Pope francis man of his word torrent download

V, tit. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.

For the same reason, Pius VI branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety Enchiridion, According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints.

This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian , but of the Church. Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted. Since the sacra-mental forgiveness of sin extends both to the guilt and to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church can also free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty.

This becomes clearer, however, when we consider the amplitude of the power granted to Peter Matt. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

When the Church , therefore, by an indulgence, remits this penalty, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in heaven. That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. The sinner had been excluded by St.

For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. These essentials persist in the subsequent practice of the Church , though the accidental features vary according as new conditions arise.

Tertullian refers to this when he says Ad martyres, c. It is sufficient to note that many of his arguments would apply with as much and as little force to the indulgences of later ages. During St. Between these extremes, St. Cyprian holds the middle course, insisting that such penitents should be reconciled on the fulfilment of the proper conditions. On the one hand, he condemns the abuses connected with the libellus , in particular the custom of having it made out in blank by the martyrs and filled in by any one who needed it.

Cyprian, therefore, believed that the merits of the martyrs could be applied to less worthy Christians byway of vicarious satisfaction, and that such satisfaction was acceptable in the eyes of God as well as of the Church. After the persecutions had ceased, the penitential discipline remained in force, but greater leniency was shown in applying it. In St. Gregory of Nyssa Ep. In the same spirit, St. Basil , after prescribing more lenient treatment for various crimes, lays down the general principle that in all such cases it is not merely the duration of the penance that must be considered, but the way in which it is performed Ep.

The ancient penitentials of Ireland and England , though exacting in regard to discipline, provide for relaxation in certain cases. Cummian, e. But should he be unwilling or unable to comply with these conditions , he must do penance for the whole time prescribed and in all its details. Another practice which shows quite clearly the difference between sacramental absolution and the granting of indulgences was the solemn reconciliation of penitents.

These, at the beginning-of Lent , had received from the priest absolution from their sins and the penance enjoined by the canons; on Maundy Thursday they presented themselves before the bishop, who laid hands on them, reconciled them with the Church , and admitted them to communion.

This reconciliation was reserved to the bishop, as is expressly declared in the Penitential of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury; though in case of necessity the bishop could delegate a priest for the purpose lib. I, xiii. The effect, moreover, of this reconciliation was to restore the penitent to the state of baptismal innocence and consequently of freedom from all penalties, as appears from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions lib.

II, c. In a later period eighth century to twelfth it became customary to permit the substitution of some lighter penance for that which the canons prescribed. Instead of one day on bread and water let him sing fifty psalms on his knees or seventy psalms without genuflecting.

Worked with so many talented, good people Join me! Don't shop wirecutter this Black Friday. NYT won't even agree to give workers 2. I've seen the numbers at play here, and it's Anyway, don't cross the picket line. Fair pay for these 66 workers would mean touching only 0.

They want modest cost of living raises at a time when inflation is above 6 percent! Support the strike, don't cross the picket line! You shouldn't either. Don't cross a picket line! Sign the pledge! Learn all about their eminently reasonable demands!

Half off Peacock! Streaming subscriber growth is stalling. Did RCMP arrest the journalists to prevent the photos from being published? The arrests prevented The Narwhal from obtaining and publishing Bracken's photos showing what police did during arrests on Nov. Can anyone explain that? Thanks: gitagovinda. Michael M. The infrastructure bill isn't fixing it. Everybody wants to be a policy maven, and no one wants to go door to door and sell pots and pans.

Biden has conducted roughly a dozen one-on-one interviews with major print and television news outlets. That compares with more than 50 for Mr. Trump, and more than for Barack Obama, in the same period He's even skipped friendly venues like Stephen Colbert. I disagree. More presence. All shows featuring women are now prohibited. This is what happens when you deal and leave the faith of million humans to a terrorist group! Knight First Amendment Institute : Knight Institute and ACLU petition SCOTUS to review a challenge to prepublication review, which bars ex-public servants from writing without government approval — Say that the regimes impose unconstitutional restrictions on the speech of former government employees.

If you're not, you risk anything from publication rejection to an espionage charge. For example, books that praise the CIA, it's leadership, and it's operations are routinely approved with nary a single redaction whereas those that are critical are nearly incomprehensible due to pages of redactions. Some agencies take this requirement way too far, take way too long That said, CIA has always been gracious and speedy reviewing my pieces, even on Guantanamo, and I am grateful.

About Mediagazer:. Mediagazer presents the day's must-read media news on a single page. Latest News Finder:. Who's Hiring in Media? Custom Content Writer, London — Reuters. Special Projects Editor — Punchbowl News. Digital Editor, VA — Politico.

Editor, GA — Bitter Southerner. Science Editor, Remote — Buzzfeed. News Editor, London — New Scientist. My spiritual growth will never be fruitful without Poem of the Man-God. If you want to love, you must learn, the more you know the more you love, the more you love the more you can serve. I'm also guilty reading it more than once, I think up to my last breathe I will continue reading these books because every time you read those chapters it will give you new discoveries and excitement.

This will make you fall in love with God and all the characters in the life of Jesus. Thank you for making it free for all of us. I was determined to somehow bring this priceless work to a wider audience as I was astonished at the number of people clergy mainly! The more the merrier!! Dated: February 14th. The work was also presented to her as an additional advance gift towards our 40th Wedding anniversary which comes up later on this year!!

Reviewer: Anonymous - favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite - January 10, Subject: Good book I would highly recommend Valtorta's books. Found no dogmatic or moral error. See the link that the person before me posted. Lots of good information and lots of free eBooks.

Reviewer: ClaraEV - favorite favorite favorite favorite - March 25, Subject: Maria Valtorta The Church is slow to accept, but is not forbidden to read, and everyone who reads becomes more loving to everyone, and blessed, because this is the words of Jesus dictated, and the visions described. Reviewer: Brasi75 - favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite - March 21, Subject: "You can read" A visionare of Medjugorje Marjia asked to the Virgin Mary about Maria Valtorta and She said "Yes, you can read, the writings are true!

Also St. Padre Pio when her spiritual daughter asked him if is advisable to read these new books he said "No, I wouldn't advise it, but I command you! Reviewer: mr. I have read 4 volumes, and still read the fifth volume now. And I dare to say it is true.

Reviewer: Diogena - favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite - September 10, Subject: The Poem of Man-God by Maria Valtorta I was novice when our mistress talked about this book I pondered it but I did not have a chance to read that time but when I returned in the Philippines I discovered that we have three volumes in our library.

I had finished to read the 1st volume I could say that it is an extension of the bible. It gives me more chance to know Jesus more as being Man and God.

I like the book and I do encourage my co-sisters to read it. It brings you to conversion. Thank you because we have found the 3rd and the 4th volume in this site, I mean thru this library. Thank you very much for your concern in sharing this books. We really wish to have these two volumes and now it is granted.

Thak you Lord! Reviewer: aMoofie - favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite - July 28, Subject: Unprecedented Expansion of the Gospel It's been an immense joy to have found these books. They have changed my life in ways I can't describe. I have read all of the volumes many, many times, and have read them out loud from beginning to end to my children. I've also been fortunate enough to acquire copies of the Notebooks, and several other Valtorta books.

The Lord also made it possible for me to help in the project a bit, because I was asked to translate Maria Valtorta's "Prayers" from French into English. Deo Gratias. For those who don't know, there are quite a few more books circulating which have information not contained in Poem. Politics too must make room for a tender love of others. It is love that draws near and becomes real.

All this can help us realize that what is important is not constantly achieving great results, since these are not always possible. Consequently, if I can help at least one person to have a better life, that already justifies the offering of my life. We achieve fulfilment when we break down walls and our hearts are filled with faces and names! No single act of love for God will be lost, no generous effort is meaningless, no painful endurance is wasted.

For this reason, it is truly noble to place our hope in the hidden power of the seeds of goodness we sow, and thus to initiate processes whose fruits will be reaped by others. Good politics combines love with hope and with confidence in the reserves of goodness present in human hearts.

Viewed in this way, politics is something more noble than posturing, marketing and media spin. These sow nothing but division, conflict and a bleak cynicism incapable of mobilizing people to pursue a common goal. If we want to encounter and help one another, we have to dialogue. There is no need for me to stress the benefits of dialogue. I have only to think of what our world would be like without the patient dialogue of the many generous persons who keep families and communities together.

Unlike disagreement and conflict, persistent and courageous dialogue does not make headlines, but quietly helps the world to live much better than we imagine. Some people attempt to flee from reality, taking refuge in their own little world; others react to it with destructive violence. Dialogue between generations; dialogue among our people, for we are that people; readiness to give and receive, while remaining open to the truth.

Dialogue is often confused with something quite different: the feverish exchange of opinions on social networks, frequently based on media information that is not always reliable. These exchanges are merely parallel monologues. They may attract some attention by their sharp and aggressive tone. But monologues engage no one, and their content is frequently self-serving and contradictory.

It becomes easier to discredit and insult opponents from the outset than to open a respectful dialogue aimed at achieving agreement on a deeper level. Worse, this kind of language, usually drawn from media coverage of political campaigns, has become so widespread as to be part of daily conversation. Discussion is often manipulated by powerful special interests that seek to tilt public opinion unfairly in their favour.

This kind of manipulation can be exercised not only by governments, but also in economics, politics, communications, religion and in other spheres. Lack of dialogue means that in these individual sectors people are concerned not for the common good, but for the benefits of power or, at best, for ways to impose their own ideas.

Round tables thus become mere negotiating sessions, in which individuals attempt to seize every possible advantage, rather than cooperating in the pursuit of the common good. The heroes of the future will be those who can break with this unhealthy mindset and determine respectfully to promote truthfulness, aside from personal interest.

God willing, such heroes are quietly emerging, even now, in the midst of our society. Based on their identity and experience, others have a contribution to make, and it is desirable that they should articulate their positions for the sake of a more fruitful public debate. When individuals or groups are consistent in their thinking, defend their values and convictions, and develop their arguments, this surely benefits society. Yet, this can only occur to the extent that there is genuine dialogue and openness to others.

It keeps different sectors from becoming complacent and self-centred in their outlook and their limited concerns. There is a growing conviction that, together with specialized scientific advances, we are in need of greater interdisciplinary communication. Although reality is one, it can be approached from various angles and with different methodologies.

There is a risk that a single scientific advance will be seen as the only possible lens for viewing a particular aspect of life, society and the world. Researchers who are expert in their own field, yet also familiar with the findings of other sciences and disciplines, are in a position to discern other aspects of the object of their study and thus to become open to a more comprehensive and integral knowledge of reality. The internet, in particular, offers immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity.

The solution is not relativism. Under the guise of tolerance, relativism ultimately leaves the interpretation of moral values to those in power, to be defined as they see fit.

What is law without the conviction, born of age-old reflection and great wisdom, that each human being is sacred and inviolable? If society is to have a future, it must respect the truth of our human dignity and submit to that truth. Murder is not wrong simply because it is socially unacceptable and punished by law, but because of a deeper conviction. This is a non-negotiable truth attained by the use of reason and accepted in conscience.

A society is noble and decent not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and its adherence to the most basic of truths. We need to learn how to unmask the various ways that the truth is manipulated, distorted and concealed in public and private discourse. It is primarily the search for the solid foundations sustaining our decisions and our laws.

This calls for acknowledging that the human mind is capable of transcending immediate concerns and grasping certain truths that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers into human nature, reason discovers universal values derived from that same nature.

Nor would a mere consensus between different nations, itself equally open to manipulation, suffice to protect them. We have ample evidence of the great good of which we are capable, yet we also have to acknowledge our inherent destructiveness. Is not the indifference and the heartless individualism into which we have fallen also a result of our sloth in pursuing higher values, values that transcend our immediate needs?

Relativism always brings the risk that some or other alleged truth will be imposed by the powerful or the clever. What is now happening, and drawing us into a perverse and barren way of thinking, is the reduction of ethics and politics to physics. Good and evil no longer exist in themselves; there is only a calculus of benefits and burdens. As a result of the displacement of moral reasoning, the law is no longer seen as reflecting a fundamental notion of justice but as mirroring notions currently in vogue.

In the end, the law of the strongest prevails. In a pluralistic society, dialogue is the best way to realize what ought always to be affirmed and respected apart from any ephemeral consensus. Such dialogue needs to be enriched and illumined by clear thinking, rational arguments, a variety of perspectives and the contribution of different fields of knowledge and points of view.

Nor can it exclude the conviction that it is possible to arrive at certain fundamental truths always to be upheld. Acknowledging the existence of certain enduring values, however demanding it may be to discern them, makes for a robust and solid social ethics.

Once those fundamental values are acknowledged and adopted through dialogue and consensus, we realize that they rise above consensus; they transcend our concrete situations and remain non-negotiable. Our understanding of their meaning and scope can increase — and in that respect, consensus is a dynamic reality — but in themselves, they are held to be enduring by virtue of their inherent meaning.

If something always serves the good functioning of society, is it not because, lying beyond it, there is an enduring truth accessible to the intellect? Inherent in the nature of human beings and society there exist certain basic structures to support our development and survival.

Certain requirements thus ensue, and these can be discovered through dialogue, even though, strictly speaking, they are not created by consensus. The fact that certain rules are indispensable for the very life of society is a sign that they are good in and of themselves. There is no need, then, to oppose the interests of society, consensus and the reality of objective truth. These three realities can be harmonized whenever, through dialogue, people are unafraid to get to the heart of an issue.

The dignity of others is to be respected in all circumstances, not because that dignity is something we have invented or imagined, but because human beings possess an intrinsic worth superior to that of material objects and contingent situations. This requires that they be treated differently. That every human being possesses an inalienable dignity is a truth that corresponds to human nature apart from all cultural change. For this reason, human beings have the same inviolable dignity in every age of history and no one can consider himself or herself authorized by particular situations to deny this conviction or to act against it.

The intellect can investigate the reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and come to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of certain universal moral demands. To agnostics, this foundation could prove sufficient to confer a solid and stable universal validity on basic and non-negotiable ethical principles that could serve to prevent further catastrophes.

As believers, we are convinced that human nature, as the source of ethical principles, was created by God, and that ultimately it is he who gives those principles their solid foundation. Thus, room for dialogue will always exist. Each of us can learn something from others. No one is useless and no one is expendable. This also means finding ways to include those on the peripheries of life. For they have another way of looking at things; they see aspects of reality that are invisible to the centres of power where weighty decisions are made.

It has to do with their desires, their interests and ultimately the way they live their lives. This becomes an aspiration and a style of life.

The subject of this culture is the people, not simply one part of society that would pacify the rest with the help of professional and media resources. Social peace demands hard work, craftsmanship. It would be easier to keep freedoms and differences in check with cleverness and a few resources. But such a peace would be superficial and fragile, not the fruit of a culture of encounter that brings enduring stability.

Integrating differences is a much more difficult and slow process, yet it is the guarantee of a genuine and lasting peace. Let us arm our children with the weapons of dialogue! Let us teach them to fight the good fight of the culture of encounter! This recognition, as it becomes a culture, makes possible the creation of a social covenant.

Without it, subtle ways can be found to make others insignificant, irrelevant, of no value to society. While rejecting certain visible forms of violence, another more insidious kind of violence can take root: the violence of those who despise people who are different, especially when their demands in any way compromise their own particular interests. When one part of society exploits all that the world has to offer, acting as if the poor did not exist, there will eventually be consequences.

Sooner or later, ignoring the existence and rights of others will erupt in some form of violence, often when least expected. Liberty, equality and fraternity can remain lofty ideals unless they apply to everyone. Encounter cannot take place only between the holders of economic, political or academic power. Genuine social encounter calls for a dialogue that engages the culture shared by the majority of the population.

It often happens that good ideas are not accepted by the poorer sectors of society because they are presented in a cultural garb that is not their own and with which they cannot identify. Indigenous peoples, for example, are not opposed to progress, yet theirs is a different notion of progress, often more humanistic than the modern culture of developed peoples. Theirs is not a culture meant to benefit the powerful, those driven to create for themselves a kind of earthly paradise.

Intolerance and lack of respect for indigenous popular cultures is a form of violence grounded in a cold and judgmental way of viewing them. No authentic, profound and enduring change is possible unless it starts from the different cultures, particularly those of the poor. A cultural covenant eschews a monolithic understanding of the identity of a particular place; it entails respect for diversity by offering opportunities for advancement and social integration to all.

Such a covenant also demands the realization that some things may have to be renounced for the common good. No one can possess the whole truth or satisfy his or her every desire, since that pretension would lead to nullifying others by denying their rights. A false notion of tolerance has to give way to a dialogic realism on the part of men and women who remain faithful to their own principles while recognizing that others also have the right to do likewise.

This is the genuine acknowledgment of the other that is made possible by love alone. We have to stand in the place of others, if we are to discover what is genuine, or at least understandable, in their motivations and concerns.

Consumerist individualism has led to great injustice. Other persons come to be viewed simply as obstacles to our own serene existence; we end up treating them as annoyances and we become increasingly aggressive.

Yet even then, we can choose to cultivate kindness. Those who do so become stars shining in the midst of darkness. Saint Paul describes kindness as a fruit of the Holy Spirit Gal This way of treating others can take different forms: an act of kindness, a concern not to offend by word or deed, a readiness to alleviate their burdens.

Kindness frees us from the cruelty that at times infects human relationships, from the anxiety that prevents us from thinking of others, from the frantic flurry of activity that forgets that others also have a right to be happy. Yet every now and then, miraculously, a kind person appears and is willing to set everything else aside in order to show interest, to give the gift of a smile, to speak a word of encouragement, to listen amid general indifference.

If we make a daily effort to do exactly this, we can create a healthy social atmosphere in which misunderstandings can be overcome and conflict forestalled. Kindness ought to be cultivated; it is no superficial bourgeois virtue. Precisely because it entails esteem and respect for others, once kindness becomes a culture within society it transforms lifestyles, relationships and the ways ideas are discussed and compared.

Kindness facilitates the quest for consensus; it opens new paths where hostility and conflict would burn all bridges. In many parts of the world, there is a need for paths of peace to heal open wounds. There is also a need for peacemakers, men and women prepared to work boldly and creatively to initiate processes of healing and renewed encounter. Renewed encounter does not mean returning to a time prior to conflicts.

All of us change over time. Pain and conflict transform us. We no longer have use for empty diplomacy, dissimulation, double-speak, hidden agendas and good manners that mask reality. Those who were fierce enemies have to speak from the stark and clear truth. They have to learn how to cultivate a penitential memory, one that can accept the past in order not to cloud the future with their own regrets, problems and plans.

Only by basing themselves on the historical truth of events will they be able to make a broad and persevering effort to understand one another and to strive for a new synthesis for the good of all.

We will have to go further, by respecting the demands of truth regarding the origins of this recurring crisis. All three together are essential to building peace; each, moreover, prevents the other from being altered… Truth should not lead to revenge, but rather to reconciliation and forgiveness. Truth means telling families torn apart by pain what happened to their missing relatives.

Truth means confessing what happened to minors recruited by cruel and violent people. The path to peace does not mean making society blandly uniform, but getting people to work together, side-by-side, in pursuing goals that benefit everyone. A wide variety of practical proposals and diverse experiences can help achieve shared objectives and serve the common good. The problems that a society is experiencing need to be clearly identified, so that the existence of different ways of understanding and resolving them can be appreciated.

The path to social unity always entails acknowledging the possibility that others have, at least in part, a legitimate point of view, something worthwhile to contribute, even if they were in error or acted badly.

Working to overcome our divisions without losing our identity as individuals presumes that a basic sense of belonging is present in everyone. In a family, parents, grandparents and children all feel at home; no one is excluded. If someone has a problem, even a serious one, even if he brought it upon himself, the rest of the family comes to his assistance; they support him.

They may quarrel, but there is something that does not change: the family bond. Family disputes are always resolved afterwards. The joys and sorrows of each of its members are felt by all. That is what it means to be a family! If only we could view our political opponents or neighbours in the same way that we view our children or our spouse, mother or father!

How good would this be! Do we love our society or is it still something remote, something anonymous that does not involve us, something to which we are not committed?

Negotiation often becomes necessary for shaping concrete paths to peace. Yet the processes of change that lead to lasting peace are crafted above all by peoples; each individual can act as an effective leaven by the way he or she lives each day. Great changes are not produced behind desks or in offices. This requires us to place at the centre of all political, social and economic activity the human person, who enjoys the highest dignity, and respect for the common good.

Building social friendship does not only call for rapprochement between groups who took different sides at some troubled period of history, but also for a renewed encounter with the most impoverished and vulnerable sectors of society. Often, the more vulnerable members of society are the victims of unfair generalizations.

If at times the poor and the dispossessed react with attitudes that appear antisocial, we should realize that in many cases those reactions are born of a history of scorn and social exclusion. Those who work for tranquil social coexistence should never forget that inequality and lack of integral human development make peace impossible.

There are those who prefer not to talk of reconciliation, for they think that conflict, violence and breakdown are part of the normal functioning of a society. In any human group there are always going to be more or less subtle power struggles between different parties.

Others think that promoting forgiveness means yielding ground and influence to others. For this reason, they feel it is better to keep things as they are, maintaining a balance of power between differing groups. Still others believe that reconciliation is a sign of weakness; incapable of truly serious dialogue, they choose to avoid problems by ignoring injustices.

Unable to deal with problems, they opt for an apparent peace. Forgiveness and reconciliation are central themes in Christianity and, in various ways, in other religions. Yet there is a risk that an inadequate understanding and presentation of these profound convictions can lead to fatalism, apathy and injustice, or even intolerance and violence.

Jesus never promoted violence or intolerance. Reading other texts of the New Testament, we can see how the early Christian communities, living in a pagan world marked by widespread corruption and aberrations, sought to show unfailing patience, tolerance and understanding.

These words need to be understood in the context of the chapter in which they are found, where it is clear that Jesus is speaking of fidelity to our decision to follow him; we are not to be ashamed of that decision, even if it entails hardships of various sorts, and even our loved ones refuse to accept it. Nor does this mean calling for forgiveness when it involves renouncing our own rights, confronting corrupt officials, criminals or those who would debase our dignity.

We are called to love everyone, without exception; at the same time, loving an oppressor does not mean allowing him to keep oppressing us, or letting him think that what he does is acceptable. On the contrary, true love for an oppressor means seeking ways to make him cease his oppression; it means stripping him of a power that he does not know how to use, and that diminishes his own humanity and that of others. Forgiveness does not entail allowing oppressors to keep trampling on their own dignity and that of others, or letting criminals continue their wrongdoing.

Those who suffer injustice have to defend strenuously their own rights and those of their family, precisely because they must preserve the dignity they have received as a loving gift from God. If a criminal has harmed me or a loved one, no one can forbid me from demanding justice and ensuring that this person — or anyone else — will not harm me, or others, again.

This is entirely just; forgiveness does not forbid it but actually demands it. The important thing is not to fuel anger, which is unhealthy for our own soul and the soul of our people, or to become obsessed with taking revenge and destroying the other. No one achieves inner peace or returns to a normal life in that way. It can only be done by overcoming evil with good cf. When conflicts are not resolved but kept hidden or buried in the past, silence can lead to complicity in grave misdeeds and sins.

Authentic reconciliation does not flee from conflict, but is achieved in conflict, resolving it through dialogue and open, honest and patient negotiation. Reconciliation is a personal act, and no one can impose it upon an entire society, however great the need to foster it. In a strictly personal way, someone, by a free and generous decision, can choose not to demand punishment cf. Mt , even if it is quite legitimately demanded by society and its justice system.

Who can claim the right to forgive in the name of others? It is moving to see forgiveness shown by those who are able to leave behind the harm they suffered, but it is also humanly understandable in the case of those who cannot. In any case, forgetting is never the answer. The Shoah must not be forgotten. Grant us the grace to be ashamed of what we men have done, to be ashamed of this massive idolatry, of having despised and destroyed our own flesh which you formed from the earth, to which you gave life with your own breath of life.

Never again, Lord, never again! Nor must we forget the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They need to be remembered, always and ever anew. We must never grow accustomed or inured to them. Nowadays, it is easy to be tempted to turn the page, to say that all these things happened long ago and we should look to the future. We can never move forward without remembering the past; we do not progress without an honest and unclouded memory. For this reason, I think not only of the need to remember the atrocities, but also all those who, amid such great inhumanity and corruption, retained their dignity and, with gestures small or large, chose the part of solidarity, forgiveness and fraternity.

To remember goodness is also a healthy thing. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. Or better, in the face of a reality that can in no way be denied, relativized or concealed, forgiveness is still possible. In the face of an action that can never be tolerated, justified or excused, we can still forgive. In the face of something that cannot be forgotten for any reason, we can still forgive.

If forgiveness is gratuitous, then it can be shown even to someone who resists repentance and is unable to beg pardon. Those who truly forgive do not forget.