Apparently Trump Doesn't Understand What a Religious Leader Is...

I don't care to get into the political debate about immigration reform, nor get into an argument about whether building walls is Christian or not.  I simply want to discuss Donald Trump's response to the Pope's comments about wall building and Christianity.  In his response Trump said, "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith."  And he judged any such action on the part of a religious leader as being disgraceful.  

Apparently, Trump has no idea what a leader is. He also has no idea what a religious leader is, if he did he'd realize that a religious leader is both a leader in the traditional sense and a teacher.  And in all three cases, leader, religious leader, and teacher, to even think that it is inappropriate for that individual to question others is preposterous.  I am a leader in an I.T. Department, it is my job to question people when it comes to their use of technology.  Only by questioning them can I lead them to greater productivity, efficiency, or improve systems and reliability.  If a math teacher sees a student doing a math problem incorrectly, he'd be an abject failure if she did not question the student.  It is not possible to lead a person or teach a person without questioning them when they are off track.  Understandably, many don't view religion in the same manner that they view math, they think religion has no absolute truths, while math always has one correct answer.  I will respectfully disagree with that point of view and state that there is but one Truth and thus one religion, but because that is not the discussion I wish to have for the sake of argument I will render that debate moot by pointing to a political leader.  If a political leader believes that building a wall is the solution to the problem and you don't, does the political leader have no right to question your political belief?  If you say "I am a Republican running for the U.S. Senate" and you say you agree with the Democratic agenda regarding healthcare does the Republican Party leader have no right to question you about how Republican you are?  

Of course, I hear the argument to that already, "But Trump isn't a Catholic so the Pope has no business questioning his faith?"  To which I'll rebut, "So then the Democratic leader cannot comment on the fact that the Republican endorsing Obamacare is claiming to be a Republican while embracing Democratic policy?"

Leaders and teachers jobs are to questioning and guide.  Sometimes they question a person to teach that person.  Sometimes they question a person to teach someone else.  And any intelligent human being constantly questions everyone and everything so that they can grow and learn.

I'm not going to question Trump's Christianity.  The Pope did that.  But, I am going to question Trump's patriotism.  I've read our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  I am fully aware that we have something called freedom of speech in this country.  To tell someone that they have no right to ask a question is to tell them they have no right to free speech.  Trump is not very American.  His words sound more fascist than American, they are not the words any leader in a democracy should utter.

The Church is Exclusionary?

So...  It's been a while since I posted to this blog, a lot has happened in that time.  Most significant, as far as the topic of this post is concerned, is that I have received a declaration of nullity in regards to my legal, but not sacramental marriage and have a wonderful new woman in my life.  But, that is where the question that serves as title for those post comes from.  You see, my girlfriend is Methodist and so we frequently discuss the differences in our faiths.  And, one sentiment she has repeatedly expressed is that she sees the Catholic Church as an exclusionary religion, not Christian behavior.

The crux of her feeling on this matter centers on the Eucharist, or in her faith perspective Communion.  She notes that while her church will allow me to receive Communion alongside her without becoming a Methodist, my church will not allow her to receive Communion unless she converts.

We've discussed how the Methodist Lord's Supper and what the bread and wine in their Communion is compared to what we believe takes place at the Mass and what the bread and wine becomes prior to distribution in our Communion.  Here I think we may both slightly fail to understand or communicate the subtle differences between Catholic belief in the Real Presence and Methodist belief in a spiritual change taking place in the bread and wine.  But, within our discussions, for the sake of making her point she has said, "While this is not true, let's just say that my my church believes it is just bread and wine and yours does believe it is truly Jesus fully present." (She believes her Communion is more than bread and wine...)

From there is where I have a hard time making sense of what my faith teaches and why it does only allow Catholics to receive because she goes on to argue, "So, your church says that I am not worthy to receive Jesus?"  My answer to that is to cite or paraphrase the Church's words on the issue of interfaith Communion, that receiving the Eucharist is a declaration of unity and that we share a completely common faith, not partial agreement, but total.  Through the belief in transubstantiation we believe that it is something more than what she and non-Catholics believe it to be and the Church does not want someone that does not recognize it for what it is to receive unworthily (1 Cor 11:27).

On one occasion she then asked, "So, if I accept that it is actually the body and blood of Jesus, not just spiritually, but totally and completely, then I could receive?"  I said, "Well, no you have to be in full unity with all of Catholic beliefs."

To which she retorted, "So you can only receive Jesus if you believe everything the Catholic Church teaches?"  "You have to accept all the teachings of the Church, be in full union."

"But, Jesus called those that were separated from Him.  He died on the cross for all of us, not just that small handful that was at the foot of the cross fully believing in Him.  If He's really and truly present, why doesn't your church invite everyone to receive Him?  Do you think He is incapable of handling a sinner touching Him?"

On another occasion she wanted to pursue the way we interpret 1 Cor 11:27 to say that one should not receive the Eucharist unworthily.  She wanted to know if we thought anyone was worthy to receive Jesus, she set aside the broad question and got more specific and asked, "Have you ever been worthy of Jesus?"  Initially, she wouldn't allow me to answer the question she was asking with our beliefs on absolution, grace, and being made worthy through His forgiveness, she very pointedly asked me if at any point, without God's grace, without Christ's sacrifice, without His mercy, forgiveness and love, if I was ever the pure tabernacle worthy of Him.  Of course, I had to say "No."

She then allowed me to add to my answer and explain how while I can never be worthy on my own, that by seeking and receiving absolution, recognizing my need for Him, and accepting His grace and love makes me worthy.  But, she knows my faith history well enough to have a powerful follow-up question: "So, you've never received Communion in your church while in need of absolution?"

She full well knew my answer: "You know that in my past my understanding of what the Church teaches was incomplete and that I received many times while in need of absolution."

"So, why is my flawed understanding grounds for your Church to exclude me?"

"Because you consciously choose to reject the Church's authority."

"How do you know?"

Here I really started to get flummoxed.  She asked a question that none of us could ever answer, "How many Catholics receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin?"  She added in rhetorical questions wondering how many of them were consciously rejecting dogma versus those that were unwittingly in a state of sin and not seeking absolution prior to Communion.  Which really got me started thinking...

There's the obvious situations where a politician rejects Church teaching on abortion, publicly funding or working to protect abortion rights, yet, receiving Communion.  There are the less obvious situations where a divorced man or woman, dating, engaged, or otherwise behaving sinfully without an annulment or any intent of pursuing one yet receiving Communion.  And, in my conversations with other Catholics regarding Church teaching on sin, absolution and the worth reception of Communion it is very obvious that many Catholics receive Communion unworthily.  "Cafeteria" Catholics or Catholics that wish to be better but still struggle with sin all seem to be receiving Communion.

I won't deny, much of this may be due to the ignorance of the Catholic receiving unworthily, but some is not.  Regardless, if it is just to give a Catholic the benefit of the doubt and say "they don't know any better" so it's acceptable for them to receive Communion, then why can't the same be said about a non-Catholic that truly is a good Christian, only rejecting or ignorant of some Church teaching?

What makes it even harder for me to understand so that I can explain and defend it, is when my girlfriend then uses my own belief in the Eucharist against me.  After confirming my deeply held belief that the Eucharist is Jesus she will cite Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, or Luke 18:16 and ask why I feel it is OK to keep children from Jesus in this circumstance?  She will point out Luke 5:32 and many other passages where Jesus clearly calls sinners, puts himself in the midst of sinners, makes it clear that He came to save the sick not the righteous, then she'll ask how I can justify restricting access to Jesus to only those that I would view as being less in need of His mercy, love and presence than those who don't know Him nearly well enough yet.

I don't know how to respond.  It's rare that I find myself unable to defend Church teaching, but she has found a challenge for which I have no response.

Certainly, I know 1 Corinthians 11:27 and how it declares receiving the Eucharist unworthily is sin, I know that a few verses later it says that anyone that eats without discerning the body brings judgment upon himself.  But, if it is truly Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity, then how can I accept that it is OK to keep someone away from Him for any reason?  If they feel called to receive Communion in the Church, must I not believe that they feel that Jesus is calling them to Him and no one should stand between Him and one He calls, right?

If I say to my girlfriend, "No you cannot receive Communion because you do not accept the Pope.  You do not accept apostolic succession.  You do not accept an all male priesthood.  You do not accept that God created marriage to be the bond of one man and one woman.  While she is desirous of receiving Communion in my church, with me, am I not, is the Church not, being exclusive in a manner inconsistent with Jesus' mission?

Certainly, accepting everything the Catholic Church teaches, the best possible thing I could do is to bring her around to becoming Catholic and accepting our faith.  But, after this ongoing discussion with her I am left thinking maybe she is right that the Church is exclusionary in a way worth questioning.

It seems that I should be able to have a conversation and relationship with her that goes more along these lines:

She asks why she cannot receive Communion in my church.  I explain that we hold that Communion is not a symbol, it's not just a spiritual reality, that the bread and wine is the Real Presence of Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity.  Before receiving Communion you must first recognize that reality, how insulting, demeaning and sacrilegious would it be if you were to meet Jesus on the street, but instead of knowing and understanding that you were meeting God incarnate you were to think you were just touching a cardboard cutout that was intended to remind you of Him?

But, if she were to say that she could approach the Eucharist with that understanding, shouldn't that be enough for me, for the Church, to invite her to meet Jesus in the most intimate way we can in this life?  Shouldn't we want to bring her into that close contact with Him so that she can fully receive His love and grace, opening her just a bit more to receiving the fullness of Truth that the Church offers.  Plenty of Catholics receive Communion without understanding or accepting all Church teachings, even the most public and unrepentant of sinners is not excluded if they just say they were baptised, Confirmed or raised Catholic and present themselves for Communion.  Sin is sin.  Rejection of one aspect of Church teaching is rejection of the Church. But, if they are "Catholic" we make the case that our duty is to teach the truth in love, and let Jesus and the Holy Spirit do His work. That the Sacraments work in us and provide graces to us whether we cooperate and understand or not, they are efficacious because of Him, and have little to do with the strength of our faith or understanding.

Shouldn't we have the same mindset when it comes to non-Catholic Christians?  Or anyone else that wishes to receive Communion?

I'm not even sure that they need to accept our belief about the Eucharist being the Real Presence...  The more I think about it, the more I question that.  Certainly, I think it would be sad for someone to touch Jesus and not be aware of what had just occurred.  But, at the same time, the fact that it is Jesus should render that moot.  Yes, it does seem that the Gospel informs us that Jesus was unable to perform miracles for people that lacked belief.  But, it's not that He is suddenly rendered powerless, He is still omnipotent.  No, it's more a matter that when someone has completely shut God out of their lives, they can't receive His grace because they are obstinate.  But, certainly He can take a seed of imperfect faith and work with that.

My girlfriend has a great deal of faith.  She just doesn't agree with some points of Catholic teaching and she is particularly turned away by the fact that she is told that her faith is not good enough to entitle her to meet Jesus in the Eucharist.  As a result, she questions our entire belief system, because she believes that if we truly believed the Eucharist was Jesus and we truly believed what He said about coming for the sinners and that we should never stand in between Him and one that wishes to approach Him, then we ought to not say she can't receive Communion.

Music and Worship

Just got back from an amazing pilgrimage to NCYC chaperoning for our parish youth group.  Throughout the time at NCYC I kept thinking about those I hear "condemn" the use of guitars, drums, or modern music in Mass, adoration, and worship, or that criticize how LifeTeen or other ministries "lower" the dignity of our faith and encourage irreverence through their "rock n' roll" ministries.  I never really agreed with those critics but now after experiencing 3 straight days of these types of ministries, Masses, Adoration, and worship, I have to say my tepid disagreement has turned to an outright rejection of the foolish idea that all worship must use the organ, and must be that "high" reverence, that seems to be based on the idea that the entire Mass must have emotions rooted in the overwhelming sadness at the foot of the Cross.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This is a rather interesting article that some may find helpful to keep in mind when talking to atheists: New Support for the Cosmological Argument | Catholic Answers

I've frequently attempted to use the cosmological argument with my atheist friends, but talking with atheists is like punching at jello.  When they see that the logic is irrefutable they simply find a proposition to deny without providing reason, simply because if they accept the propositions they must accept the conclusion.  And the proposition that, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause," seems to be the proposition they simply reject.  They claim they don't believe it is true, and they claim there is no evidence to support the proposition.  In the case of my friends, most of the time they rely entirely on "science" what is provable, testable, fact is all that they will accept.  But in this case, this one proposition, they refuse to acknowledge that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition.  Everything science tests and explains and proposes in the history of science is wholly dependent on this being true.  Light exists because energy is released.  Chemical reactions occure because...  If P1 is not true, then science does not exist.  Because science is purely about explaining cause, understanding the specifics of how P1 plays out in the universe.  The telling part is that once you start down this path, they quickly try to change the subject and if you won't change the subject the conversation quickly ends.  No, I'll get back to you.  No, acknowledgement that there is something here that requires deeper thought so they can figure out what they are missing that proves the argument for P1 wrong.  No, they just whistle pass the graveyard as best they can...

I'm not sure that this approach would have better results, but it's certainly worth a try.  What would be required to prove God's existence?  Something that can not be explained by science, something happening has absolutely no natural cause.  That can only be evidence for God if your presupposition is that everything that begins to exist, everything that happens, everything that changes must have a cause.

P1 is not be an argument that an atheist can deny, if they accept science.  If you deny P1, you deny the possibilty of science, you deny the basic premise of science.

Thoughts on "Where's the Tabernacle?"

So, I read a nice little piece on Creative Minority Report about Matthew Archbold's family's experience at a parish they don't normally attend. There was some criticism of the music, but the main focus was on the location of the Tabernacle and the disrespect implied in the location.  I have no idea what church is being discussed, how the space is laid out or anything.  And, based on Matthew's description, it may be that the Tabernacle was placed in an inappropriate place.  Like Matthew, I too find it troublesome when I enter a new church and find myself the seeker in a game of "hide and seek with Jesus".

But, I have also learned that some times what I initially judge to be disrespectful placement is actually very sensible, practical, and respectful.  Just a few examples I have encountered where I find my initial judgement to be erroneous.

1.  One parish I know have has large, movable glass walls that can separate a small chapel from the main worship space.  During Sunday Mass the wall is removed and the pews in that area are oriented toward the main altar.  But the rest of the week, the wall is in place and the pews are turned away from the main altar, toward the chapel altar and tabernacle.  The tabernacle can be seen from all areas in the main worship space, but during Sunday Mass it might be seen as being "hidden in a corner".  But, if you return Sunday afternoon or during the week, you realize that there is wisdom in the arrangement.  The parish has a small, quiet, always open chapel where you can pray in the presence of the Eucharist, even if the main worship space is being used for a wedding, a youth ministry, a daily Mass, a funeral, or another purpose.  And, the sectioned off chapel provides for a much more intimate sense when praying than is felt sitting in the large, open worship space.

2.  A number of Cathedrals I have visited obviously predate the modern movable wall technologies.  They have the main worship space and a separate reservation chapel where the tabernacle is located.  And, sitting in the main worship space there is absolutely no way to see the Tabernacle.  When the Eucharist is reserved or retrieved, the Deacon or EMHC must leave the worship space and walk down a hallway to the chapel tabernacle and back.  Like above, there is wonderful value and respect shown in having a very special, intimate chapel where Our Lord resides and can be visited.

Of course, then there are those bizarre, inexplicable designs where the tabernacle is set off in a position that serves no purpose.  It is not intended to serve a more intimate or reverent purpose, and other design elements call into question who or what is being worshiped, what the focus is versus what it should be...

But, that particular parish I first mentioned above, I went there several times out of necessity, each time thinking negative thoughts about the parish because of where the tabernacle was located.  Oblivious to the true design.  Until one weekday afternoon I walked in to spend a little time in prayer and reflection and discovered the chapel walls were in place and it all made perfect sense.  Since then, I have tried my best to take the following approach in any parish I am visiting or new to:

1.  If something bothers me, I talk to the priest after the Mass.  Not accusing, not asserting that there is something wrong.  But noting to the priest that I observed something different and am curious to understand the intent or reasoning or purpose in what I perceived as being different.  Frequently I am astonished to learn about a local custom or tradition or very pious practice that may be unique to the area or that may be something that has been uniquely absent from where I have lived...  Just as an example, after years being raised and attending Mass in a parish where the fonts were emptied of water on Ash Wednesday, I was perplexed to be visiting a place where the Holy Water was still in the fonts several weeks into Lent.  And asking the priest about this odd practice I learned that it was my parish that was odd and in the wrong.  Similarly, when visiting another parish I was baffled by the ringing of the bells at the Epiclesis.  While not common and widespread, I learned it was an ancient tradition and is quite legitimate and praiseworthy.  Asking questions about tabernacle placement has also led me to learn about some truly wonderful Adoration Chapels.  And, one time, I found the placement of the Tabernacle within the wall the behind the altar, like a wall safe, to be interesting and asked about that, to learn that the wall separated the sanctuary of a chapel I was not aware of from the main worship space, and they shared access to the Tabernacle...  Pretty creative design, to be able to always be before the Tabernacle, in either worship space...

2.  If I don't have an opportunity to ask I assume the best of intentions.  I assume that I must be missing some piece of information and thank God that I had the opportunity to worship and receive the Eucharist in a place that challenged me and gave me opportunity to grow.

3.  If the answer is unsatisfying, I try to remember that even in my place of work, I frequently find myself being asked questions about why some policy is in place or some design choice was made and, despite having worked for the same organization for 20 years, I find myself not having a good answer and having to go seek a better answer.  And while, I try to avoid "making up answers" sometimes I do find myself trying to explain something I don't really know the answer to, or making assumptions and filling in a blank space with my own ideas, or repeating something that was inaccurately represented to me...  I haven't met many people that don't, on occasion, have a prideful tendency to avoid saying "I don't know."

Their "faith" on full display

Kentucky woman ordained as priest in defiance of Roman Catholic Church: "Proponents of a female priesthood said Jesus was acting only according to the customs of his time."

So, let's get this straight, they are Christian, maybe even self-identify as Catholics.  So one of their core beliefs that we both agree on is that Jesus Christ was God incarnate.  He was crucified because He upset the authorities of the era, confronting them with Truth.  Revealing to us His plan.  But, the Son of God, Creator of the Universe, Jesus Christ only acted according to the customs of the time?

Right.

You are a faker.  You don't truly believe in Christ.  You believe in yourself and your right to define God.

Pro-life, obscenity and self-censoring...

Over the last day a few stories have caught my eye and caused me to spend a lot of time contemplating the conflicting thoughts in the minds of those that are pro-choice and questioning if there is a bit of hypocrisy in my own mind or the minds of some pro-life missionaries.  It's some complex thinking so, this is a rather lengthy post, but I think it is well worth discussing...

Talking to atheists can be quite frustrating

Stacy Trascanos hit the nail on the head in her post "What If I Denied the Existence of Science".

Another frustration presented in a similar manner might go something like this:

I ask a mathematician, "Teach me how to solve differential equations."

Mathematician gives me a long lesson and while demonstrating how to solve a problem I interrupt, "No that's wrong. I don't believe 1+1=2, I think it is zero."

The mathematician says, "No, calculus is based on fundamental arithmetic and standard decimal arithmetic includes the understanding that 1+1=2."

I say, "No, I say it doesn't.  So, explain how to solve that differential equation with the obvious understanding that 1+1=0."

She responds, "If you don't believe 1+1=2 and won't just accept that as a given fact for the sake of my explaining how to solve this problem I can't help you understand Calculus."

I say, "Oh sure, that's how all you mathematicians are.  You won't explain things to us non-mathematicians without using your rules and terminology.  That just proves your system is a bunch of made-up stuff."

Yep, substitute some dogma or doctrine of faith for Calculus and God for the base assumption of 1+1=2 and you have a lot of conversations I have with atheists.

Look, I don't mind talking to an atheist.  We can have meaningful exchanges about the existence or non-existence of God.  We may even be able to slide into a discussion of the nature of God.  But, if you want to talk dogma, doctrine, Tradition, practice and other elements of faith that are contingent on the existence of God and you won't just concede that point for the sake of discussion, it's as fruitless as teaching Calculus to someone that insists 1+1=0.

"Some days are better than others"

Our hope rests in the Lord.  It isn't a promise that each day off this life will be happy, it isn't a promise of daily pleasure.  Jesus didn't tell us it would be easy or that by believing in Him all our troubles or sorrows would vanish.  He told us the journey would be hard, he told us we needed to pick up our crosses and suffer with him, he promised us that those who would suffer or sacrifice, those that would show mercy and be peacemakers, those that would put God first, trust in Him, live like Him, love like Him would remain in Him forever.  There will be eternal joy, happiness, and love, what is promised is beyond our comprehension, but the suffering and sorrow is also part of the promise.  He isn't asking us to endure anything He wasn't willing to endure too.  And He didn't just suffer one day in Jerusalem, He gave up everything for 33 years, imagine choosing poverty for 33 years over a life of riches beyond measure, that is sacrifice. He also suffers with us daily, "Saul why do you persecute me?" 
But our hope is in His promise of what the Father has in store for us when we return home.  When we choose to return to His home and stop trying to deny or Father His place in our lives we can be assured that the prodigal son's welcome home was nothing compared to the welcome we will receive.

Some days are better than others, but the greatest days are the eternal ones that are promised to those obedient enough to take up their crosses and make the walk home.

Anger, Hatred and Irrational Rage

Anger, Hatred and Irrational Rage

I can't add anything worthwhile to Fr. Longenecker's commentary...