What are we afraid of? And we cause many things to ourselves. They operated on part of his lung, a cancerous tumor, he still feels pain in his chest, and yet, despite the doctors’ prohibition, he lights up his cigarette. We also know of other cases when others, through their carelessness, cause illness, suffering, or pain to themselves and others. 

St. Mark describes the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law, who was lying in a fever. Jesus “approached her, took her by the hand and lifted her up. The fever left her, and she ministered to them…” (Mk 1:31). The description is simple. It was Saturday. Jesus healed a possessed man in the Capernaum synagogue. As he was leaving the synagogue, he stopped at the house of Simon’s mother-in-law, who lived only a few meters from the synagogues. Mark describes Jesus, who is truly Lord over the Sabbath. He simply and without a word takes her by the hand and lifts them. No report of thanksgiving, joy, but the evangelist says: “The fever left her, and she ministered to them” (Mk 1:31). . Jesus’ behavior, his power to heal and heal human bodies, also points to other power and other healing, when the evangelist St. Mark wrote at the end of the description of this event: Jesus “went throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out evil spirits.”

Although Jesus does not mention Job. A job is a righteous man. He did not cause the disease himself, but so that God could prove Job’s loyalty to the devil. Job does not know why all this happened. The scriptures speak of similar calamities that befell people for their sins in several places. It is possible to encounter many questions during illness and suffering. For example, even with such that, where does one take the suffering that no one caused by sin? Is it possible to talk about suffering that does not come from man? Many natural disasters will occur worldwide, such as floods, earthquakes, severe frosts, droughts, etc. They bring a lot of suffering, pain, and tears. So, who is responsible for them? In light of the teachings presented by the Church, a person can understand and subsequently accept many things.

Jana didn’t even live in the stars, although her friends from the office talked her down, and shook their heads at her actions. She fell in love with a colleague. She didn’t see that he was cheating on her. She didn’t realize he was a cheater in love. Only when she once told him: “We are expecting a child!” And he: “It’s not mine! Is she a single mother today?

We see that the world often does not give us a comprehensive answer to suffering. What the world cannot give, Jesus gives us, faith, that is what the Church teaches us. We know that our homeland is in heaven.

 Many a contemporary would otherwise hardly doubt the objective validity of what is said here about virtues. Be that as it may, the discussion on this subject is not new. The first historically known to have taken place (according to the record) as early as the fourth century before the Christ-if, of course, one does or does not take away from the rich biblical literary production on the subject. Plato’s Socrates encounters a certain Euthyphro at the King’s Stoa and they engage in a debate about piety. Socrates, in his usual way, gives rise to an interesting conversation. It doesn’t end like other times with a definition in which one learns the nature of the subject under discussion but makes only factual assumptions about it. Who knows why? Perhaps because of the quite special nature of the subject in question, which involves both human and divine. He did, however, outline something that was an immediate preparation for the definition: piety is “that part of the just which relates to the care given to the gods; while the part relating to the care of men is the remaining part of justice” (Plato, Dialogues, 328 E), and at the same time “is the knowledge of what we have of the gods to ask and what we are to give them” (ibid., 331 D).

It is interesting to note what an exact parallel there is between this and the Hebrew-Biblical view of piety, which sees in it the realization of the very comprehensive notion of righteousness. When a biblical author wanted to express the moral excellence of some great personality “before God and all people” (e.g. Joseph, Mary’s husband), he wrote that he was a “righteous” man – although he often associates another adjective – “God-fearing”. For the contemporary, however, the discussion of piety is largely only a quaint affair, a debate about something that belongs to the past.  If someone starts a conversation on the subject with the attitude that he has raised something topical, he is likely to be laughed at. Especially if he were to present it as a virtue. For us, however, the likelihood that a statistical majority otherwise is not even indicative in this regard. Therefore, let us formulate the question as follows: What is piety? In the broadest sense, it is a deep, existential interest in something, or rather in someone, that transcends one’s self and from which one can personal virtues everything depends. It is not always a matter of some precise idea, but almost always a kind of premonition of the divine, often coupled with a desire to reach it, to know it, accompanied by a feeling of awe or reverence. It is probably in this sense that he speaks.

Goethe speaks of the “Religion of awe – Religion der Ehrfurcht”. If we reach beyond ethnology, we shall see that this feeling and these feelings are not a matter of this or that man or tribe, nor a matter of giftedness or the structural construction of the psyche (e.g. “religious
type” in E. Spranger), but simply belong to the essence of man as a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The endowment for this sphere may be repressed or clogged by the various experiential junk of banal everyday life, but somehow it is always there – is one sublimation or compensation or another. The view of God or the gods appears immediately from the conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates – and in general throughout Greek as well as Asia Minor, Egyptian as well as Indian mythology -, and represents a very advanced degree of religious decadence compared with Christianity. Yet these people cannot be denied piety, which, moreover, pervades their whole life, their relationship to nature, to people, and organized society or the state.

But a sense of a higher being and expressions of reverence for it is not enough. This fact is too fascinating to be content with. That is why, from the beginning of historical times, we have encountered attempts to penetrate the mystery of the divine rationally and to justify expressions of piety. Among the ancient Greeks (Anaximander, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) a rational discussion of these questions is one of the high points of philosophical thought about God in general. But even this peak did not satisfy the spirit and heart of man. He felt, that all such piety was unworthy of God. According to the Christian faith, the fullness of the knowledge of God is opened to man only when God himself reveals something of himself and the interrelationships between himself and man or mankind – and when he makes it clear what form of piety is for him correct and acceptable. And this began with the coming of Christ and will culminate in by his visible glorification before the whole world. In him, the pure nature of nature was enriched by the super-nature. In it, man receives his hunches about God, and God Himself reveals Himself to him, how a man can honor him most sublimely.

Under the influence of the Renaissance and later Romanticism, the cosmic, or nature-relationship, piety took hold again, most Piety, especially among scholars and poets (Goethe, Rilke). Over time, however, this relationship with nature faded into piety, and the romantic man remained alone with the admired nature. And so, slowly, he began to give birth to and develop a new relationship with nature, which can be described as conquering: a man approaches it as a sovereign master. He explores its nature and the possibilities of its technical use, literally its abuse for his benefit,..which is often, in the end, rather a disservice. Had the Franciscan love of “divine nature” with its contemporary evaluation of creation as work and evidence of the Creator’s love, there would probably not have been a “flight” into nature religiosity or a modern “deification” or even “deification of nature” among many ecologists. Love of the world or nature is not for the Christian who believes in God.

The creator is something ungodly. However, a change of attitude towards it has come too late, when secularization, or rejection of the Creator, had already reached a high point and had long since paved the way for a comeback. Unsecular or anti-secular piety always results in an ungodly, even an ungodly world. As can be observed, there are several types of piety in a transverse as well as a longitudinal cut through history – according to what is emphasized: eucharistic, liturgical, Marian, etc. But there is also piety that is tied to the nations: Germanic, Roman, Slavic, and Hispano-American. And all can be tuned individually, collectively, contemplatively, missionary, etc.
With the advent of the Enlightenment, the notion of piety narrowed. In philosophical writing as well as fiction, the term “pious” refers to the purely cultic sphere, which, especially in Kant, caused a such
strong reaction that he radically opposed religion, whose content was anything other than the pursuit of moral life. According to him, the best worship is the observance of the Creator’s commands. Later, when even religion became the subject of “philosophizing,” there was no lack of authors (Schleiermacher) who saw religion as exclusives ly one of the expressions of human affectivity.

The Catholic Church, in the name of its claim to universality, saw piety is the total of all the spiritual aspects of man and according to led people to it. Yet in this century, especially under the influence of literature and the press in general – but also as a result of the bigotry of a large part of the faithful – identical sections of the population have harvested the importance of Personal virtues once piety its original good sound and has discredited itself to such an extent that people, especially the young, became ashamed to be described as “pious”. It became almost fashionable to identify piety with something wistful that lurks somewhere in the semi-shelter of old churches and dark chapels. It has become much closer to 20t-century to the noncommittal and romantic adoration of nature and the cosmos. This situation has persisted to our day, and after the entry of the theosophical ideas, but especially the epidemic spread of the New Age wave, it has escalated even further. In vogue is the absurd cosmic religion with its pretended mysticism. Absurd because New Age is incapable of even hinting at the object of religiosity, much less somehow characterizing the being to whom one orients oneself in the “performance” of one’s piety – if New Age at all speaks of a “being.” But even those not yet caught up in this or similar religious viruses, are very quick and bold to pronounce judgments about religion and
piety. When there is talk of religion and politics, everyone feels himself to be an expert. Harsh judgments are often the remedy for the wounds that a bad conscience inflicts on human feelings. Stating false piety is a healing plaster for wounds, a convenient excuse for neglecting God.

In parallel, however, the voices of the Pharisees are also heard. They strain through gnats, the faults of others, to digest their heavy moral falls, and whether to swallow a camel (Mt 23:24). Even Jesus was strict against false piety, and many, especially those who have almost no part in his life, have been zealous in severity towards him in this respect – but only in this follow. Criticism of religion from non-religious circles emphasizes above all the necessity of doing everything in moderation. Such a thing is possible only with state religions, where everything is enshrined in the protocol. For Christianity, however, this is sheer formalism, for it emphasizes the mindset, the interior. It is not so much exclusively concerned with some emotional experience or feeling as much as it is primarily about a sincere relationship with God with his moral implications. When this is lost, piety becomes an end in itself, and its culmination is only the mystical or pseudo-mystical emotional excitement. Piety needs to be restored to its original meaning and content and to begin as a virtue. In this sense, it is necessary, already in the first years of childhood. For Christians – both children and adults – there is naturally a very spontaneous is spontaneously connected with the supernatural, because one presupposes the other. Last but not least, religion thrives best where the cradle of children, in the family. The symbolic link between earthly fatherhood and the fatherhood of God plays a particularly important role in this. The awakening of piety or the opening of the child’s soul to God can begin earlier than many parents do. Children have a role to play in this special antennae for this kind of outreach. The effect is all the more profound and lasting for this,# the more children feel loved. Over time, at different developmental stages, religious education must adapt to the needs and sensitivities of children and young people, as well as their character.

Success means doing the best we can with what we have.
Success is about doing, not about getting – about succeeding, not winning. Wynn Davis.
The most important discovery in life at the age of thirty-nine, I first understood what it meant to be successful. What have I achieved? I became CEO of a Fortune company.  Did I bring home my first Mercedes? Did I win the lottery? Did I win a huge amount of money in the game and want to be a Millionaire? Nothing like that, I just made a simple but profound discovery. I discovered, how life works and what’s most significant in life. After years of groping around.
I understood what it means to succeed in life and how to go about it. With this… I had always lacked two things: a sense of inner peace and a sense of self-worth. Plus, I began to enjoy life more than I ever had before. What was the fundamental discovery? Is there a blueprint for success?  I’m convinced there is. But you won’t find it nicely prepared and tastefully packaged, nor will you see it advertised on television. It’s nothing new, no secrets, no magic. That’s why this manual is a bust. It’s very old, too simple, and too innocent. But it works. After years of historical, philosophical, and psychological study.
I’ve come to realize that life and success can be boiled down to a few basic principles that we’ve known for thousands of years. In search of the recipe for the “good life”. I took several paths and eventually found myself where I was where I started, with what I call the old-fashioned truths. As Edward Albee says in his play It Happened at the Zoo, “…sometimes it is necessary to take the wrong road for a long time, to get back right and fast.”
Does this book contain instructions? Can you find it among the 20 offered? I hope so. If you apply these ancient principles consistently, you will understand and experience the true meaning of success. I am truly convinced of this. A Swedish proverb says we grow old too fast and grow wise too late. Maybe that doesn’t have to happen. Maybe you’ll my book will help you wise up before I do. And if you’re older, that’s okay. It’s never too late to learn. The smartest people in the world are the ones …are who can be happy.
We can’t seem to make up our minds about whether money is bad or good. If someone is said to be successful, it usually means they are rich. So wealth must be good. But they also say that money can’t buy happiness. So it must be bad. Wealthy people donate billions of dollars every year to needed projects, which is good. But haven’t we heard that money is the source of all evil? So they’re back bad. Poor people criticize the rich but would like to be rich. So how is that so? Is money good or bad? Neither. But we live in a society where money is often associated with success, so we must analyze it. We need to clarify some of the myths that circulate about money, and we need to look at it from the right perspective. In connection with money, I would like to draw attention to two phenomena:
1. Money is not bad
Does the Bible say that money is the root of all evil? No. The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. That is a big difference. There’s nothing wrong with money. Wanting to have money is not wrong, and having it is not wrong, even in large quantities. The key question is how we get it and what we do with it. Money honestly acquired and well spent can do a lot of good. Can it buy happiness? He who said probably didn’t have enough. It can buy much more happiness than poverty. I think the best way to solve this problem was described by Pearl Bailey when she said, “I was poor, my dear, and I was rich. Let me tell you, being rich is better.” And it’s true. Success, and money, are probably better in most cases. Being rich is not illegal or immoral, but it’s not everything.

Saint of the Three Nations
There are few in the calendar and in the history of the saints who consider their three distinct nations. One of them is the saint of today, the Czech national patron saint, St. Jan Nepomuk Neumann, bishop. Our Czech nation, and especially those of us in southern Bohemia, claim this saint. As you surely know, he was born on March 28, 1811, in Prachatice. His mother was Czech, as evidenced by her maiden name: Anežka Lepší. Young Jan studied in České Budějovice at the gymnasium and then at the theological faculty in Prague. However, his father, hosier Filip Neumann, was German, and German was spoken at home in his family. For this reason, even the Germans – especially the neighboring nation of the Bavarians – rightly consider him as their saint. The third nation that worships him with special piety is the Americans because Saint Jan Nepomuk Neumann worked blessedly in the States, he did much good here, and also died a holy death here as the fourth bishop of the city of Philadelphia. He is the first bishop from the United States to be canonized.

The vocation to the priesthood awoke in young John very early. It is said that he enjoyed ministering as a schoolboy and even made a small altar at home, at which he often prayed. Another story from his childhood is also known, which he recorded in his diary. When he once prayed before a meal, he made a large Latin cross instead of three small crosses. The old nanny immediately noticed this and remarked with a smile: “Look, our Honzíek will be a priest one day!” She guessed right, although Jan’s path to the priesthood was certainly not paved with roses. On the contrary – many different obstacles awaited him, but whom the Lord calls, He will also give him the strength to overcome all difficulties. So it was rather a thorny path, but young John knew very well that whoever decided to follow Christ the Lord must also carry his cross.

He had to overcome the first difficulties at home because his father wanted him to become a doctor. He did not spend the first years of his theological studies in a priestly seminary, but in a sublet with the widow Nováková. The seminarians from Budějovič then lived in the former Capuchin monastery, which was small and not enough for everyone. Nevertheless, Bishop Růžička recognized a gifted student in young Neumann and therefore sent him to further studies at the Faculty of Theology in Prague. There he also had to deal with the remnants of Josephine Freemasonry theories, which still tenaciously persisted in the opinions of some professors. However, they did not lead the young Neumann astray, rather, on the contrary, they increased his devotion to the Holy Church. 

Then came another blow for which he was not prepared, and which must have caused him deep grief. He was already looking forward to his ordination, but the bishop postponed his ordination at the last minute. What happened? Nowadays it will sound incredible – almost like a fairy tale – when we hear that our dioceses had an excess of priests in the first half of the 19th century, and that the bishops did not have a suitable location for them. Today, on the other hand, we have already gotten used to their ever-increasing shortage, which is increasing year by year. At that time, however, there were more young priests than the bishops needed. Young theologians were forced to look for employment elsewhere – even outside their homeland if they did not want to wait a long time for a vacant position as a chaplain!

The young theologian Jan Nepomuk Neumann also followed this path. He did not think twice, and at the beginning of February 1836, he left for the United States with the permission and blessing of his bishop. There in New York, Bishop Dubois, who had previously been looking for priests in Europe, welcomed him with sincere joy and ordained him the same year, on June 25, 1836, in his cathedral. Patrick on the priest. We must bear in mind that the United States was still a mission territory at that time. They were only the states on the eastern Atlantic coast, since the great campaign to the Wild West, towards the Pacific, was just beginning. Immigrants from all over the world poured into North America, so the success of the priests’ pastoral work depended primarily on their language skills. However, Jan was very well prepared in this respect. He knew German and Czech, could also communicate in Polish,

Priest John’s first place of work was the Williamsville mission station near Niagara Falls. From there he made long journeys to distant villages, where he had to do everything necessary – from preaching to provisioning. Later, he found effective support in his brother Václav, who came to see him and helped him as a cook, church minister, and, catechist. The reputation of priest Jan Neumann grew greatly, as already in 1851 the archbishop of Baltimore chose him as his confessor and recommended him to the office of bishop in Philadelphia. At that time, however, Neumann was already a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer – popularly known as the Redemptorists, which he joined together with his brother Václav in 1840. On February 1, 1852, Pope Bl. Pius IX appointed Jan Nepomuk Neumann as the bishop of the city of Philadelphia, and the episcopal consecration followed in two months. Bishop Jan knew that he would not have an easy job.

Bishop Jan was truly blessed in his diocese. He built 80 new churches and founded over a hundred parish church schools. He is therefore rightly considered the father of American Catholic education. He also founded a small seminary for the growth of priestly vocations and reformed a large priestly seminary. He founded the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Francis. He is the author of two very successful and popular catechisms and Bible histories for children and youth. Thanks to his tireless care, the construction of the Philadelphia Cathedral was completed. He spent most of his time on episcopal and missionary visits to his diocese. During a visit to Rome in 1854, as part of the definition of the article of faith on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Philadelphia Bishop Jan Nepomuk Neumann told the Holy Father Pius IX that his diocese needed many more priests and that it still had only 35 schools with about 10,000 pupils. The Pope promised him help. In the following year, 1855, Bishop Neumann saw his native Bohemia for the last time and celebrated the pontifical mass of St. at the grave of his patron John of Nepomuk in the Cathedral of St. Welcome to Prague Castle. His native Prachatice also welcomed his native.

After all, since 1857, Bishop Jan had his work somewhat easier, because he got a bishop – coadjutor Jakub Bedřich Wood. He came from a banking family, so Neumann was happy to leave the financial issues of the diocese to him. He dedicated himself to spiritual service for his entrusted flocks and was a really good shepherd for them. He tirelessly cared for his sheep literally until the last moment of his life. And so his last day came. On January 5, 1860, while returning home, he fainted and fell on the pavement of the street. They brought him to his mansion already dead. Four days later, his successor, Bishop Wood, pronounced over his coffin the truly prophetic words: “This bishop was a saint.” And he was not wrong. In the second session of the Second Vatican Council, on October 13, 1963, the Holy Father Paul VI. beatified, and on June 19, 1977, the same Pope declared him a saint. Saint Jan Nepomuk Neumann drew strength from the cross of Christ and often repeated to himself: Passion of Christ, strengthen me! This is a great message for all of us – let us also try to draw strength from the cross of Christ. Let us too, following the example of Saint Bishop John, meditate on the suffering of Christ the Lord, let us seek help from the Mother of the Redeemer, the Virgin Mary, and so one day we too will reach eternal life in perfect joy. Saint John of Nepomuk Neumann, pray for us!

Joseph Ratzinger – Benedict XVI. was a great gift of God to the church and the world. Uniquely, he was able to reconcile deep intellectual knowledge with spiritual penetration of the problem, in other words, integrally combine Fides et ratio, faith, and reason, and thus penetrate to the essence of things, understand complex phenomena and foresee their further development.