Loose Canon: Is Barack Obama a Spiritual Leader?

Poor Loose Canon at BeliefNet. She writes that she is not a "spiritual person" but believes in the Magisterium.

Loose Canon: Is Barack Obama a Spiritual Leader?

But how can you reconcile those two statements? Belief without spirituality is not faith. And it certainly is not authentic Catholic faith, which requires a conversion of heart every time one approaches the altar rail.

In the Bible, Jesus continually singles out the different, and puts them before the religiously-correct Pharisees to show them what authentic faith really is. Consider the Roman centurion who has been made immortal in our liturgy: "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word..."

Of this man, probably a Greek pagan in Judaea, Jesus said that he had not seen faith like that in all Israel.

The Vatican II declaration NOSTRA AETATE, says on this:

In Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.

She takes to task a 19th century writer named Higginson saying, "But I never for an instant have supposed that this concentrated moment of devotion was more holy or more beautiful than when one cry from a minaret hushes a Mohammedan city to prayer..." I think she may have been trying to make the point that we can't develop a mushy ecumenicalism in which we all merge our religions into a single ecumenical whole.

In that, I agree. However, I'm not sure this was Higginson's point, he was simply waxing poetic from his own perspective. He would not have been able to have those experiences without the fervent and specific adherence of each faith's own believers.

For those of us who are in specific religions, we do our best to immerse ourselves as fully as we can. But as in Nostra Aetate above, that can still include accepting there can be much that "is true and holy in these religions."