Cuidado con la critica

[Music] [Music] Good morning, I'm the father of Manolo Fernández. Today I want to refer to a topic that many people worry about. I'm worried about what the critic is. What people think about her, about that person. And the truth is that, as I said, San Francisco d'Assis, I don't care what people say about me. I'm just what I am, I'm the eyes of God. And also the Holy Holy Spirit of Ars, I mean, in the same day I got two cards, in a medicine that was an extraordinary cure, and in the other one that was an hypocrite. Here in taking the tip, human juices are too human, that is, imperfect. Therefore, we must stop worrying about the topic of the critic. In addition, I would like to remind you that the term "critical" of the Greek verb "crean" or "crean" means "just to judge" means "to value". That same root of the word "crysol" and "crysolar", filtering impurezas, and others like "crysis, criterion" and "impocresía". But the critic is not like it is usually thinking, just saying bad things, but to measure value when it has good and bad. A critic that only subrides negative is not a critic. To say negative, the Greeks have used other two words. The first is that there is a "t" that means accusation, and the second is "diavole", which is related to the devil, a calumnious accusation. In fact, here the name of devil is derived, that is, the accuser, the calumnator. Maybe, since many critics say that they are simply demons, they think that being a very noble task, but what they actually do in that calumnious accusation means to destroy. The critic is the one who judges because he loves what he is criticizing and wants to improve the real critic. The critic, on the contrary, goes to subriding the negative aspects and defamating, calumnizing, the failure of the critic, sees it as an own success and a confirmation that he had the reason to criticise it. The critic never is happy, maybe that is why he does it and projects his love in that habit that he thinks of opening it. That is why I am going to explain now some tips. First of all, he does not have the right to criticise the one who habitually does not logic. He does not have to criticise anything that does not love. When he criticises what he loves, he does it with love and dedication, as the one who is filled with the curing of anger, from there that in the satanic critic of irony and sarcasm, there is more of a reason to resentment himself than hope that the other changes. I think we should never formulate a critic if, before, the own critic has not formulated a question, regarding the part of the response that he has to that he is against. In that way, the critic does not understand the critic as an aggression made from outside, but as a practical collaboration within the heart. In addition, the critic always has to be expensive to expensive. The denunciation is not at all something acceptable. In addition, being an expression of truth, who takes the stone to hide his hand means that he has a strong heart. The critic must be the person who wants to help with our observation and be deprived, such as the stone of the Gospel. If your brother is stuck and has a right to be deprived, if you hear, you will have a brother. It never should be criticized comparing with other people, because each one is unique and irrepeatable. It should always be criticized by the fact, but never the intentions. Who is in love should always be the good will of those who are here in the soul. There must be criticized only one thing every time, from the contrary what we will achieve will be to argue and not cure. You must know that repeating the observations once again is repeated in efficacies. You must choose the right moment to do observations. We must be calm with the abundant interiors, willing to say words to the aggression, the sovereignty and with the high degree of listening. You must cure wounds, not to be granted. And before criticizing, you must put yourself in the place of the other. Tell a old proverb, "God, I am free to play my brother without having calmed down for a month, his shoes." If we raise as much as possible, why did we not get to the error we criticized? In 99% of the cases we would fall. And when they accuse that heroism, when they insult their love, when they fall their own sins, that sacrifice. When they fall, they are the same as their humility. When they fall, the misery of their human being is the quality. When they fall, time is the prudence. Falling in the pain is the penitence. Falling useless words is virtue. Falling when they are yesterday is sanctity. Falling of the agendas is benevolence. But falling, seeing speaking, is cowardice. It could be a prudence, falling, in general, when others want to speak. And speaking when others want to listen. God bless you with abundance.