Doesn't the Bible specifically mention Jesus' brothers and sisters? So how can the Catholic Church proclaim that Mary was ever-virgin?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The above question is a common one posed to Catholics, especially in light of today's Gospel, which states:
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary,
and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?
And are not his sisters here with us?"--Mark 6
And yet the Catholic Church proclaims that Mary was Perpetual Virgin.  Isn't this another example of the Church thinking it's above the Scriptures and can contradict God's Word?

Firstly, Brothers and Sisters, you will note that while the Scripture does mention that Jesus had brothers and sisters, the Bible--NOWHERE--ever describes them as "sons of Mary."  We can search the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation and will not find a single reference to anyone being a son of Mary except Jesus.  Thus, the Scriptures describe "brothers of the Lord", but never "sons of Mary".

Secondly, Brothers and Sisters, the Scripture do indeed give us hints as to who these "brothers" of Jesus actually were *(see below).

Thirdly, Brothers and Sisters, you will indeed note in numerous places that the inspired writers do indeed call lots of people "brothers and sisters" while it doesn't necessarily mean they actually shared the same womb.  It could mean a multitude of things:  spiritual brothers and sisters (as in the reference I use today to you, my Brothers and Sisters in Christ), cousins (ancient culture often had a concept that all relatives were, essentially, as close to you as your family of origin), step brothers, adopted brothers, half brothers...

Fourthly, the Church's teachings can never contradict Scripture.  Both come from the same source:  Jesus Christ, and thus truth cannot contradict truth.  The deposit of faith comes to us from Christ through the Apostles and their successors (our Bishops), and the Scriptures reflect this faith. 

(Incidentally, the Catholic Church is not the only Christian church that proclaims that Mary was ever-virgin.  Lutherans, Episcopalians, and, of course, the Orthodox churches also believe this.)

Finally, many will ask:  who cares if Mary was Perpetually a Virgin?  All that's important is that we know she was a virgin prior to Jesus, so we know that Jesus is the son of God and not the son of another man.  The Catholic answer is:  all doctrines/dogmas/teachings about Mary only serve to enhance and affirm our understanding of Jesus. 

In other words:  All things about Mary point to Jesus and His Divinity.  An impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Our Lord.

*Explanation of who the Brothers of Jesus were:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.
2. There is an apostle named James, identified as the Lord's brother.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.-Galatians 1:18-19

3. Two apostles are named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”-Luke 6:13-16

One James (the brother of John) is not the womb brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

            “James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)”--Mark 3:17

The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”--Luke 6:13-16

Therefore, neither apostle named James was a womb brother of Jesus.

4. The man named Joses is not the womb brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.” --Matthew 27:55-56

5. Judas is not a womb brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” --Acts 1:13

6. Regarding Simon, not much is known, but suffice it to say that if the above "brothers" have been dismissed as possibilities as sons of Mary, we can assume that Simon, too, in association with those listed, is also not a womb brother.
Thus, while this Sunday's gospel declares James, Joses and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated that they are NOT womb brothers of Jesus. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. Adapted from here

 

I apologize for the multicolored, oddly spaced text today. Not sure why it's not following my text commands!

 

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Answers Tract:  The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity

 
Catholic Bible online
Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Is Jesus present in the Eucharist in the same way that he is present to us in the Scriptures, the other sacraments, and in the people of God? That is, are they all equally deserving of our worship?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

This Sunday is the Feast of Corpus Christi, or the Feast of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.

So for 2000 years it has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that Jesus is truly and substantially present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist.  It is not a symbol. 


As Pope Benedict XVI has so eloquently stated, "With these words, spoken immediately after the words of consecration, the priest proclaims the mystery being celebrated and expresses his wonder before the substantial change of bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, a reality which surpasses all human understandings."

Sometimes the Church (or rather, people in the Church misunderstanding the constant teaching of the Church) have emphasized one aspect of this theological mystery over another.  As the centuries progressed, other theological nuances were stressed.  After Vatican II, I believe that in an effort to emphasize the sanctity of the laity (a valid reform!), some Church leaders, wrongly, in my opinion, attempted to de-emphasize the adoration and worship given to the Blessed Sacrament, the Most Holy Eucharist. 

Thus, in the 1970's and 80's it was common in some Catholic circles to hear people say that we ought to be bowing and kneeling to each other and before the Sacred Scriptures, as well as before the tabernacle--for was not Christ present in the Church assembly, Scripture as well as in the Eucharist?

This was a misunderstanding of Vatican II's correct emphasis on the laity--Vatican II*rightly proclaimed that Christ is present in the assembly, and that Catholics ought to see the Scriptures as the Word of God, more than this had been emphasized in centuries past. However, it is a fallacy to place our worship of Jesus in the Eucharist on equal footing with the Scriptures and the congregation. 

As Fr. Vincent Serpa of Catholic Answers says, "The Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ who is God and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Only the Father and the Holy Spirit are equal to him. To say otherwise is not only the result of fuzzy thinking, it’s heresy!

While we "acknowledge Jesus' presence through the Word, the sacraments, and the laity, the Church emphasizes his presence in the Eucharist in "a way that surpasses all the others." It is his presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, "a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains" than all the other sacraments because it contains Christ himself and it is "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments. This presence is called ‘real’ not to exclude the idea that the others are ‘real’ too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man" (Mysterium Fidei, 38, 39). source

Thus, the short answer to this 3-minute apologetics question is:  No.  Jesus is not present in the Eucharist in the same way as he is present in those other areas.  He is present in a way that surpasses all the others. 

*Disclaimer:  I am not an expert on Vatican II and the arguments about "the spirit of Vatican II" verses what Vatican II actually proclaimed in its documents make my eyes glaze over.  So please keep this in mind as you read my comments about Vatican II.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Papal Encyclical by Pope JPII on the Eucharist

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

 
Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Did the Catholic Church change the way Christians baptize? Shouldn't we baptize "in Jesus' name" only?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

This coming Sunday's first reading from Acts of the Apostles contains a verse that has led to the separation of another Christian group (one of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.)

Then Peter responded,
"Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,
who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?"
He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

There is a Christian denomination, the Oneness Pentecostals, which has separated itself based on this very text (plus 3 others) which appears to be proclaiming that baptism be done in Jesus' name.  They believe, based on this text, that we ought to be baptizing NOT using the Trinitarian formula, ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), but "in the name of Jesus" ONLY.  They maintain that the Trinitarian baptism is a "tradition of men" that has been condemned by the Scriptures.

It is of such dire import to them that they started their own sect in the early 20th century because they felt that the rest of Christendom was contradicting the Word of God by baptizing using the Trinitarian formula (among some other doctrinal issues concerning their understanding of salvation and their understanding of the Trinity.)  And this movement is no small matter, claiming over 24 million adherents.

The short answer to the above question, is:  no, the Catholic Church did not change the way we baptize; we baptize the way Jesus commanded us to baptize in Matthew 28:19:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Catholics have been baptizing using the Trinitarian formula from the earliest days.  There is a document of early Christian practices from about 50 AD called the DIDACHE (pronounced did-a-kay) that details how the early Christians baptized:

"In regard to baptism - baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm."

So why does this verse in Acts say we should be baptizing in Jesus' name and not in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? It is made to offer a distinction from other baptisms that were occurring during the earliest days of Christianity.  There were the baptisms done by followers of John the Baptist, baptisms done in Jewish liturgies, and baptisms done in pagan rituals.  By proclaiming baptisms be done "in the name of Jesus Christ", the inspired author of Acts was merely attempting to disassociate ourselves from the baptisms done by other sects.  It was not an instruction on how to baptize.

It is the Church that offers the authentic interpretation of the Scriptures.  Without an authentic interpreter of God's Word, what occurs is the chaos and confusion of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that they have rightly interpreted Verse and the rest of Christianity has simply missed the mark on Verse .  This, clearly, is the work of the Great Deceiver, and not the will of Christ who prayed that "we might be one" as He and the Father are one.

Since becoming passionate about apologetics many years ago I have encountered some, frankly, weirder and weirder interpretations of the Bible--here's one that I just recently heard:  stairs to altars are condemned in Scripture.  Go figure.   This only serves to confirm this point:  we need someone to tell us what the Bible means.**

Without a guide to open the Scriptures to us (as Jesus did to those on the walk to Emmaus in Luke 24:32), we are left to our own destruction and "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning and by craftiness in deceitful schemes"--Ephesians 4:14.  In fact, our first pope, in his first "encyclical" tells us that "there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." 2 Peter 3:16

**Now, of course, Catholics are free to read the Scriptures without an authority telling us what it means to us personally. That is, if we are in a fight with our honey (hypothetically speaking ) and we open the Bible up to Psalm 45:3 which proclaims, "You are the most handsome of men" we are certainly free to interpret this to mean that we need to make up with our handsome, hunky husband.  But we are never free to interpret it contrary to what the Church has proclaimed.  And thus we would never been free to interpret Psalm 45:3 as permission, say, to commit adultery.  But of course we Catholics can read the Bible (and in fact are obligated to read the Scriptures) and apply them to our own faith journeys in personal ways. 

(Note:  The Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of all Christians baptized in other denominations, provided that the baptism was done using water and the Trinitarian formula.  Thus, people who wish to enter the Catholic Church but were baptized "in Jesus name" alone must be "re-baptized".)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Revisit: What if Jesus didn't really rise from the dead?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

(See last year's similar discussion, posted here)

Every once in a while I will hear a homily delivered about the Multiplication of the Loaves that goes something like this: 

Let's be open minded and consider this possibility:  what if Jesus didn't actually cause a miracle of creating enough food for thousands out of just a few loaves of bread?  What if the actual miracle was that of Jesus inspiring the crowds to share the bread that they had actually hidden in their cloaks!  Jesus' preaching moved the crowds to remove the selfishness from their hearts and motivated their consciences into sharing with others.  

I've always hated it when I heard this type of homily because it humanizes Jesus and removes the supernatural element from our faith.  Yes, of course, Jesus was fully human and I suppose it's possible that the miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves (the only miracle that is recorded in all 4 gospels, by the way) was more a "miracle of sharing" than a supernatural foreshadowing of the Eucharist.  But I don't think so.  In fact, our Catechism states this:

The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist. CCC 1335

So what does this have to do with the Apologetics topic at hand?


There are some Christian scholars who propose something they consider to be deliciously open minded:  Christ didn't really rise from the dead. He only "rose" in the hearts and minds of his disciples who understood Jesus' revolutionary message of "love one another" and "resurrected" it by proclaiming to the ancient Near East.  Jesus was a man.  A man who died tragically and horribly.  But he didn't actually rise from the dead.  The disciples were just a little freaked out after seeing their hero crucified so they got together and decided to perpetuate the love and tolerance their hero had espoused by telling a little white lie:  Jesus did not really die!

It's the same genre of people who want to disavow themselves of anything miraculous or supernatural (like the Multiplication of the Loaves). What's important to them is Jesus' message of love and tolerance.  In other words, it doesn't really matter whether Christ suffered, died and rose because, after all, we have his legacy:  we all now know, thanks to Jesus, that we must love one another.

How do Catholics respond?  By offering the words of the Holy Spirit:  "If Christ is not risen, our faith is in vain."--1 Corinthians 15:17.  Our faith proclaims:  The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised. --CCC 651

I humbly (and I hope charitably) submit that it is truly a ridiculous proposition to claim that one can be a Christian and can reject the Resurrection (that is, the literal resurrection of our Lord and Savior.)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

JW tract: How do you view Jesus? As a Newborn Baby? A Dying Man? Or an Exalted King?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

A Jehovah's Witness (JW) left this tract at our door the other day.  It asks, provocatively, ""How do you view Jesus?  As a Newborn Baby?  A Dying Man? Or an Exalted King!" 





The Catholic answer is, of course, "Yes!" 

Again, as with most Catholic answers, the response is not either/or but both/and. 

Yes, we view Jesus as a newborn baby.  And as a dying man (we prefer to use the term "crucified savior").  And as an exalted king.

We might also add that we view Him as

healer
teacher
rabbi
priest
prophet
fisher of men
advocate of women
lover of children
2nd person of the Trinity
redeemer
the lamb of God
the word made flesh
the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist
suffering servant
messiah
son of Mary, the ark of the covenant
prince of peace
the Incarnation

and a multitude of other titles and adjectives that we all could add.

I find it interesting that the JWs are offering this tract as we approach the Easter Triduum (Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday/Easter Vigil), which are Christianity's most holy days.

(Not to mention I find it slightly amusing that the tract says, in response to the question "How do you view Jesus?", to come "hear the answer" at their Kingdom Hall.  How is it that I will hear the answer to how I view Jesus at their presentation? )

Their presentation is being offered in response to a very common criticism leveled at Catholicism:  that it is morbidly obsessed with the death of Jesus.  And this obsession is at its  extreme during our Good Friday services (through our veneration of the Cross, Stations of the Cross, reading of the Passion narrative, etc).  The JW position is:  why?  He is now reigning as an exalted king!  Why commemorate a bloody and horrific event? Why keep images of Him, suffering and dying, in your churches?  If your loved one had died a horrible death would you keep pictures of that around your home and church?

My response is: yes, if my loved one died a horrific death, in ransom for me, because of my sins and failures, out of the greatest love for me, then I would most certainly keep that event ever present in my heart and mind!

And we Catholics remain focused on His Passion because that is the primary purpose for Jesus' Incarnation:  to be the Lamb of God who takes away our sins. 

He did not come, primarily, to heal the sick, or to preach the Golden Rule, or to teach a new morality.  While all of those ministries of Christ were important, and ought not be dismissed, Pope Benedict XVI's beautiful words here confirm that Jesus' mission was to be the true Sacrificial Lamb.

The mission for which Jesus came among us was accomplished in the Paschal Mystery. On the Cross from which he draws all people to himself, just before "giving up the Spirit," he utters the words: "it is finished" (Jn 19:30). In the mystery of Christ's obedience unto death, even death on a Cross, the new and eternal covenant was brought about. In his crucified flesh, God's freedom and our human freedom met definitively in an inviolable, eternally valid pact. Human sin was also redeemed once for all by God's Son. As I have said elsewhere, "Christ's death on the Cross is the culmination of that turning of God against himself in which he gives himself in order to raise man up and save him. This is love in its most radical form."

Love in its most radical form.  Gotta love our pope!  Who could disagree with that?  And who would object to venerating and adoring The Act of Love that purchased for us so great a salvation?

Not to mention, we focus on the atoning death of Christ (but are not, as some point out, "morbidly obsessed" with it) because Scripture commands that we do.  St. Paul writes, "but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength" -1 Cor 1:23-25

and here he proclaims, "When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom.  For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" -1 Cor 2:1-2

So, yes, Christ is our exalted King, as the JWs correctly proclaim, and we rejoice in this every Sunday.  But we also rejoice in Him whose suffering and death was a radical act of love for you and me.  Isn't that the right thing to do, if someone suffered and died for your sake?

For more in-depth study visit these websites:
Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Dissecting this video: Angelic Immersion Retreat

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

                                               and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

So I went on a women's retreat in the 90's similar to the one shown on this video, although ostensibly more Catholic as it was directed by a Catholic nun and we actually had Mass.  (I had merely signed up for a women's retreat advertised in my parish bulletin--didn't know it was going to be all about men bashing and hierarchy-rejection,  telling "herstory" vs HIStory, incriminating Catholicism as patriarchal and authoritative, etc etc etc)

Video:  Angelic Immersion Retreat with an Angel Therapy Practitioner

On one level, there is much healing and spiritual nourishment on retreats such as these. It appears on the video to have been a lovely weekend and I am certain that the women left the retreat feeling immensely loved by God, accepted and empowered.  Their femininity was celebrated!

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

However, when I accidentally encountered this video online it gave me pause.  I think that these types of "alternative" spiritual encounters can cause great harm and we ought to have our antennae up whenever these New Age-ish spiritualities are proposed. 

In fact, I will go so far as to say that if we are offered a chance to attend a retreat/seminar/workshop such as this, we ought to run away as fast as we can! (Slight hyperbole intended.)

(I must also offer a disclaimer:  I did not attend the retreat that is shown on this video, so my comments are based only on generalities and my own experiences.)

So how can a retreat that endorses this type of spirituality cause great harm? Isn't the theme really harmless:  "whatever it is that you believe that makes you happy, go for it!"  What's so wicked and evil about that?

Well, firstly, because it's a lie.  Truth matters.  It's not true that "whatever you believe, as long as it makes you happy" ought to be pursued.  The story of ";The Emperor's New Clothes" is a great example of this.  While the Emperor believed the lies told to him that he was dressed in elegant finery--and that pleased him immensely--the truth was that he was parading around butt naked in front of his kingdom.  Eek!  Truth matters.  While the Emperor was happy, the truth was inevitably going to come back and bite him.  Or consider whether an adult ought to believe in Santa Claus--it may make him happy to believe in him, but do we really want to encourage him in his belief and tell him, "go for it!  If that's what makes you happy, I'm with you!" 

Also, what I find so sinister about this type of spirituality is its use of Christian language.   We hear the familiar language of Christianity and are insidiously and complacently drawn into the lies.  We think, "Hey--they believe in angels. Catholics believe in angels!  We're on the same page here!"  "There is also talk of Christ, but this does not mean Jesus of Nazareth. “Christ” is a title applied to someone who has arrived at a state of consciousness where he or she perceives him- or herself to be divine and can thus claim to be a “universal Master”. source
Here are some phrases taken from these types of retreats/spiritualities/theologies:

Partnering with Your Angels, Getting to the Heart of Matter:  Using Heart Energy to facilitate healing in Mind, Body, and Spirit; Living in Balance and Joy!

In this role, she offers a clear translation of heavenly messages and healing energy in her Angel Healing Sessions

Immerse yourself within the heart of the divine

Labyrinth Meditations

Angelic Revelation

Sacred Art

Encouraging the Emergence of Each Soul's Voice

These phrases/concepts sound quite benign and generically religious and holy, and anyone might be tempted to investigate this type of retreat.  (Well, perhaps most men might not find these concepts attractive, but I'm guessing there are lots of women who might have their interest piqued by these activities. )  Yet, at its essence, this type of spirituality promotes concepts antithetical to Christianity.  We are definitely NOT on the same page doctrinally and credally with this type of spirituality.  In fact often the message of New Age religiosity is in direct opposition to Christianity.

For example, this spirituality denies sin.  Therefore there is no need for a Savior.  Jesus was an amiable and pleasantly good man who was just misunderstood.  That he was crucified was a tragedy but has no bearing on us today. 

There is no need for Revelation or Salvation which would come to people from outside themselves, but simply a need to experience the salvation hidden within themselves (self-salvation), by mastering psycho- physical techniques which lead to definitive enlightenment. source

This is contrary to Christianity!

Yet they take Christian principles that are attractive and palatable and apply it to their own theology: i.e:   "God loves us."  "He wants peace and harmony in our lives." **

Of course!  Who would want to disagree with a theology that espouses that?

A god is created that conforms to our own image and likeness, rather than encouraging us to conform our beliefs and image to that of God. 

Shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't WE be changing our beliefs?  Not finding a spirituality that conforms to that which we like and find palatable and acceptable.

**(Actually, they wouldn't say "He" wants peace and harmony in our lives.  That's too misogynistic.  They would say, "GOD wants peace and harmony in our lives."  Avoidance of any reference to God as Father or as "HE" is imperative in New Age religiosity!)

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15