Friday, September 23, 2016
If you're interested in Pro Life Shirts, you should check out LifeCulture Apparel. They're a new Pro Life clothing line, founded by 4 siblings. I've talked to Ian, the oldest of the siblings, and he's really excited about the new novel I'm about to publish. My blog is actually linked on their site. Please check them out!
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Babe Ruth and the Bread of Life
Homily by Father Brent Maher
[photos added by the host, thescottsmithblog.com]
Readings for Sunday, May 29 (Corpus Christi Sunday)
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
The year was 1962. Scotty Smalls had just moved to a new home in Los Angeles and was looking to make some friends. He found a group of neighborhood boys, but was unfamiliar with the game of the baseball that seemed to consume their free time. He soon began to be introduced to America’s favorite pastime as the boys played on a local field. One day the boys were playing when a hard hit knocked the cover right off the ball! They were amazed but also upset because it was their only ball. Scotty said, ‘I have a ball!’ and ran home to grab the ball set upon his father’s shelf. He came back and, because of the gift of the ball to the team, was given first chance to bat. He hit the ball as far as he ever had; right over the fence into the neighbor’s yard that restrained a dog that consumed everything that went into it. Scotty began to get upset because he knew his father would be upset, especially because the ball has someone’s name on it… Babe… something. The boys around him began to freak out when they realized they had just played with and lost a Babe Ruth autographed baseball, explaining the importance of such an item to Scotty, who had until then never heard the name. Providence was on their side, as the boys soon made their way to the home of the neighbor who himself had a Babe Ruth autographed ball and was willing to give it to Scotty. In the end everything was resolved and Scotty fell in love with the game that he had previously known nothing about.
In case you haven’t caught on by now, that is the storyline of the movie The Sandlot. It came out in 1993, so I wasn’t worried about spoiler alerts because if you haven’t seen it by now, you probably won’t. This movie came to mind because Scotty held within his hand an item of great value and yet he was totally unaware of it until it was explained to him.
In the Gospel we just heard there is a little point that caught my attention this time that never had that emphasized the same point to me about this miracle. When I’ve preached on this passage in the past it is usually concerned with the clear connections to the Last Supper and the words that tie the two together; how Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, gave it to His disciples, and they then gave it to others afterward. The phrasing is rather obvious that it is a reference to what would later happen and that which we celebrate every Mass: the giving of the Eucharist to the Church. At times I have done a bit of pondering on the meaning of the twelve wicker baskets, a specific detail mentioned here. But I never for a moment gave consideration to the fact that the Lord had the disciples pick up the fragments themselves.
|The Forged Babe Ruth Ball (from The Sandlot Movie): |
It's the real autographed baseball that is the treasure;
not this mere *symbol*
The Lord knew they were in a deserted place and that the people would still have to travel to find lodging or to return to their homes. It would have been logical for Him to say, ‘Okay, there is a bit of extra bread for each of you, so take it with you for the journey home.’ But He didn’t. He had the disciples gather it back up, for what reason we are unsure. (One parishioner this weekend suggested maybe it was for a nice bread pudding. I’ll leave that for your contemplation.) What intrigued me was that even if the Lord had explicitly given the bread to the people, it would have been okay to leave it for the birds and beasts to consume. And yet, it was intentionally gathered again. The bread pointed toward the Eucharist that would eventually be given, and so important was that reality that even the SYMBOL of it deserved respect. And so the bread was gathered and carried away for the Lord’s future plan.
This weekend we celebrate Corpus Christi Sunday, the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord. The Church reminds us on this feast that what we receive is not a symbol, reminder, representation, or remembrance of what Jesus did. It is making present again the one sacrifice Jesus made of Himself on the Cross; it is the Lord Himself that is present in the Host and Chalice, not merely signs of Him. This is an essential point of the Catholic faith and something that distinguishes us from the numerous protestant denominations found throughout the world. For the rest of this homily I would like to move from the normal homily style to a more catechetical approach, addressing a number of questions and important points on the Eucharist that I’ve been asked and encountered at times through my ministry. So if you get bored listening to me, just talk to Him.
The first section is etiquette. When we come into church we genuflect. We all know that. At our church and chapel the tabernacle with the Hosts is in the center, so it’s normal to genuflect toward the center. If, however, the tabernacle is off to the side, it is proper to genuflect in the direction of the Blessed Sacrament and not simply toward the middle. If the Blessed Sacrament is not reserved at the church or chapel, then one simply bows to the altar. And because details are important, we genuflect by bringing our right knee to the floor because we want to be on the right hand of the Father in heaven and so everything we do is the right – right knee, right hand for sign of the cross, etc.
What about Adoration? If you come into or exit a church or chapel and Eucharistic Adoration is taking place, the traditional posture is a ‘double genuflection’ in which you kneel down on both knees and bow slightly toward the Blessed Sacrament. These two points are, of course, acknowledge that some of us don’t have two good knees, and sometimes not even one. So we do the best we can in the situation.
Why do we call a Host a Host? This was something I hadn’t ever wondered about, but the answer really lifted up my heart. At the beginning of Adoration/Benediction we sing the chant ‘O salutaris hostia’ which means ‘O saving victim’. The word ‘host’ references the fact that what we receive is not bread nor some symbol, but the Victim Himself, Jesus Christ the Lamb of God slain for our salvation!
What happens if a Host is dropped? This has happened at some point to nearly every person who receives Holy Communion in the hand; the handoff is poor and Our Lord falls to the floor. At that point, we have two options. First, we can eat the Host off the floor (by picking it up, not by getting down on all fours like a dog!) or we can get the Host and give it to the minister and they will give another Host and care for the Host that was dropped. The Church also prescribes that the place where the Host fell be purified by a special process of cleansing with water and liturgical linens. It’s hard to do on carpet, but we do the best we can.
|The Babe Ruth-signed ball has been pickled by THE BEAST|
What happens if a Host is found in the pew, on the floor, in the missalette, or somewhere else? You look at me like I’m crazy, but this has happened in other places and it is something to be aware of. If this is the case, I would ask you to bring it to me immediately and indicate where you found it. If I am not around and nobody else is in the office, I ask you to place it on the altar in front of the tabernacle and let us know by phone call or email what happened.
Which brings me to the next point: if you see someone receive the Host in their hand and not consume it, it is okay to approach them about it. You can simply ask “Are you going to consume that?” and if not, then I ask you to get it from them and bring it to the altar. If you don’t feel comfortable, I do, so please don’t hesitate if you know for a fact a Host has been taken but not consumed.
|The Great HAMBINO calls his shot|
Can a non-Catholic receive Holy Communion and can we receive communion in their services? The answer to both is ‘No.’ As Catholics, we profess that receiving Holy Communion is not simply a sign of our union with Jesus but also being in Communion with the Catholic Church and her teachings. This is why those who object to the essential teachings of the Church are asked to refrain from the Sacrament. For someone to come to our Church and receive Holy Communion is to speak a lie that they are in Communion, when in fact they are not. And the same for us in attending other places. It is good for us to be present at other communities from time to time for celebrations such as weddings, funerals, and the like. But being there does not mean we ought to receive Communion, since in doing so the Catholic Church would understand it as being in union of belief with that particular community, which I pray would not be the case. It’s not a matter of the Church not wanting others to receive Holy Communion, but a case of the Church wanting to honor the Blessed Sacrament and to highlight the disunity in the Body of Christ that calls us to continue to work toward greater union.
Can we do intinction? Intinction is a proper term for when a Host is taken and dipped into the chalice of the Precious Blood and both received at once. This is not permitted for the laity to do for themselves and I’m not permitted to do it for others under normal circumstances either. In fact, the only time I’ve done it is when I was concelebrating Mass when sick and wanted to refrain from spreading my illness by receiving directly from the chalice (a priest is required to receive both species when offering Mass). It is contrary to law and can be a cause of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament if the Host dipped were to drip some of the Precious Blood onto shoes, shirts, dresses, the floor, etc.
Do I have to receive both the Host and the Precious Blood? No. The Church has given us the term ‘concomitance’ as a way of explaining that when we receive on species, either the Host or the Blood, we receive the fullness of Jesus – body, blood, soul, and divinity. We don’t receive half and half, but the fullness of Christ. The reception of both is not obligatory, but doing so is a ‘fuller sign’ of the gift that Christ gave at the Last Supper. This means that one who has issues with gluten or alcohol may receive under one form and not be deprived of even the smallest bit of grace.
Should I receive on the tongue or in the hand? Both are permitted, but either way I ask that you really focus on reverence in receiving. If you receive on the tongue, it is good to make sure to stick out your tongue and open your mouth far enough to permit easy distribution. A good general rule is to touch the tip of your tongue to the bottom of your bottom lip. If you receive in the hand, it is good to be attentive to the particles that may come from the Host and remain on your hand. Remember that even the smallest particle is still the fullness of Christ. So be sure to check your hand and fingers used to receive Communion – you’ll be surprised sometimes to find the little pieces still present.
The last ones are the questions that can be a bit contentious. The Church requires that those who receive Holy Communion do so in a state of grace. This means that we have not committed any mortal sin since our last sacramental confession. Often I’ve heard it said that skipping Sunday Mass is no longer a serious matter, but that is wrong. To intentionally skip Sunday Mass is to tell the Lord that we have something better to do than worship Him, which is a serious thing. There are exceptions such as illness, inability to get to church safely, some types of work, and other sensible occasions. But as the norm, we ought to be here every Sunday. If you find yourself in a state of mortal sin rather than grace, get to confession as quickly as possible! Please do not receive Holy Communion for fear of what others may think – it is far better to have people talk about us than for us to receive Holy Communion poorly. Make use of confession as often as needed and receive Communion well.
The Church requires an hour of fasting before receiving Holy Communion. This is simply for us to have a period of time for our body to prepare to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Exceptions can be made for diabetics, those with medical issues, and various other issues that might require one to eat within that timeframe, but under normal circumstances we ought to wait an hour after eating. If you haven’t fasted, it is okay to make a ‘spiritual communion’ to ask for the grace that you would have gained from the Eucharist. The Lord honors our desire for Him!
Can a divorced person receive Holy Communion? If a person is simply divorced, they can and should received Holy Communion. There is no excommunication or restriction for one who has been divorced. The problem comes when one who is divorced remarries without an annulment; then those parties would be expected to refrain from receiving Holy Communion until an annulment would be investigated and (hopefully) granted. This is not a matter of the Church being cruel to people but rather it is that hard side of the Church honoring the Sacrament of Matrimony. We always presume that the profession of legitimate marital vows is valid until explicitly shown to be otherwise. This means that when one marries after being divorced, it is a question that must be resolved because the Church sees the party (or parties) as married to one person, but living as spouse to another person. It’s not a matter of cruelty but of clarity and ensuring that bonds created by God are respected.
Some of these things can be quit sensitive and painful to discuss, but I invite anyone who is struggling or concerned in any manner to come talk with me. In the end, while some of these things can seem a bit picky, they are important. Too many people come forward to Holy Communion like Scotty Smalls, unaware of the incredible value of the reality before us. All the money in the world would not be enough to purchase this great gift, and yet the Lord longs to give it to us freely and frequently. May the good Lord increase our faith, our piety, and our love for the Blessed Sacrament. And may we come to know the richness of the gift we receive.
|(Sweet) 2013 Cast Reunion Photo|
Monday, April 11, 2016
I was just talking to a man coming out if the Adoration Chapel about cremation. He admitted that he hoped to be cremated. Isn't that ironic? You just left a chapel dedicated to adoring Christ's resurrected body, and you hope to turn your own into ashes?
Here's what the Catholic Catechism says about cremation: "The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body" (CCC 2301). The preceding paragraph, however, says this: "The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit."
Ultimately, I think cremation represents no less than the rejection, i.e. "burning", of some of the Church's most important teachings: the Theology of the Body; the Imago Dei, that we are created in the "image of God"; our bodies as Temples of the Holy Spirit; and, perhaps most directly, the Resurrection of the Body.
I think the growing popularity of cremation is a reaction to the indignity (and expense) of embalming, wherein the body is injected and filled with chemicals which will likely ultimately infiltrate the water supply. There is also the expense of embalming added to the expense of a casket, though typically there is a casket involved in both cremation and embalming.
So, is it either cremation or embalming? This is just another false dilemma. Cremation and embalming are not the only options. Why not just anoint the body as they did Christ's? If there's no need to transport the body across the globe, why are we preserving it in this radically, unnaturally way?
I remember listening to an NPR interview of former crematorium employee Caitlin Doughty. She had written Smoke Gets in Your Eyes, a book about her experiences in the crematorium and the growing movement of do-it-yourself burials. As an aside, I love it when the naturalist/organic/environmentalist movement(s) inadvertently adopt ancient and/or Judeo-Catholic ideas.
Ms. Doughty spoke about the loneliness of the crematory. She said there was rarely anyone present for the casket's entry into the furnace. There is typically a viewing window in place for family and friends, but it's never used. This highlights the larger problem with cremation, Doughty explained. There's no good saying of goodbyes. The grief process becomes disjointed and stilted. Far better it is, she inadvertently advocates for the ancient Jewish and Christian practice, to prepare the body at home and to say good-byes there, as well.
Even though it may seem icky or even horrific to touch a dead body, human touch is as essential in death as it is in life. The Culture of Death, seemingly paradoxically, shuts the dying process away behind closed doors and lonely crematoriums. Our humanity cries out for more.
As for me, a pine box will do just fine -- maybe Louisiana cypress, instead. But please, anoint my body, as it was anointed at Baptism and Confirmation and as Christ's body was anointed.
So, What Are We Saying With Our Bodies in Cremation?
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
We are temples of the Holy Spirit, for God's sake. Don't burn down this temple when you die. (Better not to fill it with formaldehyde and methanol, either.)
What's the difference? We're just going to rot away to dust, anyway, right? Don't we say "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"? There is a fundamental difference between letting nature take its course and violent intervention in this process. St. Joan of Arc may have been reduced to ashes, but she bore these wounds for God. It was a violence done against the dignity of her body. She did not choose to become ashes. Her final act on earth was not the desecration of her body.
Jesus' resurrected body, his glorified body, looked as it did when he was buried. He bore all the wounds of his crucifixion, all the wounds he suffered for love, namely love of God.
Jesus' resurrected body, his glorified body, looked as it did when he was buried. He bore all the wounds of his crucifixion, all the wounds he suffered for love, namely love of God.
Think of the affront to the Eucharist made by cremation. If we eat the Eucharist and it becomes a part of us on the molecular level, what then are we cremating?
We are created by God in His image and likeness. If our bodies bear the image of God, what are we burning? We won't burn a flag, which is just a symbol, but we will burn the image of God?
Ultimately, it's an act of dualism, which represents a rejection of the Theology of the Body. There is unity between body and soul. If we choose for our bodies to burn, are we deciding ultimately that are souls will as well? If we want to return to God when we die, we should want our souls and our bodies going to the same place. Nature is God's creation, so we should let our bodies return to nature and by natural processes.
Here's the crux of the matter: We experience God in Heaven, bodily. Our bodies will be resurrected!! If we believe in the Resurrection, we believe in a bodily resurrection. That means we will experience God, even in Heaven, through our bodies. A pile of ashes is incapable of sensation. Ashes can't feel. They can only be blown away. Ashes can't hug. They can't kiss. They certainly can't see or smell. So what will Heaven look like to ashes?
Why not follow in Christ's footsteps? How was Christ's body treated by his loved ones once he was taken down from the Cross? Was he secreted away to Daniel's fiery furnace? No, he was placed in the arms of his mother. The Blessed Mother wanted -- needed-- one last embrace. Then, it was wrapped in a "clean linen cloth" and "laid" in the tomb. Using the verb "laid" reveals a much more personal action, as with pall-bearing and very unlike being carried on a conveyor belt into an incinerator. His body was likely also anointed with sweet-smelling oils, giving the whole process a sacramental nature.
Here is an interesting article on Jewish burial customs, which have remained remarkably constant throughout the last several thousand years.
Corporal Work of Mercy
Lastly, a proper burial is not merely required by our humanity and by the grieving process, burying the dead is a Corporal Work of Mercy. Honoring the dead teaches us to honor the living.
|Painting of Tobit Burying the Dead|
The way we dispose of these aborted children of God says quite a lot about how we view them in the first place. I'll end with this thought: What might cremation say about our understanding of the human person?
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Friday, December 18, 2015
Merry Christmas and May the Force Be With You! I thought I would dust off this post for the premier of THE FORCE AWAKENS, especially since 'Tis the season for Virgin Births. This is my favorite connection between Catholicism and Sci-Fi. Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) was born of a virgin!
"You refer to the prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the Force. You believe it's this…boy?"
The Jedi Masters speak of the ancient prophesy of the Chosen One that is fulfilled by the birth and life of Anakin Skywalker. Clearly, this is the Star Wars version of a Messianic prophesy. This is made blatantly obvious when we discover that he is the seed of woman alone (Gen 3:15), that he was conceived by the Force, that Shmi gave birth as a Virgin -- just as Jesus was conceived within the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1).
There's more, though. Did you catch that conversation between Palpatine and Anakin in Revenge of the Sith? Palpatine was telling Anakin of his own Sith master, Darth Plagueis. Palpatine was telling Anakin about the origin of the prophesy, about HIS OWN BIRTH!!
"Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life. He had such a knowledge of the dark side, he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying."
This Darth Plagueis twist is fantastic storytelling. I love this. Listen. Darth Plagueis, Emperor Palpatine's Sith master, whom he killed, never died ... it is said. Instead, he took himself bodily into the Force. He subsumed himself into the Force, by his own hand, by his own power over life and death. Darth Plagueis had not only learned how to keep people from dying, but how to prevent himself from dying. Doesn't this all sound like a dark, twisted version of the Resurrection?
There's more! Darth Plagueis raised himself into the Force, so that he could be born again, conceived by the Force, itself--and he was born by the Virgin Shmi. Anakin was born purely from the midi-chlorians, the living source of the Force. Just in case you missed that: Anakin was conceived by the Power of the Force in the Virgin Shmi; Jesus was conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary. Whoa.
Isn't it ironic--and proof of the Palpatine's terrible cunning rhetoric--that Anakin was finally taken over to the Dark Side by his belief that Palpatine could teach Anakin to save Padmé's life? Stupid Anakin, you're the one who taught Palpatine in your previous Incarnation as Plagueis!
I doubt that the Star Wars prophesy goes so far as to support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is too bad, but you have to ask the question: why and how did Darth Plagueis pick and prepare Shmi, on sandy, desolate nowhere Tatooine (read "Nazareth" and/or "Bethlehem"), to be his mother? "What good can come from [Tatooine]?"
One last thing ... there is an ancient Christian heresy which was begun by Pelagius (doesn't that name sound familiar?). Isn't the resemblance funny? It looks like he's wearing Sith robes:
The Pelagian Heresy, opposed by Saint Augustine, held that man, by his own power, could achieve salvation, i.e. could save himself. Man, without the grace of God, the heresy held, could make himself sinless. Taking the power of life and death into one's own hands sounds remarkably like what Darth Plagueis taught.
I suppose a few questions remain: Did Anakin bring balance to the Force? When did this supposed balance occur? With Anakin's birth? With his ascendancy as Darth Vader and the slaughter of the Jedis with Order 66? With the birth of his twin children, Luke and Leia? With Luke's ascendancy? When Darth Vader kills Emperor Palpatine ... as revenge for Palpatine's murder of Vader's previous incarnation, Darth Plagueis? OR ... Will THE FORCE AWAKENS and the new trilogy finally answer this question with the next generation of Skywalkers???
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Here's a great article by Trent Horn on the Cosmological Argument:
One of the most interesting and widely discussed arguments for the existence of God is the kalam cosmological argument, which attempts to prove that it is impossible for the universe to have an infinite past. If the argument proves the universe had a beginning, then it follows that some cause that transcends the universe must have brought it into existence. The defender of the kalam argument may also advance other arguments attempting to show that the cause of the universe is God.
Although the argument fell into relatively obscurity after it was promoted in the Middle Ages, it received new life through William Lane Craig’s 1979 book The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Craig has become the argument’s leading proponent, and thanks to his famous debates with atheists that end up on YouTube, the kalam argument has become well-known and is vigorously dissected by critics.
Understanding the Argument
One reason I think that the kalam is so hotly debated is that it is deceptively simple. This is the entire argument:
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
You can find hundreds of websites or videos dedicated to the kalam argument, but hardly any that describe, much less refute, the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas (and even fewer can be found that actually understand what Aquinas is arguing). Part of this may be due to critics' impatience toward the need to tease a syllogism out of the Summa Theologica. He may instead opt for the nice and neat kalam argument, which seems an easy target for a few swings.
I can’t comprehensively defend the kalam argument in a blog post, but I’d like to put forward a new piece of evidence for the kalam argument I have not seen argued in previous literature—specifically, a piece of evidence for premise one (P1).
Craig provides two main reasons to think that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” The first is intuition, or the conclusion we come to upon thoughtful reflection about the idea that something can’t come into existence from nothing. The second is induction, or the conclusion we draw from universal observation that things which begin to exist always have causes. Critics counter that our intuitions can be mistaken (such as the intuition that the sun revolves around the earth) and therefore we have no reason to think something can't come from nothing. Furthermore, some aspects of quantum physics may undermine the inductive data we have for P1. While I don’t think these objections are sound, I think there is another reason we should accept P1. The reason is that the intuitions behind P1 are also behind the “evidence” atheists admit would change their minds about God’s existence.
New Support for the Kalam Argument
When atheists say theists have failed to show God exists, they must have a standard of what would show God exists in order to know that theists haven’t succeeded in that task. Almost all of these standards share the same evidential pattern: the requirement that something come from nothing without a natural cause. Here are some examples:
- An amputated limb is healed with prayer.
- A message announcing that God exists appears in the sky in every known language.
- A towering giant says he is God and through an act of will rearranges the solar system.
Of course, if it turned out that the limb appeared as a result of a random quantum fluctuation of particles or that the planets were moved by massive spaceships using gravity devices, then these would not count as proof for God, because these events would be natural, not supernatural. Rather, it seems that an event can only be considered an act of God (and not an act of technologically advanced aliens) if it involves something coming from nothing without a natural cause.
We wouldn’t think to worship a scientist who said, “I shall bring 5,000 loaves of bread into existence by thinking,” and then “thinks” to build a machine that reassembles the molecules in the surrounding environment in order to form the bread. However, we might worship a rabbi who said, “I shall bring 5,000 loaves of bread into existence by thinking,” then thinks and so makes bread appear (along with some fish for protein so that everyone has a balanced diet).
The requirement that evidence for God involve something coming from nothing without a natural cause also applies to “knowledge” coming from nothing without a cause. Many atheists say that if the Bible predicted man would walk on the moon in the twentieth century, then they would believe God exists. Well, if it turned out that time-travelers went back and manipulated the manuscripts, that would nullify this alleged evidence for God. However, if the authors of the Bible said they knew it because “God revealed it to them,” then a divine explanation may not be far off.
The Bottom Line
Why should atheists believe P1 of the kalam argument, or why should they believe that “whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence?” They should believe P1 because they already believe that something cannot come from nothing without a supernatural cause. They already believe that limbs appearing out of thin air, accurate prophecies that just appear in the mind of a prophet, and demonstrations of power of nature that only involve the will can be the result only of God (at least if they are open to the idea of evidence can show God exists).
This shows that our intuition that something can’t come from nothing without a natural cause is reliable, because atheists use this intuition in order to devise evidence that would convince them that God exists. If an arm or an accurate prophecy coming into existence from nothing without a natural cause is proof of God, then why isn’t an entire universe coming into nothing without a natural cause proof of God?
Granted, proving that the universe began to exist from nothing without a natural cause is a much larger task (though if the universe came to be from nothing, then by definition there could be no natural cause because then it would have come from a natural thing that exists, not nothing).
My only goal in this post is to show that if P2 could be established and since atheists already implicitly accept P1, then they should accept the conclusion of the argument and seek out the transcendent cause of the universe.
This post was inspired by my previous post here. To learn more about the arguments for and against the existence of God, stay tuned for my new book Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for the God with Logic and Charity to be published by Catholic Answers Press this fall.