In the late 70’s one of the
more popular movies was the comedy, "Oh God!" starring John Denver,
Teri Garr and the inimitable George Burns.
Denver played the role of an assistant manager in a southern California
supermarket and Garr played the role of his wife. God, played by Burns, speaks to Denver. At first, Denver doesn't believe that it is
really God speaking to him. Denver's
doubts rise when God appears to him. The Almighty has the appearance of an
elderly, albeit fatherly man. This can't
really be God. But God proves himself as
he and Denver are driving in Denver's car on a beautiful, sunny day. To prove his divinity, God creates a rain
shower within the automobile. Denver's
character, wet and stunned, is convinced.
Unfortunately, no one,
including his wife, believes his story.
They think he is hallucinating or on drugs. Denver loses his job and things continue to
go wrong in his life. Finally, he
accuses an evangelist of not really acting in accordance with God's will and
the evangelist files a lawsuit, charging Denver’s character with libel.
During the trial nothing goes
well for the mild-mannered Denver. He's
convinced that God will appear during the trial and prove his point. As the trial ensues, Denver digs himself into
a deeper hole. Desperately he tries to convince the judge and jurors that God
is real and could appear at any moment.
"Suppose I were to say
that God will appear in person," Denver says. Pointing to the doors of the courtroom, he
proclaims, "Suppose God were to walk through those doors right now! Would you believe?"
The courtroom became hushed
and all heads and eyes turned toward the courtroom doors half expecting God to
appear. There is a moment of silence and
anticipation. But God chooses not to appear at that time.
What would the jurors and
audience have done had God, in His Almighty splendor, appeared? Chances are
most would have been in complete awe.
Many would have prostrated themselves in homage to him. Others may have
offered praise and glory. After all, isn't
that what we would do in God's presence?
If he suddenly walked through
the doors of the church in a form that we, as humans could comprehend and fully
understand that it is indeed God, then we would likely fall down in reverential
fear and love.
I would suggest to you that
God is here in our church. He's here not
only communally as in "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there
I am also." He is here in body,
blood, soul and divinity. He is here in
the magnificence of the Eucharist, His Body and Blood. That is our Catholic faith. That is what we
believe.
Since God is here in His real
presence, shouldn't we acknowledge as much?
If we truly believe in the miracle of the Eucharist, shouldn't our
behavior reflect our beliefs? Should we
not offer praise and glory to Him or kneel or sit in reverential silence?
Stop for a moment before mass
and listen. Do you hear the silence of
prayer? Do you observe the reverence due
our Lord? Or, do you hear loud and
constant chatter?
I was born and raised
Catholic in New Orleans. During the 50's
it would be unheard of if people carried on conversations in church. Church was a special place, a place of
God. We were instructed to keep His
place holy.
Many people arrive at church
early in order to be in His presence.
Should they not be afforded the opportunity to pray in relative
silence? The restless children and
crying babies are not the issue. They will always be among us. But adults should be considerate, if not of
God, then of those who wish to pray in silence.
Much has been written of
recent surveys that indicate a large number of Catholics may not believe that
Jesus is really present in the consecrated host. If anyone should doubt then I suggest he
prayerfully read John chapter 6. This
chapter is the discourse on the Bread of Life.
Jesus instructs those listening that they must eat his flesh and drink
his blood. In verse 56, he says "My
flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." Is not bread real food and is not wine real
drink? Furthermore, the verb he uses
for eat is a Greek word better translated as "munch" or
"gnaw." His message is too
far-fetched for some of his followers so they leave him. If Jesus were speaking symbolically why did
he not stop the doubters from leaving the fold?
Why wouldn't he admit that his words were not to be taken literally,
that he really didn't mean that they should eat his body and drink his blood?
In other Gospels, when his followers did not understand his teaching, he explained
whatever message he intended to convey at the time. But, in John 6, he does not offer any
explanation other than what his words conveyed.
The reason is that Jesus meant what he said. And if he meant what he said then we can only
conclude that the Eucharist is really his body and blood. If we believe this basic Catholic teaching
then we can only conclude that we are in his real presence whenever we are in a
Catholic Church.
Should there be any other
reason, then, to pay him the respect due him?
I pray that we will all
remember this fundamental truth every week when we arrive at church. If you
must speak, please give consideration to others and do so in whispers.
© January 2003
