to the next level and attempt to make this happen.

I can’t believe where the US is taking itself these days! I still love this country, and will not leave it, nor do I have the desire to, but I’m not happy with were I see it going!

Life’s changes over the years.

When air travel happened in the earlier years, everyone dressed up for the event. Granted, most flights were business based, and when the person go to the other side, they went to meetings, etc. Today, I see people get on planes in pajamas and furry slippers. Again, flying has gotten to be a standard mode of transportation. BUT, one should take pride in themselves and dress appropriately. I agree that a coat and tie may not be needed anymore, but SOME decorum should be used!

Then we get to Church services. Again, not too many years ago everyone went to Church in their “Sunday Best”, dressing up for God and for themselves. Today I see people come to Church in shorts, “muscle shirts”, and flip flops. What happened to decorum there too? Yes, just being in Church is important, but come on folks!! Show respect to yourself, others, and the Pastor/minister on the podium.

Speaking of Pastors, use to be, in the Catholic faith, and a few others, you could tell who was a Minister/Priest/etc, by their clothing. In most cases not so anymore. Many Catholic Priest now wear “civilian” cloths. I asked one Priest why that was so, and his response was “so I can take a break”. Um, religious life is not something one should be taking a break from is it? Another Priest answered the same question by saying, “More people come to me and talk when I’m not in my collar, about religion or anything.” This is a better answer, but it still doesn’t work for me. A person in religious life should be in the clothing of that life. This goes for Monks (most monks are still in habit, but I hear many are “coming out of habit” there too), Friars (a person in religious life, who lives and works “in the world”, but in community as well), and Nuns. MANY, MANY of these religious life folks have come out of habit. I was told by one Nun that there was no need for the clothing. Now mind you, those Religious Orders that have stayed in habit are growing, and those Orders which have come out of habit are tending to grow smaller and smaller each year. When you go into Religious Life, you give a vow of poverty. How are you going to own all these cloths, jewelery, etc that I see these “new” Nuns, Brothers, and Priest wearing? What happened to that vow? Go back to habit ladies and gentlemen, let us know who you are. (You can go to Mass now a days and not even know you are sitting by a Religious Brother or Sister. Not appropriate to my eyes.)

I think these clothing and presentation changes have happened because the world has quickly become a “me” world. Everyone is centered on themselves, and forgetting the world. This has SOME good qualities to it, but while centering yourself on yourself, you should also consider those around you, live, dress and act appropriately. Wearing pajamas on an airplane just doesn’t seem to cut it in that regard, nor does wearing shorts and flip flops to Church.

And when you go into religious life, you are supposed to be centering yourself on God, Love and others, not on yourself. Comfort is one of the things you may be asked to give up in your vows, and worldly possessions such as cloths IS one of the things you are supposed to be giving up!

I pray daily that the World looks at where we are going and begins making some changes for the better.

Homeless..

For the past twoish years I have been apostatizing amongst the Homeless People here in Pompano Beach, and somewhat in Ft. Lauderdale. In apostatizing, I mean I spend a lot of time walking with them, talking with them, and hanging out with them. We talk, in some cases we pray together, we may read the Bible together, we talk about God/Jesus, or we just “hang out”.

In this two years I have come to understand the homeless situation much better than when I started looking at the homeless. My initial impression of homeless was that they were drunks, druggies and lazy.

Many of them ARE drunks or on drugs, but not for the reasons many of us think. Many use alcohol as a means to “stay warm” (or cool), forget their worries, or ease pain in the body. Same thing with the drugs. And both tend to become addictive as we all know from the news, books, press, etc. But many of the people I’ve been talking to want OFF the drugs or booze, if they were able to get cleaned up and land a paying job. The problem is being able to spend a couple of months getting cleaned out and still live, and then find a job.

As to the lazy tag. Many of these people, wandering the streets, are far from lazy. They spend the day walking, or riding a bike, from point A to Z and back again looking for money. They spend hours on the streets begging for money. They stay busy all day to stay warm (or cool). And they do tend to drink a lot, when they are able to buy the beer.. But most are not actually lazy!

I know one guy, who has a booze problem, and rarely a drug problem, that is a “Weaver”. He walks along the beaches climbing the palm trees and cuts down the dead palm fronds, living coconuts, then he takes the fronds and weaves hats, belts, skirts, and other things for the tourist. He shaves the coconut and opens it up, serving the coconut milk. He will add rum to it if you want, for a great tropical drink. He stays sober while he works all day. He works into the evening, making roses for the ladies from the fronds, selling them to the guys for their dates. Once he has his roses sold, he goes and buys some beer (or other booze) and drinks the rest of the night away. This man if FAR from lazy! He got into this life after doing some prison time and no one wanting to hire him, because he was a felon. Now he gets harassed by cops daily, and arrested often. He would be HAPPY to “Get a real job”. (Although his job is real, and much appreciated by the locals and tourist that go to the beaches down here.)

There are some homeless that just plain LIKE living on the streets. I talk to one that has been on the streets for about 14 years now. He isn’t a heavy drinker (only drinks of Fridays and Saturdays, and not heavily), doesn’t do drugs, but does panhandle and other wise work the streets, and sleep on the streets. He doesn’t want to change his life, and doesn’t plan on changing his life. He lives by a very strict set of personally made rules about where and how he sleeps, where and what he does, and how he panhandles. He had to see me walking around on the streets with other homeless for over a year before he would even talk with me, as I was outside of his rules. We now talk often.

Another class of homeless is what bothers me. There are MANY on the streets that belong in mental institutes for sever mental problems. The problem is, there are so few psychiatric hospitals out there, and someone must pay for those, so that leaves that these people out running around on the streets fending for themselves. Several years ago we had many psychiatric hospitals for mentally unstable people. Over the last 20+ years our political system has had these places shut down because of the cost of keeping them open. (Bipartisan, not just one side or the other!) I know of one facility that closed a few years ago in Annapolis MD area. When they closed, they moved less than 1% of the patients to another facility (that was closed a year later), family members moved another 25-30% to other facilities on their own, and the rest were given the option to be on the street, find their own place to be, or try to get back with family. In some cases there was no family to go back to. These people pretty much ended up on the streets. On way day they had a home, the next they were shown the door, given what little they had in possessions, and told to leave. I watched this happen myself!

I have heard many people say that they would give the homeless on the side of the street money, but the person would then use it for drugs or alcohol. IF you were going to give someone money out of the kindness of your heart, does it matter what they use that money for? It shouldn’t. For these people that alcohol or drug might be what they need to stay alive at that time. It is not for us to judge what they do with their lives. Now, I’ve heard others say that they will give them coupons to McDonalds, etc. This is good, but then you are telling them what they need. Is it your position to tell them that? Again, aren’t you judging for them?

For many of these homeless people, living on the street, or trying to, is the only thing they can do. Many want to be there, as the other homeless are their only support. And that support is shaky at best! Today someone can be your best friend, tomorrow they are not! But it is better than none!

You may ask why they don’t go to the various shelters and programs out there? Well, from what I am seeing, first there aren’t enough programs out there for the number of people on the streets. Second, getting into these programs can be VERY hard, especially if you have an alcohol problem or drug problem, and many COST the homeless money to be there. (They wouldn’t be homeless if they had money…) The programs, at least here in Pompano Beach/Fort Lauderdale, that help bring in people from the streets, dry them out (from either drugs or alcohol), give them beds, food, clothing and work to do, are almost always full. They may have frequent openings when a person can’t get through the withdraws of their habit, but those openings are grabbed quickly by people wanting to try. Many of the “Graduates” from these programs get back into productive life. Some don’t.

The “half way houses” out there that I have seen are jokes. These are supposed to be places where a person can go to get shelter, and attempt to get their life back in order. The person must get a job and pay “rent”. Yes, the rent is low. But in many cases, the house “manager” is a street person still on drugs or alcohol and is not better at managing a business (which these houses are, very profitable, for the owner, businesses) than he is manage his own life. There are more problems in these houses, more drugs, more booze, more issues, than there should be, by a long shot. I have yet to see one that is clean, orderly and well run. (I’m sure they are out there, but the ones the people I have been dealing with have been trying to go to have not been good.)

Then you have programs like this one down in Miami that works it’s way throughout Miami-Dade County and Broward County. This guy brings the vagrants in, gives them a place to crash, takes any income they have (social security, etc) and their food stamps from them each month. They are to pay an extra $50 a week for food (on top of the food stamp money they already have given through the cards!). He then gives them a “Route” to work as a panhandler or a “product” to sell. He demands 80+% of what that person brings in. He puts some of it in a “in house” bank for the homeless guy, but from what I hear, it can be pretty hard to get that money out in the end, and it often stays with this guy. And this guy is backed by the local government. He teaches no skills, just takes, and barely gives back. Add to that, I hear the housing is pretty pour to boot!

So, when you see these people on the street, think of our system for helping the mentally insane, think of our system for helping these people, and consider giving them a hand. Let them figure out how to use that hand!

Martial Arts

For over 30 years now I have been studying martial arts. I have acquired a 6th Dan (Black Belt/Master Instructor) in AiKiDo, a 5th Dan (Black Belt/Master Instructor) in Judo, a 3rd Dan (Black Belt/Instructor) in Kendo (the Art of the Sword), a 3rd Dan (Black Belt/Instructor) in Tang Soo Do, and a 3rd Dan (Black Belt/Instructor) in Hapkido. I have also studied with other Masters in other styles, belting in some (at various levels) or just learning new things.

During this time of studying martial arts, I was studying and learning about the body through becoming a Combat Medic, a Cardiovascular Technician, and a Physician’s Assistant in the Army, and a Paramedic in the Civilian world. I also studied Shiatsu (massage therapy and pressure points), becoming a Master Technician in the State of Texas.

About 12 or so years ago, I started teaching individuals a mix of what I had learned, keeping the techniques in tact, and the “requirements” for each styles “belting”, with one minor twist, I took some belts out, and required more in each belt before taking a “Belt Test”. (I’m WAY old school when it comes to testing… I think it SHOULD be White Belt, Brown Belt and Black Belt, that is it…)

My martial theory consist of this:

1. Learn the arts to learn more about yourself.
2. Gain confidence in yourself.
3. Try to talk your way out of a fight, offer to take them for a drink, or food, or …
4. If that doesn’t work, walk (run?) away.
5. If that doesn’t work, block the attack, always trying to go back to 3 and 4.
6. If that doesn’t work, hurt the attacker (via a solid punch (often stops the fight), kick, throw, etc.), always trying to go back to 3 and 4!
7. If that doesn’t work, break something of the attackers. (Hand, wrist, arm, leg, jaw, etc.), always trying to go back to 3 and 4!
8. If that doesn’t work, maim them, always trying to go back to 3 and 4!
9. And if that doesn’t work, as a final and LAST resort, you make it lethal. This is ALWAYS a LAST RESULT, and only if you can’t walk/run away, or take them out for a drink, and the other things in the middle don’t stop the fight.

ANY time you get in a fight, you are going to get hurt, even if it is only the hurting of your hand when you hit them, because if you hit them right, your hand (or foot) will hurt too! Hopefully not as much as they will hurt (if you study under me, I can show you how to hurt them more than they hurt you!). Any time I get in a fight, it hurts me emotionally as well, fighting is not something anyone should be doing if at all possible!

Now, some of you may ask, why is someone like me, a “religious” person, teaching or partaking in martial arts? Well, after MUCH talking with several Priest and one Bishop of the Catholic Church, as long as I’m not studying or teach with the intent to do harm, but rather to learn more about the body, people, and “self defense” there appear not to be an issue with it and the Church. (Remember in the “old days” when Priest use to have boxing schools for their young boys, and when Priest had boxing in Seminary?)

Martial arts, to me, is about learning about my body, the body in general, and about staying in shape, the later of which I really need to do! It is not about hurting people. or about getting in fights.

All this to lead to the comment that I am in the process of opening up my own dojo! (Training Hall/School). I am now forming my own style of the ” Way of Circular Wind Ryu“. I am going to be aggressively be putting together a school, and have already started putting the blocks together!

To learn about that, click on “Investment” above! I could use your help.

You can also see my initial web site at http://cwryu.tripod.com/index.html. This will soon(ish) have it’s own domain and a better built site, but is a good start, if I do say so myself. The content there will be update over the next two weeks.

My opening day should be on or before October 6th of this year! Wish me luck, and pray for me!