Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, June 11, 2026
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
POGO, Mark Thompson, The Bunker, "Never Enough" (6/10/26) Guest Post
https://www.pogo.org
June 10, 2026
Washington, DC
This week in The Bunker: When the fiscal floodgates open, lots of ways to spend defense dollars bloom — a new bunker buster; a warning that our stock of warplanes is waning; how about a new military service while we’re at it; and more.
NEVER ENOUGH
Better big bombs, more planes, new service
You know how when your boss schedules an hour-long meeting, even though it merits only 30 minutes? The Pentagon’s pretty much the same way. No matter how high you draw that budget top line, those wily, ever-efficient Defense Department bureaucrats (at least in this regard) will find a way to meet it.
This is less of a problem when the Pentagon is on a normal-dollar diet. But these days, fanned by waves of exaggerated existential threats to the American way of life, the U.S. government is intent on pumping $1.5 trillion next year into the American way of death. In recent days, the U.S. military has decided it needs a better bunker buster, Congress has warned the armed forces don’t have enough warplanes, and a pair of hawkish think tanks thinks the Pentagon needs a new service branch. Proposals like this predictably pop up, like mushrooms amid a lush lawn following a rain, whenever the money’s flowing.
In 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon had become lazy in the decade following 9/11 as its budget doubled. “It hasn’t forced us to make the hard trades. It hasn’t forced us to prioritize. It hasn’t forced us to do the analysis,” he said. “And it hasn’t forced us to limit ourselves, and get to a point in a very turbulent world, of what we’re going to do and what we’re not going to do.”
We didn’t take Mullen’s advice then. And now we’re doubling the defense budget again.
BETTER BIG BOMB
Because, why not?
President Donald Trump said he “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago when seven B-2 bombers attacked its underground bunkers with 14 GBU-57bunker busters. The monstrous bombs, each weighing 15 tons, were the key weapon in “Operation Midnight Hammer.” But apparently, it was “Operation 11:59 P.M. Hammer,” because he launched additional U.S. attacks in February to try to finish the job.
So the Air Force is seeking a replacement for that Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which it’s calling the Next-Generation Penetrator (GBU-76/B, in Defense Department nomenclature). It wants contractors (PDF)to help with “all aspects of research & development, production, testing, and delivery” of the new bomb. Details are sketchy, but they include complex calculations into when the bomb detonates — critical to it blowing up at a specific depth deep underground — as well as grappling with the challenges posed by “Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages/Obsolescence Prevention” (PDF). Hope springs eternal.
The existing Massive Ordnance Penetrator is designed to destroy nuclear facilities or enemy command posts buried deeply underground. Its steel casing reportedly drills though up to 200 feet of rock before exploding (think of it as the ultimate deafening rock concert, featuring the rolling stones).
You can’t say the Pentagon doesn’t have a sense of humor. “The Government encourages all responsible businesses, including small businesses, to respond to this Sources Sought,” the June 1 solicitation said, adding that they have until June 16 to seek work on various elements. (The first-gen bunker-buster [PDF] was built by Boeing.)
Don’t fret if this new-and-improved non-nuclear bunker buster doesn’t pound enough stone into sand. That’s because the Pentagon is working on a new atomic bunker-buster, too. “The Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered will provide the President with additional nuclear options to defeat Hard and Deeply Buried Targets, ensuring that adversaries cannot place their most valued assets beyond the reach of America’s nuclear forces,” a government spokesperson recently told The War Zone. “The program is moving aggressively, and further information will become publicly available when it is strategically beneficial to the United States.”
Because bombing their nuclear-weapons bunkers with our nuclear bunker-busters is just Good Government 101.
READY FOR TAKEOFF
U.S. warplane count slips below legal limit
The Air Force’s fighter fleet has dropped below the minimum required by law, Representative August Pfluger (R-TX, as well as “a U.S. Air Force Academy graduate, battle-tested fighter pilot, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, and Chairman of the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors”) warned June 2.
Congress has required the Navy to have 11 aircraft carriers since 2006. But The Bunker didn’t know that since 2017, Congress has also required the Air Force to maintain a fleet of at least 1,145 war-ready fighters. (What’s next: The Army required to maintain an arsenal of 2 million bullets?) Pfluger, a one-time F-22 fighter pilot, says now is the time to invest in airpower. “In Congress, this is a moment in time where we have the ability to fund airpower … so that we keep our nation safe,” he said.
But the Air Force’s No. 2 general warns that the nation’s defense contractors can’t produce any more warplanes than they’re currently building. “Right now, I’d say our demand signal is outstripping their ability to produce quality airplanes on schedule, on time,” General John Lamontagne, the service’s vice chief of staff, said June 4. “Candidly, we probably had some more opportunities to buy, but industry can’t quite respond that quickly to what we’d like to do.”
However, it’s a safe bet that several years of trillion-dollar-plus defense budgets could help fix that problem. As Lamontagne added: “We’d love to buy more.”
CYBER SALUTE
Time for a new military service?
Cyber war is too important to be left to the admirals and generals of the other military services — it deserves its own, dedicated branch of the U.S. military. “Many observers contend that the challenge of generating military capability and capacity necessary to deter, compete, fight and win in the cyber domain can be directly attributed to the lack of a single organization responsible and accountable for force generation in cyberspace,” says (PDF) a new think-tank report.
The study, by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, estimates a U.S. Cyber Force would cost at least $10 billion to set up and need a workforce of about 30,000, mostly in uniform. That’s far smaller (PDF) than the Army (458,000 personnel), Navy (348,000), Air Force (320,000) or Marine Corps (170,000), but bigger than the Space Force (10,000).
The military services guide the Pentagon from their seats on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After fits and starts following their creation in 1942 (PDF), the Joint Chiefs as we know them today came into being in 1949 (PDF).They consisted of four officers — a chairman (rotated among the services), the Army and Air Force chiefs of staff, and the chief of naval operations. But since then, they’ve doubled in size, adding the Marine commandant (in 1952), a vice chairman (1987), the National Guard chief (2011), and the Space Force’s commander (2020).
Following their first victory — the “unconditional surrender” of both Germany and Japan in World War II, to use a phrase recently cited by the current commander-in-chief — the chiefs have a checkered record. Their influence isn’t directly responsible, of course, for wars’ outcomes. But they’d have a lot more clout if they were more willing to quit, instead of sticking around to do the logrolling required to make sure their services get what they see as their fair share of the Pentagon budget pie. Adding a ninth member to the JCS — enough for a baseball team! — isn’t likely to improve their battling average.
When it comes to chiefs — just like when it comes to cash — more isn’t always better.
Fr. Bob's Reflection for Corpus Christi Sunday - Guest Post
In 2019, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of Catholic adults in the United States. Sadly, it found that 69 percent of the people polled did not believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Even more concerning, 43 percent believed the bread and wine are only symbolic and mistakenly thought this reflected Church teaching. Another 22 percent knew the Church teaches transubstantiation, yet did not personally believe it.
My friends, today we celebrate the Feast of Corpus Christi – which is Latin for “Body of Christ.” It is a fitting time to reflect more deeply on the Eucharist. The word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word meaning “thanksgiving.” In many ways, Jesus’ entire life was a long act of thanksgiving: beginning in Bethlehem, revealed at the Last Supper and fulfilled on the cross.
In today’s Gospel, Jesus introduces the gift of the Eucharist when He says, “I am the living bread that came down from Heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever.” He reminds His followers that this bread is unlike the manna their ancestors ate in the desert. Those who eat the living bread are offered eternal life.
It is understandable that the mystery of the Eucharist can be difficult to fully grasp. Even the Apostles struggled to understand Jesus’ teaching about the Bread of Life. Yet their faith and trust in Him carried them forward until everything became clear at the Last Supper.
It was at the Last Supper where Jesus fulfilled His promise. He offered His true Body and true Blood under the appearances of bread and wine. Today, centuries later, we are still invited to receive that same gift – the greatest gift God could ever give: His very Self.
Each time we come to the altar, we stand in the presence of a God who loves us so deeply that He remains with us in the Eucharist. When we receive Holy Communion, we welcome the risen Christ into our very bodies. In that sacred moment, we become living tabernacles of His presence.
There is no closer union with Jesus than in Holy Communion. We receive Him into ourselves and become one with Him. With the Eucharist, we bear Heaven inside of us.
Mother Teresa put it beautifully when she said, “Once you understand the Eucharist, you can never leave the Church. Not because the Church won’t let you, but because your heart won’t let you.”
My friends, I pray that each of you comes to experience Christ’s presence in the Eucharist more deeply. Let Holy Communion become necessary; an essential part of your life. Remember what Eucharist means, “thanksgiving,” and thank God for His greatest gift: His divine Son. The Son we encounter each time we come forward at Mass. The Son who heals, forgives and remains with us, no matter who we are or what we have done.
If we truly desire a deeper relationship with Christ, there is no substitute for coming together to celebrate the Eucharist. From the earliest days of the Church, we gather as the Body of Christ to be fed by the Body of Christ.
The Eucharist is the ultimate expression of God’s love for us. As Jesus Himself declared, “This is My body. This is My blood, given up for you.”
And who among us would dare doubt the Lord?
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Monday, June 8, 2026
Sunday, June 7, 2026
[Salon] Fwd: German Foreign Policy: "The consequences of double standards." (6/5/26) - Guest Post
The consequences of double standards
Berlin's power policy is suffering a stermer with the failure of the German candidacy for a seat on the UN Security Council. Double standards in foreign policy are considered one of the main causes.
05
JUNE
2026
"Shaping foreign policy"
Last year, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul openly expressed himself on the goals pursued by the Federal Republic of applying for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The United Nations Security Council is "the highest truly global body for the security of the world", for which despite all conflicts worldwide "there is still a fundamental consensus and support for all", Wadephul had before the conference of all German ambassadors on 8. September 2025 stated and added: "Germany belongs as one of the central European weights at this table." This is necessary, "because we want to shape foreign policy in this world" - "and because this corresponds to our interest". 1] This is also due to the fact that - "especially in an increasingly rough geopolitical climate" - "membership in the Security Council offers access to decisions, formats and information" "that remain open even years after our membership". This is of great importance for Berlin. Wadephul also claimed that, "especially when international law is under way and multilateralism is tumbling," we are to vigorously oppose our responsibility.
Crime? No matter.
The fact that the Federal Government preaches absolutely compliance with international law at all times, but in the specific case - even on the open world stage - does not care about accusations against its allies, is one of the reasons that are now put forward for the failure of the German application. For years, the German government has persistently refused to take a position against Israel's crimes against Israel's crimes of international law, among other things, in the Gaza war, contrary to meaningless phrases. In December 2025, under pressure from Israel, it did not even agree to extend the mandate for the Palestinian relief agency UNWRA. This is all the more striking as Berlin regularly attacks Russia - an opponent - in the most violent way for alleged or actual war crimes in the Ukraine war. In the case of Israel, the German silence is particularly important because in recent years, as Daniel Forti, UN expert at the International Crisis Group, notes, "a large majority of UN member states ... has supported Palestine and is very concerned about Israel's war in Gaza and the West Bank". 2] The repression in Germany against Palestinians and opponents of Israeli warfare is also received internationally with clear rejection. 3]
Complex questions
The federal government also encounters little understanding in many countries with its de facto approval of the wars of aggression in the United States. If Berlin still urges states around the world to impose punitive measures against Russia because of its war of aggression against Ukraine, it still does not see itself in a position to make an official classification under international law of the US war of aggression against Iran. The same applies to the US attack on Venezuela in early January and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Chancellor Friedrich Merz had claimed that "the legal classification of the US deployment" was "complex"; one had to take "time" for this. 4] This "time" has now been going on for five months without a public statement. This now even triggers criticism in the Berlin governing parties. For example, Siemtje Möller, deputy chairman of the SPD parliamentary group, was now quoted as saying that it was necessary for the federal government in the future to "name behavior contrary to international law as such, regardless of who questions this". 5] Adis Ahmetovic, foreign policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group, also demanded that "international law should not be double standards".
Descending powers
Beyond the widespread criticism of the double standards of German foreign policy, the failure of the German candidacy is also due to shifts in international politics. In recent decades, the Federal Republic had always been able to assert itself with its demand to be elected to the UN Security Council every eight years. Since the term of office is two years, Germany, in the long term, held a non-permanent seat in the Security Council for a quarter of the eight-year periods. That was considerably disproportionate. In Berlin, it was justified by paying a larger UN membership fee than most other states - and that, as a large and economically strong country, you weigh enough to assert itself against the powerful permanent members. The acceptance for this is apparently waning; this is already shown by the fact that Austria and Portugal, two smaller countries of Western Europe were running against Germany at the same time. The failure of the Federal Republic in the vote proves that the need to push back at least a little bit of the great, particularly influential powers worldwide is increasing.
"Invest less in the UN"
This is a bitter for the federal government's global political ambitions - especially since Berlin actually pursues much more far-reaching goals and even seeks a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. How this is to be justified is more unclear than ever after the failure of the German application for a non-permanent seat. Accordingly, a decline in interest in the United Nations is now emerging – at least in the beginning. With a view to the fact that Germany is one of the largest contributors – Berlin transferred 3.22 billion euros to New York in 2025 – CDU politician Manfred Pentz, who currently is currently in Hesse as Minister of International Affairs, explained: “If we do not have the influence there in the future, the question arises: Why should we continue to invest so much money in the UN?”[ 6] With similar motives, the Trump administration has been withholding payments to the United Nations for quite some time. Their position is thus becoming more and more shaken.
[1] Speech by Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul at the opening of the Conference of Heads of German diplomatic missions abroad. auswaertiges-amt.de 08.09.2025.
[2] Martin Ganslmeier: Hangover mood and troubleshooting. tagesschau.de 04.06.2026.
[3] S. to this "Stigmatized, criminalized, attacked".
[4] Chancellor Friedrich Merz explains the situation in Venezuela. bundesregierung.de 03.01.2026.
[5] What does Germany's failed UN application mean? zdfheute.de 04.06.2026.
[6] That is why Germany was punished in the UN election. n-tv.de 04.06.2026.
Saturday, June 6, 2026
Friday, June 5, 2026
The Backlash to the Boom - HeatMap Guest Post
\ heatmapdaily_logo
ROBINSON MEYER • JUNE 5, 2026
A few times a year, Heatmap News surveys a few thousand Americans on the biggest questions driving the world of energy, environment, and climate change. We’ve spent the past few days writing up the results of our latest poll, which was in the field in late May and which I thought was particularly striking.
It’s worth taking a step back to look at the biggest results together, because the American view of data centers is essentially in free fall:
As I wrote on Tuesday, Americans have swung en masse against local data center development. As recently as August, Americans were split on whether they would support a new data center built where they live; now, 70% would be against it.
My colleague Emily Pontecorvo followed up by highlighting that the share of Americans blaming data centers for rising electricity costs has almost doubled since last August. Some 28% of Americans said new data centers helped drive up power prices back then; now, it’s 53%.
Nor are Americans optimistic about the technology that data centers represent. My colleague Jeva Lange revealed that 45% of Americans are “pessimistic” about AI’s effect on their lives — and 55% are downbeat about its effects on “society as a whole.”
Young people are particularly downcast. In virtually all of our polls, American adults younger than 34 stood out for being opposed to data centers and AI. Meanwhile, the only group that’s outright optimistic about AI’s effect on their lives? Men older than 65.
These feelings are driving policy: As my colleague Jael Holzman wrote today, an outright majority of Americans told us they would support a nationwide data center moratorium in some form. Fully 40% said they would “strongly support” a temporary pause.
The upshot of these findings: The public‘s turn against artificial intelligence and AI infrastructure is real, widespread, and cross-partisan. It doesn't matter whether Americans started out tolerating data centers or having no opinion about them; they now seem to resent them en masse.
[Salon] Fwd: From Ha'aretz: 'We Were Ordered to Kill': The 1967 Nakba That Israelis Don't Know About - Israel Security
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-06-04/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/we-were-ordered-to-kill-the-1967-nakba-that-israelis-dont-know-about/0000019e-93c7-d0a9-a7df-b3df1c6a0000?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=author-alert&utm_campaign=Adam+Raz&utm_term=20260604-23:29
>
> 'We Were Ordered to Kill': The 1967 Nakba That Israelis Don't Know About - Israel Security
Thursday, June 4, 2026
[Salon] Oil and a case of cognitive dissonance - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Oil and a case of cognitive dissonance
Summary: put to one side prospects for an Iran/US deal. Deal or no the world now faces an imminent and unavoidable severe energy ‘crunch’. The big ‘unknowns’ are when exactly it will hit, how high the oil price will go and how long it will be before it reverts to something like ‘normal.'
We thank our regular contributor Alastair Newton for today’s newsletter. Alastair worked as a professional political analyst in the City of London from 2005 to 2015. Before that he spent 20 years as a career diplomat with the British Diplomatic Service. In 2015 he co-founded and is a director of Alavan Business Advisory Ltd. You can find Alastair’s latest AD podcast (with Jim Krane) here.
The buffers and the shock absorbers are being steadily drawn down, and the ability for the market to absorb this imbalance is drastically diminished today versus where we started.
Mike Wirth, CEO Chevron, 28 May 2026
With Brent crude seemingly range-bound between US$ 90 and US$ 100 per barrel (pb) for almost two weeks now, it would be easy to conclude that either the doom-mongers have got it completely wrong or that investors remain in total denial. However, this is far from being the case. What we are actually seeing is no more than a reflection of how futures markets work — or, if you prefer, do not work! — as I outlined in the 23 April Newsletter. In short, as the FT’s Jonathan Vincent and Malcolm Moore wrote on 15 May, commodities markets are not a “crystal ball.”
The fact is that investors understand fully that a further sharp rise in the price of crude oil is both imminent and unavoidable, even in the still seemingly unlikely events of:
a) Donald Trump’s latest assertion that Iran and the US could finalise a deal “over next week” coming to pass; and,
b) ’Normal’ traffic through the Strait of Hormuz resuming immediately.
Indeed, if the recent dropping of claims by the US Administration that gasoline prices would fall sharply as soon as a deal is reached and Mr Trump’s (totally bogus) claim that voters care more about stopping Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon than they do about their pocketbooks are anything to go by, this stark reality seems finally to have been grasped even in the White House.
Despite Brent crude temporarily stabilising between $90 and $100 per barrel, experts warn that an imminent price spike to at least $150 is unavoidable due to record-breaking depletion of global inventories and strategic reserves.
So — and acknowledging that a 30 April article in The Economist was correct to assert that “markets have a poor record of pricing geopolitical risk” — why are we seeing here such an apparently blatant case of cognitive dissonance? Putting to one side Mr Trump’s repeated — and very largely unsubstantiated — efforts to talk down the price of oil, there are three major ‘real world’ factors in play here.
First, no-one knows exactly when the “future price spikes” of which the authoritative International Energy Agency (IEA) warned in its 13 May 'Oil Markets Report' will occur. As Chevron’s Mike Wirth (quoted above) went on to say at Bernstein’s 28 May conference:
Over the next few weeks, we’re likely to see those pressures flow through more directly to physical prices and there’s more upwards pressure that I would expect as we get into June and certainly into July.
Underpinning this is the fact that global oil consumption has been running at about six million barrels per day (bpd) above production since 28 February according to the IEA (with some experts putting it higher still) — i.e. as Malcolm Moore et al put it for the FT on 17 May: "Since the outbreak of the conflict, the world has been existing beyond its energy means."
To fuel this:
a) Governments in developed countries in particular have been releasing about 2mbpd from strategic reserves, a rate which is unsustainable beyond the end of next month at the latest; and,
b) Oil companies, traders and refineries have already released the majority of their inventories (totalling around three billion barrels globally in late February) into the system and are now rapidly reaching the point where they must hold on to what they have remaining in order to avoid damaging vital oil-related infrastructure.
Second, even in the event of ‘peace’ breaking out in the Gulf no-one can be sure how long it will take for exports of oil (and gas) from the region to revert to something like the status quo ante. However, it is worth noting that Adnoc Chief Executive, Sultan al-Jaber, warned on 21 May “It will take at least four months to get back to 80 per cent of pre-conflict flows and full flows will not return before the first or even second quarter of 2027.”
Third, the impact on future demand of emergency measures in around 80 mainly developing countries so far (according to the IEA) and of rising fuel prices in developed countries remains to be seen as (again quoting Malcolm Moore et al):
Demand for air conditioning and holiday travel at the start of the northern hemisphere’s summer will put further strain on supplies of crude oil, gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, when global stocks are already falling at the fastest rate on record.
Nevertheless, what does seem certain is that more emergency measures (e.g. fuel rationing) and still higher prices at the pump etc. are irrevocably in the proverbial pipeline.
Pull all this together (and putting to one side a propensity for headline-grabbing hyperbole among some analysts) and it is hardly surprising that expert opinion is now leaning increasingly firmly towards a minimum, but still record-breaking, oil price of US$ 150pb (i.e. more or less double the pre-war price) to restore supply/demand equilibrium, with some considering — “very seriously” in the case of Aberdeen’s chief economist, Paul Diggle — possible spikes of up to US$ 180pb.
While prices even at the lower end of this range are bound to lead to a sharp fall in demand which would ultimately help to bring prices down again, it is worth bearing in mind too that any easing is likely to be moderated by the urgent need for both governments and the private sector to replenish reserves in preparation for the (inevitable) next crisis.
All this being said — and even though we are approaching mid-year when I habitually review my oil price prediction for 31 December — I am still very disinclined to make a (revised) firm forecast for year-end. But I am willing to put it on the record that I am really struggling to imagine a price as low as the US$ 80-90pb range which the market is currently favouring and which is, indeed, a case of cognitive dissonance!
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for Trinity Sunday - Guest Post
In 1985, a movie titled “Clue” was released. Based on the classic board game, it blends comedy with a murder mystery theme, keeping audiences guessing “who done it” until the very end. Only in the final moments is the truth revealed, and everything suddenly makes sense.
Mysteries can be puzzling; even frustrating at times. Yet when they are finally understood, there is a deep sense of satisfaction and joy.
Today, we celebrate the greatest mystery of all: the divine mystery of the Holy Trinity. We profess that there is one God in three Persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a truth that stretches beyond the limits of human understanding.
Each Person is fully God, yet they are distinct and different. It can seem impossible to grasp, like a mystery that cannot ever be fully solved or explained.
Over the centuries, people have tried to explore this mystery through simple images. St. Patrick famously used the shamrock, with its three leaves forming one plant. Others have compared the Holy Trinity to an apple. There are three layers – the skin, the flesh and the core – yet it is still only one apple.
Some have compared the Holy Trinity to water, which exists as solid, liquid and vapor. While helpful, these images only point toward the mystery; they cannot fully contain it.
Scripture, however, reveals that God truly lives and works as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. At Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River, we see all three Persons present: the Son standing in the water, the Father’s voice heard from Heaven and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove.
In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells us, “I and the Father are one,” and promises the coming of the Spirit. And in the Great Commission, He sends His disciples to baptize new followers “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
St. Paul echoes this mystery in his blessing to the Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” It is a blessing we still hear at the start of every Mass.
So, my friends, what are we to make of this mystery?
We may never fully understand the Trinity, but faith invites us to trust in what we cannot completely explain. As St. Augustine reminds us, “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”
In a way, our lives are like that unfolding mystery in “Clue.” We search, we question, we try to make sense of what we see. And perhaps, in the end – when we stand before the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – everything will be revealed. Everything will become clear and the mystery will open the way to perfect understanding.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)