Christian Leaders Weigh in on Mother Teresa's 'Crisis of Faith'

Christian Post ^ | 30 Aug 07 | Michelle Wu

[xzins]

Letters revealing Mother Teresa’s half-century-long “crisis of faith” have many pondering what to make of the secret life of one of the most revered figures in modern history.

Yet as theologians and psychologists offer interpretations for her deep “darkness,” a preeminent American theologian used Mother Teresa’s struggle to remind believers to trust Christ and not their feelings.

Whether it be an average Christian or a saint, doubts on the existence of God and turmoil over the inability to feel His presence is something every Christian has wrestled with.

Yet more important than dwelling on human emotions is securing one’s faith in Christ, according to Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and is one of the largest seminaries in the world.

“Salvation comes to those who believe in Christ – it is by grace we are saved through faith,” wrote Mohler in an online column Thursday in “On Faith” – a project of The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine.

“But the faith that saves is not faith in faith, nor faith in our ability [to] maintain faith, but faith in Christ,” he emphasized. “Our confidence is in Christ, not in ourselves.”

Mohler was responding to this week’s TIME cover story which explores Mother Teresa’s inner struggles in light of a new book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, which was made public for the first time letters covering a period of 66 years in which she questioned her beliefs and God.

In correspondents to her spiritual confidants, Mother Teresa laments on the “dryness,” “darkness,” “loneliness,” and “torture” she suffers with her inability to feel God’s presence.

A letter to Archbishop Ferdinand Perier in 1953, according to TIME, read: "Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started 'the work.'"

Another letter in 1956 read: “Such deep longing for God – and…repulsed – empty – no faith – no love – no zeal. – [The saving of] Souls holds no attraction – Heaven means nothing – pray for me please that I keep smiling at Him in spite of everything.”

Mother Teresa also painfully shared her inability to pray saying she just “utter words” of Community prayers– a confession that came from a woman who once said the Christmas holiday should remind the world “that radiating joy is real” because Christ is everywhere.

Yet despite the “pain and darkness” in her soul, Mother Teresa served tirelessly among the outcasts, the dying and the most abject poor in India. She brought countless sick Indians to her center from slums and gutters to be treated and cared for under the banner of Christ’s love.

“The very essence of faith, you see, is believing even in the absence of evidence,” said Chuck Colson, founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship, in a column Wednesday in response to the TIME article. “And it is the only way we can know Christ.

Colson shared that he experienced his own darkness of soul when a few years back two of his three children were diagnosed with cancer.

“We can conclude rationally that God exists, that His Word is true, and that He has revealed Himself” Colson said. “But without that leap of faith, we will never know God personally or accept His will in Christ.”

It was in the late 1950s when Mother Teresa met a well-known theologian, the Rev. Joseph Neuner, who helped her accept the “darkness” she felt.

Neuner gave her three pieces of counsel – first, there was no human cure for what she had, so she shouldn’t feel personally guilty about it; second, feeling Jesus is not the only evidence of His presence, and the fact that she longed for God is a “sure sign” of his “hidden presence” in her life; and last, the feeling of absence was part of the “spiritual side” of her work for Jesus.

Mother Teresa responded to Neuner in 1961: “I can’t express in words – the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me – for the first time in ….years – I have come to love the darkness – for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus’ darkness & pain on earth.”

She later wrote to Neuner, “I accept not in my feelings – but with my will, the Will of God – I accept his will,” according to TIME.

“So what do the letters of Mother Teresa reveal? For one, they reveal the true cost of discipleship,” commented Colson. “To follow Christ is to embrace suffering and the Cross. And, at times, to say with Jesus, ‘My God, my God, why did you abandon me?’”

Baptist seminary head Mohler said that although he would not “presume to read Mother Teresa’s heart or soul,” he concluded from her story that faith should not be placed on volatile emotions but rather solely in the unchanging God.

“There is a sweet and genuine emotional aspect to the Christian faith, and God made us emotional and feeling creations,” wrote Mohler. “But we cannot trust our feelings. Our faith is not anchored in our feelings, but in the facts of the Gospel.

“Our confidence is in Christ, not in ourselves. We are weak; He is strong. We fluctuate; He is constant. We cannot trust our feelings nor our emotional state. We trust in Christ. Those who come to Christ by faith are not kept unto Him by our faith, but by his faithfulness,” wrote Mohler.

The Catholic Church is considering whether or not to make Mother Teresa a saint and the letters were collected as supporting materials for the process.

Mother Teresa died in 1997, nearly two decades after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

[maryz]

If you mean I’m not interested in your interpretation of what Scripture says, well, you’re right!

[maryz]

No, it means they’re heretics. Granted, in most cases, it’s material rather than formal heresy, i.e., most likely through ignorance. Sad, but it’s no help to tell them they’re right.

[bboop]

She is not an idol. She is revered and honored. Why do you have a problem with honoring her?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Was Jesus passing around a ladle of water from the bucket he was carrying???"

In the celebration of the Mass, WATER is mixed with the wine. I think this fulfills the verse you quote quite nicely.

Jesus never mentioned at the Last Supper that he had changed anything into real flesh and real wine..."

"This is my Body" "This is my Blood". No ambiguity there.

"He never told the Apostles or anyone else to change the juice and bread into flesh and blood for future religious ceremonies..."

Funny thing then, that ALL the Apostles believed exactly that, and taught it from day one. The belief that the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ is attested to from the earliest documents about the Church that exist, as well as being attested to in the various books of the new testament.

"When Jesus said "Do this" (in remembrance of me), he was not talking about a mysterious alteration of sub-atomic matter..."

Again, the Church from the very earliest days referred to the transformation as a great mystery. We have more knowledge of the universe, and can postulate how it is possible for a thing to be simultaneously bread and wine AND the body and blood of Christ. The early Christians had no such knowledge. They had to take it on faith (and did).

[armydoc]

51 -- I am the living bread that came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 -- The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 -- Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 -- Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 -- For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. . . . 60 -- Many therefore of his disciiples, when they heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can bear it?


In these passages, Jesus is speaking of doing something that is both necessary and sufficient for salvation, would you agree? Catholics claim it is the physical eating of His flesh and drinking His blood in the form of the Eucharist. The problem is, the Catholic church does not teach that taking the Eucharist is either necessary nor sufficient for salvation. For example, the Church clearly teaches that Protestants and other non-Catholics can be saved. How is this the case, when they have not taken the Eucharist?

[armydoc]

Mother Teresa's doubts are not what bother me; it's her boldy stated beliefs that do. She was a universalist. Here's a couple of her statments:

“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”

"I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."

[OpusatFR]

Catholics have stated what we believe on these threads through postings and articles, theological beliefs, and writings from the early church ad infinitum.

That you do not believe, is not my concern, but presenting Catholic viewpoints in a manner that is patently offensive is inappropriate.

I’m sure we are faithful enough to each of our beliefs to discuss them without rancor or rote denigration toward the belief of another.

I have found that in many events, those who are unsure of their faith tradition are more likely to demand that others
absorb insults to shore up their shakey foundations.

It is merely an observation on my part over many decades and not pointedly made to anyone.

Have a good day and enjoy your Labor Day holiday.

[maryz]

The problem is, the Catholic church does not teach that taking the Eucharist is either necessary nor sufficient for salvation.

It's Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary that's "necessary and sufficient" for salvation. The Mass and Eucharist are the continuing offering of that eternal Sacrifice and the normal means (to a Catholic, the best means) of partaking in it. Beyond that, the very existence of the Eucharist is a means of grace for the good of the whole world.

To treat individual Scriptural verses in isolation can be fruitful, but it also can tend to a flat and clinical form of interpretation, devoid of depth and resonance and mystery. Surely, the inexhaustible richness of Scripture deserves better. I do recall from a grad school course in 17th century English that the "proof text" had run its course, its limitations having become only too apparent to all sides. You'd never know that on FR, though! ;-)

[OpusatFR]

“We’ve all heard the statement “no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.” Well, you have to understand that in a very important way. If someone knew and understood that the Catholic Church was indeed established by Jesus and that it was the one true Church and, in spite of that knowledge, still rejected the grace to be baptized and to enter the Church, that person is rejecting Jesus’ command and grace (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #846). Remember, it is the person who is rejecting Jesus, not Jesus rejecting that person. Jesus died for that person too.

But the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) hastens to say that “[t]his affirmation is not aimed at those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ or his Church.” It says that those “who do not know but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and moved by grace try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation” (CCC, #847). That statement draws a much bigger circle of those saved than some people think there should be. Thank God it is his judgment, not ours.

This statement is very broad for two important reasons: 1) God wants everyone saved (Jn 3:17). 2) Jesus died for every person without exception. He died for sinners (1 Tim 2:4 ). So no person—and not even the Church on earth—can begin to separate those saved from those not saved without placing restrictions on God’s universal will for the salvation of all his children. That is why God alone is the judge as to eternal salvation. That is why the Church will canonize saints but will never declare any specific person to be in hell. Many people can make a list of individuals they think should be eternally damned, but no person on earth can make that judgment. We just don’t know. Only God knows.”

http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj061606.asp

Here’s another:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as “baptism of blood” or “ baptism of desire” (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

Here’s another resource:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/teachframes.htm

Have a great day and happy Labor Day!

[maryz]

She was a universalist.

God forbid that everyone should be saved! What a revoltin' devlopment that would be! ;-)

Some come late ("What is it to you if I am generous?") and some perhaps come in ways we neither know nor understand. And it would seem that some fail altogether. On the face of it, I would think that, say, a "good Hindu" is approaching closer to being a Christian than a bad Hindu. Just as well -- a "bad" Hindu would probably make a lousy Christian.

For the record, she was not a universalist. The Church does not claim to know who is in hell.

[DragoonEnNoir]

I choose to revere and honor God who was the real agent behind any good that she did. If she was a servant of God, which do you think she would want?

For us to honor her?

...or for us to honor the God she served?

[MEGoody]

Oh, but he did.

That's what Catholics believe, not what other Christians believe.

You can't selectively separate the segments of the verses to fit your prejudices.

It has nothing to do with prejudices. Jesus flesh was human flesh, and eating of human flesh and drinking of blood are forbidden in the bible. God doesn't command us not to do something then command that we do it (especially to celebrate Him).

Jesus said, "This IS my Body".

Yes, and when He said that to the disciples, He had not yet gone to the cross. Seems pretty clear it was symbolic to me.

And the REAL Church has believed that from day one.

If they truly believe that the bread and wine turned into human flesh and blood, they were mistaken.

Protestants have forgotten that Jesus IS God

Uh, no we haven't.

and if he wants to make parts of His Body look like bread and wine, He can certainly do so.

God is Spirit. The flesh Jesus inhabited when He walked the earth was human. God has no flesh other than that.

The change can happen either at the atomic or sub-atomic level, and the surface appearance would still be bread and wine.

You may believe that. Other Christians don't.

[Iscool]

In the celebration of the Mass, WATER is mixed with the wine. I think this fulfills the verse you quote quite nicely.

You've got to be kidding...Jesus made it crystal clear that he was not referring to actual water...How did your church get you to believe this nonsense???

Funny thing then, that ALL the

Apostles believed exactly that, and taught it from day one.

They most certainly did not...

The belief that the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ is attested to from the earliest documents about the Church that exist,

Well, that's according to the Catholic religion history, not bible history...

Two things...The eating or drinking of blood is forbidden before the law (Gen 9), during the law (Lev 17) and after the law (Acts 15)...And the last time, it was a citation form the Holy Spirit, Himself...

And the apostles were well aware of it...

And, if the liquid in the cup was rotted, fermented grape juice as your church tries to peddle to the world, it too would be a violation of Jewish law...They were told to not even look at it (Prov 23:31, 20:1)...You think Jesus drank fermented wine??? Look at this

Pro 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:

Jesus never drank fermented wine, nor gave any to His apostles...

Jesus turned liquor into His blood??? Not a chance...Jesus served 'new' wine...Grape juice...

There wasn't even a drop of wine, new or old at the table...

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Wine is not the fruit of the vine...Grapes are the fruit of the vine...Jesus had a cluster of grapes in his hand, ready to squeeze...And he said fruit of the vine so no one could confuse the juice with liquor...And how can you be sure???

Because the new wine was a type of the pure blood of Jesus which was pure blood...

Deu 32:14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.

And God would not use old, fermented, rotted grape juice as a type of his pure blood...

To then make this fermented liquor into BLOOD would then be to violate the taboo of God on drinking or eating blood, clean thru the word of God...It is crucifying Jesus Christ in the name and 'for the glory' of Jesus Christ (if such a thing can be imagined)...

It is forcing God to contradict Himself and then using His own word to make a liar out of Him, and at the same time violate His instructions...

When the Catholic chews up Jesus Christ, he is instructed to do so on an empty stomach and then remain in the sanctuary for 20 minutes, which is normal digesting time for bread...Now think about it...

If it is Jesus Christ, it's not literal bread and the 20 minute period is ridiculous...And if it's literal bread, which takes the time to digest, it's not Jesus Christ...

Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Jesus lives by the Father...If you eat Jesus, you live by Jesus...Did Jesus eat the father for his life???

[Iscool]

I’m sure we are faithful enough to each of our beliefs to discuss them without rancor or rote denigration toward the belief of another.

You people have numerous times, posted the article from your pope who claims that only folks outside your church who can be saved are the ones who are ignorant of your church teachings...

Now maybe you figure that's a polite way of telling us who reject your religion because of what we do know about it, that our brand of Christianity sucks and we are bound for hell...

So why be offended...If your religion is right, you got it made...Well not really since you have no eternal security either way...

But you didn't answer my question...What do the 70% of Catholics who don't believe in your Eucharist call it??? If they don't call it a hoax, what do they call it??? I'll use the term they use...

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

lupie - Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say. You may be right that "self-righteousness" is a better term to describe it than "egotism".

maryz - I'm not sure what you were laughing at. I think it was the word "egotism" or "egotistical" that set you off. I apologize for using the wrong word. But Mother Teresa's problem is very complex, and I'm not a psychologist or a theologian - just someone trying to understand her spiritual problem.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Jesus flesh was human flesh, and eating of human flesh and drinking of blood are forbidden in the bible. God doesn't command us not to do something then command that we do it (especially to celebrate Him)."

Forbidden in the Old Testament. Jesus gave us a new Covenant. And that one specifically tells us (repeatedly) but in hiw own words, and the words of his Apostles, to gnaw his flesh, which is given in the form of bread and wine.

"Yes, and when He said that to the disciples, He had not yet gone to the cross/"

How, specifically, does the fact that He "had not yet gone to the Cross" have anything to do with it?? He performed all his other miracles before having "gone to the cross".

"God is Spirit. The flesh Jesus inhabited when He walked the earth was human. God has no flesh other than that."

Uh, Jesus, after death, had (and has) a very real body. How otherwise could the Apostle Thomas have put his hand into Jesus side??

But as I said, Protestants don't REALLY believe what the Bible says--only the parts that happen to agree with their prejudices.

[maryz]

and I'm not a psychologist or a theologian

No kidding! I'm sorry -- that's funny. I believe it's considered utterly unprofessional for even trained psychologists to "diagnose" someone they never met. Only the grandstanders who no longer want the respect of their colleagues do it, and then on TV or for the trade book market, hoping to make a bundle.

Have you even read all her writings -- not just the snippets from the diaries not yet published? Do you know anything about how and why she started her work in Calcutta? Have you even read Malcolm Muggeridge's Something Beautiful for God? Do you know anything about mysticism?

You think you have "diagnosed" a "spiritual problem" in Mother Teresa, and you're looking for causes. I think inductive reasoning would be far more appropriate here.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You've got to be kidding...Jesus made it crystal clear that he was not referring to actual water...How did your church get you to believe this nonsense???"

Simple, by reading and believing the WHOLE Bible, not just the parts that agree with Protestant fabrications.

"They most certainly did not."

They most certainly DID. Read Paul's letters.

"Well, that's according to the Catholic religion history, not bible history..."

The two are identical (and in fact "Catholic religion history" predates the New Testament by a few years). The Didache predates ALL of the gospels. I suggest you read it---it can be found on-line.

"Jesus turned liquor into His blood??? Not a chance...Jesus served 'new' wine...Grape juice..."

"This is my Blood". Doesn't matter if it was fermented or grape juice. Whatever it was, he turned it into his Blood. The statement is completely unequivocal.

And when you claim otherwise, you're calling Jesus Christ a liar, as well as Peter, Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament.

"Jesus lives by the Father...If you eat Jesus, you live by Jesus...Did Jesus eat the father for his life???"

You "do" believe in the Trinity, do you not?? Jesus and the Father (as well as the Holy Spirit) are one. So Jesus didn't need to "eat the father for his life"----but WE DO.

[maryz]

What do the 70% of Catholics who don't believe in your Eucharist call it???

For some reason, fallen-away Catholics continue to self-identify as Catholic for surveys and such, though they've long since been dropped from any parish rolls. Very few surveys take account of this -- none by the secular media.

[OpusatFR]

For the last time and for the lurkers, because some people will believe what they want to believe regardless and that isn’t my province to wonder, but to commend their care to God.

“THIRTY-THREE PERCENT? NO WAY!

Q: I have repeatedly heard it said that only 33 percent, or something like that, of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. How scandalous! Is this true?

A: No, it’s not, and it makes me want to tear my hair out every time I hear that bogus statistic. While the actual statistics are not what they should be, and do reveal a great deal of faulty catechesis, the numbers are nowhere near as dire as the above statistic would lead one to believe.

Allow me to set the record straight: The Gallup Organization conducted a phone poll of 519 American Catholics, 18 years or older, regarding their attitudes and beliefs about Holy Communion. The poll was conducted from December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992. Pollsters consider a survey of this type to have an error rate of plus or minus five percent.

One of the questions asked was this: “Which one of the following statements about Holy Communion do you think best reflects your belief:

“[A] When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, or

“[B.] When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and in so doing are expressing your attachment to his Person and words, or

“[C.] When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present, or

“[D.] When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving the body and blood of Christ, which has become that because of your personal belief”

“[E.] Don’t Know

“[F.] Refused [to answer].”

The results: 30 percent picked A, 29 percent picked B, 10 percent picked C, 23 percent picked D, two percent picked E, three percent picked F, and an additional three percent volunteered that none of the above expressed their belief. We will refer to the latter category as option G.

Now let’s put the pieces together: Options A and D both essentially describe transubstantiation, though option D omits mentioning Christ’s soul and divinity and includes the erroneous notion that transubstantiation is dependent on one’s personal faith. Nevertheless, add the two together and it turns out 53 percent of American surveyed believe in transubstantiation.

Now add in option C, which does assert the Real Presence, even though an erroneous view of it (i.e., consubstantiation), and it turns out that 63 percent believe in the Real Presence.

Presumably, some of the remaining eight percent would also believe in the Real Presence. Consider, for example, a person who would have said yes to option D except for the fact that it omits reference to Christ’s soul and divinity; this person may well have said “none of the above” even though he clearly believed in the Real Presence.

This kind of presumption applies to answers E, F, and G. Those who said they didn’t know (E) may simply have not wanted to think through the implications of a list of confusing options with important, answer-affecting clauses. Those who refused to answer the question (F) may have been too busy to think through the rather cumbersome options they were offered and simply declined to answer. And those who said that none of the above expressed their belief (G) may have misheard or misunderstood an important clause in an answer, or have simply preferred a different way of saying the same thing.

My guess is that at least half of the final eight percent believed in the Real Presence but simply didn’t say this in a way that the survey would record. If that is so, just over two-thirds of Catholics believe in the Real Presence, and even if it is not so, we’re still in the two-thirds ballpark.

Now let’s throw in a final factor: This survey was taken among Americans who answered a phone and said they were Catholic. In all likelihood, this includes some Episcopalians and Anglicans who prefer to be called Catholic rather than Protestant; their answers would feed the non-transubstantiation categories. Also included, perhaps, were people whose parents had them baptized Catholic but then failed to have them educated in the Catholic faith. Are we to expect uncatechized people to understand and believe in transubstantiation?

And finally, the survey would include people who had lapsed but were still willing to identify themselves as Catholic when asked to name a religious affiliation. Such people are likely to have lost much or all of their faith. Should we expect that they would understand and believe in transubstantiation?

If we had a way (which we don’t) of factoring out the answers given by the uncatechized, the lapsed, and those erroneously identifying themselves as Catholic, my guess is that the number of those giving non-transubstantiation and non-Real Presence answers would shrink significantly. It can safely be said that a sizeable majority of active, catechized American Catholics believe in transubstantiation and that the over-whelming majority believe in the Real Presence.

The fact that only 30 percent of those polled gave the proper answer is not good, but when you add up the actual numbers and put them in context, the situation is not nearly as dire as many are making it sound.

What should we say, then, when asked how many Catholics believe in the Real Presence? We should say, “I don’t know; the Gallup poll only covered America. To my knowledge nobody’s done a global survey.”

What should we say when asked how many American Catholics believe in the Real Presence? “About two-thirds; more if you count only active, catechized Catholics.”

I hope, therefore, that people will begin putting to rest the bogus idea that only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. That phony statistic needs to be stricken from apologetic discourse, ‘cause it just ain’t so.

James Akin

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp

Adios and may God guide you. Have a nice Labor Day.

We agree to disagree IMVHO and there is nothing more for me to say.