Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Church?

Howdy, Coffee Talkers!

After my last post titled "A Call to Civil Disobedience: Why Catholics' Panties are in a Bind, and Why Yours Should Be, Too!" (on the HHS Contraceptive mandate and the so-called compromise), I had a friend post an article (regarding the GOP trying to introduce legislation that would allow employers to deny any preventive health service) and voice this concern:

"This is why I have a hard time getting behind the Catholics on this issue. I'm afraid of it becoming a slippery slope where any employer can deny any employee healthcare coverage based on their beliefs. I also worry that it will go beyond healthcare into lifestyle choices (like sexual orientation). I want religious rights to be protected, but as an agnostic who is borderline atheist, I don't want someone else's religious rights trumping my civil rights. I bring this up because I genuinely want your thoughts on my concerns. Why shouldn't I be afraid?"

Then today, I saw another friend suggest in a post that the Catholic Church is trying to wage war with everyone on the planet who doesn't agree with them.

Do people, especially American people, really view the Catholic Church as a frightening warmonger?

Well, apparently, many do, so I'm here to help clear up some misconceptions, and ease your fears, my friends.

Here's the main reasons I think that no person should be genuinely afraid of the Catholic Church:

1. The Catholic Church has been pretty much teaching the same things for about 2000 years;
2. The Catholic Church has nothing to hide;
3. The Church is not going to come after you;
4. For better or for worse, the Catholic Church is painfully slow to change.

Allow me to elaborate a bit on each point. First, the teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed substantially since the Apostolic times. Sure, doctrine has been developed and disciplines (such as how long you fast before communion) have been adapted, but the fundamental teachings of the Church have remained pretty much the same. And these teachings are easily accessible. So if you want to find out what the Church really teaches and where she stands on any particular matter (not what the media says or what some misinformed self-professed-but-hardly-practicing Catholic moron spouts off on national television), you can find out. And you can be assured that the Church (as an institution) isn't going to do anything that will deviate from those teachings. Lots of people have misunderstandings or misinformation about what the Church teaches. This is why, in my own teeny corner of cyberspace, I write Coffee Talk to explain these teachings to anyone who cares. You can agree, you can disagree, but you can do nothing until you know what the teachings actually are. And once you know, you'll find the Church and her actions pretty predictable.

Number 2, I know people love stuff like the DaVinci Code and wondering about the Vatican's secret archives. But from all of my experience with the Catholic Church (which has been pretty wide and varied, I'd say) I have not once had the experience of being deliberately deceived or misled by the Church. By individual people, of course (in and outside of the Church -- people are people). But I have never felt the Catholic Church to have some sort of hidden agenda by which they were trying to brainwash or oppress me, or anyone else. Really.

Number 3, I don't quite get it, but a lot of people seem to think that the Catholic Church is some sort of monster, trying to enforce their 'rules' and teachings on everyone in the known world. In fact, there could be nothing further from the truth. Just tonight, I asked the teens in my parish's confirmation program if they had ever received a call from a Church official asking why they missed Mass on any particular week. They laughed, of course, and said no. I asked them if they had ever been asked to punch or swipe a card to prove their attendance at Mass or other church function. Again, of course, the answer was no. (To be honest, I have witnessed these practices in other Christian settings, but never at any Catholic Church or institution of any sort.)

People in the Catholic Church violate the Church's teachings all the time. I say this not with any pride, but to point out that no one in the institutional Church is forcing anyone to follow her teachings, even among her own members! People leave the Church all the time, out the back door, so to speak, and no one hunts them down. To be frank, I think it would actually be nice if the Catholic Church were a little bit better with relational ministry and would follow up with or reach out more to these fallen away members (mostly so everyone felt that they had their chance to say what they wanted to say to someone in the Church, even if they still chose to leave). But the point is the Catholic Church ain't in the business of hunting anyone down. I personally have come to the Catholic faith quite openly and willingly, knowing that I am free to remain or to leave at any time I wish without fear of anyone or anything in the Church itself.

Number 4, the Church is slow. Super slow. Painfully slow. Those 'new' Mass translations that are getting implemented in English were many years in the making. And do y'all remember the whole Galileo controversy? Took a few hundred years to get that all straightened out. I'm not bragging about the slowness, by any means, but I am saying that we can all rest assured that the Catholic Church isn't gonna pull a fast one on us. The Catholic Church in the modern world (especially in the USA) does not have any special wealth, power, or political allies and they are very slow to change anything.

Back to the fear-inducing article, let me discuss a quote from it briefly before I wrap this up; my comments are in red:

"But Republicans and some conservative Catholic groups [Who are they? And why does this article not mention very liberal to very conservative Catholics are united in their opposition to the mandate, not to mention many other non-Catholic faith based groups and public entities?] are not satisfied with the accommodation [What accommodation? The so-called compromise is a rhetorical joke] and hope to use their false claim [fair and balanced reporting?] of “religious persecution” to deny women access to preventive health services [does anyone here really believe that all Catholics, along with all Republicans, are in cahoots to deny preventive health services to women?]. Despite Obama’s decision to shield nonprofit religious institutions from offering birth control benefits [this is an outright lie...I can't even bring myself to continue]...

When someone suggests that the Catholic Church is waging war on anyone in the planet who disagrees with their beliefs, I find this patently absurd. The Catholic Church is doing the same things she's always done, proclaiming those same teachings she always proclaims, but the Church is not forcibly requiring anyone to do anything, nor forcibly preventing them from receiving any service or care of any sort. Sure, the Catholic Church has a moral problem with abortifacients, for example, so Catholic institutions aren't going to pay for them. But they're also not gonna keep people from buying them. People have the right to do whatever they choose, and the Church has the right to proclaim her teachings. Since when did not paying for something amount to denying someone's right to that thing? That's like saying that, because my college charged me tuition rather than fully subsidizing the cost of my education, they were denying my right to access that education. Doesn't fly.

Should anyone be a little afraid of the GOP? Probably. Should people be mistrustful of the Democrats? Quite possibly. Politicians do not abide by any definitive set of social or moral beliefs, and so they can change what they're up to at any given moment. But to be afraid of the Catholic Church? To me, it seems silly at best.

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

A Call to Civil Disobedience: Why Catholics' Panties are in a Bind, and Why Yours Should Be, Too!

Friends, Americans, Country people, Coffee Talkers,

The matter that brings us here today is the nonsense that is referred to as the HHS (Health and Human Services) Contraceptive Mandate, and today's alleged compromise. I think that most of us are confused on what is going on with the whole thing (myself included), and that with all the back and forth going on in the media, many have been left confounded by what the big deal is, anyway, especially for Catholics.

This is where I come in, to explain what I can of the Catholic deal.

First, let me address a couple common questions:

Question: Why do you Catholics have your panties in a bind over this whole contraceptive mandate thing, anyway? It's not like Obama is going to make you take birth control or abortion-inducing drugs personally, or make you go to get sterilized.

Answer: Let me address the second part first: not yet. But it is correct to say that, at this point, no one is forcing Catholics to use contraceptives, abortifacients, to get sterilizations, etc. However, the federal government is trying to force Catholic employers into PAYING for these procedures, which are contrary to the church's moral teachings. In other words, the federal government is trying to mandate material cooperation in a moral matter that the Catholic Church has always (and will always) preach, through her moral authority, as being gravely wrong. (If you'd like to know more on why the Church takes this position, read this excellent article from a totally secular source, shockingly titled "Time to Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right on Birth Control.") In the past, there have always been exemptions for objectors for reasons of religion and/or conscience, not just in the realm of health care, and when those conscience clauses are taken away, all people who value liberty and good will among all people should be alarmed, to say the least.

Question: But doesn't the Catholic position violate the rights of others? What about non-Catholics (for whom birth control is not a moral issue) who work for Catholic employers? Shouldn't they have access to birth control, too?

Answer:  As I overheard one person amusingly explain, "the Catholic Church isn't saying that you can't get birth control or abortions; we're just saying, if you do, pay for it your own damn self!" Maybe the Church wouldn't use that exact language, but that's pretty much the sentiment behind the Catholic position. (Besides, there are plenty of ways that women can access these forms of non-health-care for free, if memory serves, but I'm not going to mention them here, because you are free to find out on your own from a non-Catholic source if you want them!) To explain another way, people are free to do or not do whatever they want. But when it comes to Catholic institutions, they are not going to give material cooperation to anything they see as a serious moral wrong.

Also, besides violations of religious liberty and attacks on freedom of speech, the next thing that really gets my goat (what does that saying mean, anyway?) is the misuse of rights language. In America, we agree primarily to the common rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No where in there do I see a person's right to require that their religiously-affiliated employer violate their own conscience and religious moral teaching to provide them with access to free abortifacients (which, by the way, violate the right to life of the newly formed person).

What follows is a poor analogy, so I apologize in advance, but maybe it will make the point more clear to some -- if I worked for a company that was run by observant Jews, and I personally had a dietary need for pork (let's even go so far as to say that my own non-Jewish doctor had directed it), it would not be my right to demand that my employer provide pork for me at all staff luncheons. It would make even less sense if I asked them to provide pork for all employees at these luncheons, and it would be patently absurd for the federal government to require all Jewish employers to start making pork readily available, free of cost, for all employees. Now, like I said, the comparison is rather weak, but hopefully you get the idea.

Also, if we extend this analogy to address today's so-called compromise given by Obama, here's what he's saying now: alright, you don't have to tell your employees that you are paying for pork for all of them to eat. What we'll do is hire a catering service (who, of course, you will have still contracted with and paid) and the catering service will provide the pork. So now, the employer is not paying for the pork specifically, but as a part of the larger package offered by the catering service.

Obama has offered a very similar 'compromise' in regard to the health care mandate, which in no way addresses the moral issue at hand, nor the issue of religious liberty. Read more about the so-called compromise here.

Also, this federal mandate goes against the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, attached to all federal health-spending bills since 2004 (except Obamacare, of course) which prohibits state governments from forcing any agency, including insurance providers, from paying for abortions, on pain of losing federal health funding.

This is much more than a Catholic issue -- it is an attack on conscience and freedom for ALL people.

I hope that it did not go unnoticed that religious liberty is not the only freedom under attack when military chaplains were recently silenced; they were prohibited from reading a letter to their Catholic congregations urging them to resist this federal mandate that would essentially violate their religious beliefs, consciences, and their ability to not give material participation in something they found morally objectionable. They were ordered not to read the letter, lest it be 'potentially misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.'

I think  that the letter would not have been at all misunderstood. I think it would have been perfectly understood. The time for civil disobedience is NOW. Either the mandate gets rescinded, or those of willing to stand up for what is right and good will be willing to go to bat for true freedom -- even if these demands risking steep fines, imprisonment, or worse. Trust me, I'm not some sort of ridiculous dreamer with a goal of martyrdom -- I'm a working, single mom who would much rather practice my faith freely, keep my job working for the Catholic Church (who may not qualify for the very narrow exemption of the current mandate, even in it's 'revised' form), and care for my children. But while I'm still free to say so, may I mention to everyone that Obama is a two-faced liar (I say this not as a means of name calling, but as away of identifying what he did when he recently assured the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, that he would do all that he could to preserve the religious liberties of Catholics in particular, just before he had Sebelius issue the contraceptive mandate as a clear attack on Catholic institutions). This is not about politics, my friends, this is about freedom, and NOW is the time for civil disobedience, not just by Catholics, but by all men and women of good will who value liberty and free exercise of conscience (it's more than a cricket on your shoulder, my friends!).

I have more to say -- much more -- but you're in luck, as I'll commit myself to prayer and sleep for now.

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

The Good, The Bad, and the Bacony: A Candid Review of Jack in the Box Bacon Shake

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

When I recently heard the news of Jack in the Box releasing a bacon shake, I knew I needed to try one ASAP and give everyone a full review. I mean, even if we can't all agree on politics and religion, can we at least agree that we're all kinda wondering what the bacon shake tastes like? A few days passed with no time for bacon shake searching or consumption, but yesterday, as I pulled into a parking lot for something else, I saw the Jack in the Box sign. I never go to Jack in the Box (this is not a matter of moral or religious conviction, in case you're wondering -- I just don't go there), but as I saw the sign, I suddenly remembered: BACON SHAKE!

So I pulled into the drive-thru. While the people in the car ahead of me placed their order, I frantically scoured the menu for a bacon shake. Nothing. Oreo shake. Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, blah blah blah. Where's my BACON? Another car pulled up behind me, so now there was no turning back. What if this location didn't carry the bacon shake? What if this whole bacon shake thing was a hoax, and the drive-thru girl was just waiting to laugh and laugh at anyone who tried to order one? I looked at the menu again, looked around for any special signs or banners. Still no bacon shake, but I did see the weird picture of the guy trying to marry his bridal-veil-wearing bacon burger, so I considered that a sign of hope.

The car ahead of me pulled forward, and so did I. The moment of truth had arrived. I almost chickened out and just ordered an Oreo shake to save myself the risk of embarrassment, but then I decided to go for it. "Hi, welcome to Jack in the Box. Would you like to try our [some kind of special uttered so fast that I could neither understand nor recall it now]?" "Hi. Um... Do you have... a... a bacon shake?" "Yes, we do." "WOO-HOO!" Silence. "Uh, then I'd like one bacon shake, please." "Would you like to add cookies to that?" [Are you trying to kill me, lady? I'm about to consume a bacon shake!] "No, thanks."

I pulled forward and got out my 3 bucks, trying to prepare myself for the bacon shake experience. I gave her the money. She gave me a dime. I waited for what seemed like a bacon eternity. And then, she handed me the shake. It looked just like in the picture:

I thanked the drive-thru girl, and she said, "Thanks for coming to Jack in the Box. Come again!" I almost said, "I doubt it," but I was so enamored with the bacon shake that I didn't have time to be smart-mouthed. After eating the maraschino cherry, I noticed something -- the shake was entirely uniform in color; it had no bits of bacon in it. I realized that, had I looked closely at the picture, I might have noticed that ahead of time. Still, I tried to give Jack in the Box the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe they had pureed the bacon into the shake. (A girl can dream, right?)

I took my first sip. As the shake went into my mouth, the ice cream reminded me of pancakes with syrup and bacon. "Yeah, that's a good taste combo. I'm down!" And then I swallowed the bite. That's when it hit me -- the strange bacon-flavored aftertaste, and the cold [pun intended] reality that this was just some gross kind of bacon flavoring! I started to suspect that no actual pigs were harmed in the making of this milk shake and quite frankly, I was offended. I took another sip to confirm my suspicion. The same experience repeated itself -- pretty tasty while in mouth, pretty grody aftertaste. I still drank the whole thing (I was gonna get my $2.90 worth, after all), and I decided three things:

1. I'm still glad that I tried the bacon shake, despite the aftertaste, and found the mysterious ordering process alone to be exhilarating;
2. The Jack in the Box bacon shake is definitely gonna be a one-time experience, and it's for good reason that they have it 'for a limited time'; 
3. I'm gonna make my own bacon shake! With vanilla ice cream! And maple syrup! And maybe even little pancake chunks! And lots of bits of actual BACON!!!

My friend Maureen confirmed the absence of actual bacon with this article from HuffPo. So vegetarians, Jews, and Lenten-Friday Catholics can try out this bad-boy. But only once. You'll see why.

Peace and all good,
Leslie

Some of the Most Beautiful People Are Missing...

At Mass today, I realized something. I was sitting in a side chapel with my fidgety girls, when a family across the chapel caught my attention. I have seen them before, but something really profound and beautiful struck me today when I saw them. A mother, a father, a boy of maybe 7 years old. The boy was the most noteworthy among them. He cannot speak, he cannot walk, and peeking out from just about the waist of his pants was a sight familiar to any mother -- the trim of a disposable diaper. But the most striking feature of the boy is that, every time I have seen him, he is smiling. The boy sat on his father's lap during Mass today, with his dad gently rocking him most of the time, and when it came time for communion the father carried the boy in his arms to receive the Body of Christ.

Tears came from my eyes. There was no thought behind the tears -- they came forth as a natural response to the mix of beauty and pain and suffering and love that I was beholding. And come to think of it, the response may have been more than natural. This boy and his family clearly pointed to the supernatural, to something beyond this valley of tears (which they most certainly have tasted rather bitterly) to a grace that both sustains them and directs them to something greater and more permanent than this transitory existence. That boy was cleansed from the stain of original sin at the time of his baptism, and he will (presumably) remain free from sin throughout his earthly life. When he received the very essence of the Godhead in Eucharistic communion, I could only imagine how tenderly and with what joy God communed with that innocent boy's soul.

I was transported back in time to the year when, while traveling with NET Ministries, I was at a Mass at a church in Louisiana. I saw a little girl and her mother enter the pew near me, but did not pay much attention until the little girl, completely out of the blue, scooted over to me to give me a hug and a kiss on the cheek. I looked over at the little girl, who had a big smile on her face, and I could not help but be won over by her guileless affection. She had Downs Syndrome, and her mother apologized profusely for the girl's unexpected display of affection, but to me there was no need for an apology; on the contrary, I wanted to thank that mother for bringing that beautiful girl to life and to Mass -- like the man born blind of the Gospels, this girl was born in the way she was "so that the works of God might be made visible through" her.

And as my mind returned to the chapel today, and to the boy and his family,  I realized something really shocking. I'd thought of it before, but today it became so real. Why do I not see more children like this boy, and why do I not see more families like this family? Perhaps not all families with profoundly disabled children go out as much as these people do, to be sure, but still, deep in my heart, I knew the real reason. Many of those children were aborted. And my tears continued, not as a sadness for this family and the difficulties that they have had to endure, but for all those families who never got to know their beautiful disabled child, and for all of us who have missed out on knowing them, too. I realized that, while many people talk about the famous people who could have been lost to abortion (Steve Jobs, for example), very few talk about the disabled who also could have been lost or the countless whose lives were lost prior to their birth.

Anyone who knows me (or even who regularly reads Coffee Talk) knows that I am not sharing this experience as some sort of rhetorical platform against abortion -- that's simply not my style. I share this as a true and profound moment of sadness, as a way to thank the families who have chosen to bring profoundly sick or disabled children to life and to care for them (National Catholic Partnership on Disability offers resources), and as a way to reach out to all the people who have suffered the tragic loss of abortion. Rachel's Vineyard offers retreats which facilitate an experience of post-abortion healing to those in need (post-abortive mothers, fathers, family members -- no matter how long ago the abortion was).

The mercy of God knows no bounds, for those who seek it with a sincere and contrite heart.

Peace and all good,
Leslie

Is This "Birthday Wish" a Little Bit Weird to Anyone Else?

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

Alright, some of you might remember my mentioning Fr. Frank Pavone in a few other posts, and I like what I know of him and admire his work on behalf of the unborn and other people who cannot defend themselves.

Still, when I saw this post today inviting people to 'visit' Fr. Frank's birthday wish, I found it strange. So I need to run it by all y'all to see if it is in fact strange, or if maybe I'm over-reacting. But first, check it out:

Frank Pavone's Birthday Wish  

Alright, did you click on it? Did it strike you as weird, too? I'm trying to identify what made it seem strange to me, and here are a few of my best guesses:

1. Why is there a need to raise $500 for "Pray to End Abortion"? Last time I heard, praying to end abortion was completely free. The economy must be worse than I thought if God's charging now.

2. If prayer is the most powerful weapon against the culture of death, why are you raising money?

3. Okay, I understand that there are many costs associated with the work of the Priests for Life. Fine. Clearly, that must be what Fr. Pavone wants people to donate to for his birthday. But I think he should be a little more clear on what the donation is going towards...

4. ...especially in light of the fact that Bishop Zurik recalled Fr. Frank to his diocese in Texas specifically because of his "deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priests for Life organization." Whether the Bishop's concerns were valid or unsubstantiated, this certainly does seem a time when Fr. Pavone might be particularly motivated to remain financially transparent, you know what I'm sayin'? 

5. And the last weird thing is that from the time that I first clicked on the birthday wish until now, the amount raised at the top reads $400, and the progress bar shows that 80% of his $500 'birthday goal' has been met. Has it really stayed at that same level all day, or is it just a way of getting people to think that since Fr. Frank has almost met his goal perhaps they should donate? 

    

   Alright, enough of my musings. What do you guys think? (Not that it really matters, but I'd like some feedback.) Is this strange to you, too? Or is it just a great idea lacking the best presentation? I don't know, but I'm gonna go pray for the unborn while it's still free in California. I'm sure that as soon the state gets wind of Fr. Frank's idea, they'll be taxing us for prayer, too!
    

   As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

   Peace and all good,

   Leslie

Happy Blog-a-versary, SOPA, and the Oregon Trail!

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

Today marks the one year anniversary of my little Coffee Talk blog! It's also, coincidentally, the day of the widespread internet blackouts to protest the SOPA and PIPA bills. These bills were intended to stop internet piracy (arrr, matey!), but posed a real threat to the free internet as we know it, including such things as search engines, social networks, and [gasp!] blogs like little ol' Coffee Talk with Leslie! While this blog does not have an extremely widespread popularity (I suppose that reading about a Catholic perspective on news and reading answers to questions relating to Catholicism is an acquired taste), this past year of blogging has certainly made me appreciate the freedoms we do have and the widespread access to information (and even to personal opinion) that we have through web-based technologies. Honestly, for as small a scope as Coffee Talk has, a number of things still kinda blow my mind about the whole experience:

1. the fact that anyone reads this. at all.
2. the fact that the blog is nearing 18,000 page views!
3. the fact that regular readers of the blog come from dozens of countries around the world.
4. the fact that a few people have shared with me that they have been led to deeper understanding or practice of Catholicism through the blog.
5. the fact that my Protestant friends have asked questions, and have better understood the ties that bind us as Christians (happy week of prayer for Christian unity, y'all!).
6. the fact that a number of friends from non-Christian religions have dialogued with me on various topics thanks to the blog, and I am a better person for it.
7. the fact that even some atheist and agnostic friends have read (and enjoyed) the blog!
8. the fact that i can publish a blog, with virtually (ha -- punny!) no skill in web publishing.
9. the fact that i can say whatever i want on here, without fear or censorship, and that people can comment and ask questions freely, as well.
10. the fact that, when i was a kid, the idea of publishing a 'weblog' from my own home that people all over the world could read and interact with would have been completely and wildly unimaginable. because all i had then was the Oregon Trail game.

Man, I'm getting old. Please tell me that someone else out there remembers the original Oregon Trail game? I tried to look it up online to give you a sample, but it's not there -- the oldest examples I could find were in color. But the original Oregon Trail game was usually played on a boxy monitor which only displayed one color -- yellow or bright green -- on a black background with one ugly font and bad graphics on a slow and very large computer (from which, if you were lucky, you could also print things in black on your extremely noisy dot matrix printer with that long weird paper).

(Oh, and another thing -- I just accidentally navigated away from this blog page without saving to look for the paper pic without any problem, but let me tell you how many lengthy documents I lost back in those early days of computers, even when I did hit save! It wasn't pretty.)

Anyway, the point of all this nostalgic rambling is that we've come a very long way with computers, and the access we have to web-based media is truly amazing. And as today's bills stand to remind us, these are freedoms that we should not take for granted.

Thanks, everyone, for making this blog possible, and in honor of the blog-a-versary (and of the death of the SOPA bill in its current form thanks to all the protests), feel free to comment about why you enjoy computers or the internet or Catholicism or freedom of speech...or WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT! (But keep it respectful, or I might have to censor you, not Big Brother.) ;)

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers.

Peace and all good,
Leslie

I Have a Dream...But What Was It???

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

I think everyone knows the opening words of Dr. Martin Luther King's 1963 speech, but I wonder if some people think that the dream he had was just to have a day off school and work (perhaps a day to be spent at the pool hall?).

But no, my friends, the dream was much more than that! If you haven't listened to this speech recently (or ever!), listen to it now. I just did, and found it to be 15 minutes very well spent. I hope you do, too!

The line that struck me most this hearing was "We refuse to believe that the banks of justice are bankrupt."  Feel free to share your favorite line in the comment box!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

The Questions I Never Answered #2: What's Up With Mormons?

Hello, again, Coffee Talkers! Here's the question from over a month ago -- I'm gonna catch up, oh yes, I am!

Dear Leslie,

I am writing to ask a question you might answer on Coffee Talk or you might decline all together. Obviously, the choice is yours. Let me come forward from the start and admit that yes my question is politically motivated.

What can you tell me about Mormons? Are they a cult?

I did research a little on the web at http://mormon.org/faq/
Of course this information was from the Mormon perspective.

If you choose not to answer, I won't be offended.

Sincerely,
Curious Catholic

Dear Curious,

Thanks for sharing your question! First, let me say this -- I like all of the Mormons who I know personally. And I'm a fan of some of the things of 'Mormon culture' -- big families, supportive churches, Mo-Tab (a.k.a., the Mormon Tabernacle Choir), and a commitment to stylish but modest clothing (check out these cute dresses, ladies!) just to name a few.

However, I am far from an expert in Mormonism. I know a lot about Catholicism, and a little teeny bit about Mormonism. But I do have a couple good Mormon friends who've helped me to understand a few important differences between Mormonism and Catholicism (and other mainline Protestant Christian denominations), so I can share a few of those things with you here. I looked briefly at the website you mentioned and I think that the main challenge that I find with both the website and with some of the Mormon missionaries I've spoken with in the past is that they are presenting their faith in entirely Mormon terms (natural enough). However, they use many of the same terms as Catholics and mainline Protestant Christians, but the words mean something entirely different. I'll try to break down a few key points as best I can, and translate everything into Catholic terms, since that's the perspective you (and I) are coming from. Again, keep in mind that I'll be speaking here primarily from a theological perspective now, and not from a more superficial perspective of "Do we think Mormons are nice or respectable or moral people?"

The most important thing for us, as Catholics, that leads us to not accept the Mormon religion as even a mainline Protestant denomination is that the Mormon religion was entirely founded on private revelation.  In other words, Mormons believe in a special revelation and knowledge given to Joseph Smith that told him to start a new religion and that led him to have published another book in addition to the Bible. The Angel Moroni gave him the Book of Mormon which he assured him contained the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's a big problem right there -- we believe that the original deposit of faith ended with the death of the last Apostle, and that any 'private' revelations given to people after that are only authentic to the extent that they do not change or add anything entirely new to that original deposit of faith. (Example -- the Divine Mercy devotion given to St. Faustina in 20th century Poland reminds people of God's mercy, a message significant for people in modern times, but does not add anything new to the original deposit of faith). So to the extent that the Book of Mormon adds to, deletes from, and entirely changes the original deposit of faith (which it does, even in ways that majorly affect their understanding of the Most Holy Trinity), we cannot accept their theology or even the basis of their religion. This does not mean that we cannot find certain points of moral and ethical agreement with Mormons, of course, but it's the main thing about Mormonism that I suspect most people don't understand.


The next MAJOR tenet of Mormon theology that we Catholics and other mainline Christians would disagree upon is our understanding of God as Trinity, and thus our understanding of baptism and of Jesus. This is a really complicated point, so I'm only going to give a brief and overly simplified explanation of the differences, but hopefully this will give some insight into the ways our belief systems differ.

Catholic Christians understand God as a single God with 3 'persons' -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all ONE GOD. This is very important. It is from this understanding of God as Trinity that we derive our beliefs on Christology (or who Jesus is). Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. He is only one person, but at the same time Jesus is fully God and fully man. Jesus can only save us because he is God. When we profess in the Creed that Jesus was 'begotten, not made,' we are professing our belief that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, was not a created being but that he existed in the single Godhead from all eternity. Even though he became incarnate at a certain point in human history, he was not created.

Mormons see this all very differently. I'll be honest -- I have a hard time explaining it because it doesn't quite make sense to me. But I do understand this: this is definitely a case where Mormon terminology sounds very similar to Catholic-Christian belief, but has a totally different meaning. A Mormon friend of mine gave this explanation:

"We believe in God the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." -Joseph Smith. (First Article of Faith.) So, we believe God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost to be one in purpose, but we do not believe them to be physically the same being/personage [emphasis mine]. We believe them to be separate and distinct, but one in purpose or unified in their work, which we believe is bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We believe Jesus Christ is the first born son of our Father in Heaven. That Christ was born of Mary, that He atoned for us and suffered death for us on the cross. That He is the one and only redeemer of all mankind. We believe the God the Father is our spiritual father, that He sent His son to die for us, and that He knows and cares deeply for each of us. We believe that Jesus and the Father both have physical bodies as tangible as man's, but that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng)

So, with that understanding, when Joseph Smith recounted "The First Vision" (http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng) he explained that the Father and the Soon stood before him and ministered to him and instructed him. (Verse 17) "...I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

That's how it's generally portrayed in artwork in the church, and that's our belief.

[Special thanks to my friend who explained this so clearly!]

Woah! Different theology ALERT! Did y'all catch that?  Even though Mormons give a very similar formulation of Trinitarian belief in words, once that belief is explained, it turns out to be radically different from the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. That is why many people do not accept Mormons as Christians and why the Catholic Church (who accepts Trinitarian baptisms from any Christian denomination) does not accept Mormon baptisms as valid -- not because we are a bunch of narrow-minded meanies, but because Mormons do not believe in a God who is one in being, but a Trinity of persons.

The other thing that I think it's important for Catholics to understand about Mormons is that, while they do have a lot of specific teachings that restrict or direct them in particular ways (most of these seem to come from the Book of Mormon), they leave some of the issues we would consider non-negotiables up to conscience. I was surprised to learn this, but while the Catholic Church always takes a stance against the use of artifical birth control and abortion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) allow these things on some occasions. However, it seems that perhaps more Mormons follow the Catholic teachings on these subjects than Catholics do (in the US, anyway), so that's something to consider.


To answer your question, "Are they a cult?", I'd say this: the Mormons are following a religion founded by a particular person and based on his alleged vision, but the ones I know are certainly not up to anything freaky like the Branch Davidians, if that's your concern. From my limited perspective, Mormons are generally very good people with bad theology. Still, I value all of my Mormon friends, and am particularly grateful for their witness to family life and care of neighbor.


I hope this has been helpful. As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!


Peace and all good,
Leslie

All Those Questions I Never Answered: #1 -- On Marriage and Disparity of Cult

I'm BAAAAACCCKKK! That's right, Coffee Talkers, I just realized that we are only days away from the one year anniversary of little old Coffee Talk, and in honor of the upcoming occasion, I decided to actually POST ON MY BLOG this week! You're welcome.

Alright, there are some questions that I never answered. I'm ashamed! There are two particular questions that come to mind: one question is from over a month ago, and the other one is from last March. Because I am ridiculous. But I think I put both of these questions off until I could really give them due consideration and a response that gave a balanced view from the perspectives of faith and reason. I've realized something: that time is never going to come! So I'mma give them my best shot this week, because something has to be better than nothing. (I don't really believe that, actually, but here goes anyway.) Let's start with the one from last March, shall we?

Question 1:
 

Dear Leslie,

 

My husband is the best spouse I could have ever asked for.  He is a wonderful father to our children, a friend to everyone and a good son.  He serves others in his occupation and does it well.  He has always been a person of strong moral character, kind and loving, objective in his judgments of others, honest, faithful and true to himself and those around him.  He does not gossip, he does not lie.  I know he is a human being like the rest of us and isn't perfect by any means, but I am trying to illustrate a point here:  he is above-average in the way he conducts his life.  I have witnessed him behave in the most Christian-like behavior throughout our 25 year marriage and I am proud to be his wife.  Children adore him and animals flock to him.  Whenever I see a spider in our house and ask him to kill it for me, he refuses, saying "A life is a life" while he utilizes the 'catch and release' method to set the spider free...and yes, this even goes for black widows.  I always laugh and say I married the re-incarnation of St. Francis.  My dilemma?  My  husband is not Catholic.  He's not even Christian.  He does not believe in a God for himself but does respect the belief systems of others so long as they are not used for harm toward anyone.  He has always been supportive of raising our daughters in the Catholic faith but says he has no personal need for this faith himself.  It hurts me so deeply when I am told to believe that someone who is such an amazing person yet does not believe in God will not receive salvation at the time of their death.  How do I process these feelings?  I simply refuse to believe the kind and loving God I firmly believe in will cast my beautiful husband....HIS child...aside at the time of his death.  He behaves more like a Christian than I do on many occasions and yet I've been taught all my life that I will receive salvation and he will not.  My children have concern over this as well and I struggle with how to explain this to them. What are your thoughts on this subject?  

 

Thanks so much,

Anonymous :)

 

 

Dear Anonymous,

First, thank you for your question! I have too many thoughts on this to share fully here, so let me sum up with a few key points:

1. While baptism is the gateway to all sacraments and the normal path toward salvation, Catholics do believe that salvation is possible for all people. Find out how by reading my post on Salvation and Damnation: What Do Catholics Really Believe.
2. It is a challenge for all people to understand the connection between the realities of family life and the Gospel for everyone, because we live in a fallen world. Know that you are not isolated in your feelings and experience, and that God (and the Church) remain with you.
3.  Marriage is not only important as a cultural institution, but also took on new meaning when Jesus elevated it to the level of a sacrament. This is why marriage between two baptized persons is ideal, because that is what makes the marriage sacramental. Still, many Christians marry non-Christians, and the Catholic Church is sensitive to this situation, which they refer to as 'disparity of cult.' The Church has this to say about these marriages in the Catechism: 

Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1. 1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person) requires even greater circumspection.
   1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.
   1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.¹³⁷ In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.¹³⁸ This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.¹³⁹
   1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.
   1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."¹⁴⁰ It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.¹⁴¹ Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

   4. All that said, your husband sounds like a truly wonderful person, and as you've suggested, perhaps more moral than many Christians. I'm sure there are many Catholic women reading this post, wishing perhaps that their own spouse was as St. Francis-like, hard-working, and considerate as your own non-Christian husband! Still, this reminds us that Christ came to the earth and died not so that bad men might be good, but so that dead men might live. And this opportunity is open to all men. Always. Your husband will be judged at the end of his life as we all will -- according to the graces and knowledge he was given, and on how he acted according to his conscience. And it does seem that, in many ways, you two are leading one another (and your children) along paths of grace and salvation, so that can certainly be counted as a blessing sadly not even enjoyed by all couples who are married sacramentally.
   
   Lastly, the US Catholic Bishop's have developed a great internet resource called "For Your Marriage." I hope that you might find it to have good reading and helpful resources for your marriage and family.
   
   [Pretend that the images I tried to insert here had been successful, and then click here.]
   
   As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!
   
   Peace and all good,
   Leslie

On the Belgian Reform Manifesto

Hellloooo, Coffee Talkers!

It's been a while, but I've gotten some questions in recently, so let me try to clear the cobwebs out of my brain and get crackin' here. Tonight's topic is an article on a reform manifesto issued by four Flemish priests, which a friend passed on to me, asking if I had any commentary. Anyone who knows me knows that, if nothing else, I am never lacking on commentary, so permit me to post the article here (in black) and to comment intralinearly (in red). Enjoy!

Published on National Catholic Reporter
Dec. 02, 2011 By John A. Dick

Hmm...I'm already a bit suspicious of the credibility of this article due to the source, but I'll keep an open mind.



BRUSSELS, BELGIUM -- The week before the start of Advent, four Flemish priests issued a church reform manifesto that called for allowing the appointment of laypeople as parish pastors, liturgical leaders and preachers, and for the ordination of married men and women as priests.

Married men -- fine. You can ask for that, since there already are married priests in the Catholic Church, both in the Eastern Rites and in the Roman Rite among those who have become Catholic priests after having previously served as married Anglican/Episcopal priests. But ordaining women is an entirely different matter (for which I should sometime devote an entire blog post), and perhaps the priests just need to review Blessed John Paul II's document "On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone."

By the week's end more than 4,000 of publicly active Catholics had signed on to the "Believers Speak Out" manifesto. By Dec. 1, the number of signers had reached 6,000.

Alright.

Among the supporters are hundreds of priests, educators, academics and professional Catholics. Two prominent supporters are former rectors of the Catholic University of Leuven, Roger Dillemans and Marc Vervenne.

I have no idea who these people are, so I can't comment here.

"These are not 'protest people.' They are people of faith. They are raising their voices. They hope their bishops are listening," said Fr. John Dekimpe, one of four priests who launched the manifesto.

"Some people are fearful about approaching church leadership," said the priest, who lives in Kortrijk. "Is this being a dissident? I don't think so. The Belgian church is a disaster. If we don't do something, the exodus of those leaving the church will just never stop. ... I really want the bishops to reflect deeply about the growing discontent of so many believers."

I wish I knew more about the Belgian church so I could offer more insights here, but I have no doubt that they are having serious problems and that some valid concerns are being raised here.

Among the manifesto's demands, made "in solidarity with fellow believers in Austria, Ireland and many other countries," are that:

• Parish leadership be entrusted to trained laypeople; 

This already happens very frequently in the US, so it's interesting to hear that perhaps this idea is so radical for the church in Belgium that these Flemish priests feel the need to present the idea in the form of a 'manifesto.'

• Communion services be held even if no priest is available; 

Ditto on my comment above.

• Laypeople be allowed to preach; 

Well, here is the US lay people do the most informal 'preaching' -- that is, teaching and passing on the faith in the context of sacramental preparation and ongoing formation. The formal homily is reserved to priests and deacons, which I don't see as a huge problem here because the lay people have opportunities for other forms of 'preaching' and proclaiming the Gospel. But okay, what's next?

• Divorced people be allowed to receive Communion; 

Divorced people CAN receive communion, so that is certainly not what the manifesto is asking for. Don't be deceptive, National Catholic Reporter.

• "As quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood.

As I said above, married men -- already allowed for some Catholic priests, so could still be up for discussion in the Roman Rite. Women, married or not, are an entirely different matter (for theological and sacramental, not historically discriminatory, reasons. Read the JP II document above if you care).

So far there has been no official reaction from Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, the Catholic primate of Belgium, any of the other Belgium bishops, or the Vatican. Privately, and off the record, one Belgian bishop has applauded the manifesto.

Why is this bishop afraid to go on the record if he really believes it is all right and true?

Jürgen Mettepenningen, a Leuven theologian and former press officer for Léonard, told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen that he hopes the manifesto can lead to a well-thought-out church reform. "When I reflect on what I have written and said over the past years, I can only say that the spirit of the manifesto is the very same spirit in which I have been trying to work to make the church more credible: true to the faith."
Last year, after reports of abuse rocked the Belgian church, an independent commission discovered sexual abuse in most Catholic dioceses and all church-run boarding schools and religious orders. The commission said 475 cases of abuse had been reported to it between January and June this year.

Terrible.

In one of the more prominent cases, Bruges Bishop Roger Vangheluwe was forced to resign after admitting to years of abusing his nephew. In April of this year, he told Belgian television that he had molested another nephew and that it had all started "as a game."

Horrific, and inexcusable. Still, the cause of these problems in not a problem of theology, or of not admitting married men and women to the clergy, etc.

The full text of the manifesto, "Believers Speak Out":

Parishes without a priest, Eucharist at inappropriate hours, worship without Communion: that really should not be! What is delaying the needed church reform? We, Flemish believers, ask our bishops to the break the impasse in which we are locked. We do this in solidarity with fellow believers in Austria, Ireland and many other countries, with all who insist on vital church reform.

Sounds good to me!

We simply do not understand why the leadership in our local communities (e.g., parishes) is not entrusted to men or women, married or unmarried, professionals or volunteers, who already have the necessary training. We need dedicated pastors!

Again, I have too little knowledge of the Belgian church to say much. In the Diocese for which I work, it is not at all uncommon to see the administration of parishes entrusted to celibate priests, married priests (former Anglicans), married women, married men, single women, single men. However, they are not all pastors, per say. A priest (or deacon, when permissible) still has to serve in the celebration of the sacraments. Evidently, the church in Belgium has a real priest shortage, but little or no openness to lay administrative leadership of parishes. That is a solvable problem, and perhaps these priests do well to bring it to the light.

We do not understand why these our fellow believers cannot preside at Sunday liturgical celebrations. In every active community we need liturgical ministers!

Again, we have many lay liturgical 'ministers,' but they are all 'extraordinary ministers' -- that is to say, they are outside of the ordained clergy. Only the ordained clergy are formal ministers. These lay people can serve in many liturgical roles, but they cannot celebrate Mass. Are they just asking for lay people to be admitted into any liturgical ministries at all, or for them to take the place of ordained clergy?

We do not understand why, in communities where no priest is available, a Word service cannot also include a Communion service.

Agreed. I also do not understand this. The bishops can train and commission lay 'ministers' for this purpose.

We do not understand why skilled laypeople and well-formed religious educators cannot preach. We need the word of God!

I addressed this above.

We do not understand why those believers who, with very good will, have remarried after a divorce must be denied Communion. They should be welcomed as worthy believers. Fortunately, there are some places where this is happening.

If a person was sacramentally married, a civil divorce does not end the sacramental marriage. Only if the original marriage was invalid sacramentally can a person get married in the Church. Otherwise, if they remarry civilly (while still being married to another sacramentally), they are not permitted to receive Eucharistic communion. Divorced people who are annulled from their previous marriage (in other words, it was declared by the Church to have been an invalid sacrament) may marry again and receive communion; also, divorced people who cannot receive an annulment but remain unmarried (civilly) may receive communion. There are many complicated cases for which I believe that the Church (most especially priests and bishops) should have very special pastoral care. These priests are right to point out that many people in this situation remarried with good will, and often with varying degrees of misunderstanding or ignorance of church (or canon) law. Still, there are many other situations for which people are not permitted to receive Eucharistic communion until reconciling themselves with the Church and the community, and the Church's teaching on a sacramental marriage being a lifelong union that is free, total, faithful, and fruitful must be preserved. I think they mention a valid concern, but do not present a real solution.

We also demand that, as quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood. We, people of faith, desperately need them now!

I already talked about this one a few times, so enough said.

Those are all of my thoughts for now, friends. I'd welcome insights from people with a special knowledge of the church in Belgium.

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

Peace and all good,
Leslie