This essay uses diction that raises more questions than provides support for an argument. Reading it, I felt as if I was missing the larger idea this essay was commenting on; I was. Searching “The Sacrament of the Present Moment” online led me to discover what I read by Richard Rohr was a response to a 300-year-old enlightenment book. As a response essay, this piece would have been more successful if Rohr defined the terms he explores. Currently, it seems almost as if his piece is written backwards. To understand the first paragraph which discusses why nondual consciousness is necessary to understand God over dual consciousness, you must first know what “dual consciousness” means to Rohr. It isn’t until the fourth paragraph when he refers to dual consciousness as a “binary system” with only two options (good/bad, black/white, right/wrong) that a clear idea of what “dual consciousness” means is given. Other terms that could be defined to draw in readers from outside the argument would be “Ultimate Reality,” “Presence,” and “Real Presence.” A response paper should not only explore the ideas in the piece being examined, but do so in a way that those reading the response gain a general sense of the whole argument at hand and why it is important. “The Sacrament of the Present Moment” by Richard Rohr fails to do this.