The Epistle and Collect for today echo a similar theme. In the Collect we pray that: we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. And in the Epistle to the Romans, S. Paul writes: the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Living in a temporal world, with all its attractions, has a tendency to draw us away from eternal verities. At the same time, it’s clear that this world is broken. The pursuit of material pleasures is all around us, and may even include ourselves.
In writing to Christians in the Eternal City, S. Paul knew the temptations of Imperial Rome. He understood that any inordinate desire for wealth, comfort or security would prevent one from making a bold witness for the Gospel. This was true both for those living in ancient Rome and is true for those of us living in our modern, materialist culture.
When we compromise with the culture, we shift our focus from the kingdom of heaven, and the principles that make up that kingdom. Looking at the contemporary Church presents ample evidence of this. As those in the Church seek recognition and affirmation from the culture, the Church loses her prophetic voice. The way in which so-called same-sex marriage has been embraced by large swathes of the Church for the sake of being accepted by the culture makes this clear.
Suffering for the sake of the Gospel was an increasing occurrence within the church at Rome. The early Christians were first persecuted by Jewish authorities throughout the Empire, as documented in the Acts of the Apostles. Once Rome began to view Christianity as distinct from Judaism, the protections they allowed for Jews to practice their faith were no longer applicable. Christians were increasingly forced to offer the pinch of incense to the Roman pantheon or else face confiscation of property, removal from positions of authority, or worse.
In a similar way, we see an increasing intolerance and persecution towards traditional faith within our own nation. Witness the frequent attacks on Christian public figures and on churches as well. As secularism becomes more dominant, Christianity will be increasingly forced out of the public square.
In addition to the suffering that comes from the hands of men, suffering exists within creation itself. The entire creation has been distorted by the effects of sin. So we, who remain a part of the created order, will suffer the consequences of this distortion. S. Paul writes that the entire creation groans in painful travail (used in Scripture to refer to a woman in labor), awaiting its redemption, when Our Lord will come again to “renew the face of the earth.”
Suffering is universal. Even Our Lord did not escape suffering while on earth. But God uses suffering to mold our character and to strengthen our faith, and the Holy Ghost makes the suffering endurable. So while we can expect to experience suffering to varying degrees and in varying circumstances, we can also practice the virtue of hope – nothing we go through this side of heaven will compare with the glory to be revealed in us when we one day we “shall shine as the brightness of the firmament” (Daniel 12:3).
____________________________________________________________________
Guilt, gratitude, and the American contradiction
The people who have the most in modern America are the ones most likely to want to burn it all down.
BY: Christian Vezilj, The American Thinker (June 27, 2026).
In recent years, American politics has revealed a strange and troubling contradiction: the rise of radical ideologies among some of the most privileged segments of society. In certain districts, candidates who openly embrace socialism, Marxism, or other extreme frameworks have gained traction, not because these systems have ever succeeded anywhere in the world, but because they appeal to a particular emotional posture among voters—especially those who feel a deep sense of guilt about their own advantages. This dynamic has become increasingly visible in campaigns and elections, and its consequences are increasingly harmful.
The United States is the most prosperous, opportunity‑rich nation in human history. Yet some of its most privileged citizens—often highly educated, economically secure, and living in safe neighborhoods—are drawn to political movements that promise sweeping systemic upheaval. These voters are not responding to lived hardship. They are responding to internal discomfort. Their support for radical policies is not rooted in experience, but in emotion.
This became painfully clear during the early 2020s, when the “defund the police” movement surged across the country. In cities from coast to coast, crowds gathered holding signs demanding the dismantling or severe reduction of police departments. Among those crowds, a pattern emerged: many of the loudest voices came from people who lived in gated communities, low-crime suburbs, or affluent urban enclaves. They marched, they chanted, they demanded sweeping change—and then they went home to neighborhoods where police presence was strong, crime was low, and personal safety was never in question.
Meanwhile, the communities most affected by these policies were not the ones holding the signs. They were the neighborhoods already struggling with violence, instability, and limited resources. When police departments were defunded or demoralized, response times increased, crime surged, and vulnerable residents paid the price. The activists felt morally satisfied; the communities they claimed to champion suffered the consequences.
This is the essence of symbolic activism—political behavior driven not by practical outcomes, but by emotional needs. And at the heart of symbolic activism lies guilt.
Guilt is a powerful motivator. It tells people that because they have benefited from a system, they must distance themselves from it. It tells them that their prosperity is evidence of unfairness and that their moral duty is to support policies that appear compassionate, even if those policies are destructive. Guilt encourages dramatic gestures, sweeping condemnations, and ideological extremism. It pushes people toward solutions that feel morally pure, even when they are practically disastrous.
But guilt is inward‑focused. It is about relieving personal discomfort, not improving the lives of others. It is about self‑image, not stewardship. When guilt drives political behavior, the results are often harmful—because the goal is emotional absolution, not effective governance.
Gratitude, on the other hand, produces the opposite effect.
Gratitude is outward‑focused. It recognizes the opportunities that America provides—opportunities that billions of people around the world can only dream of. Gratitude acknowledges that while the country is imperfect, it is also extraordinary. It inspires people to protect the systems that create opportunity, not dismantle them. Gratitude encourages responsibility, moderation, and realism. It asks citizens to consider the consequences of their choices, not just the symbolism of their actions.
If the same privileged voters who feel compelled to support radical ideologies instead embraced gratitude, their political instincts would change dramatically. Gratitude would remind them that their prosperity is not a moral burden, but a blessing—one that carries the responsibility to preserve the conditions that allow others to prosper as well. Gratitude would make them cautious about imposing systems that have historically produced oppression, poverty, and suffering. Gratitude would make them aware that the policies they support affect real people, not just their own emotional state.
The tragedy of guilt‑driven politics is that it harms the very communities it claims to defend.
The tragedy of gratitude‑driven politics is that it is too rare.
America does not need more symbolic activism or ideological extremism. It does not need more voters who support destructive policies because they feel uncomfortable with their own success. What America needs is gratitude—gratitude for its freedoms, its opportunities, its institutions, and its extraordinary capacity for human flourishing.
Gratitude is not naïve. It does not ignore injustice or deny the need for reform. But it insists that reform must be grounded in reality, not emotion. That compassion must be paired with responsibility, and policies must be judged by their outcomes, not their slogans.
If more Americans embraced gratitude instead of guilt, the political landscape would look very different. We would see fewer destructive ideologies and more constructive solutions. We would see fewer symbolic gestures and more practical stewardship. And most importantly, we would see a nation more committed to protecting the opportunities that make it the best country in the world.
____________________________________________________________________
‘Pride Month’ nothing to be proud of
Progressives now define ‘human’ by our inclinations
BY: Everett Piper, The Washington Times (June 14, 2026)
What does it mean to be human? Is the individual person made in the image of God or the image of the animal?
The question of human identity is perhaps the most important question of our time.
Everything we talk about and argue over — whether it be politics, morality, justice or human rights — rests on how we respond to this one basic question: Who are we and what does it mean to be human?
The answer from progressives is clear. Their solution is to dumb down the definition of the human being to little more than what we are inclined to do. For the proponents of “Pride Month,” passions and proclivities define the person. Inclinations equal the individual. If you want to do it, then that is just who you are.
Reason and rationality take a back seat to emotions. There is no such thing as an objective definition of a man or woman or boy or girl. With apologies to Shania Twain, if a dude “feels like a woman,” then that is what he is. Desire defines everything.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe human beings are more than this. Our appetites and desires do not determine who we are. We can and should rise above our instincts, our gut and our libido. We can and should choose to act differently. We can and should control ourselves and behave morally.
Conservatives know there are many things we may want to do that we simply should not do. Unlike the animals around us, we refuse to define ourselves by our desires.
For approximately 4,000 years, the Judeo-Christian tradition has affirmed all this. For several millennia, we have understood that people yearn for justice while our dogs, horses and cows do not. Throughout the annals of time, conservatives have known that issues such as tolerance, love, inclusion, equality and fairness are uniquely human.
We have acknowledged the obvious difference between good and evil: for example, that rape is wrong, slavery should be reviled and that greed is bad. For at least four centuries, conservatives have understood that while pigs and goats may not care about such things, people do, and although animals may be defined by their instincts and inclinations, human beings are not.
Defining what it means to be human is the necessary predicate for everything that follows. It is the starting point for all subsequent arguments for how we define government, build culture, manage our schools, establish our laws and raise our families. If we fail at this first thing — the definition of what it means to be human — then everything else collapses.
Gore Vidal once said, “There is no more such thing as a homosexual person than there is a heterosexual person. These are behavioral adjectives.” Michel Foucault added, “We are creating a false species; an hermaphrodism.”
Neither of these men was a conservative Christian. Both were secular atheists. Yet even they understood the difference between a noun and an adjective, between a man and a beast.
The former LGBTQ activist and now Christian apologist Rosaria Butterfield says this: “We are struggling in a world that has falsely declared sexual orientation to be a true moniker of personhood. … Those who have same-sex desires are really not a separate category of [people]. … The category of sexual orientation was really invented in the 19th century. It’s not a biblical category. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are verbs, what people do.
These are not nouns. These are not what people are or who people are. They’re adjectives, or they’re verbs.”
Glenn T. Stanton, author of “Marriage on Trial,” adds: “To identify people principally by their sexuality is to reduce people. … We should all reject this with great force. A person’s inherent and or undeniable value is rooted in his membership in humanity, not his particularity, sexual or otherwise, full stop. Your inherent value is not your sexuality, and it’s not your race. It’s not your gender. It’s not the color of your skin. It’s not whether you’re White, Black, Asian, or Native. It doesn’t matter. Your undeniable value is rooted in your membership in humanity. … There is only one race. It’s the human race.”
There is a world of difference between the progressive and conservative definitions of human. One worldview elevates human beings to the image of God himself. The other degrades people by suggesting that they, like their dogs, cannot control themselves.
The latter, my friends, is surely nothing to be proud of.
____________________________________________________________________
How progressives obliterated their LGBTQ efforts
BY: Billy Hallowell, The Washington Times (June 16, 2026).
The tides are turning when it comes to Americans’ views on LGBTQ issues, with decreases across the board on everything from support for same-sex nuptials to moral beliefs on attempts to change one’s gender.
Before we get into the “why,” it’s essential to understand exactly what’s unfolding. Though the majority of Americans (65%) still favor the legalization of same-sex matrimony, support is down 6 percentage points since its height in 2022 and 2023, according to Gallup.
There’s also been a decline in the percentage of those who believe gay and lesbian relationships are “morally acceptable,” with 62% fitting into that category — the lowest percentage observed since 2016. For context, that share was 40% in 2001.
The third issue — so-called gender reassignment — is now at just 38% moral acceptability, a decline of 8 percentage points over the past few years. In 2021, that percentage was 46%, showing a steep decline that cannot be ignored.
Digging beneath the numbers, it’s easy to see that the most notable shifts are being primarily driven by Republicans. On gay marriage, just 37% of GOP adherents support legalized gay marriage, down from 55% in 2021 and 2022.
The same Republican trend can be seen when it comes to the belief that gay and lesbian relationships are moral. Right now, just 35% of GOP adherents believe this, down 21 percentage points from 2022.
As for the moral acceptability of transitioning one’s gender, only 5% of Republicans believe such a move is ethical, showcasing a 22-percentage-point decline.
It should be noted that independents also have seen modest decreases when it comes to support for legalized gay marriage (6 points down) and the morality of gay and lesbian relationships (8 points down).
These statistics are important to understand for a plethora of reasons. For years, culture has been moving in a more progressive and relativistic direction, yet something changed during the 2024 elections as a litany of issues forced Americans to rethink this approach.
For many years, people had been told that an embrace of same-sex marriage wouldn’t change anything — that everyone else’s marriages and lives would be unsullied and untouched.
And, for many in the LGBTQ community, this was an authentic promise. Yet some activists had different plans. Once same-sex nuptials were legalized nationwide after the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in June 2015, it seemed there was no end to the advocacy and cultural insanity that followed.
Soon, Christian bakers were being fined six figures for declining to make same-sex wedding cakes, photographers were being bullied into providing services for gay weddings, and anyone unwilling — due to their sincerely-held religious beliefs — to participate found themselves on the cancel culture chopping block.
Though some in the LGBTQ community rebuffed these efforts, others went full bore. As the debates percolated, it seemed the cultural headwinds were simply heading in an anti-Christian direction, with liberals taking the reins of control and punishing faithful business owners.
Then, the transgender movement’s power began to elevate. And with that, the presence of biological men in women’s sports became a major issue, with safety and fairness concerns raging. Many LGBTQ activists argued that biological men deserved to be in women’s sports, further sparking alarm.
With the issue then making its way into high school locker rooms, where males, again, were given presence in females’ spaces, that hysteria only swelled. Meanwhile, the public became aware of children being put on puberty blockers and undergoing “gender-affirming” surgeries — again igniting worries and horror.
Cancel culture attempted to silence those seeking common sense on child transitions and men in women’s sports, but this tactic failed. People such as President Trump and other public figures began speaking out, which gave ordinary citizens permission to voice their own concerns.
In many ways, the gender chaos shifted the 2024 elections away from progressives who were hostile toward these common-sense worries. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian organization, says he believes the public shifts seen in the Gallup data are rooted in false promises that gay marriage wouldn’t impact any other issues.
“I think most Americans are pretty much laissez-faire …’Just don’t bother me,’” Mr. Perkins told CBN News. “And they were sold that this was not going to affect them, that this was just about two people who loved each other being able to marry.
“Well, here we are … about a little over a decade removed from that, and we realize it’s about much more. It’s about the policies that govern bathrooms all across America, it’s about what our children are being indoctrinated with in schools and the parents not being told about it.”
Mr. Perkins is right. If progressives are looking for anyone to blame for their losses on LGBTQ rights, they can safely grab a mirror and stare at the reflection of a people who vastly overplayed their hands.
____________________________________________________________________
New York’s “non-gestating parent” label shows ideology trumps reality
Democrats take a sledgehammer to our moral foundations’ remains
BY: Robert Knight, The Washington Times (June 14, 2026)
Just in time for Father’s Day and the traditional month of weddings, the New York State Legislature passed a bill to get rid of the terms “father” and “mother” in family court proceedings.
Now, dad will be the “non-gestating parent” and mom will be “gestating parent.”
How heartwarming is that? Can’t you just see the new, improved Hallmark cards?
It is quite a step down for Dad, who gets defined only by a negative.
Unfortunately, this proposed law is not a Babylon Bee satire. It is the work of an increasingly certifiable Democratic Party that is taking a sledgehammer to what remains of our moral foundations.
In the state Senate, which passed the bill June 2, all Democrats except three voted for the lunacy. Two opted out, and Rep. James Skoufis of the Hudson Valley was the lone Democrat voting no. (Bully for him, although I cannot imagine what “presents” the LGBTQ tolerance police will leave on his doorstep, on his voicemail and at his office.)
In the state Assembly, the measure passed on a 91-46 vote, with 86 Democrats and five Republicans voting yes. Nine Democrats voted no, and nine were absent. Of the 46 Republicans, 37 voted no, five voted yes, and four were absent.
That makes nine Republicans who refused to stand up for sanity.
Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, has been coy, refusing to say whether she will sign or veto the bill. It might depend on how much she cares whether she and her state become even more of a punchline than they already are.
Right now, the spotlight is on Maine’s Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, Graham Platner, best known for his Nazi tattoo, sexting, roughness with women and communist ideology. Remember when Maine was famous for lobster, pine trees, lakes and teeth-rattling nor’easters?
Then there is Texas, where Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico has referred to women as “neighbors with a uterus.”
For people at war with biology, the Democrats sure seem obsessed with identities based on bodily functions.
Meanwhile, the New York state Republican leadership, fearful of anything that might annoy LGBTQ activists, went into a familiar crouch over the “gestating” bill.
In a Fox News interview, New York Minority Leader Edward Ra seemed to complain only that it did not involve money. “We don’t think it does anything to make New York more affordable on a permanent basis, and that’s what New Yorkers are talking about, that’s what they care about,” he said. “They want to know what we’re doing to make their lives more affordable.”
Well, undermining nuclear, married families makes everything more expensive. For example, trillions of tax dollars have been spent on welfare and crime since the 1960s, when the Democrats’ Great Society began paying women to have babies out of wedlock.
Along the same lines as Mr. Ra, New York Conservative Party Chairman Gerard Kassar criticized the measure as “an unnecessary and wasteful use of time.”
Providing some moral gravity, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive, let the Democrats have it in a social media post reported in The Washington Times.
“In Kathy Hochul’s New York, ‘mom’ is now defined as ‘gestating parent,’” Mr. Blakeman wrote. “Not when I’m Governor! I’ll stand up for moms and dads against this insanity.”
Speaking of dads, they have received lousy press in recent years. A front-page Washington Post article on June 7 was headlined: “No letup in pace of domestic killings: Three fathers slay families in a week.”
Wow. Better keep clear of Dad. The Post article features studies showing an alarming increase in “family and intimate-partner killings.” As usual, the article does not distinguish between married and unmarried killers and victims. Yet, according to the FBI, “unmarried/cohabiting/dating partners” are responsible for about 55% of intimate partner homicides, while spouses account for only 45%, even though of the nation’s 80 million U.S. households, 58 million are married-couple households.
It is hard to find crime report figures that distinguish between married and cohabiting perps and victims. The government stopped highlighting that parameter, just as it stopped making it easy to find data on LGBTQ intimate partner violence.
I have a theory: Sheer numbers make the case that women and men in married households are far less likely to be perpetrators or victims of violence. This goes against woke ideology, which says marriage is either regressive, unimportant or infinitely open to redefinition.
In his book “What Really Matters,” Focus on the Family Vice President Tim Goeglein makes the case that marriage is indispensable to societal well-being and provides evidence that cohabitation is socially corrosive. Instead of providing a “starter” version of marriage, living together before taking vows correlates with a significantly higher rate of divorce.
“Couples who wait to live together until they are married (or at the very least engaged) are likely to have a higher respect for the institution of marriage and have some form of religious faith providing moral boundaries,” he writes.
Mr. Goeglein quotes James Q. Wilson, who wrote: “Marriage was once a sacrament. Then it became a contract, and now it is an arrangement.”
“Do you, non-gestating person, take this person with a uterus, to be your gestating partner for as long as you feel like it?”
That is not a marriage made in heaven.
GFK
