Eucharist – Refusal of Communion: Once again, I have found a reference to clerical refusal to give Holy Communion to individuals requesting it. It happens with more and more frequency it seems. The reference this time, I read in an article in the September 8 issue of the New Yorker Magazine. In “Party Faithful,” by Peter J. Boyer, writes of the Democratic Party’s problem with trying for the “religious vote.” The article cites an instance in which a Catholic political activist (Douglas Kmiec) was refused communion by a priest, reminding me of the bishops who, during the campaign for President in 2004, issued a statement that they would not allow the Democrat, John Kerry to receive communion in their dioceses.
I am outraged every time this action is recounted in the press. I am outraged on two levels: One, a priest has no business presuming a person has committed a mortal sin. Two, even if a person wanting to receive the sacrament, has done something the Church has defined as a grave sin, it may not constitute a mortal sin for the rejected individual. if an act fails to meet all three of the characterizations necessary to “qualify” as mortal sin, then it falls to the level of venial sin, and reception of the Blessed Sacrament is allowed. The catechism describes these as: Knowledge, free will and grave matter. The conduct in question must be a grave (or serious) matter, it must be committed with full knowledge, and it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent. If any one of these is missing, the act is venial.
In my opinion, the last one, involving free will and conscience, is the “kicker.” But you wouldn’t know it, if you’re depending only on what you hear in most priestly homilies, which almost always paints everything in black and white. In many conversations with lapsed Catholics, I have been appalled at the unnecessary pain caused by not knowing the full truth of what the Church teaches about mortal sin, and are made to feel guilty, when they are not. I am aware that many such people deny they feel guilty, but guilt has a way of burying itself quite deeply in the human soul, and I cannot but feel its presence in their hearts.
It saddens me to consider how many “fallen away” Catholics no longer “practice” their faith because of some bit of nonsense taught them by the good nuns back when they attended parochial school. I mean no disrespect to parish priests, but a clear distinction can/should be made between them and moral theologians. Parish priests typically have far too many administrative duties and obligations, and have little or no time to spend on continued study of moral theology. And, even if they do know it well, are too constrained by time to explain things in greater detail during their homilies. Questions about mortal sin might be answered sufficiently by a priest during confession, but there too, time constraints can be an obstacle. And, since lay theologians are few in number, not commonly found in the yellow pages, most such catholics just leave the Church.
I have often thought about the advantage I have in such matters, having spent some years studying in a Catholic seminary. For although I did not pursue it to the point of ordination, I had sufficient exposure to moral theology to know that the mere fact of ordination, does not make a man a theologian…enough to cause me to take some of what I hear in priestly homilies with a grain of salt. Indeed, I would be much more likely to follow the advice of a lay-theologian on some issues than that of a good and kindly Father So and So.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Decline of the Church- So it would seem
6-26-08: Decline of the Church – So it would seem:
Daerius faults Catholic religious services in which participation by the laity is limited to recitation “by rote," and in a monotone. He sees a relationship between that kind of religious service and decline in membership. In our country, with a higher level, membership is in decline compared to the nations of Africa, where the Church seems to be growing rapidly. He feels that the Church fails to recognize the difference in cultures, adapting where needed. And, of course, lastly but certainly just as importantly he cited the recent sexual scandals on the part of priests.
My first reaction to this comment: He must have listened too intently to Christopher Hitchens when he was interviewed by Bill Maher recently. Hitchens is making a small fortune for himself, selling atheism. In his latest book, “God is not Great,” Hitchens mentions all of the points Daerius does and adds a few more. The only thing that is different is that Hitchens targets all religion, not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church.
Daerius and Hitchens are not alone in their dislike of Catholicism. But they are not presenting any new arguments. Throughout the history of religion, there have been anti religious people who have used the same arguments. As to the charge that religion thrives on the ignorance of the more common folk, I think the irreligious stand on weak ground. To my knowledge, there have not been any quantitative studies made which could give us some additional light on the matter. But it seems clear enough that many, if not most of the enemies of religion, have an unbounded opinion of their own intellects.
We do have ample evidence that, throughout history, vast numbers of highly educated people have been champions of religion…perceiving no conflict between their minds and spirits.
This Contrarian Catholic, would seem to many Catholics to be an enemy of the Church. And, truth to tell, I have to admit that I take a curious sort of pleasure in awareness of that. But for the most part, I do not “argue” religion, because I do not think it to be productive…perhaps even counter-productive, if my purpose should ever be to convert. Aside from including them in my prayers, I am quite content to live peaceably with those who fault my Church…it being quite clearly able to manage without any arguments on my part. As a two thousand year old institution that has weathered innumerable attacks…some even physical, it has time on its side!
When the matter comes up, I remember most fondly the lines of the great historians Will and Ariel Durant: In Volume IV of their massive world history, we read: “If art is the organization of materials, the Roman Catholic Church is among the most imposing masterpieces of history. Through nineteen centuries, each heavy with crisis, she has held her faithful together, following them with her ministrations to the ends of the earth, forming their minds, molding their morals, encouraging their fertility, solemnizing their marriages, consoling their bereavements, lifting their momentary lives into eternal drama, harvesting their gifts, surviving every heresy and revolt and patiently building again every broken support of her power. How did this majestic institution grow?"
But now to some specifics. Daerius mentions scandals of today…pedophilia in the priesthood. being one. Scandal, it certainly is. And it is worsened by the fact that many bishops confuse it with homosexual orientation. Numerically, it seems that most of the pedophilia incidents were commited by priests who were homosexual in orientation.
There seemed at first, to be an effort to rid the priestly ranks of all homosexuals. And that was a terrible mistake. Pedophilia is Sexual abuse must not be conflated with sexual orientation. It is understandable, that people with homosexual orientation might very well be more drawn to the priesthood, just as they are to certain other professions. The effort by the bishops ought to be only to go as far as they can to detect and eliminate only those drawn to pedophilia, gay or straight. Indeed, if the Church were to disbar all homosexuals in the priesthood today, it would be in a very serious predicament. If they think there’s a shortage of priests now, just wait ‘till they see what would happen to their numbers, should they take such a drastic step!
Daerius indicts monotone praying by rote. Interesting. Most world religions, use this for prayers said by numbers of people, as opposed to silent prayer by individuals. In terms of the psychology of religion, it makes sense. Consider Buddhists and Muslims. Just as Daerius thinks this practice bad, I gain much spiritual strength when I join my voice with others saying these ancient prayers. Far from being a fault, I think of this (in comparison with Protestants) as a great virtue.
But when he speaks of cultural differences, I think he’s on to something! And, in a way, perhaps a too small way, it does that. Example. In most colleges and universities, there will be Newman clubs. These are chapels for collegiate Catholics and very often are staffed by Jesuits, who do customize a brand of Catholicism for the intellectually inclined. But a typical parish church cannot do this, for the simple reason that the majority will almost always approach their religion on much simpler level. And the parish priest, though better educated than most of his people and probably of an intellectual bent himself, would serve his people badly, were he to try to reach them on that level. This is the one thing I regret I can say unquestionably, that my own parish church does not meet my spiritual needs. And yet, though I oftentimes feel like a stranger in a strange land, and here is where the rote praying is perfect for me.
Mass is kind of theatrical, in a way. The priest has his lines and the congregants have theirs.
We, the priest and the laity, all have our lines memorized, like actors on a stage. That might strike some Catholics as coming close to sacriligious, but to me, it is the only thing that makes me feel like being part of a corporate body. I watch and listen intently to the priest as he moves about at the altar, reading his lines from the Missal…lines that are well-rehearsed. And though I might not feel a kinship with the other people in the pews, I feel very related to the priest and what he is saying or doing at the altar.
So…it seems that the things Daerius dislikes about Mass are the very things that pull me gently in, gently forward as we, the priest and I, perform our given parts, worshiping God in this unalterably beautiful way. When I pray privately and silently at home, sometimes using prayers written down by holy people of times long past, I feel increased closeness to God the Father and cannot imagine living without these moments. But the most sublime prayer for me is the Mass on Sundays. It is both an obligation and a fully pleasurable act. From the moment I enter the Church, I’m exquisitely aware of God’s unique presence. From my first genuflection all through to the announcement that the Mass is finished…I could cry for sublime joy.
Daerius faults Catholic religious services in which participation by the laity is limited to recitation “by rote," and in a monotone. He sees a relationship between that kind of religious service and decline in membership. In our country, with a higher level, membership is in decline compared to the nations of Africa, where the Church seems to be growing rapidly. He feels that the Church fails to recognize the difference in cultures, adapting where needed. And, of course, lastly but certainly just as importantly he cited the recent sexual scandals on the part of priests.
My first reaction to this comment: He must have listened too intently to Christopher Hitchens when he was interviewed by Bill Maher recently. Hitchens is making a small fortune for himself, selling atheism. In his latest book, “God is not Great,” Hitchens mentions all of the points Daerius does and adds a few more. The only thing that is different is that Hitchens targets all religion, not exclusively the Roman Catholic Church.
Daerius and Hitchens are not alone in their dislike of Catholicism. But they are not presenting any new arguments. Throughout the history of religion, there have been anti religious people who have used the same arguments. As to the charge that religion thrives on the ignorance of the more common folk, I think the irreligious stand on weak ground. To my knowledge, there have not been any quantitative studies made which could give us some additional light on the matter. But it seems clear enough that many, if not most of the enemies of religion, have an unbounded opinion of their own intellects.
We do have ample evidence that, throughout history, vast numbers of highly educated people have been champions of religion…perceiving no conflict between their minds and spirits.
This Contrarian Catholic, would seem to many Catholics to be an enemy of the Church. And, truth to tell, I have to admit that I take a curious sort of pleasure in awareness of that. But for the most part, I do not “argue” religion, because I do not think it to be productive…perhaps even counter-productive, if my purpose should ever be to convert. Aside from including them in my prayers, I am quite content to live peaceably with those who fault my Church…it being quite clearly able to manage without any arguments on my part. As a two thousand year old institution that has weathered innumerable attacks…some even physical, it has time on its side!
When the matter comes up, I remember most fondly the lines of the great historians Will and Ariel Durant: In Volume IV of their massive world history, we read: “If art is the organization of materials, the Roman Catholic Church is among the most imposing masterpieces of history. Through nineteen centuries, each heavy with crisis, she has held her faithful together, following them with her ministrations to the ends of the earth, forming their minds, molding their morals, encouraging their fertility, solemnizing their marriages, consoling their bereavements, lifting their momentary lives into eternal drama, harvesting their gifts, surviving every heresy and revolt and patiently building again every broken support of her power. How did this majestic institution grow?"
But now to some specifics. Daerius mentions scandals of today…pedophilia in the priesthood. being one. Scandal, it certainly is. And it is worsened by the fact that many bishops confuse it with homosexual orientation. Numerically, it seems that most of the pedophilia incidents were commited by priests who were homosexual in orientation.
There seemed at first, to be an effort to rid the priestly ranks of all homosexuals. And that was a terrible mistake. Pedophilia is Sexual abuse must not be conflated with sexual orientation. It is understandable, that people with homosexual orientation might very well be more drawn to the priesthood, just as they are to certain other professions. The effort by the bishops ought to be only to go as far as they can to detect and eliminate only those drawn to pedophilia, gay or straight. Indeed, if the Church were to disbar all homosexuals in the priesthood today, it would be in a very serious predicament. If they think there’s a shortage of priests now, just wait ‘till they see what would happen to their numbers, should they take such a drastic step!
Daerius indicts monotone praying by rote. Interesting. Most world religions, use this for prayers said by numbers of people, as opposed to silent prayer by individuals. In terms of the psychology of religion, it makes sense. Consider Buddhists and Muslims. Just as Daerius thinks this practice bad, I gain much spiritual strength when I join my voice with others saying these ancient prayers. Far from being a fault, I think of this (in comparison with Protestants) as a great virtue.
But when he speaks of cultural differences, I think he’s on to something! And, in a way, perhaps a too small way, it does that. Example. In most colleges and universities, there will be Newman clubs. These are chapels for collegiate Catholics and very often are staffed by Jesuits, who do customize a brand of Catholicism for the intellectually inclined. But a typical parish church cannot do this, for the simple reason that the majority will almost always approach their religion on much simpler level. And the parish priest, though better educated than most of his people and probably of an intellectual bent himself, would serve his people badly, were he to try to reach them on that level. This is the one thing I regret I can say unquestionably, that my own parish church does not meet my spiritual needs. And yet, though I oftentimes feel like a stranger in a strange land, and here is where the rote praying is perfect for me.
Mass is kind of theatrical, in a way. The priest has his lines and the congregants have theirs.
We, the priest and the laity, all have our lines memorized, like actors on a stage. That might strike some Catholics as coming close to sacriligious, but to me, it is the only thing that makes me feel like being part of a corporate body. I watch and listen intently to the priest as he moves about at the altar, reading his lines from the Missal…lines that are well-rehearsed. And though I might not feel a kinship with the other people in the pews, I feel very related to the priest and what he is saying or doing at the altar.
So…it seems that the things Daerius dislikes about Mass are the very things that pull me gently in, gently forward as we, the priest and I, perform our given parts, worshiping God in this unalterably beautiful way. When I pray privately and silently at home, sometimes using prayers written down by holy people of times long past, I feel increased closeness to God the Father and cannot imagine living without these moments. But the most sublime prayer for me is the Mass on Sundays. It is both an obligation and a fully pleasurable act. From the moment I enter the Church, I’m exquisitely aware of God’s unique presence. From my first genuflection all through to the announcement that the Mass is finished…I could cry for sublime joy.
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Church - today and many tomorrows from now.
Thanks to the recent visit of Benedict XVI to the United States, both television and the print media have dedicated a rather sizeable amount of time and space to the status of Catholicism in this country.
The impression given is fairly positive, but I remain convinced that Catholicism, as well as all other religions of the world, has a bleak future on this earth, and I am reminded of the book by Franz Werfel, which I’ve read twice…most recently, about three or four years ago and way back during my seminary days. It is about the future, but in no way can it be described as “science fiction.” His “future” is far more distant than any other “futuristic” novels I’ve ever heard of…in the neighborhood of 10,000 years or more. At that point, he describes a church down to its ‘bare bones,’ composed of the Religious, (monks and nuns,) and a pope ( albeit named Grand Bishop).
The situation in the present is bleak enough, according to an article in the Albuquerque Journal (AP) dated April 6th. The Journal referred to some very dismal facts gleaned from a study done in a 2007 by the Center for Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. According to that study, “About one-third of the more than 64 million U. S. Catholics never attend Mass, and about one quarter attend only a few times a year….” It also reports that “A majority never go to confession or go less than once a year.” In previous references to Werfel’s novel, I have written that his vision of the future is cited far too distant in time, in terms of the plight of Catholicism. Seems to me that he would have been closer to the mark, placing it perhaps a couple of hundred years, not thousands!
A week later, the Journal cited a few more statistics of interest. It is not clear that these facts came from the same study, but since it was commissioned by “the nation’s bishops,” and the other study cited was done by a Catholic university, it’s a fair conclusion that the data published later comes from the same source. The second article included a very interesting statement: “…most believed they could be good Roman Catholics without going to Mass.” From this, one could easily conclude that Secularism reigns pretty comfortably in the western world and the Church’s teachings have very little “teeth.” Nevertheless, “Seventy-two percent of Catholics said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the bishops’ leadership.”
This brings to mind a conversation I had awhile back with a young woman who identifies herself as being Catholic, yet seems very attracted to some so called “New Age” ideas. Terry came over to our house when the death of Pope John Paul II was announced. She was in tears! Obviously, she must be in that large category of Catholics who do not see any connection between going to Mass regularly and being a “good Roman Catholic.”
Benedict’s great influence was certainly recognized by our government. President Bush broke precedent and greeted the Pope on the tarmac of the airport…something never done for anyone before, not even heads of state. The televised Masses in St. Patricks Cathedral and one of the sports arenas were both completely packed. He was greeted with enthusiasm usually reserved for pop idols. And proves again, what I have always maintained; that the Catholic church knows full well how important it is to put on a good show. If all this pomp and high ceremony didn’t speak of the ages, they could not get away with it! When you’ve been doing this sort of things for a couple thousand years…well, that’s another matter entirely and worthy of considerable respect…even by high level leaders of other religions.
The impression given is fairly positive, but I remain convinced that Catholicism, as well as all other religions of the world, has a bleak future on this earth, and I am reminded of the book by Franz Werfel, which I’ve read twice…most recently, about three or four years ago and way back during my seminary days. It is about the future, but in no way can it be described as “science fiction.” His “future” is far more distant than any other “futuristic” novels I’ve ever heard of…in the neighborhood of 10,000 years or more. At that point, he describes a church down to its ‘bare bones,’ composed of the Religious, (monks and nuns,) and a pope ( albeit named Grand Bishop).
The situation in the present is bleak enough, according to an article in the Albuquerque Journal (AP) dated April 6th. The Journal referred to some very dismal facts gleaned from a study done in a 2007 by the Center for Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. According to that study, “About one-third of the more than 64 million U. S. Catholics never attend Mass, and about one quarter attend only a few times a year….” It also reports that “A majority never go to confession or go less than once a year.” In previous references to Werfel’s novel, I have written that his vision of the future is cited far too distant in time, in terms of the plight of Catholicism. Seems to me that he would have been closer to the mark, placing it perhaps a couple of hundred years, not thousands!
A week later, the Journal cited a few more statistics of interest. It is not clear that these facts came from the same study, but since it was commissioned by “the nation’s bishops,” and the other study cited was done by a Catholic university, it’s a fair conclusion that the data published later comes from the same source. The second article included a very interesting statement: “…most believed they could be good Roman Catholics without going to Mass.” From this, one could easily conclude that Secularism reigns pretty comfortably in the western world and the Church’s teachings have very little “teeth.” Nevertheless, “Seventy-two percent of Catholics said they were somewhat or very satisfied with the bishops’ leadership.”
This brings to mind a conversation I had awhile back with a young woman who identifies herself as being Catholic, yet seems very attracted to some so called “New Age” ideas. Terry came over to our house when the death of Pope John Paul II was announced. She was in tears! Obviously, she must be in that large category of Catholics who do not see any connection between going to Mass regularly and being a “good Roman Catholic.”
Benedict’s great influence was certainly recognized by our government. President Bush broke precedent and greeted the Pope on the tarmac of the airport…something never done for anyone before, not even heads of state. The televised Masses in St. Patricks Cathedral and one of the sports arenas were both completely packed. He was greeted with enthusiasm usually reserved for pop idols. And proves again, what I have always maintained; that the Catholic church knows full well how important it is to put on a good show. If all this pomp and high ceremony didn’t speak of the ages, they could not get away with it! When you’ve been doing this sort of things for a couple thousand years…well, that’s another matter entirely and worthy of considerable respect…even by high level leaders of other religions.
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Naturalness of Belief in God
Believing in God – A function of our nature: A few days ago, I posited that worshipping God is a function our nature…rather like breathing. So it naturally caught my attention, even though it was given very little space, when I read in the morning paper that a group of scholars in Oxford, are undertaking a three-year study of the role of religious belief in human lives.
According to this item, “Oxford University researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God.” A bunch of academics, including anthropologists, theologians, philosophers, etc. will attempt in three years to find out “whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind’s makeup.”
Four million dollars sounds like a lot of money, but I’d hazard to guess that there are many areas of study with that much if not more money dedicated to them. Still, in this age so often called “Godless,” it is interesting to see Oxford engaging in this field of study. It is gratifying to people like myself who have never doubted God’s existence…even though I have oftentimes conducted myself in ways I’m pretty certain are in defiance of His Will.
Of course, their goal here is not to prove the existence of God, just to study why human beings overwhelmingly believe so…to determine if it is it innate for them to believe so. The acting director of the center says, “anthropological and philosophical research suggest that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world, even though it has been waning in Britain and western Europe….One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.” (Albq. Journal, 2-21-08).
I would put that last phrase differently. I would say, atheism is perhaps more in need of defense. I have always said that belief in God’s existence is a whole lot more plausible than believing in His non-existence. For atheism is a faith, just as is religion. The Atheist believes quite strongly that there is no God. The only intellectually safe place for those opposed to religion, is agnosticism. If one spends too much time appraising the antics of so many religious leaders, agnosticism could be seen as the answer: I don’t know! Bottom line, neither belief nor non-belief is scientifically provable. As one who not only believes in God, but even dares to love Him, I submit that belief is intellectually more tenable than is un-belief.
As I noted above, I almost never engage in anything remotely like arguing about religion, but I should confess that I have on infrequent occasions, taken some delight in telling atheists that they are believers, like myself…the only difference being that they believe, with no proof whatsoever, that God does not exist, while I, also without scientific proof, believe He does. And then, if it seems the reaction will not turn violent, I will simply add that, after stripping away the layers and layers of nonsense with which humanity has painted it over, circumstantial evidence appears to favor belief in God’s existence.
The intellectual road travelled by theologians, is dangerous and the conclusions that many of them reach does violence to the intellects of those they would lead. Religions all stand guilty of this. Their leaders delight in shaking their heads and pronouncing judgment. My mind flashes back to the years when I lived in NYC. On weekends I often took the subway down to one or another of the beaches…Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Jones beach. They all had one thing in common: Signs with a huge “NO” on the left side and all the things bathers were not allowed to do while plalying at the beach. Churches often come across that way. Priests and ministers spend a goodly portion of their time tasking their congregations with a long list of the things they cannot do.
These leaders of Christianity would do well just before mounting their pulpits to take time to read two little pieces of scripture; one comes from Luke (11-46) and Matthew (11-29). Luke tell us that Jesus, talking to a gaggle of Pharisees, said: “…you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry…” Mark, similarly, quotes Jesus saying: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and burden is light.”
Clearly, one of the major purposes of religion is to lay down a spiritual base for most of the activities governing the behavior of civilized people…helping governments maintaining good order in society. But that is not the only business of religion, nor even the most important. What religion is mainly supposed to do is help us better to understand God, seeing Him in one another and all things material. It is to lift us up from the mundane and see more clearly the Glory that is God/Creator.
According to this item, “Oxford University researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God.” A bunch of academics, including anthropologists, theologians, philosophers, etc. will attempt in three years to find out “whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind’s makeup.”
Four million dollars sounds like a lot of money, but I’d hazard to guess that there are many areas of study with that much if not more money dedicated to them. Still, in this age so often called “Godless,” it is interesting to see Oxford engaging in this field of study. It is gratifying to people like myself who have never doubted God’s existence…even though I have oftentimes conducted myself in ways I’m pretty certain are in defiance of His Will.
Of course, their goal here is not to prove the existence of God, just to study why human beings overwhelmingly believe so…to determine if it is it innate for them to believe so. The acting director of the center says, “anthropological and philosophical research suggest that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world, even though it has been waning in Britain and western Europe….One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.” (Albq. Journal, 2-21-08).
I would put that last phrase differently. I would say, atheism is perhaps more in need of defense. I have always said that belief in God’s existence is a whole lot more plausible than believing in His non-existence. For atheism is a faith, just as is religion. The Atheist believes quite strongly that there is no God. The only intellectually safe place for those opposed to religion, is agnosticism. If one spends too much time appraising the antics of so many religious leaders, agnosticism could be seen as the answer: I don’t know! Bottom line, neither belief nor non-belief is scientifically provable. As one who not only believes in God, but even dares to love Him, I submit that belief is intellectually more tenable than is un-belief.
As I noted above, I almost never engage in anything remotely like arguing about religion, but I should confess that I have on infrequent occasions, taken some delight in telling atheists that they are believers, like myself…the only difference being that they believe, with no proof whatsoever, that God does not exist, while I, also without scientific proof, believe He does. And then, if it seems the reaction will not turn violent, I will simply add that, after stripping away the layers and layers of nonsense with which humanity has painted it over, circumstantial evidence appears to favor belief in God’s existence.
The intellectual road travelled by theologians, is dangerous and the conclusions that many of them reach does violence to the intellects of those they would lead. Religions all stand guilty of this. Their leaders delight in shaking their heads and pronouncing judgment. My mind flashes back to the years when I lived in NYC. On weekends I often took the subway down to one or another of the beaches…Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Jones beach. They all had one thing in common: Signs with a huge “NO” on the left side and all the things bathers were not allowed to do while plalying at the beach. Churches often come across that way. Priests and ministers spend a goodly portion of their time tasking their congregations with a long list of the things they cannot do.
These leaders of Christianity would do well just before mounting their pulpits to take time to read two little pieces of scripture; one comes from Luke (11-46) and Matthew (11-29). Luke tell us that Jesus, talking to a gaggle of Pharisees, said: “…you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry…” Mark, similarly, quotes Jesus saying: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and burden is light.”
Clearly, one of the major purposes of religion is to lay down a spiritual base for most of the activities governing the behavior of civilized people…helping governments maintaining good order in society. But that is not the only business of religion, nor even the most important. What religion is mainly supposed to do is help us better to understand God, seeing Him in one another and all things material. It is to lift us up from the mundane and see more clearly the Glory that is God/Creator.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Worship: A natural function
According to Conventional Wisdom; most people do not attend Church these days. That’s certainly true of the vast majority of the people I know personally. I do not know why, and I am supremely reluctant to ask them, for fear of opening the proverbial “can of worms.” Aside from wanting to avoid such a smelly result, there’s another reason I cannot, will not, ask such questions: I consider myself singularly unfit or ill-equipped in terms of temperament to make such inquiries. From experience, I know that I tend to become aggressively argumentative in such situations. Also, I believe that the best possible “argument” is that of example. If it should seem to them that church-going has had a pronouncedly good effect on me, that I was becoming a demonstrably better person, a kinder one, a more charitable one, etc., etc as a result of my church-going, then, who knows - perhaps it might occur to them that they could also benefit from such attendance.
I am pretty certain that the reasons why people in such growing numbers do not go to church are great in both number and complexity. Nomenclature itself can be a problem! Words, just in and of themselves, can become trigger mechanisms, arousing instant and unquestioning rejection. The word “Church,” by now, has become a buzz-word, inviting swift and sometimes angry negativity and derision. I think the word, “God,” has not yet reached that level of rejection, but I fear that it might do so in the not too distant future. At the mention of this word, some will react negatively, having some unpleasant association with it. I feel rather sorry for them. When I think of the great satisfaction I derive from the act of worshipping God, I pray that they will someday soon partake of this pleasure.
Something happened recently which brings this up. As I said before, I never bring up the subject for reasons given, but in this instance, the question was put to me! And I rather surprised myself with the answer I gave. The words “nature,” and “natural,” came to me almost instantly. That’s what it really all boiled down to; I go to Church, I said, because it is in my nature to do so. Of course, it’s also in my nature to use many words whenever few will do, so the answer I gave my friend was a good bit more extensive than that!
But looking back on that conversation, the naturalness of worship seems to me a critical reason why a person would go to Church. Everyone takes it as granted that God cannot be cooped- up in some building, no matter how large it is and everyone knows that God is just as much to be found in the stillness of a forest as he is in any building. In fact, he is utterly inescapable, as Francis Thompson’s Hound of Heaven so beautifully expresses it. So the people who stay home, rake the leaves, etc on Sunday mornings and do not go to Church, would seem to have a point. Indeed they have a good point. But I think most people would admit, there is something about bagging up a bunch of leaves that doesn’t quite do the trick.
Worship satisfies an appetite, much like food satisfies hunger. Humankind, in all of recorded history seems to have had this appetite and have attempted to satisfy it in a multitude of ways. It seems to me, reading about some of the ancient and no longer extant versions, as well as the three or four major religions of today, worship has involved the whole person. For me, this is an essential element. For me, the knee wants to bend, the body wants to bow and kneel in profound acknowledgment of God. It would not be sufficiently satisfying for me to sit for an hour or two and just listen to music and, worse yet, listen to an overly long sermon…where the only activity is to reach for the wallet at collection time!
I think that played a great role in my conversion to Catholicism; I saw people worshipping with their bodies, not just sitting and listening to someone. For worshipping is an activity, involving the whole person. And Church is a place for attending to God, not a place for a lecture, not a classroom in which to learn things. So, today, when I enter a Catholic church, contrarian though I am, it gives me actual pleasure, to dip my fingers into the holy water, to genuflect toward the Blessed Sacrament, to kneel while watching the ministrations of the priest at the altar.
I am impressed with the way Muslims, when in their temples, prostrate themselves, facing Mecca, touching their foreheads to the ground; this is such a powerful physical expression of worship! This must give the individual such a strong sense of worshipping his God. Some of the Buddhists I know, have special rooms in their homes, where they keep an altar, at which they assume a special pose of worship, lighting sticks of incense…the wisps of smoke representing their prayers. I’ve never been inside a Buddhist temple, but I would welcome the opportunity to do so, to see how these brothers and sisters worship the same God I worship. It could not but be a source of blessing for me.
This building, this church, now so much less visited, is dedicated to the purpose of worship, designed especially to guide our minds and hearts to a more formal acknowledgement of God either alone or together with our brothers and sisters…from the spire(s) on the top. to the altar up front, everything focuses us more intensely toward the Lord God of all Creation. And in doing this, we are responding to some deep instinct within ourselves. Inside this special place, the knee wants to bend in genuflection, the body wants to bend, for here and for now, God is especially present and we want to acknowledge Him in profound worship.
I am pretty certain that the reasons why people in such growing numbers do not go to church are great in both number and complexity. Nomenclature itself can be a problem! Words, just in and of themselves, can become trigger mechanisms, arousing instant and unquestioning rejection. The word “Church,” by now, has become a buzz-word, inviting swift and sometimes angry negativity and derision. I think the word, “God,” has not yet reached that level of rejection, but I fear that it might do so in the not too distant future. At the mention of this word, some will react negatively, having some unpleasant association with it. I feel rather sorry for them. When I think of the great satisfaction I derive from the act of worshipping God, I pray that they will someday soon partake of this pleasure.
Something happened recently which brings this up. As I said before, I never bring up the subject for reasons given, but in this instance, the question was put to me! And I rather surprised myself with the answer I gave. The words “nature,” and “natural,” came to me almost instantly. That’s what it really all boiled down to; I go to Church, I said, because it is in my nature to do so. Of course, it’s also in my nature to use many words whenever few will do, so the answer I gave my friend was a good bit more extensive than that!
But looking back on that conversation, the naturalness of worship seems to me a critical reason why a person would go to Church. Everyone takes it as granted that God cannot be cooped- up in some building, no matter how large it is and everyone knows that God is just as much to be found in the stillness of a forest as he is in any building. In fact, he is utterly inescapable, as Francis Thompson’s Hound of Heaven so beautifully expresses it. So the people who stay home, rake the leaves, etc on Sunday mornings and do not go to Church, would seem to have a point. Indeed they have a good point. But I think most people would admit, there is something about bagging up a bunch of leaves that doesn’t quite do the trick.
Worship satisfies an appetite, much like food satisfies hunger. Humankind, in all of recorded history seems to have had this appetite and have attempted to satisfy it in a multitude of ways. It seems to me, reading about some of the ancient and no longer extant versions, as well as the three or four major religions of today, worship has involved the whole person. For me, this is an essential element. For me, the knee wants to bend, the body wants to bow and kneel in profound acknowledgment of God. It would not be sufficiently satisfying for me to sit for an hour or two and just listen to music and, worse yet, listen to an overly long sermon…where the only activity is to reach for the wallet at collection time!
I think that played a great role in my conversion to Catholicism; I saw people worshipping with their bodies, not just sitting and listening to someone. For worshipping is an activity, involving the whole person. And Church is a place for attending to God, not a place for a lecture, not a classroom in which to learn things. So, today, when I enter a Catholic church, contrarian though I am, it gives me actual pleasure, to dip my fingers into the holy water, to genuflect toward the Blessed Sacrament, to kneel while watching the ministrations of the priest at the altar.
I am impressed with the way Muslims, when in their temples, prostrate themselves, facing Mecca, touching their foreheads to the ground; this is such a powerful physical expression of worship! This must give the individual such a strong sense of worshipping his God. Some of the Buddhists I know, have special rooms in their homes, where they keep an altar, at which they assume a special pose of worship, lighting sticks of incense…the wisps of smoke representing their prayers. I’ve never been inside a Buddhist temple, but I would welcome the opportunity to do so, to see how these brothers and sisters worship the same God I worship. It could not but be a source of blessing for me.
This building, this church, now so much less visited, is dedicated to the purpose of worship, designed especially to guide our minds and hearts to a more formal acknowledgement of God either alone or together with our brothers and sisters…from the spire(s) on the top. to the altar up front, everything focuses us more intensely toward the Lord God of all Creation. And in doing this, we are responding to some deep instinct within ourselves. Inside this special place, the knee wants to bend in genuflection, the body wants to bend, for here and for now, God is especially present and we want to acknowledge Him in profound worship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)