​The Story of Pure Love: Armando and Martha 

17 08 2017

22yrs Armando Valladares, a young journalist was working at his desk at a newspaper company when soldiers came to ask him to publish a communist propaganda supporting the new government of Fidel Castro. 

 He refused knowing full well that there would be consequences. He didnt have to wait long.  Armed soldier stormed his residence at night and arrested him. 

 For refusing to support communism, Armando was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He was arrested in the middle of the night and transferred to a notorious prison where hundreds of enemies of communism were beaten on a regular basis. 

But it was in this prison that Armando received a miracle in the form of a woman he met. She was one of the daughters of fellow prisoner and her name was Martha. 

They fell in love when they met, and began to write each other in secret. 

Years of communicating together deepened their love for one another. 

When the communist tried to force Armando to enroll in a compulsory reeducation program, Armando and his companions again refused. 

As a punishment, he spent 8 years in a special solitary confinement, with no windows, and no light coming in, only a small hole for his wastes. 

After 10years, the communist tried another technique, promising him freedom if only he could sign a document praising communism.

 But instead of signing his name, Armando, took the document and started writing poetry at the back. The guards tried to stop him but he changed tactics, writing with his blood instead on the back of onion skins which he smuggled out to Martha.


As the holocaust survivor, Victor Frank once said, “A man can endure any how a long as he has a why” From then on, nothing the soldiers did could hurt him anymore. 

His love for Martha broke down the prisons walls as he wrote poem to her using his own blood, and fresh breeze of love lifted him high, carrying him towards the sun.

Martha fled to the United State, and published thr peoms which became a bestseller raising a campaign against what Castro’s government was doing to her beloved. 
Amnesty international and other human rights group caught on and pressed the Cuban government for his release. 

Terrified of his growling fame the communist tried an old police trick to shatter his unshakable love for Martha.

They told him that Amnesty groups had dropped name from their list of prisoners of war, and that Martha had abandoned him. 

He responded in a serene and cheerful way saying, Now I know for certain that my Martha is succeeding in getting me out.”

He was right; a short time later, he was released from the prison where he had spent 22 years, unbroken, defending his own conscience,  and the dignity of every man to live in the freedom of theirs. 

His 22 years of unbroken resistance to tyranny demonstrated that man is capable of withstanding great evils when he loves and he is loved by another.

On his release from prison, he was finally united with his sweetheart Martha and he was caught on camera showering her with kisses right front and center before the flashing lights and world media. They got married soon after,  a crowning perseverance of love. 






​  A True love Story: Clare and Francis 

15 08 2017

I was reading the story of Dolores Hart, a very successful actress who left 



Hollywood to become a nun. Wondering what could make someone do such a thing, I breezed through the pages until I came to the part that best explained her eventual decision to become a nun. According to her, the highlight of her career was her part as Clare, in the movie Francis of Assisi, directed by Michael Curtiz.  

[This movie is about 1 hour long,  but worth everything minute of your time] 


Set in the 13th Century, the movie revolved around the life of two young people, Francis and Clare who loved each other. But Francis, the son of rich cloth trader, felt a voice calling him for something higher beckoning him to leave Clare the pretty daughter and all the worldly luxury of his fathers house. He followed the voice, stripping himself of everything to become a beggar friar. Clare rather than flaring up and throwing a tantrum, sought to understand him. She not only let him go, but joined him on his way to God. Thus was born St Francis and St Clare of Assisi. Two people who change the world.  

Another character in the movie, a friend of Francis and a knight, lusted after Clare. But rather than keep his love for her sacred, when he realized she was giving her life to God, he took to drinking and having sex with other girls.

Clares steadfast love for Francis, and his undying love for her, even when they knew that they could no longer belong to each other, is a good example for many young people today who are often lost, swept away by the putrid tide of impure lust lashing against them. Many think it is impossible to remain a virgin and keep a boyfriend.  This film offers us a clear vision of what true and perfect love looks like. The pure love of youthful Francis and for his pretty girlfriend, Clare opened his eyes to an even greater love, the love of God.  

Guys and girls should understand that true love, rather than being an occasion for premarital sex and all sorts of immorality, frees the heart to see the other as a gift and above all to see through the other to gaze on God, the creator, whose love surpasses all.

Girls in romantic relationships, if they can, should go and visit Santa Chiara, the Gothic church that contains the tomb of Saint Clare. Her 708-year-old body was laid out in a glass coffin. It was a wonder to see, uncorrupted and amazingly beautiful. There they will see what pure love has preserved and that the gift of physical beauty is only enhanced when it is used in service of God

As for Dolores, her part in that movie brought her in close contact with Clare. The life of the saint she was about to play could not but make her feel like a false image of the real thing. 

 “I caught my reflection in a mirror, she said, and I thought, Im the caricature, a dressed-up form of this lady who existed.  

Soon after the movie ended, Dolores opted for the real thing and left all that success to enter the convent as a nun and she has now lived there for more than 50 years.


Thanks to 20th century Fox who took great pains to ensure the film was historically and geographically accurate. 





Did Jesus Permit Divorce? By Kelvin Ugwu

18 07 2017

​*CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS: ON MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND THE BIBLE*

Because of Chinaka’s awesome response, I had an experience last weekend that has prompted me to write this. I got into a debate with some Protestants pastors, at first I did not know their intention was to mock Catholic teaching when they asked, “Did Jesus permit divorce? Can there be any situation in which a Christian can be allowed to divorce his or her spouse?”

My answer was clear: “Christ never permitted divorce, and there is no situation that allows one to divorce his or her spouse once the marriage is valid.”

Then, their reply got me thinking: “You Catholics make me laugh. Christ gave an exception that in the case of adultery, divorce is permissible. This is why I keep saying it, Catholics are idol worshippers. It is a secret cult. They do not follow the bible, they follow their silly tradition. Stop misleading people with your lies.”

Those words sincerely got me worried because of the people it came from. I really do not understand why some persons hate the Catholic Church with passion, or should I say, why it seems to some people that any teaching coming from the Catholic Church is not only wrong but evil.

So, let me ask you the same question that I was asked. Did Jesus permit divorce?

If you are ready, follow me let us explore the bible to find the answer together.

This whole misunderstanding is coming from Matthew 19:9 where it seems Christ gave an exception for divorce: “Whoever divorces his wife except for unchastity and marries another commits adultery.”

The exceptive clause, “EXCEPT FOR UNCHASTITY” is the major issue here. Simply put, unchastity is a good reason to divorce one’s spouse.

You may want to ask, what constitutes ‘unchastity?’ We shall get to know soon.

We all remember that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. (Even my grandmother knows this.) The Greek word for unchastity is “PORNEIA.” The Protestants argue that this Greek word “porneia” means adultery. This is why if you read the Protestant New International Version of the Bible, Matthew 19:9 is translated thus:

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR MARITAL UNFAITHFULNESS, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

For most Protestants, though marriage is meant to last a life time, but adultery justifies divorce and remarriage. This is because they interpreted the Greek word “porneia” or “unchastity” as adultery. This is not so with Catholics.

Catholic biblical scholars believe that it is wrong to translate the Greek word “porneia” as adultery. In the Catholic New American Bible, Matthew 19:9 is translated thus:

“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Here, the exceptive clause is: “UNLAWFUL MARRIAGE.”

If you read King James Version of the bible, the translation for PORNEIA is even more interesting. It translates Matthew 19:9 thus:

“And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for FORNICATION, and shall marry another committeth adultery.”

Here, the exceptive clause is Fornication. And fornication is the sin of two unmarried people having sexual intercourse. If either person is married or both are married to other people, the sin is called adultery. Following this translation, the only way that a couple could commit fornication is if they were never really in a Christian marriage to begin with.

Many recent translations of porneia in Matt 19:9 used “sexual immoralities.” That still begs the question on what sexual immoralities could mean.

In all these, what really is the correct translation for the word PORNEIA? Is it the Protestants’ adultery, the king James’ fornication, or the Catholics’ Unlawful marriage? Even if porneia is to be seen as unchastity or sexual immoralities, what constitutes unchastity?

The answer to the above questions can be better clarified using the bible. 

I will give you two examples: Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21-22.

Matthew 15:19 “For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, ADULTERY, UNCHASTITY, theft, false witness, blasphemy.”

Mark 7:21-22, “From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, UNCHASTITY, theft, murder, ADULTERY, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.”

Pay attention to this: Adultery and unchastity are both prohibited in the texts above. If you read the Greek text, it is “porneia” that is translated as unchastity, in some bible it is translated as sexual immorality. While the Greek word “moicheia” is translated as adultery. Therefore, from these passages we can see that porneia does not mean adultery as that would be an unnecessary repetition.

The word for adultery in Greek is ‘moicheia.’ If the author of Matthew 19:9 felt that Christ was talking about adultery, he won’t have used ‘porneia’ which means unchastity.

If you read Act 15:28-29, the Apostles addressed the gentiles prohibiting four things:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain 

(1) from what has been sacrificed to idols, and (2) from blood and 

(3) from what is strangled and 

(4) from unchastity. 

If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” RSV (inserted numbers, mine)

Take note of (4), still talking about Porneia or Unchastity. These four prohibitions above were coming from a deep rooted Jewish tradition found in Leviticus 17 and 18.

If you read it through, you will discover that in chapter 18, what the Jews mean by unchastity or Porneia was explicitly explained. It was simply an incestuous marriage. Having sexual intercourse with close relative was greatly forbidden, not to talk of marriage. For the Jews, marriage of this nature is unlawful. This was what Christ was referring to in Matthew 19:9. It is a reference to an unlawful and thus invalid marriage. It is not reference, as Protestants view it, to a specific act committed during a legitimate “life-long marriage.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce was revolutionary. Remember that it was to answer the Jews who thought that one can divorce his wife for some reasons that made Jesus to give the answer he gave. If Jesus permitted divorce, what then makes his teaching different from the one Moses taught the Jews in the OT.

If Christ’s teaching on divorce was that simple, how can one explain the surprise that surrounded the disciples when they responded in the next verse?

Matthew 19: 10, “(His) disciples said to him, ‘If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.'”

The truth is, if there is anyone who is faithfully following the bible, give it to the Catholic Church. Quote me anywhere.





Why the Odds Favor Islam by WILLIAM KILPATRICK

20 06 2017


On May 22, an Islamic suicide bomber detonated himself outside a pop concert in Manchester, England, killing and wounding dozens, many of them young children.

The terrorist was a 22-year-old named Salman Abedi. A few days after the attack, I was reading an article about the mosque he attended—the Didsbury Mosque. “That’s funny,” I thought looking at the accompanying photo, “that doesn’t look like a mosque, it looks like a church.”

Sure enough, as I discovered, the Didsbury Mosque was once the Albert Park Methodist Chapel. It had been bought by the local Syrian Muslim community and transformed into a Muslim place of worship.

Similar transformations have been taking place in other parts of the UK. St. Mark’s Church in London is now the New Peckham Mosque, St. Peter’s Church in Cobridge was sold to the Madina Mosque. The Brick Lane Mosque in London was originally a Methodist church. But church-to-mosque conversions are only part of a larger story. There are now 423 mosques in London, and the number is expected to grow. Meanwhile, 500 London churches have closed since 2001, and in all of England 10,000 churches have closed since 1960.

The transformation of the Albert Park Methodist Church to the Didsbury Mosque is emblematic of one of the most significant shifts in history: the transformation of Europe from a largely Christian continent to a largely Islamic one. The transformation is far from complete, and there’s an outside chance the process can be reversed, but time and demographics favor Islam.

In several of Europe’s cities, the Muslim population now hovers around the thirty percent mark. In ten years’ time, that will be forty percent. Of course that doesn’t mean 40 percent of highly committed Muslims facing 60 percent of deeply devout Christians. Both faiths have their share of half-hearted “nominals” for whom religion is more a cultural inheritance than a deeply held conviction. Still, the “nominal” problem is a much greater problem for European Christians than for European Muslims. In many European countries, Sunday church attendance is the 5-10 percent range whereas mosque attendance is very high in relation to the size of the Muslim population. In England, there are already more Muslims attending Friday prayers than there are Christians attending Anglican services on Sundays. A study by Christian Research predicts that by 2020 the number of Muslims attending prayer service in England and Wales will exceed the number of Catholics attending weekly Mass.

It’s also noteworthy that the expanding Muslim population in Europe is relatively young, whereas the declining “Christian” population is an aging one. Sixty-forty seems like good odds until you realize that the average age of the 60 percenters will be around 55 while the average age of the 40 percenters will be around 25.

You may object that if there is any fighting to be done, most of the fighting on the “Christian” side will be done by the army, not by citizens in walkers and wheelchairs. But keep in mind that the military draws its recruits from the ranks of the young. As the population of the people that Islamists refer to as “crusaders” ages, European governments will be forced to draw more of their new recruits from the Muslim population. The same goes for the police forces. Many Muslims will serve their country or their city faithfully, but many will have divided loyalties, and some will have signed up in the first place with mutiny in mind.

Most likely, however, the transformation will be effected without major battles. It won’t be a matter of numbers or of military strength, but of strength of belief. Those with the strongest beliefs will prevail. Those who are not sure what to believe will submit without a fight.

Will Europe Defend its “Values”?

That’s the theme of Michel Houellebecq’s Submission, a novel about the gradual Islamization of France. The protagonist, a middle-aged professor, has a number of qualms about the Islamic takeover of the university system, but nothing sufficient to resist it. The things he values most—literature, good food, and sex—are, in the end, no impediment to accepting Islam. True, he is offered several inducements to convert—career advancement, plenty of money, and several “wives”—but one gets the impression that, even without these incentives, he would still eventually convert. At one point prior to his submission, he thinks about joining a monastic order as his literary hero, J.K. Huysmans, had done, but he soon realizes that he lacks the necessary Christian conviction. Indeed, he has no strong convictions.

His plight is the plight of contemporary Europe in a nutshell. Many Europeans see no sense in resisting Islamization because they have nothing worth defending. To be sure, European leaders still talk about “our values,” but they can’t seem to specify what those values are, beyond appeals to “diversity” and “pluralism.” For example, after the Manchester massacre, British Prime Minister Theresa May stated that “our values—the liberal, pluralistic values of Britain—will always prevail over the hateful ideology of the terrorists.”

I’m not so sure of that. In an earlier era, Brits would have connected their values to God, country, family, and honor. In other words, things worth fighting for. But “liberal, pluralistic values”? That’s not very solid ground on which to take your stand. Who wants to die for diversity? Indeed, it can be argued that the worship of diversity for its own sake is what allowed terrorists to get a foothold in England in the first place. No one wanted to question all those diverse preachers spreading their diverse message about Jews, infidels, and homosexuals. The trouble is, unless there are higher values than diversity, there’s no way of judging between good diversities and bad diversities—between, say, honoring your wife and honor-killing her if she displeases you.

The same is true of freedom. Freedom is a fundamental right, but what you do with your freedom is also important. There has to be some higher objective value that directs our choices to good ends rather than bad ones. Otherwise, freedom becomes a license to do anything one pleases.

An Attack on Childhood

Here we touch on a very touchy subject. I would not like to be in Theresa May’s shoes when, after a horrifying attack, she has to come up with just the right words. But one thing she said struck me as not quite right. She said: “We struggle to comprehend the warped and twisted mind that sees a room packed with young children not as a scene to cherish, but as an opportunity for carnage.”

It’s possible to fully agree with May’s sentiments while, at the same time, noting that there once was a time when a room full of children watching an Ariana Grande concert would not be considered “a scene to cherish.” “Her dress, dancing, and song lyrics,” wrote one columnist, “are deliberately decadent and immodest.” And, after watching some YouTube clips of her performances, I would have to agree. I’m pretty sure that most of the parents I know would not want their children to attend one of her concerts.

While the world was justly outraged at Salman Abedi’s attack on innocent children, no one seems to notice the attack on childhood innocence that the typical pop concert represents. The two “attacks” should not be equated, of course. The producers of pop concerts are not the moral equivalents of a suicide bomber. Still, the fact that so many parents saw nothing wrong with dropping their children off at the Manchester concert suggests a great deal of moral confusion in the West.

Unfortunately, such moral confusion leaves people vulnerable to those who are absolutely certain about their beliefs. The moral relativism of the West is one of the chief reasons why the Islamic cultural jihad has been so successful. People who can’t see that the soft-porn style of Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, and Ariana Grande is not good for children will have difficulty seeing the problem with polygamy, child marriage, and other aspects of sharia law. In a relativistic society, the safest default position is “who’s to judge?”

Relativism Leads to Islamic Dominance

Earlier I said that Europe is being transformed from a Christian culture to an Islamic culture, but that’s not quite accurate because it’s actually a three-stage transformation. Much of Europe has already transitioned out of its Christian stage and into a post-Christian or secular stage. There are still many Christians in Europe, but Europe’s Christian consciousness has been largely lost. The next stage is the transition from secularism to Islam. That’s not inevitable, but it’s likely because without a framework of Judeo-Christian beliefs, secularism becomes relativism and relativism can’t offer much resistance to determined true believers.

Back in 2014, Theresa May said “we celebrate different ways of life, we value diversity, and we cherish our freedom to lead our lives as we choose.” But if your culture stands for nothing more than the freedom to shop for different lifestyles, it won’t last long. The contemporary Western fascination with pop culture highlights the problem. Pop culture is by its very nature a transient phenomenon. What is pop today won’t be pop tomorrow. Indeed, the popular culture of tomorrow may very well favor burqas, multiple wives, and male supremacy. There may still be a place for singer-dancers like Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus, but that place would most likely be as a harem dancer in a Sultan’s palace or as entertainment for a Saudi prince who has bought up a country estate in Oxfordshire.

It’s hard to beat transcendent values with transient values. That’s especially the case when the transcendent crowd are willing to die (and kill you in the process) for their values. Most Brits, on the other hand, are not willing to lay down their lives for the sake of keeping bacon on the menu or porn on the telly.

Christianity vs. Two Forms of Totalitarianism

When I use the word “transcendent,” I refer only to a belief in an eternal life beyond this worldly existence. Quite obviously, as in the case of Salman Abedi, transcendent values can be twisted. The idea that God will reward you for murdering innocent young women in Manchester by furnishing you with virginal young women in paradise is a truly twisted concept. But apparently it is widely shared in the Muslim world. When, during a World Cup qualifier in Australia, a minute of silence was called to commemorate the London terror victims, the whole Saudi soccer team refused to observe it. As Sheik Mohammad Tawhidi later explained:

In their eyes the attackers are martyrs who are going to paradise. And if they stand for a minute of silence they are against their Muslim brothers who fought for jihad and fought the infidels.

As twisted as these values may be, it’s beginning to look as though secular values aren’t up to the job of opposing them. The trouble with secular values when they are cut off from their Judeo-Christian roots is that they are arbitrary. Autonomy? Dignity? Equality? Says who?

“If there is no God,” wrote Dostoevsky, “everything is permitted.” Secularism has no God and, therefore, no ultimate standard of judgment. The end result is that each man becomes his own god and does his own thing—even if that “thing” involves the exploitation of childhood innocence. Islam, on the other hand, does believe in God, but not the God Dostoevsky had in mind. The God of Islam is an arbitrary despot whose commands are not rooted in reason, love, or justice.

So we have two arbitrary systems vying for control of the West—the soft totalitarianism of secularism and the hard totalitarianism of Islam. Both are really forms of slavery. Muslims are slaves of a tyrannical God, and secular man becomes the slave of his own desires and addictions. It may seem unthinkable that the West will ever submit to Islam, but many Western citizens are already in submission mode. Submission to their desires has put them in a bad spot. As a result, they are looking for something bigger to submit to—something outside and above their own fragile selves. Some have already turned to Islam. Many more will unless…

Unless, that is, there is a recovery of the Judeo-Christian belief that God is a God of love, justice, reason, and goodness—and that we are made in his image (a concept which does not exist in Islam). In the context of that vision, belief in human dignity and the rights of man is thoroughly justified.

People who believe that they and their neighbor are made in the image of God will generally have a strong sense of their responsibility to act accordingly. Such people will be far from perfect, but they will at least realize that it is wrong to submit both to Islam’s warped image of God and to secularism’s degraded image of man.

In the end, the choice for the West is not between Islam and pluralistic secularism. A rootless secularism will almost certainly submit to Islam. The only real hope for the West is the recovery of the faith that once inspired Christians to build a beautiful church near Albert Park in West Didsbury, England.
http://www.crisismagazine.co





 Marriage and being In-love by C. S Lewis 

16 06 2017

Why must I remain married when I am no longer in love? Here is another answer by C. S Lewis 





Happy Easter! 

16 04 2017

🕯  May the Risen Lord, we pray who has lit his candle in your life,  hallowed to the honour of his name, may grant it persevere undimmed, to overcome the darkness of all nights. Receive it as a pleasing fragrance, and let it mingle with the lights of heaven. May this flame be found still burning by the Morning Star: the one Morning Star who never sets, Christ the Son, who coming back from death’s domain has shed his peaceful light on humanity, and lives and reigns for ever and ever. Happy Easter,💡🕯🕯





Want a divorce? Marriage and Annulment: Know your rights 

21 03 2017

When it comes to marriage  divorce and annulment,  many  people don’t  know their rights or what the church teaches. Jim Blackburn teaches 101 things you need to know in the video below  










%d bloggers like this: