Substance Abuse – The final word?

After spending the past couple of months writing about the nature of the Real Bodily Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, I was ready to move on to another topic this month, but then I opened the February 10, 2008 issue of the Northwest Indiana Catholic to page 15 and read a column by Rev. John Dietzen. A Catholic from California posed a question about something said in her parish Scripture study. The lady in charge told the class that Christ is equally present in Scripture as he is in the Eucharist. The questioner was confused. “I was always taught that Christ is uniquely present, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist. Besides, isn’t the Eucharist our focal point as Catholics?”

I immediately thought of Jimmy Akin’s September 14, 2006 blog which I cited in my December 30th entry where he talks about “Flattening the Real Presence” by equating it to other modes of his presence mentioned in Scripture and theology. As Mr. Akin put it, “To do so speaks of either gross ignorance of the faith or an agenda of some sort that is so strong it overrides what is patently obvious.”

Still confounded by our pastor’s insistence that Christ is present in other people the same way He is present in the Eucharist, I was anxious to see how Father Dietzen responded to this question. Surely he would explain the difference between Our Lord’s mystical presence and the unique substantive Presence in the Eucharistic species. I was disappointed in his answer to say the least. I have read it several times and I am still not sure what he is saying.

In his reply, Father Dietzen says, “Any presence of God, of the Trinity or of Jesus in the Bible or in the Eucharist or anywhere else is ‘unique’ in the sense that it is different from all other presences.” “Unique does not necessarily mean it is better or superior, just that there is nothing more perfect of its kind or class.” He goes on to say, “We also cannot speak of there being ‘more’ of Jesus in one place or another. God is indivisible.” Father Dietzen then cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Nos. 1084-1090) in stating that in the sacraments, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, our Lord is present in several ways. CCC 1088 specifically lists the ways Christ is present.

As I continued reading Father Dietzen’s answer, I again got this sense of flattening of the uniqueness of the Corporeal Presence in the Eucharist. Yes, he says our Lord is present “especially in the celebration of the Eucharist,” but he stresses Christ’s Presence in all these other ways, applying the word unique to describe them also. He goes on to say, “It is important to note that when the church speaks of the Eucharist in this context it does not mean primarily the simple presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species, as it is in the tabernacle, for example. It means most directly and essentially the sacrificial liturgy of the Eucharist, the celebration of Mass by the Catholic community.” That is not exactly what CCC1088 says.

CCC1088: “To accomplish so great a work” – the dispensation or communication of his work of salvation – “Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially in the Eucharistic species. By his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes, it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church. Lastly, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised ‘where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.’” (Sacrosanctum concilium; Matthew 18:20)

Is the presence of Christ in these other ways “unique” as Father Dietzen says? I suppose one could say His spiritual presence is “unique” since He is there in ways we cannot perceive with our five senses. But we can say fluoride is present in our water in ways we cannot perceive with our senses. I have trouble understanding the uniqueness of this presence when we also say God is present everywhere. Are there varying degrees of uniqueness? I do understand the “uniqueness” of the presence in the Holy Eucharist where the substance is specifically defined as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and the accidents are perceptible to the senses.

The Catechism says, “By his power he is present in the sacraments . . .” Water held back by a dam has potential energy. We cannot see the energy itself, but we can witness the effects of it when it is unleashed. Similarly, we cannot necessarily see the power of Christ in the sacraments, but we can know the effects. How this presence occurs is a mystery. Is it not better to leave it at that rather than confuse simple-minded lay people accustomed to a physical world where they can better grasp the truly unique substantial presence in the physical form of bread and wine?

If Christ cannot be “more” present one way or another, what does it mean when the Church says He is “especially” present in the Eucharistic species. The Corporeal Presence of Jesus under the appearances of bread and wine transubstantiated is what makes this form of His Presence truly unique. CCC 1374 addresses this issue, but Father Dietzen does not make reference to it in his reply.

CCC1374: The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments to “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ –by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

Father Dietzen does not use any form of the word substance is his entire reply. How can anyone explain the uniqueness of the Eucharist Presence without talking about transubstantiation? I would love to speak to the person who posed the original question in the article to see whether he or she thought Father Dietzen’s answer was clearly stated. I found it confusing, ambiguous and serving to further “flatten” the Real Presence, as Jimmy Akin put it.

All of this brought me back to my questions about the nature of the substantial presence which I have been pondering for the past couple of months. A handout the priest gave us in our Faith Enhancement class last week listed various statements by St. Thomas Aquinas, the great thirteenth century philosopher of the Church. Some of his words made me revisit my view of substance and accidents that I wrote about last month.

I am not sure where these particular ideas attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas on the handout originated. Perhaps they are found in the Summa Theologiae. Assuming they were reproduced accurately, he defined Substance as “that which has an essence to which it belongs not to exist in a subject – is made to be by its causes.” The Accident is “that to whose essence it belongs to exist in a subject – does not have its own existence.” (Not having the actual sources, I should emphasize that I do not know whether the statements on this handout were actual Thomistic quotes or someone’s summarization of his work.)

In trying to understand substance, several other statements caught my attention. “Man exists and operates as one substance, an individual man has but one substantial form, and this is his rational soul.” “The human soul is both an intellectual substance and by its nature the form of the body.” “The human soul is a spiritual substance with its own being – incomplete in essence – incorruptible and immortal.”

When I wrote last month about the nature of Christ’s presence in the person following the corruption of the accidents, I reasoned that the substantial presence would cease because it could not exist without the accidents. Therefore, the substantial presence would have to cease after fifteen minutes or so when the accidents are corrupted. Reading these statements attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas raised further questions in my mind.

If the human soul is a substance, it can exist after death without an accidental form, right? So, substance would not necessarily have an accidental form? The Thomistic handout says, man is a composite, comprising both soul and body. The soul and body share the same being. So, what happens when the body and soul are separated? Since the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, is it somehow possible after the corruption of the accidents that the spiritual substance of Jesus remains with the person?

At this point, my head was spinning. I am not a philosopher. I am not well-read. Thomistic philosophy interests me, but I get lost quickly in trying to understand much of what he says. I decided to write down the question that started this whole discussion, and pose it to someone qualified to give me a simple answer. EWTN’s website has an Ask an Expert section where philosophy questions can be submitted. I posted the following question last week and within minutes, had my answer.

Christ's Substantial Presence
Question from Richard A. on 2/18/2008:


During a Faith Enhancement Class, our parish priest spoke of seeing “Eucharist” in other people as members of the Body of Christ. This led to questions about the Eucharistic Presence in the person following the reception of Holy Communion. Our priest stated that the Eucharistic Presence remains in the person as long as the person remains in a state of grace. It was my belief that Christ remains present in some mystical way, but the substantial Presence remains only until the accidents are corrupted by the digestive process, approximately 15 minutes after consumption. The priest vehemently disagreed saying that Christ’s Presence in the human person continues to be a substantial Presence beyond the corruption of the accidents.
I have been searching this site and a number of other sources, including Thomas Aquinas, looking for clarification on this, and I find myself still confused. If the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ (substance), and substance does not require accidents to exist (i.e. the soul), is it correct to say the Christ’s ongoing Presence in the human person is substantial? If so, what actually ceases to exist after the corruption of the accidents?

Answer by Richard Geraghty on 2/18/2008:
Dear Richard,
You were right and the priest was wrong.
Dr. Geraghty

COPYRIGHT 2008

‘nuff said.

More Substantial Thought

Last month I wrote about a lively discussion with our parish priest about the Eucharistic Presence of Christ in the human person. He seemed to take the position that Christ’s Substantial Presence remains in the person beyond the existence of the accidents. The key word here is substantial, meaning the substance of Christ’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity. While I am confident he expressed a view contrary to Church teaching, it did cause me to further ponder the mystery.

It occurred to me that substance could not exist without accidents and, not being well versed on Thomistic philosophy, I began searching for someone who was in order to confirm my belief. An internet search turned up the Thomistic Philosophy Page by Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D, the Director of Campus Ministry at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. He earned his Ph.D. from the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of Saint Thomas, Houston, Texas, and is author of the book Unmixing the Intellect: Aristotle on Cognitive Powers and Bodily Organs. In his discourse on substance and accidents, he says the following:

One never finds any substance that we experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance.

So there! When transubstantiated at the Consecration, the substance of bread and wine no longer exists while the accidents remain. After consumption, the digestive process eventually destroys the accidents. Once the accidents appearing as bread and wine no longer exist, neither does the substance. If the substance were to continue in existence beyond this point, it would necessarily be under a different form. For the substance to remain, it would have to have accidents. (I rethink some of this next month -- see my February 24, 2008 entry)

Could God do this if He wanted to? Of course, but no such substantial transformation in the human person has ever been revealed or taught by the Church. Renowned Catholic author Frank J. Sheed says the following in an excerpt posted by EWTN from one of his writings:

Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body. -Taken from Theology for Beginners (c) 1981 by Frank J. Sheed, Chapter 18.

I would love to revisit this topic with our priest again, but our class has taken a new direction. Last week a parishioner brought her seventeen year-old granddaughter to our class. She wants to become Catholic and after an interview, our priest has determined she is sufficiently prepared to enter the Church this Easter despite getting a very late start in her catechesis. Mavis and I are blessed to serve as her catechists. We have only a few precious weeks to prepare her for the Sacraments of Initiation. During our session with her this evening, we discussed the distinction between substance and accidents. We want to make sure she understands.

Christ’s Mass Presence

I recently wrote about our parish adult formation class that I have been attending. (See Sailing . . .October 27, 2007). The group began with just two of us plus our pastor. We were later joined by a couple from a nearby parish and the five of us have been studying Bishop Charles J. Chaput’s book, Living the Catholic Faith. The class has been quite interesting and the discussion quite spirited at times.

As I stated in my earlier post, the other parishioner (I’ll call her Mavis) and I have occasionally been at odds with our pastor concerning his expression of Catholic teaching. We try to be very orthodox in our Catholic belief and our pastor can be a bit liberal in his thinking. The new participants are long-time friends of our pastor and tend to think along the same lines. The wife is quite reserved while her husband is just the opposite. He keeps the class lively and is never at a loss for words. Some of his comments have drawn terse reaction from Mavis who can be somewhat cantankerous at times.

Our most recent sessions have focused on the Eucharist. At the close of one meeting, Father talked about “being Eucharist to one another” and “seeing Eucharist” in others. A few days after the class, Mavis asked me what Father meant by “seeing Eucharist” in other people. She pointed out that Eucharist literally means thanksgiving and asked how we see thanksgiving in others. I agreed that applying the term Eucharist to our vision of Christ’s presence in other people was confusing to say the least. Even if one can make the argument that such an expression is appropriate by some definition of the word, we both agreed that doing so can only diminish the sanctity of belief the unique Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

The following week, our session was progressing quite smoothly when Mavis said, “By the way Father, what did you mean last week when you talked about seeing Eucharist in others?” Father replied that Jesus is present is all of us. “But not in the same way He is present in the Eucharistic species,” Mavis interjected. “Yes, He is,” Father responded. Now I had to chime in. “Not substantially present,” I said looking for clarification. Again, Father responded that Jesus presence in others was substantial. Trying to assure myself that we were just misunderstanding each other, I stated that Jesus could be substantially present for fifteen minutes or so after receiving the Holy Eucharist. But again, Father reaffirmed his statement that the substantial Presence of Jesus exists in all of us beyond our reception of the Holy Eucharist.

I was astounded by what I was hearing. “So then, why shouldn’t I genuflect to those sitting around this table the same way I would genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament?” I asked. “You can do that,” Father replied. I could not believe my ears, and to complicate matters, the other gentleman at the table was agreeing with Father. “That’s heresy,” I said. By this time, Father’s face was red. He told me I was the one with the heretical belief. He started to express his frustration with me when I suggested we all calm down and discuss this further at a later time.

I didn’t sleep well that night. Many questions came to mind. Knowing what the Church teaches about transubstantiation, how can a Catholic priest believe that Christ is substantially present in others beyond the temporary Real Presence after the reception of Holy Communion? After transubstantiation occurs, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist and only the accidents remain. As understood and affirmed by the Council of Trent, the substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic species continues until the accidents are no longer intact, either as a result of consumption or natural deterioration. It seems to be generally taught that the Real Presence continues for about fifteen minutes after consumption. Then, how is it possible for Our Lord to be substantially present in a person beyond that point? Once the species of bread and wine are digested and no longer exist, how can the substantial Presence continue and under what form does it exist if it is not bread and wine?

The only conclusion I could reach was that our priest was just plain wrong. I began to look for evidence to present at our next session since I knew he would not accept me at my word. What I found confused me even more. Searching the EWTN website, I found an answer written by Father Robert J. Levis (08-31-2007) which said, “ . . . , The sacramental presence of Jesus remains about 15 minutes within us, as long as the species lasts.” Okay so far. Then he says, “The real presence, Jesus’ presence itself remains till mortal sin destroys it.”

The last sentence says the “real presence” (often capitalized when referring to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ) remains. Using the term “real presence” as he does can be understood to indicate the Eucharistic Bodily Presence of Jesus remains in the person as long as that person remains in a state of grace. I have to assume Father Levis is referring to a spiritual presence remaining as opposed to a substantial or bodily presence which he calls sacramental in the first sentence.

In search of clarification, I found another answer by Father Robert J. Levis (12-10-2005) to a similar question on the EWTN website where he says the “Eucharistic elements” remain with us for about fifteen minutes after reception. He goes on to say, “It is ideal to spend these few precious moments with Jesus in the Eucharist temporarily present within us, or for at least some of this time.” This affirms my statement to Father that the Real Bodily Eucharistic Presence in the person is only temporary.

My confidence in understanding the Real Presence comes from my rudimentary familiarization with the philosophical difference between substance and accidents as proposed by Aristotle. In transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist while the accidents or physical properties of bread and wine remain. The substance becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and continues until such time the accidents are corrupted. When I used the word “substantial” in my argument with Father, I was using it as a technical term derived from this philosophy.

While searching for more information on the topic, I came across an essay on the Adoremus website by Avery Cardinal Dulles which confused me a little more. In referring to the Substantial Presence as affirmed by the Council of Trent, he says the following:

. . . . Trent tells us that Christ's presence in the sacrament is substantial. The word "substance" as here used is not a technical philosophical term, such as might be found in the philosophy of Aristotle. It was used in the early Middle Ages long before the works of Aristotle were current. "Substance" in common-sense usage denotes the basic reality of the thing, i.e., what it is in itself. Derived from the Latin root "sub-stare", it means what stands under the appearances, which can shift from one moment to the next while leaving the subject intact.

Regardless of how one understands the meaning of substance, the Eucharistic Jesus is a unique corporeal presence that surpasses all other forms. This same issue was addressed in the Blog of Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin (September 14, 2006). In an entry titled Flattening the Real Presence, he was asked how to verbalize the difference between Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist as opposed to his presence where two or three are gathered or in the faces of the poor. He begins by saying this is not an easy question to answer because Jesus did not provide us with details in describing the manner of his presence in those other situations, but he goes on to say that Jesus’ presence in others is less than the full reality of his presence in the Eucharist. Mr. Akin says the following:

Therefore, one does an injustice to the Eucharist – and to Jesus himself – if one attempts to flatten the uniqueness of the Eucharistic presence and reduce it to the other modes of his presence which Scripture and theology speak of. To do so speaks of either gross ignorance of the faith or an agenda of some sort that is so strong it overrides what is patently obvious.

As evidence for the unique way Christ is present in the Eucharist, Mr. Akin highlights several statements from several sources, the first being the Compendium of the Catholic Catechism where it states that “Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way.” (#282) He also cites the Catechism itself. "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." (CCC 1374) He also refers to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium Fidei which says, “These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist” [38].

So, what have I learned after contemplating all of this? To a novice philosopher like me, it seems the substance does not exist apart from the accidents. Therefore, when the accidents no longer remain, neither does the substance. If the form of bread and wine become corrupted after about fifteen minutes of digestion, the substantial form of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is no longer present in that form. Beyond that, Jesus can still be present in one who remains in a state of grace in some other form, but how this occurs is a mystery. I am still confident in my statement that Christ’s substantial presence in the human person is only temporary, but I am less confident that I will be able to win an argument with our pastor.

Priests and Politics

At least twice in the past couple of months, our Catholic newspaper has printed articles about Catholic leaders taking sides in political debate. Where morally non-negotiable issues are concerned, all Catholics have a responsibility to speak out. But where the proper course of action is questionable, our Catholic leaders should butt out.

The latest issue involves the expansion of the SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) which President Bush vetoed and the House of Representatives failed to override. According to the published report from CNS, “Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, decried the fact that ‘there were not enough House members willing to stand up for children and vote to override this ill-conceived veto of a bill that would have helped so many children without health insurance.’”

President Bush agrees that some expansion of the SCHIP is necessary, but the Democrats, in a political move probably intended to make the President look bad, offered an increase so drastic that a presidential veto was responsibly necessary. The proposed 25 billion dollar increase would have covered people who can afford their own insurance and considered children to be up to 25 years old.

A further move toward socialized medicine is not going to be in the best long term interest of children or anyone else for that matter. Expanded social programs cost money. They result in higher taxes which means fewer jobs and less self-reliance. Not every problem can be solved by throwing more money at it. Government mandates often create more problems than they solve.

Yes, the United States is blessed with riches. We are also the most generous nation in the world. We can be this way because of our free markets which create incentives for individual success. One does not develop self-worth by depending on others for his basic needs. Of course, when people are unable to care for themselves, we take on that responsibility, and do so gladly.

Father Larry Snyder could be aiding and abetting the Democratic Party strategy of demeaning Republicans in any way possible in order to bolster their chance for regaining control of the White House in the next election. He has every right to speak out on behalf of those who cannot afford health care, but he should be very cautious when becoming involved in the process. By voicing Catholic support for what may be a calculated political ploy, he may unwittingly help advance their entire agenda which includes abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and other morally unacceptable positions.

Sailing First Class

Last month, I wrote about a chance encounter with a young man who wanted to be Catholic. At the time, I wondered whether it was truly a chance encounter or whether the Holy Spirit brought us together. Shortly after that event, I did something rather out-of-character for me. Our pastor announced that an Adult Formation/RCIA class would be starting on Tuesday evenings and repeated on Saturday mornings. He billed the class as being appropriate for non-Catholics interested in exploring the Catholic Faith, Catholics who had been away from the Church, or Catholics wishing to learn more about their faith. Falling into the third group, I decided to attend.

Normally I would be reluctant to give up an evening each week to attend a class. Much of my free time is occupied with various meetings or activities. I like to attend a weekday evening Mass or two each week, and my service on a civic board and other groups also eat up the minutes. All of this in addition to a full-time job and household chores make free evenings to relax a welcome respite. Still I felt a compulsion to go.

Father and I have not always seen eye-to-eye on certain matters, mostly regarding the liturgy and occasionally the general operation of the parish, including the lack of orthodox catechesis. There were times when anger and frustration were interfering with my maintaining an appropriate frame of mind at Mass. My normal reaction to conflict is avoidance. While that may be a bad solution in most cases, here it worked for me. I let others in the parish fight the battles while I gained some peace of mind. I have a short memory and my discontent diminished quickly.

About this time, I was surprised to see Father boldly recommending a diocesan conference featuring Scott Hahn. Dr. Hahn is a Catholic convert who speaks gloriously about discovering our wonderful Catholic liturgy. I had been listening to Dr. Hahn and reading his books for several years. He seemed to be very orthodox in his views and having Father endorsing his conference was an exciting new development for me! Perhaps attending the class would give me an opportunity to develop this common interest into a new and better relationship with Father.

One of the unfortunate results of our poor catechesis is the lack of participation by our parishioners in anything beyond weekly Mass attendance. Fearing I would be the only one in the class, I enlisted another parishioner who often shares my opinions to attend also. As expected, the three of us were the only ones there. We spent the first session lamenting the fact that we have no one in RCIA again this year. During the discussion, we mentioned several acquaintances as possible candidates for conversion.

Both my classmate and I sing in the parish choir. The following Sunday, one of the persons she mentioned in the class surprisingly showed up for Mass. He was a young man in his twenties who had attended a Catholic college and sang in the college choir while he was a student. She introduced him and asked me to help him find the hymns we would be singing. After Mass, she introduced him to Father and invited him to our Tuesday session. He said he was interested and would like to come. After we all parted, I congratulated my friend on bringing this prospective new Catholic to Mass. She replied by telling me she had not talked to him recently, and in fact, she thought that I had talked to him! Wow, I thought. Maybe the Holy Spirit IS working with us. I went away invigorated and looking forward to our next Tuesday session.

About the same time, I mentioned the upcoming class to another Protestant friend of mine. We have engaged in periodic religious discussions over the past couple of years. He is very set in his Protestant ways, so I was surprised when he expressed a desire to attend the class. A conflict prevented him from attending the first meeting, but I told him he would be welcome to come the following week.

When it came time for our first Tuesday class, the young man never showed. We waited for awhile and I began to wonder whether he may have expected one of us to pick him up. Knowing where he lived, I went to his house where I met his parents in the front yard. I explained why I was there and they said he was lying down. About the same time, another gentleman drove up also looking to give him a ride. Seems the young man had been attending a Protestant meeting on Tuesday evenings, one where they probably do not think too highly of Catholics. It soon became apparent that he did not intend to go to either meeting this evening. His parents were very cordial in explaining that their son had been experiencing some problems and they were all going through a difficult time. I told them we were there to help in any way we can and to call on us any time they feel the need. I have been praying for them.

When the following Tuesday arrived, neither one of our contacts were in attendance. My Protestant friend had a change of heart and decided not to participate. This did not really surprise me as he has occasionally expressed intent in the past and not followed through. Several weeks have passed and we have had no further interest indicated by either person. If the Holy Spirit did bring us together, why did this not work out? Did we do something wrong? Did we neglect to do something we should have done? How does one continue to pursue potential converts without seeming overbearing?

The class is continuing with the three of us. Father is using Bishop Charles J. Chaput’s book, Living the Catholic Faith for the text. We also have a study guide written by Father Daniel J. Mahan. These may be excellent materials, but I am wondering whether this type of study is profitable for drawing people closer to the Church. My early impression is that this study is good for people solidly grounded in the Faith who are looking to enrich their spiritual lives. Having only two parishioners in attendance leads me to believe most of our congregation is not there yet.

The Church is a vehicle, much like a ship crossing the ocean. She can transport us to our final destiny if we stay safely onboard. In some ways, this study presumes we are full steam ahead and need to familiarize ourselves with all the ship’s amenities. Subtitled Rediscovering the Basics, Bishop Chaput’s book is a great refresher for those committed to following orders of the ship’s captain. Unfortunately, many Catholics are today adrift. They have never been properly catechized and even this most basic manual may be beyond their horizons. Many do not follow Church teaching and some have abandoned ship altogether.

All of us are at different places on our spiritual journeys. Some of us never leave the port. I sometimes wonder if our priests who form catechetical programs are not so far spiritually removed from the floundering Catholic that they fail to connect. The Catholics who need formation the most simply miss the boat. Either they find class material less than inspiring or they lack the motivation to seek any kind of spiritual development.

Most Catholics will eventually find themselves under fire for holding some “non-biblical” belief. Christian Fundamentalists are often aggressive in their evangelization of others. Catholics not knowing how to respond may start to doubt their faith. They may cower away, leaving the criticism unchallenged. Worse, they may fall away from the Church. Perhaps they were agnostic growing up or simply never learned to defend the Faith. A Catholic education, even seminary training, does not necessarily enable one to defend Church teaching. Catholics may know what, but they may not know why.

When a Catholic comes to the realization that there are solid defensible arguments for the Church’s position, they often become excited with the desire to learn more. The common criticisms of the Catholic Church fall into patterns which most every Catholic can refute with some basic instruction. The Catholic apologists gaining the most converts today are often converts themselves. Once people realize what the Church is, and become convinced of her authority and authenticity, attitudes may change abruptly.

For this reason, I believe we should focus on basic apologetics initially to get Catholics excited about the Church. Once they experience the joy of knowing they are aboard the great ship destined for eternal life, the real formation can begin.

Fun in the Son

Shortly after my wife and I moved back to our hometown, I accepted an appointment to the municipal Park and Recreation Board. Now, thirty years later, I am still doing it. One of the extracurricular duties is to organize the annual Fun Day at the Park. The fundraising event has been held on the Sunday following Labor Day for the past 35 years. It consists of a variety of children’s games, food, music and whatever else we can come up with!

In its heyday, Fun Day filled the park with people of all ages. We had volleyball games, horseshoes, fireman’s waterball, three-legged races, tug o’ war, basketball games, obstacle courses, water balloon tosses, egg tosses . . . you name the game, we probably tried it. We had cake walks, white elephant sales, bands, elephant ears, sno-cones, hot dogs, brats, soups, pies, and six-flavors of ice cream. It was all done in typical small town fashion with volunteers and cooperation from local businesses and civic groups.

As often happens in small towns, the same small groups of people get stuck doing the same jobs year after year. Organizers get older and the younger generation seems too busy to get involved. A lovely woman who was the life blood of Fun Day at the Park, died rather unexpectedly a few years back. Others tried to fill her shoes, but Fun Day was never quite the same.

About the same time, Pop Warner Football came to our community. Kids as young as five years old now play organized football, and on Sundays to boot! Parents who don’t have a son playing football probably have a daughter on the cheerleading squad. Much of our former Fun Day clientele spends their Sundays at the football field now. As a result, much of the festive atmosphere surrounding Fun Day has disappeared. Without participants, we no longer have as many games and contests. What was originally an all-afternoon affair, now barely goes for three hours. Revenues are down, and frankly, Fun Day isn’t much fun anymore.

We still have a few volunteers who help us set up for the event, but at the end of day, few remain to help clean up. Much of it is heavy work, dumping garbage cans, rearranging heavy tables, and cleaning up the mess. One other park board member, who injured his back the night before, remained to help me this year. Several hours of heavy labor needed to be done before dark and the two of us were facing it alone.

As we surveyed the park landscape, I began to wonder whether all this work we had put in over the past month, and especially the past two days, was really worth the effort. In my moment of despair, a woman who is also a board member approached me with a young man in tow. He was required to do some community service and wanted to know if we would allow him to work. This could be a God-send, I thought. As it turned out, I was right!

We accepted his help and I told him he could begin by smashing a large pile of cardboard boxes and taking them to a nearby dumpster. He replied with, “Sir, yes sir”, much like one would hear in the military. I would find out later that he was serving time in a boot camp-like facility for some infraction, the nature of which I still do not know. He was very respectful and soon began offering suggestions of how we could make our jobs easier. The young man liked to talk and we had quite a conversation as we worked side-by-side for the next three hours.

He told me he was really trying to turn his life around and was determined not to go back to prison after his incarceration ends in October. At one point, he said, “I’m Catholic.” My ears perked up. I told him I am Catholic also, and the other two Park Board members he met today are also Catholic. As he continued to talk, I realized he was not quite Catholic yet. He explained that a deacon comes to the prison every Tuesday evening for studies, and he was preparing for baptism and his first communion. As if to show off some of his new found knowledge, he told me Peter was the first Pope! I agreed and we began exchanging a few bible verses.

On what had become a very long, tiring and somewhat disappointing day, I suddenly felt rejuvenated. As our work drew to a close, I gave the young man my name and phone number, offering to stay in contact if he needed any assistance in his journey to the Catholic Church after his prison time ends. We shared some leftover Fun Day ice cream and I drove him to the home of his mother’s boyfriend. He thanked me for the opportunity to work off some of his required community service time, shook my hand and we parted company.

As the events of the day replayed in my head that evening, I began to wonder about the circumstances that brought us together. My fellow board member who brought him to me is a very spiritual Catholic woman. Where did she find him at a time when we were in dire need of help? How did he know where to find her on a late Sunday afternoon where an annual event just happened to have ended? Why did he suddenly blurt out “I’m Catholic” to a stranger who just happens to love sharing his Catholic faith? Was all of this circumstantial or did the Holy Spirit have a hand in it? It may be so. I do know he was a God-send.