A troubled reader writes:

I know Facebook theology is always hit and miss, and context can be lost and I probably should have just let it slide, but it struck me: namely, the accusation that only TRUE Catholics receive on the tongue. It happened like this:

A Facebook person posted as a status: "Are there TRUE Catholics that take communion in the hands? Sadly in my parish most Eucharistic ministers do."  They then linked to an article which did in fact include an incident of Abuse, discarding the consecrated host."

Then I replied: "I love the Eucharist, Jesus sees our hearts. If we approach with deep longing and humility, the means by which we receive, (hand or tongue) is the...READ MORE

A reader writes:

Thank you for your time. I have been trying to resolve an issue I have with my Church the Catholic Church for some time now unsuccessfully. I have made the observation that the Church has come to accept the existence of the “homosexual person”. This I believe to be an error the Church must correct.

I have communicated with a number of people in the Church over the past nine years and have been unsuccessful resolving this issue. I do not judge anyone we all have the gift of freewill and will all be judged by the Lord for our lives. However the Church does not have freewill but has an obligation to the Lord to be consistent with the faith of our fathers and the...READ MORE

"Science Destroys Creation Myths" consider the possibility that the reply to this is "Rubbish".

But given that “destroying a creation myth” means “showing that the myth is not true”, why does one need a science to do this? We don’t need sciences to know that myths are, well, myths. Or is the claim that no one recognized that (the relevant) creation accounts were myths until science told us so? But then the claim is just false: we didn’t need the sciences to know that creation accounts are mythical. Millions of people could recognize creation myths as such before any of the modern sciences. It takes no knowledge of science at all to recognize a myth for what it is and to take...READ MORE

...to say:

Damnit, I had to write to somebody right now...  starting to get angry at the characterization of anyone who believes marriage is NOT re-definable as bigoted, insensitive, an "a--hole" (these being just some of what I've seen on my Facebook and Twitter today). There is absolutely an atmosphere of intimidation, an icy front discouraging any opposition, and all under a sentiment of "compassion."

I've refrained from issuing any comment in part because, like most "internet activism," I find stating one's opinion by posting a picture or issuing a statement asserting my own righteousness to be fairly shallow. But I'm just about ready to be considered an "a--hole" if only for...READ MORE

My Mormon friend and I have been discussing the issue of apostolic succession for the past week, which is an important bedrock for both his and my faith. He readily acknowledges that there is evidence of apostolic succession in the early Christian church, but he points to two factors that keep him from accepting the Catholic Church's claim to unbroken apostolic succession.

The first of these is that there is no record of the ordination of St. Peter's successor, which has led to some debate about whether it was Clement or Linus that succeeded the first Bishop of Rome. Further, the records seem to go silent on apostolic succession until the second century, which my friend sees as...READ MORE

I have a dilemma. Some of the things I read on facebook that are anti religious I feel compelled to comment on. There is a quote I recently that goes along the lines of  ' Religion is for the ignorant and comedy for ..something something' Is it worth taking people up to task when such statements are made ? I believe there is a big push by Atheists to push down any believer in God dismissing them as senile dumb and all the above and it gets to me. Im not a practicing Catholic but I have the desire and not the motivation to do more..i feel like im being more of an apoligist for my faith rather than an active believer should I just stick to trying to improve on practising my religion?

...comes this latest piece of magical divination: a promise that doing an MRI of an actor and an astronomer reading from Shakespeare and Galileo, respectively, "might yield some clues to Galileo and Shakespeare's drives".

Given that MRIs of the brains of dead salmon have yielded "clues" to nothing in particular, I don't see why an actor's or an astronomer's brains--or a sheep's entrails, if it comes to that--might not also yield "clues" as well, to be duly "interpreted" as the augurs of Rome did. In our current culture of credulity, as long as you wear the priestly garment of the lab coat you are a high priest and an MRI or some other sciency device is your Urim and Thummim. The human...READ MORE

In the course of a discussion about the existence of God and of the miraculous, an unbelieving reader (who strikes me as open to reasonable discussion) writes:

All I’m saying is that people everywhere demonstrate a powerful desire to believe that there is intervention in the material universe from outside the material universe.

Except that’s not true.  Lots of people also demonstrate a powerful desire to believe there is no intervention in the material universe.  Even many people who believe in some sort of God do this, because they are deists.

The notion that the existence of God provides nothing but unalloyed consolation and does not also give reason to have deep fear...READ MORE