Imprimatur Granted!

Good news! My book, Faith with Good Reason, recently received an imprimatur (or permission to publish) from our local bishop. A book imprimatur in the Catholic Church is not an endorsement, but an acceptance or guarantee that something is of a good standard, free of any moral or doctrinal error. I'll be working with the publisher to have the proper verbiage printed in the book.

Comment from the reviewing theologian…

"Excellent work! I really enjoyed the book. You have a gift for explaining ancient teaching with modern lingo and examples that lose none of the depth of the teaching."

I'll now have more confidence proposing the book and concept to Catholic organizations, book sellers, schools, etc. The concept itself is age-old in terms of Faith & Reason, but I added what I feel is a unique twist that relates our Catholic faith to elements of analytical problem solving and decision making.

Problem solving seeks to answer the question “Why did it happen?” Decision making seeks to answer “What should we do?” This relates strongly to how we think (the intellect) and what we do (the will). Why do people firmly believe things they can’t prove? For example, does the Earth really revolve around the Sun? Have you seen it? Have you measured it? Or do you firmly believe it because it’s what other people told you?

Since what we think ultimately directs what we do, it's imperative that we study what we think and why we think it. Faith with Good Reason attempts to do just that and to do it for what is mentioned in the Catholic Creed, which is no less than…“all things visible and invisible”.

Please enjoy Faith with Good Reason now available at all these on-line book sellers:

Barnes and Noble

Amazon Books

Books a Million

Chegg Books

Powell's Bookstore

4 Big Bangs?

I’m currently reading a series of e-books by Robert Kurland, physicist and blogger at Reflections of a Catholic Scientist. The latest installment, Science Verses the Church, starts with “ways of knowing” and the limits of science, and continues on with a brief history of the Church and science and then into topics of cosmology, anthropology, evolution and much more. Each topic is presented with a plethora of perspectives from differing scientist, including the author himself, and it’s all related back to the perspective of the Church.

As is often the case, reading good books can trigger insights and connections to other related items I’ve come across in the past. Case in point is this video about 4 Big Bangs and the existence God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorXcloIac&t=10s

Bang 1:  The Cosmological Big Bang:

This is the one you might be most familiar with. Both believers and non-believers might gladly agree that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago and that every effect must have a cause, so if there was a Big-Bang there must also have been some sort of “Big-Banger.” In other words, something outside of the known universe that was a necessary condition for the existence of the known universe. It might even be called a “creation event”. Does this prove the existence of God? I think not, but I do think it is relevant data to include in any discussion about a reality that is unconditioned by time, space, matter and energy…and what a curious thing that would be.

In his book, Robert cautions that even if the physical universe is infinite, it does not contradict Catholic teaching. “If we believe God is the author of all, a First Cause, then He can create an infinity of universes, as in the bubble universe hypothesis of Linde or in the parallel worlds given by some interpretations of quantum theory. Economy of effort is not required of God.”1

Bang 2:  The Abiogenesis Big Bang:

How did dead stuff become living stuff? No one really knows. Robert was clear about this in his book. “There are a variety of theories—one might better call them speculation—but until a model is produced that can be empirically verified, it will remain a mystery.”2

An evolutionary process of natural selection and/or survival of the fittest cannot be used to explain how the first living thing came to be. The very first cell (or proto cell) had no parent(s), no genetic ancestors to evolve from; to say it came about through the random jostling of matter and energy might be a kin to saying a running computer could come about through the random jostling of electricity and electronic parts. Whether a living cell or a computer, it’s not just a matter of the right parts being in the right physical location; the parts need to be both integrated and interdependent for anything meaningful to happen. There is no reason for a keyboard, a mouse and a screen to be carefully integrated together with software and electricity unless there was some intention behind it. Could we not say the same for the parts of a living cell?

Bang 3: The Biological Big Bang:

This is about the huge diversity of life on earth and why are there such big differences between bacteria, plants, animals and humans. An atheist might say “Evolution did it!” just as quickly and mindlessly as a Deist might say, “God did it!” Neither answer is intellectually satisfying by itself, but we can still draw some inferences from the facts.

For example, the human brain appeared on the scene in a geological instant and it seems to be evolutionary excess in terms of only needing to survive and reproduce. Bacteria, trees and chimps survive just fine on this planet. There is no need for a life form to be so much more intelligent than them, let alone a species capable of producing individuals like Newton, Einstein and Shakespeare. So what’s the real reason? Is it an intentional purpose or no purposeful reason at all?

Bang 4: The Anthropological Big Bang

Beyond being able to manipulate their environment better than any other living thing, humans are self-reflective, have free will and like to ask “why”. Besides the aforementioned, The Anthropological Big Bang is about man’s moral and aesthetic sense about the Good, the Beautiful and the True. Can all these traits be explained by merely seeking biological opportunities, or by avoiding biological dangers?

Chapter 7 of Science versus the Church is called “Who Has a Soul?” and covers the relation between soul, mind and consciousness. Perhaps one way to define having a soul might be the capacity to wonder where we came from, what will happen when we die, who or what made everything and why. Some philosophers take the materialist position that the soul is merely the brain, and the brain is just a “meat computer”.

The author takes the view of philosophers who believe that consciousness is a phenomenon that can never be fully understood scientifically because our understanding is limited by our own consciousness. There are things we cannot experience or “know” in terms of consciousness. If we cannot know it, how do we study it? If we’re born blind, we can never know what seeing color is really like, even if we know all there is to know about the physical aspects of light reflecting off matter and the physical process it would take to see it. An even better example is from an article by Thomas Nagel called “What’s it like to be a bat”. Unless you are actually a bat, you can never have the same experience as a bat using echolocation no matter how much you study sound waves as a human.3

According to the video linked above, none of these 4 Big Bangs show evidence of gradual development over time. That’s why they’re called “Big Bangs”. Since evolution does not explain them in terms of survival of the fittest with slow changes over time, what can we say about them with intellectual honesty? It doesn’t seem like a far stretch to say there must be something beyond "the physical" which caused "the physical" and that there is a purposeful design behind it. Even with no absolute empirical proof and no faith, this becomes a reasonable and responsible position to hold given all the data from all 4 Big Bangs.

Simply put, the end result is more than mindlessness can do for itself.

1. Robert J. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church (Robert J. Kurland, 2016), e-book, PDF pg. 61.

2. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church, PDF pg. 80.

3. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church, PDF pg. 105.

Got Salvation?

I remember the first time I read Philippians 2:12. St. Paul’s instructions rang a bell, and once a bell rings it can never be un-rung.

“…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

In terms of salvation, “work out” implies some sort of process (not something that is instantaneous) and “fear and trembling” reminds us that it’s something that can be lost during said process. It seems St. Paul had a rather catholic understanding of salvation. But how does one receive salvation and eternal life? Is it really by faith alone as some might claim?

 

Perhaps the Bible alone will clear this up. St Peter’s speech at Pentecost made it clear as we read in Acts 2:38. After receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter said to the crowd “Repent and declare Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and ask him to come into your heart and you will receive salvation this very instant with no possibility of ever losing it.” Well, that’s not exactly what St. Peter said in the Bible, in fact, it is not written anywhere in the Bible.

So, are you saved?

How does one get saved?

What must we do?

What does the Bible teach?

 

Must you repent and be baptized, right?

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:38

 

How about just baptism alone?

“This prefigured baptism, which saves you now...”

1 Peter 3:21

 

Belief in Jesus alone?

“Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”

Acts 16:31

 

Belief in God alone?

“…whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life.”

John 5:24

 

Words alone?

“I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God.”

Luke 12:8

 

“By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” Mt 12:37

 

 Works alone?

“Who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works”

Romans 2:6-7

 

“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

James 2:24

 

“…those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.”

John 5:29

 

Grace alone?

“On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they.”

Acts 15:11

 

Obedience alone?

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”

John 3:36

 

“But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live. He shall not die!”

Ezekiel 18:21

 

Eating alone???

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...”

John 6:54

 

Given all this, how can anyone claim, using the Bible alone, that salvation is by one thing alone? None of the above items can be dismissed as part of our salvation process, nor can any one item be emphasized at the cost of the others.

As a side, does the Bible really teach, or do people teach? If it is people who teach, it does beg some questions about who should teach, and by what authority, and would God provide for any such authority? The answer lies in the Church that teaches the fullness of faith as well as salvation in its fullness.


You're kinda lost without it...

Let’s now get back to the mother of all questions:
Are you saved?
 

Think of a man sinking in quicksand that wants to be saved and sees a rescue team on the way. He has every confidence that he will be saved and shouts “I’m saved!”, but he is not actually saved until he’s out of the mud. It’s this same with us as we “work out” our salvation as part of the Church militant on earth with great confidence that we will one day be members of the Church triumphant in heaven.

Much of the preceding post was inspired by a book called "Crossing the Tiber" by Stephen Ray; a former non-Catholic Christian turned Catholic apologist.

 

Beware the Boy MOST of All

“This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom…”

- Ghost of Christmas Present

Many of us may reflect on The Christmas Carol this time of year. We are given an ominous warning about “our business”. Mankind is our business, the common welfare, charity, mercy, forbearance and more. We are to help “the girl”, but our doom seems to stem ultimately from “the boy”. Why? Because what we know directs what we do.

If God is Truth, then Truth should direct the will. If love is an act of the will, then to love or judge something, we need to know it. The primacy of the intellect is important in order to love and judge things in the right way. If we are ignorant of what is true, how will we direct our will? What is our criterion for judging, other than our own desires?

Scripture gives us a subtle warning on the topic. “My people are ruined for lack of knowledge!” (Hosea 4:6). If we chose to ignore “the boy”, then doom will engulf us all, because it all starts with ideas, and ideas have consequences. “Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

In the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Mathew we hear, “For I was hungry and you gave me food”. This is certainly about physical food, but also about the spiritual work of mercy to feed the intellect. One can think of the truths of our faith as a kind of health-food for the mind.

The seeds of God’s image & likeness are in every person, so we have a natural hunger for truth/knowledge. Stop and contemplate “hunger” for a moment. What happens to people if they are hungry enough, for long enough? They’ll eventually eat something; they’ll eventually eat somewhere, but will it be good food or will it be garbage? Will they care where the food comes from as long as it gives some satisfaction?

The Fall of Man has dimmed the intellect and weakened the will; as a result the human soul easily grows flabby and tired. In other words it is natural for us to be spiritually stupid and lazy. We then default to our animalistic sensibilities and have the habit of replacing God with other masters since it seems to save us so much trouble.

We all like to think of ourselves as independent thinkers, but people are like sheep and everyone eventually sits at the feet of a master. Who will feed our intellect about the right to life, human dignity, the nature of marriage, just war, capital punishment, etc.? Will we sit at the feet of Jesus through His Church or will it be some politician or political party, a celebrity or talk show host, a television evangelist, your favorite college professor, or will it simply be the always "infallible" majority? Who is your master?

Whoever it is, be prepared to give an account for what you believe. “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.” (Mat 12:36)

 

Steps to Truth Continued

The last post on this blog spoke of 10 steps to Truth, from human passion (step 1) to Catholicism (step 10). It leads with the heart in hopes that the Truth can find its way on the sometimes long & difficult journey to the head. In this post I offer 7 steps as questions to the same conclusion, but this time starting with the head, in hopes that the Truth can somehow travel to the heart.

It represents my own line of reasoning from when I started back on the journey home about 20 years ago. Although I had some sense of these steps even before that time, I could not articulate them back then, not even to myself. I can do a better job now.

 

Step 1: Is there a God?

All of reality can be described in terms of two parts. There are physical or material realities and there are spiritual or immaterial realities.

The Physical

It can be proven through metaphysical logic that any physical reality must trace back to a “first cause” or one unconditioned reality; one thing that needs absolutely nothing else for its own existence, not even space or time. See a formal logic proof HERE. Unless someone can show a more rational proof that shows differently, the existence of one unconditioned reality remains the most reasonable conclusion.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

If you knew people who denied the existence of physical reality, you would likely note that they do not live as if they actually believe what they claim (if they are sane), which implies they don’t really believe it.
 

The Spiritual

For the strict materialist to be consistent in his position, he must hold that we come from nothing for the purpose of nothing. More specifically, we come from nothing intelligent for no intended purpose. The universe and everything in it is a mindless accident that happens by itself (we are “dumbly” here). It must also follow that immaterial things like morality, human rights, justice, goodness, meaning, beauty and love cannot exist objectively. The rest of us get the sense that these things exists. For instance, moral law (right vs. wrong) is real. Consider rape as a specific example. Rape is objectively wrong regardless of ANY social construct or human opinion to the contrary.

 

How can one “sense” something immaterial like moral law? Physical laws can help us to understand. A child playing catch with a ball can sense the existence and certainty of physical laws without any understanding of physics or any kind of science. In a parallel way we sense the existence and certainty of moral law even if we have no training in ethics, philosophy or theology. If there is a moral law that transcends us, there must be a “first cause” for it or a moral law giver. A moral law giver reasonably implies a loving personality with intelligence.

Put this idea together with the physical “first cause” above and we are close to what Catholics call God.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

If you knew people who denied the existence of spiritual reality, you will likely note that they do not live as if they actually believed what they claim (if they are sane), which implies that they don’t really believe it.

Step 2: Are we separated from God?

We do not see God plainly or face to face. Catholic teaching holds that sin is what separates us from God, but this is a simple step to reason through without any special catholic teaching. If we have concluded that God must exist in step 1, observation clearly shows us that we are separated from Him somehow. We also sense that the world is not as it should be.

Step 3: Does God care?

Creators tend to care about their creations, but we might ask why God would be concerned about any separation from man and his pitiful little world. Why would He care about our needs, our sins or our non-sins? Oddly, we project negative human characteristics of pettiness, arrogance and aloofness onto God. We thus imagine Him as a consciousness that will not embrace the whole.

God has reached out to man and revealed himself publicly to both believers and non-believers when establishing the nation of Israel (The Jews). Much could be said here about covenant theology, but simply put, God reaching out to bond with man over and over again via covenants certainly implies “caring”.

Step 4: Is there a particular way back to God?
 

Particular problems tend to have particular solutions. I deal with analytical problem solving for a global 500 company. There is often more than one solution to a problem; more than one way to skin a cat, but when faced with a serious global problem we standardize one global solution intended for everyone experiencing the problem. It stands to reason that God would also provide a global solution intended for everyone.

Step 5: Can we know the way?

There is no point in having a way if it cannot be known. The alternative is to say there is no certainty with God.

The Jews were expecting a savior to “make things right” and God went public once again in the person of Jesus. Jesus claimed to not only know the way, but to actually be “The Way” by making himself equal to God. No other religious figure in history was so anticipated before their birth and made such radical claims of authority with the action to back it up, through many public miracles and a public resurrection with many eye witnesses. Much more could be said on this topic as it relates to salvation history. Click HERE for more.

Step 6: Did Jesus establish any particular church to guide us?

Many Christians may object to this step and say there is only the Bible to guide us, but Jesus founded a Church, not a book. The Bible is subject to human interpretation and requires a teaching authority to go with it. Jesus didn’t wait for us to invent a church of our own. Ironically for other Christians, it is the authority of the Catholic Church that certifies the authority of the Bible.

 

Step 7: What would His Church look like?

Jesus was concrete, historical, visible and authoritative, so it stands to reason that His Church would be the same way, and let’s not forget about four more things…

ONE: The Church is one, undivided in belief and worship. For both Catholics and non-Catholics who disagree…you believe & worship the way you want; the Church will continue to believe & worship the way God wants.

HOLY: The Church is holy because it flows from the holiness of Christ, not from the holiness of any individual members at any point in history.

CATHOLIC: The Church is catholic by its nature since catholic means universal. It is a global solution. The Church is for everyone in every nation. It would be strange if it were otherwise.

APOSTOLIC: The Church is descendent from the original apostles. Jesus authorized His apostles and they in turn authorized their own successors and this still goes on today.

It is the exception, not the rule, to find a strict materialist as described in step 1. Most people believe in a higher power of some kind, like “The Force”, but it is often a faith that is devoid of reason, which results in blind superstition. This quote I once ran across sums it all up pretty well:

“There is a widespread idea today that it does not matter what our conception of God is like; how vague it is, how confused, even how distorted. “We all worship the same God” has become almost a shrug of the shoulders, dismissing the responsibility of knowing God as he reveals himself to be, as if to know truly is no difference to us.”

– Caryll Houselander
 

 Click HERE for a PDF version of the flow chart below for a visual that goes with the flow above.

 

Contemplating the Savior of Science

Have you ever stopped to think about why modern science first arrived on the scene in Europe around the middle of the last millennium with scientists like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes and Pascal? Why not from other great cultures of the past? This question is explored with piercing detail in a book called “The Savior of Science” by Fr. Stanley Jaki. It was recommended to me by writer and scientist, Stacy Trasancos. It’s not the easiest read in the world if one is not familiar with certain scientists throughout history and their theories, but some parts of the book are easy to follow.

It’s very understandable as to why some cultures would not be so concerned with the great “whys” of the physical universe if they were constantly struggling for food, water and shelter or continually fending off attacks from their neighbors. Who cares how the sun goes up and down every day if I’m just trying to stay alive every day, but what about the peoples of cultures like ancient China, Japan, India, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Greece and Rome? They all lived in organized societies with infrastructure; they had long periods of peace and talented citizens. They were also not greatly influenced by one another, as if we could say the superstitions about nature spread from one culture to all the rest like a virus. Of course, they had their achievements, like gun powder, papermaking and fixed-type engraved printing coming from China. How about the great architectural achievements of ancient Egypt, or the logic of the Greeks, but modern science never took root in any of these places. Why?

 Like any good problem solving, one should compare the place of interest (like Europe) and the characteristic of interest (like the birth of modern science) to other places that lack that characteristic. From here we can look for distinctions. By their fruits you shall know them, provided that scientific fruit or fruitlessness is looked for.

 

 The great non-Judeo-Christian cultures of the past had their premises about nature, existence and the universe. Perhaps it was the belief in eternal cycles that left a hopeless feeling when at the bottom, or a sense of complacency when on top (learn about Fortuna). How about the view of the universe as a kind of huge wild animal whose dangerous irrationalities needed to be appeased by some kind of human ritual? Others kept a wall of division between celestial and terrestrial matter that could never be penetrated. Given these kinds of worldviews, it’s easy to see why modern science could never take root. There also was no confidence in the abilities of a limited human mind to grasp the laws of nature, because nature was not subject to any rational mind or lawgiver that transcended it. King Brihadratha, the last ruler of the Mauryan dynasty, sums it up well for his culture as well as many others when he said “In the cycle of existence, I’m like a frog in a waterless well.” These kinds of mind sets seem to cry out for salvation.

So what was different about Europe? Fr. Jaki suggests that it was Christ that saved science from yet another “stillbirth” in Europe. The culture which grew out of Christendom was the distinction that provided the premises by which man could finally have a rational worldview, and the premises came from Catholic doctrine.

 

BRAIN FREEZE!!!

Now this is a hard teaching; who could accept it? Didn’t S.J. Gould get it right when he said, “Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.”  Isn’t the scientific progress that we still build onto today the result of the European enlightenment? Isn’t this when men shook-off their pious little fairy tales about god or gods? This finally freed men to use logic & reason for the very first time to explain the world around them, right?

Well, the Greeks and other cultures were known for their logic, but science was stillborn in those places. Additionally, the famous forefathers of modern science like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Descartes and Pascal were all Christian. So if atheism or just raw logic does not explain the birth of modern science, what might explain it?

Fr. Jaki argues that salvation finally came for science because Christ and His Church built a Christian worldview with the following types of convictions….

• God is a rational being that is orderly and reliable; therefore, his creation is also rational, orderly and reliable.
• All matter, celestial & terrestrial, can be placed on the same basic level, since it was all created out of nothing (ex nilhilo). A pebble is no different than the earth, the sun, the moon, or a cow in terms of being a created thing that can be studied and dissected.
• Man is made in the image and likeness of God, therefore we can have confidence in human rationality to understand creation because our intellect was fashioned by God in his own image.
• Man can have full trust in a rational creator. This fosters the intellectual courage that can drive us to learn more about creation.

Regrettably, this intellectual courage also leads men to the sin of pride. In the book, Fr. Jaki cleverly compares the sin of Eve in the book of Genesis to the sin of atheistic scientists today who view the world as only material. After being tempted by the serpent, Eve became “scientific”, looking at the tree of life in a materialistic way. “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it…” (Gen 3:6). The illicitness of the fruit and the tree was forgotten along with the Creator.

Many of today’s scientists seem to have flipped one of the Catholic based premises on its head. The science of the past may have said “We know the creator is intelligent, so we can go forward assuming the universe is intelligible.” Today it’s more like “We know the universe is intelligible, so we can go forward assuming there is no intelligence behind it.” It’s like saying we can see sunlight, but we should assume that there is no sun. This kind of dimming down of the intellect was expressed well using a paradox, “we are smarter than we are”.

“We are smarter than we are” is meant to express the notion that our minds have evolved much faster than our bodies. The human brain appeared on the scene in a geological instant and it seems to be evolutionary “overkill” in terms of only needing to survive and reproduce. S.J Gould was also quoted in the book as saying, “It does reinforce an ego that we do well to deflate.”

The statement is not about the Christian virtue of humility; it’s more about convincing you not to look any deeper than the material surface; we should forcibly deflate that natural part us that looks for spiritual truth. Paradoxes are normally meant to awaken the mind; in this case it is meant to suppress the mind. The mind’s eye is meant to see further and deeper than the physical eye, but we are told to deflate the part of us that cries out “There must be more!”  Should we deflate ourselves or should we continue to search for that which is more than we are?

Which will you choose?

 

Why Attend Mass?

Perhaps you have a friend or relative that rarely attends Mass, but did attend at Christmas. Perhaps you asked, or at least thought, “Why you don’t come next week and the week after?” If you were so bold as to invite them back as a kind of New Year’s resolution, you may have received a polite, “we’ll see” in response, which is often translated as “of course not”.

 

If you persist, you’ll eventually enter a realm the separates man from beast, the realm of the intellect, the desire to know “why”. A Catholic that “believes” to some extent will eventually ask why, even if only asking the question internally. Attending Mass is nice, but why necessary? God is everywhere, why can’t I be left alone to worship in my own way? Replying back that it is an obligation or a precept of the Church tends not to satisfy. Mentioning the violation of the first and third commandments may get more attention, but can still be seen as “finger wagging”. You’d do better noting that if the first is followed, abiding to the third will come naturally.

Another tactic came about for me and my wife as we became involved with the marriage ministry at our parish. One of the things we do is to meet with engaged couples in our home to review the results of their FOCCUS questionnaire. It covers many practical topics of compatibility including finances, communication, extended family issues, sexuality issues, etc. It’s a tool to help couples work through issues before marriage.

Of course, there are religious topics as well and the topics of marriage covenant and religion can be quite awkward when speaking with interfaith couples or catholic couples in which one or both are nominal in their faith. It’s not uncommon for us to dialog with couples in which one or both rarely attend Mass (if ever), and yet they still see it as important to be married in the Catholic Church (thankfully).

The following three areas of reasoning help to satisfy their intellect, at least to some extent. Since what you know will influence what you do, these thoughts just might help you tip the scales in getting someone to Mass. As Pope Francis is actively showing us, we need to meet people where they are at without denying the reality of where they are.

In Terms of Relationship:

It’s especially easy to draw this analogy when dealing with couples in love. Imagine you were married and you spent about one hour at Christmas and one hour at Easter with your spouse with no other interaction throughout the year. What kind of relationship would that be? Suppose it was one hour per month? That’s better, but still lacking. Even if it were once per week for about one hour, we might consider it a working relationship, albeit a weak one.

God desires a close relationship with us and all close relationships require time and commitment. How would you feel if your beloved thought that one hour per week with you is too much trouble?

In Terms of Reality:

The above might be easily refuted by saying, “I pray in my own way all the time. No need to sit in a church building. The man upstairs and I have an understanding.” This is when the imagination must be put firmly in its place with a reality check.

We can think of all reality as being made up of two parts; physical realities and spiritual realities. Think of your physical life. To be a physically functioning human being there are times when you must function alone, like getting dressed for the day, or perhaps you sometimes work alone or maybe you live alone. There are also times when you must function with others, like with family, co-workers, community members, etc. We’re social beings; it’s how God made us.

This parallels our spiritual life. To be a spiritually functioning human being there are times when you must function alone, like personal prayer and spiritual study. There are also times when you must function with others, like community worship (Catholics call this Mass). Once again, we’re social beings; it’s how God made us.

Last, but certainly not least…In Terms of the Eucharist:

This goes beyond community worship; it’s the source and summit of the faith. If the body and blood of Christ is given to us a spiritual food, it stands to reason that this is the most intimate thing God can possibly give to a human being still on earth.

So, the God of the universe wants this extreme level of intimacy with us and our response is…

- Too tried

Thou shalt NOT
have better things to do!

- Too busy

- No time

- Don’t feel like it

- I have better things to do

Think of how offensive this apathetic attitude must be to God? In this context, it seems more than appropriate to refer to skipping Mass as “grave matter”.

If the truth about relationships, the social & spiritual nature of man and the Eucharist really sink in, one’s perspective about attending Mass can change from a pessimistic, "I've got to do this?" to an enthusiastic, "I get to do this!” and it may even turn out that once per week is simply not enough!

“If we attend Mass well, surely we are likely to think about our Lord during the rest of the day, wanting to be always in his presence, ready to work as he worked and love as he loved”
- Josemaria Escriva, Christ is Passing by

It's Still Alive!

Continuing the notion from the last post of the Church as a living body, let us compare a person as an infant to the same person as an adult; the changes over time are staggering. In fact, no one would even recognize you as an infant unless they knew you and knew your history. Even a super intelligent extraterrestrial could think a human as an infant, and the same human as an adult, are two different people.

So let’s imagine an alien has, in fact, come to earth. It does not understand how humans grow & change over time because the members of its species, and all life on its planet, reproduce asexually. They just split in two, so they are always “born” as mature adults. No distinctions are evident between the parental unit and the resulting offspring.

 

If this E. T. is shown a human as an infant and then as an adult, it might assume that the adult and the infant are not the same person, or that the two are not even of the same species. Although the adult insists that he IS the infant from years ago, the alien could conclude that the adult human is clearly an imposter (either lying or delusional).

It’s the same with the Catholic Church if we don’t know the history; if we don’t see the Church as the mustard seed we read about in (Matt 13:31). Remember too what Jesus said to The Twelve in John 16:12-13, "I still have many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth…” Why could they not bear them now? The Holy Spirit had not come yet AND because growth takes time. The developments in doctrine such as the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Mary as Theotokos and the Canon of Scripture ALL took centuries.
 

Transport an original Apostle, or any first century Christian, to the Vatican, or to visit other Catholic churches and institutions and they would be stunned at the size and look of it.  Show them a copy of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and they would be stunned at the knowledge in it. In fact, some early Christians might even conclude that this modern church is an imposter.

Christians today may reason that we need to get back to how early Christians did things 20 centuries ago, or at least, how they imagine they did things. The Church is too complex now, too many things “added-on” to what should be a simple faith. All you need is Love. Let’s remove the unnecessary doctrines, disciplines, liturgy, hierarchy, traditions and sacraments. Let’s just meet in our homes, sing some hymns, read some scripture, say some prayers, enjoy some fellowship, eat some bread and drink some wine.

Not that the Church is necessarily “full grown” at this point in history, but all this reminds of an adult trying to become a baby again. Who needs complex balanced meals when we can just drink milk? Who needs intricate language to express ourselves when we can babble and scream? Who needs clothes when we can be naked? Who needs bathrooms with indoor plumbing when we can use diapers?

There is nothing wrong with being an infant when you are an infant, but there is something wrong (or undeveloped) about an adult trying to become an infant again. What comes after does not destroy what comes before. What comes after finds its reason for being in what comes before.