Editor’s Note: Following up on a recent reply to the question of “Who Made God,” T.J.M. of New Jersey sent along these comments:
“Your answer to this question was, of course, correct, but based on the acceptance of Revelation and the definition of God provided. [However], there is an additional argument, surprisingly based on science, which I find to be irrefutable and may be of assistance to the grandson in question. Until the 1950s, atheists insisted that the universe was eternal, which assertion Christians denied based on faith. At that time, however, scientists discovered that the universe, which had not been in existence before, came into being in a few seconds some 13.7 billion years ago as a result of an enormous explosion now called the Big Bang.
“According to logic, the Big Bang was clearly an effect, and every effect must have a cause. Now the universe, which developed billions of stars, planets, constellations, etc. [and is] governed by physical rules of infinite complexity, could only have been designed by a mind of infinite genius, ergo, a personal ‘God.’
“Now, logically, the only entity requiring a cause is an effect. While the universe is clearly an effect, requiring a cause because it did not exist before the Big Bang and came into existence a few seconds later, this is not the case with God because there is no proof that God did not exist before. Lacking this proof, God is not an effect requiring a cause or creator. To negate this conclusion, science would have to prove that God was an effect caused by someone or something, and there is no such proof. Catholics should not be afraid of science as I find that science is becoming a boon to religion.”
Q. Our priest, in his sermons, often preaches Cardinal Kasper’s views and advises us to read his book, as well as books by Pope Francis. Last Sunday’s Bible reading about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes inspired his sermon that we should note that all sinners in that crowd were fed. The implication is that we have no right to exclude certain people from the Eucharist. Aren’t we all sinners? Do we think we are better than others?
After sitting through this, I’m so annoyed that I wonder if I should receive Holy Communion. I’m not well-educated or articulate enough to confront our pastor, and I know arguing never convinced anyone to change their beliefs. My question is how you would respond to the argument that “love and mercy mean Holy Communion is for everyone, just as Jesus fed the whole crowd”? Also, it’s useless to quote other Catholic bishops or cardinals because our priest considers them to be like the Pharisees hiding behind their rigid laws.
My second question is whether or not it is wrong for me to receive Holy Communion when I’m feeling so angry at this priest. — M.P., Pennsylvania.
A. First of all, we would say that Jesus fed the crowd with ordinary bread, so one didn’t have to be in the state of grace required to receive Jesus Himself in Holy Communion.
Second, we would quote St. Paul, even though he had been a Pharisee, when he warned that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27-29).
Earlier in the same letter, Paul indicated the kinds of actions, i.e., sins, that would disqualify one from receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord worthily. “Do not be deceived,” he said, “neither fornicators nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). He repeated similar lists of immoral acts in Gal. 5:19-21 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10.
Contrary to the opinion of Cardinal Kasper about giving Communion to the divorced and remarried, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, after quoting from 1 Cor. 11:27-29, says that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to Communion” (n. 1385). For your priest to teach anything else in his sermons is to disregard the clear words of Sacred Scripture and the Catechism and to leave some of his parishioners still in their sins, which is unconscionable.
Third, while we can understand your justified anger at a priest who is misleading his flock, you should not let this anger gain control over you. It will not affect the priest at all, but will only disturb your peace of mind. Pray for this misguided priest and offer up your Holy Communion that he will come to his senses.
Q. There are several websites for “Our Lady of America” on the Internet describing the visions of a nun, Sr. Mary Ephrem (1916-2000). The claim is that the Blessed Mother appeared to her on September 25, 1956 in Ohio and specifically requested that a designated statue of Our Lady of America be installed in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.
If the request is honored, our Lady promised to perform miracles here greater than those at Lourdes and Fatima.
Devotion to Our Lady of America was approved and promoted by the late Archbishop Paul Leibold of Cincinnati and by Raymond Cardinal Burke when he was archbishop of St. Louis. A statue of Our Lady of America was made, and it was displayed at the USCCB meeting in Baltimore on December 13, 2006.
I see no possible downside in installing a statue of our country’s patroness in a shrine dedicated to her. We sure could use some help from our Lady. Nevertheless, there is apparently some controversy about the matter among the bishops. What is going on? — J.K., Maryland.
A. You have accurately summarized the situation regarding Our Lady of America and her appearances to Sr. Mary Ephrem in 1956-1957. Among other things, the Blessed Virgin said:
“It is the United States that is to lead the world to peace, the peace of Christ, the peace that He brought with Him from Heaven. Dear children, unless the United States accepts and carries out faithfully the mandate given to it by Heaven to lead the world to peace, there will come upon it and all nations a great havoc of war and incredible suffering.
“If, however, the United States is faithful to this mandate from Heaven and yet fails in the pursuit of peace because the rest of the world will not accept or cooperate, then the United States will not be burdened with the punishment about to fall.
“Weep, then, dear children, weep with your mother over the sins of men. Intercede with me before the throne of mercy, for sin is overwhelming the world and punishment is not far away. It is the darkest hour, but if men will come to me, my Immaculate Heart will make it bright again with the mercy which my Son will rain down through my hands. Help me save those who will not save themselves. Help me bring once again the sunshine of God’s peace upon the world.”
In August 1957, our Lady said to Sr. Mary Ephrem: “What am I to do, child of my heart, when my children turn from me? The false peace of this world lures them and in the end will destroy them. They think they have done enough in consecrating themselves to my Immaculate Heart. It is not enough. That which I ask for and is most important many have not given me.
“What I ask, have asked, and will continue to ask is reformation of life. There must be sanctification from within. I will work my miracles of grace only in those who ask for them and empty their souls of the love and attachment to sin and all that is displeasing to my Son. Souls who cling to sin cannot have their hands free to receive the treasures of grace that I hold out to them.”
As to why the statue of Our Lady of America has not been placed at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, Pat Archbold wrote in the National Catholic Register last November that “many of the bishops are already familiar with the devotion because of Cardinal Burke’s letter in 2007, and I understand that there are several bishops who are very desirous to see this happen. Yet, unsurprisingly, there are difficulties as well. Some bishops are unfamiliar or unconvinced of our Lady’s request. Also unsurprisingly, there are some bishops who are opposed to any private revelation as they consider it peasant mumbo jumbo.”
Write to your bishop and ask that our Lady’s request be carried out.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress