Should the Koran Be Read During Christian Worship?

I saw this reported on a few websites in the past couple days that an Episcopalian cathedral in Glasgow had invited a Muslim woman to read from the Koran during their liturgy for the Feast of the Epiphany (or Theophany in the East). Thank God this would never be allowed in a Catholic Church, but nonetheless, this act is scandalous to Christians of any creed. At least it should be. What makes it even more problematic was that the reading that was used was from the 19th Surah. While this selection speaks of the Annunciation and Jesus' conception, it is wholly inappropriate as the 35th verse completely denies that Jesus was divine. It flat out affirms that that Jesus was not God. And this selection was read during a Christian liturgy, where Jesus, God the Son, is worshiped.

The Theophany in Heaven with the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint John the Baptist

What To Do About Confusion?

The whole confusion surrounding the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia truly saddens me, and I just don't understand how there can be so many contradictory interpretations of this document among not just theologians, clergy, and laypeople, but between bishops.

I was just made aware of an interpretation by Bishop Benno Elbs of Feldkirch, Austria who told an Austrian newspaper that regarding the doctrine telling us the D&R can't receive Communion,

"The doctrine is changed inasmuch as the door is now open. People have done this before, but now with the Pope's blessing, they can, so to speak, make this decision with their conscience... If it's in a footnote or not isn't significant to me. The entire document breathes the spirit that the individual finds in his own conscience a way to deal with life's situations."

Bishop Benno Elbs

The Elephant(s) in the Room

With a new year just beginning, the same controversies that plagued the last continue. It appears that all the discussion surrounding Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Latetia (AL) will continue into 2017. In an interview, Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the four cardinals who submitted the dubia, explained that a formal correction could appear in the new year if the dubia were not addressed. Things are getting pretty serious, and how things will play out is anyone's guess. I sincerely pray there will be no division and all will be resolved by God's grace. I've read a lot of commentary on the issue, and had some discussions with others on this as well, and it all seems to boil down to a couple of issues that are the clear "elephant, or elephants, in the room". One of those, taken from a conversation I was a part of can be seen below:

"Is the idea that refraining from sexual intercourse from a civilly-married partner is too large of a burden and too great of an expectation?"

"It may be that this question is THE elephant in the room re[garding] AL.

"From my own... experience re married couples, especially a Catholic woman married to a non Catholic man, yes, this may well be an unreasonable ask (sic) for a variety of reasons."

To which another person replied, citing the Council of Trent, Session VI: "CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema."

What's being referred to here is the apparent (not actual) contradiction found in one interpretation of AL's footnote #351 (on page 237) and section 84 of Pope St. John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio (FC) which reads:

"[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

"Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.'"

The rest of the conversation, or at least the relevant portions, will follow below. I believe this conversation was very fruitful, and I was able to learn quite a bit, especially by reading more of the papal documents promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI; documents I had never given the time of day to read, but now realize the entirety of these documents are a great treasure of the Church. My words will be in blue, my main interlocutor's in red, and other people chiming in during the conversation will be in other various colors:

Pope St. John Paul II

Secular Media Gives More Backhanded Insults to the Church Hierarchy

I came across an article in the New York Times that talked very highly of the new Archbishop of Newark, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, while at the same time very slyly made it seem that Cardinal Tobin was different from any bishop not only in Newark, but virtually across the globe as he fancies himself a regular guy who asks others to call him "Joe" when trying to work out clandestinely at the gym.

"As the pope has made clear over the past three years, fancy lifestyles, formality and regal titles like Prince of the Church are out of style for cardinals. So is an emphasis on the divisive issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, even though the church’s underlying position on those issues has not changed.

"Instead, in the pope’s view, the church should emphasize humility and service to the poor. It should be multicultural, welcoming different styles of worship. It should reach out to other faiths and stand up for immigrants, refugees and nuns.

"And that, church experts and members of his flock say, is a close description of the priorities of Cardinal Tobin, who will be heading east just after Christmas to lead the approximately 1.5 million Catholics in the Archdiocese of Newark."

Of course, we have to remember this is the same New York Times that "doesn't get religion". One commenter on the article observed how:

"The phrase 'different kind of Cardinal' seems to condemn all other cardinals as "the same" in the sense of indistinguishable from each other and lacking all of the positive characteristics this particular Cardinal exhibits. How is that not a backhanded insult to the other Cardinals, to the leadership of the Church in general and divisive purely by implication? The press certainly doesn't get religion and demonstrates that fact by pushing its own leftist views on what it is that makes Cardinals 'different' in any laudable sense."

Still other commenters, among them Catholic, praised the article as "excellent" or "splendid". Really? Let's take a closer look at this, but please be sure to read the entirety of the NYT article before going on.How this article can be called "excellent" or "splendid" is beyond me. There's some awesome bits in there about Cardinal Tobin's life and his devotion to the souls he pastors, but it's obvious the article (and its author) has an agenda to push with all its insinuations on the characters of many other prelates in the Church. So what if Cardinal Myers preferred to be called "Your Grace"? That, and they give no evidence of him preferring to be addressed as such, and even if he did I'm sure he wouldn't mind if he wasn't addressed by that title, as the article insinuates.

The Differing Interpretations of Amoris Laetitia

As we get to the end of the new year, the controversey stemming from the varying interpretations of Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia grows more and more concerning. From distressing rumors to new interviews with those who submitted the dubia, it seems that our Church and our leaders need lots of prayer heading into 2017. Not too long ago, I was engaged in a discussion with someone on one Catholic apologist's Facebook wall. It was pretty amicable. I was trying to show how the varying interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, and those coming from just the U.S., are already contradictory, and prove why the dubia is definitely needed. Here is the great, original post from apologist Dave Armstrong's wall:

My Opinion as to Pope Francis Answering the Four Cardinals' "Dubia"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

I stated many times in the combox for my long recent post on the topic that I think it would be good for him to answer and clarify: that it is *always* better to clarify than not to. 

I'm very reluctant to criticize the pope at all, due to my very strong Catholic reverence for the office (NOT due to some silly notion that he can never be criticized, which I have NEVER believed), but I have to call it as I see it, as an apologist who may be asked about it. 

I know from my own experience as a writer and apologist (which is a teaching function), that writers can be misinterpreted. Writing is an inexact art and we are too often insufficiently clear and precise: all the more so in proportion to the complexity of the subject matter. 

So if I am asked questions about *my* meaning and intent, I'm always quick (and glad) to clarify. In fact, I *appreciate* the opportunity, because I figure that if this one person didn't accurately understand me (either through his fault or mine, or both), chances are there are many others out there who also didn't. It helps no one, and hinders the development of a topic, to not be properly understood. 

Infinitely more so for the pope, who is the leader of all Catholics and our supreme teacher, if any one person can be said to be so . . . 

This topic (exactly who in difficult marital situations can receive Holy Communion, and why) is, of course, very complex, too. So that is a second good reason, I believe, and humbly submit, for him to clarify. 

Whether a non-answer "proves" he is a liberal or heterodox in general and/or on the disputed point, is another matter entirely. I would think not; however, it may very well make him *look* like he is, or that he is being "stubborn" or unnecessarily intransigent, or lacking pastoral and prudential wisdom, etc.. and that isn't good, especially given the wide and ever-growing "skepticism" or criticism sent his way, about this, and in general.
It's becoming increasingly inexplicable why he would not simply clarify the thing and be done with it. Again, that's not the same as denying that he may have a good reason; only to assert that it is difficult (as this thing becomes more and more controversial) to speculate as to what it might be. 

I'm not even denying that there can be any number of "hard cases" where communion for at least one party is perfectly admissible according to traditional Catholic morality and discipline. But, as the questions indicate, complexities and confusion need to be cleared up as to specifics. It's also true that those who have nefarious heterodox intent (as I believe I have already written in the past) will exploit any confusion or (rightly or wrongly) perceived "loopholes" as a license to depart from true Catholic practice, just as they did with Vatican II and the reform of the Mass. Yet another good reason to clarify with great specificity... 

I haven't reversed myself, compared to what I wrote before, because I said this many times in the comments under my post, but one might say I have considerably "developed" my opinion and have a little bit more perplexity (in terms of speculation) than I had when I wrote my piece. 

In my opinion (as a mere lay apologist), I think in the *very least* that it would be good for the Holy Father to tell us why he is *not* answering, should he definitely decide not to. But better to answer...

The conversation that followed is below, with my words in blue, Dave's in green, another person's in orange, and my interlocutor's in red:

The Transgender Movement Is Not Beneficial to Our Children

God have mercy on us all. That's all I can think of when I see things like this popping up in my news feeds throughout the day. National Geographic has come out fully in support of the transgender movement that believes each people (both children and adults) have the right to define their gender/sex/identity (whatever other vogue words one wants to include to talk about one's sex) as they see fit, even if it's in contradiction to the realities literally in front of them. It's pretty clear by the editor of the magazine's statement regarding the issue in question, that this is the case and wishes to "spark thoughtful conversations about how far we have come on this topic"; and in saying we've "come so far" on the subject of transgenderism, he refers to the "progress" that many in or current culture believe can only come from when we subvert objective realities and traditional thoughts in favor of a brave new world that really doesn't look so "brave" after all.

Bernardino Luini- The Christ Child and the Infant John the Baptist with a Lamb

Is Praying Towards the East During Mass "Rubbish"?

On the ever hilarious Catholic Memes page, a new meme was posted regarding the ad orientem kerfuffle that's been going on since the Second Vatican Council... but more recently since Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Sarah, addressed a liturgical conference earlier this summer in London. Now before I go on, I get the joke that is trying to be made in this meme, pictured below with everyone's favorite green Muppet, Kermit. But not everyone does when first reading this meme. Apparently, there have been a few bishops in the US and UK who have told their priests that they should not (note, not barred) expect to perform the Ordinary Form of the Mass ad orientem, or with both priest and congregation facing the altar in prayer.

I personally do not like this meme as the meaning can be misconstrued, especially for someone who has no foreknowledge of what has been going on the past few months. At first glance, it looks like the meme is advocating that priests and laity should disobey their bishops. Do I think it's funny? Yes, but the way it was executed is pretty bad. I think there was a better way to make the joke, and to make the meme not appear as if it were giving approval to someone disobeying their bishop.

That being said, there was of course, a fiery discussion ongoing in the comments section, and one caught my eye. hence, the title of this blog post. One Latin Catholic woman (in red) said the following, with another Latin Catholic man (in green) responding to her. Many of the things she says are nonsensical, especially her assertion that since "God is in our midst", there's no reason to face the altar in a common orientation. If that were the case, then it shouldn't be a problem if, when we're about to receive Communion and the priest holds up the Eucharist saying "the Body of Christ", we turn around facing the people behind us and say "Amen"! But of course that would be a problem! Not to mention God is among us in a way that is different in the Eucharist, he is substantially there before us. Christains do not believe in a pantheistic god, that God is literally everything. God is Being itself. He is locally, and substantially present in the Eucharist, reserved in all the tabernacles throughout the world. The conversation is below. My words will be in blue: