Manage Account

<div>How does one deal with religious debates without getting angry?</div><div>When you speak with people about God and his revelation, you are working for their salvation and happiness, and this means that you love them. So loving the ones we speak with is the best way not to give in to anger. Better to be angry at the devil, the deceiver, than at the poor souls who labor under various errors. You should see yourself as helping the Good Shepherd to bring back his lost sheep, not as an opponent or accuser.
Pray for the ones with whom you speak before, during, and after your talking. Ask the Lord to give them all he desires for them and to use you as his humble and peaceful instrument. Then you will be imitating Christ and the apostles, and then, if anger against evil is warranted, it will be appropriately expressed and won&#8217;t be a general attitude.
</div>

Keeping Your Temper in Religious Debates

Get the JOE NOTES, sources for this episode, and more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp

These arguments against the priesthood fail. #denominationaldifferences

<div>Does Catholicism teach that all religions are true?</div><div>No, the Catholic Church does not teach that all religions are true, even if elements of truth can be found in non-Catholic religions. For a primer on the Church’s teaching in this regard, see CCC 846-48.
</div>

Are All Religions True?

In this engaging clip, Cy Kellett and Trent Horn dive into a thought-provoking discussion about why some individuals, like a viewer from Ohio, choose not to embrace Catholicism. Drawing from personal experiences in a Pentecostal background, they explore the impact of miraculous claims and the complexities of faith, challenging assumptions about doctrine and authenticity in religious practices.
Transcript:
Caller: So I would say the reason I am not Catholic is because of the denomination I was born and raised in. I was born and raised in a Pentecostal denomination. You know, emphasis on spiritual church services, speaking in tongues, healings, things like that.
We have ministers all the time from foreign countries that told us miracle stories, converting people by the millions. There&#8217;s one story of a woman who had a kidney that miraculously grew back after this Pentecostal preacher laid hands on her. So I&#8217;d say it&#8217;s that environment that I&#8217;m not Catholic and also because, well, can these people be teaching false doctrine if all these miracles are happening? So that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m not Catholic.
Trent: Sure. I think those are two good points. Number one, it seems to be you&#8217;re thinking, well, if these people are capable, let&#8217;s assume that at least some of the miracle claims they&#8217;re making are authentic. I mean, there have unfortunately been cases of preachers, including Pentecostal preachers, who claim to be faith healers. But it seems quite suspect what they&#8217;re exactly doing.
But let&#8217;s just. I think it&#8217;s. I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s improbable that some non-Catholic Christians, whether they be ministers or lay people, are capable of performing miracles or having God work through them. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s improbable. But I don&#8217;t think that it follows that because God works a miracle through them, that God validates their theology completely.
It reminds me in the Gospels when there were the apostles, those who were following Jesus, that there were other people who weren&#8217;t direct disciples, who were also casting out demons and doing things. And Jesus said, look, if they&#8217;re not against us, they&#8217;re with us. Though that wouldn&#8217;t mean they had the same apostolic authority as Peter, John, and the other apostles just because other Christians, God empowers them to do miracles.
Because would you agree that, I mean, there are, you know, you said you grew up in the Pentecostal tradition. Would you agree that it&#8217;s possible there are, let&#8217;s say, Calvinists who have done miracles? God has worked through them with charisms. But that wouldn&#8217;t mean you should become a Calvinist, right?
Caller: Well, I guess that&#8217;s a fair point because I&#8217;ve heard of Mormon missionaries, to change the subject a little bit, who have prayed for miracles. Like I saw one video where they claim to stop a drought. And this one lady was cured of cancer after he was baptized in a Mormon baptism. So I guess that&#8217;s a fair point, right?
Trent: And that&#8217;s actually a great example because Mormons are not Christians. So God, I mean, He could choose to work a miracle through anyone, even someone who&#8217;s non-Christian, who&#8217;s not a believer. I mean, you know, God spoke through Balaam&#8217;s donkey, for example, in order to move him.
So there could be non-Christians or non-Catholics God could work through to do a miracle, but that doesn&#8217;t mean automatically their theology is correct. God&#8217;s sovereign. He can choose to do miracles through whoever He wants. For me, I would rather look at trying to determine which theology to believe in. I try to say, look, which one coheres with Scripture and two, which one coheres with history?
Because the Bible, you know, we didn&#8217;t have the Bible in the first century. There wasn&#8217;t a canon, really. There wasn&#8217;t one that was universally recognized until the 4th century. I would say, well, what does early tradition, history, and Scripture tell us? And my full study has led me to the Catholic faith.
I&#8217;d also offer you one more thought, Cole, and that would be that some of the traditions in Pentecostalism, so, you know, charism, speaking in tongues, healings, those kinds of things, they&#8217;re not contradictory to the Catholic faith. Catholics would agree that God can give different charisms to people all the time.
In fact, there are a group of Catholics that have a special devotion to that. They&#8217;re called Charismatic Catholics or part of the Charismatic Catholic Renewal. And that&#8217;s something you could look into, that you can kind of see there how those elements of spirituality that you may find to be positive within Pentecostalism, the Catholic Church also fully supports as well, as long as it doesn&#8217;t contradict Catholic doctrine or Catholic dogma.
Trent: So does that sound like something you might want to look into or&#8230;
Caller: Worth the thought?
Trent: Sure. Yeah. Well, why don&#8217;t you take a look at it? And again&#8230;
Oh, go ahead.
Caller: Well, I just like to say, well, just these preachers have such&#8230; They seem to have such authority when they&#8217;re speaking, and that&#8217;s just hard to kind of argue against, you know.
Trent: But remember, though, when you say authority, they may sound very confident, they may sound, you know, bombastic, they may sound very winsome. I&#8217;ll agree with you there. There are Protestant preachers that can preach up a storm, my friend, but we have to always be careful.
I remember, I believe it&#8217;s in the letter to the Thessalonians, Paul says there will come a time where people will not stand for true doctrine and hoping that their ears will be tickled or pleased, they will go after false teachers. So just because someone&#8217;s really impressive to listen to, sometimes that&#8217;s a warning sign they can be leading people astray.
So when we say speak with authority, we should not mean that they&#8217;re very confident. We should ask what is their authority? Who gave them the right to speak on behalf of Christ? If it&#8217;s just, well, I read the Bible, how do you know your interpretation is right? First Peter 1:20 says, no prophecy of Scripture comes about by one&#8217;s own interpretation.
So I would say the real authority lies in those people who are the successors of the apostles. And we find that apostolic succession fully in the Catholic Church. So something to think about and do. Call back at another time or maybe in an open forum if you want to get more answers.
Cy: Cole, thank you very, very much for that call. Our topic this hour, why aren&#8217;t you a Catholic? Why are you not a Catholic?

Pentecostal Miracles are Why I’m Not Catholic…

<div>Can you help clear up the misunderstanding about St Junipero Serra? Many say he mistreated the Native Americans, but he must not have been bad if he was declared a saint.</div><div>After an extensive investigation over many years, Pope Francis was pleased to culminate the Catholic Church’s examination <a href="https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150923_usa-omelia-washington-dc.html">by canonizing Junipero Serra</a>.
In summary, St. Junipero gave his life for the temporal and eternal well-being of the people he served in Mexico and modern California, and that is why he was much beloved by the Indian and Hispanic populations he served.
For more on St. Junipero in historical context, please see <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/01/padre-mestizo#login">this article</a>, <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimgraves/st.-junipero-serra-is-a-great-american-hero">this article</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/junipero-serra">this article</a>
</div>

Setting the Record Straight on St. Junipero Serra

To support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent

[NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/

Be sure to keep up with our socials!
https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent
https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent
https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast

Why Christians Must Convert "Savages"...

Why Dilexi Te is an Awesome Document

<div id="cs_control_3683" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<h3>Fourth Sunday of Easter
Lectionary: 49</h3>
</div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<div id="cs_control_3684" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Reading 1    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/acts/2:14">ACTS 2:14A, 36-41</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, 
raised his voice, and proclaimed: 
“Let the whole house of Israel know for certain 
that God has made both Lord and Christ, 
this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, 
and they asked Peter and the other apostles, 
“What are we to do, my brothers?” 
Peter said to them, 
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; 
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
For the promise is made to you and to your children 
and to all those far off, 
whomever the Lord our God will call.” 
He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, 
“Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 
Those who accepted his message were baptized, 
and about three thousand persons were added that day.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228452" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Responsorial Psalm    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/psalms/23:1">23: 1-3A, 3B4, 5, 6</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
R. (1) The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want. 
or: 
R. Alleluia. 
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 
In verdant pastures he gives me repose; 
beside restful waters he leads me; 
he refreshes my soul. 
R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want. 
or: 
R. Alleluia. 
He guides me in right paths 
for his name’s sake. 
Even though I walk in the dark valley 
I fear no evil; for you are at my side. 
With your rod and your staff 
that give me courage. 
R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want. 
or: 
R. Alleluia. 
You spread the table before me 
in the sight of my foes; 
you anoint my head with oil; 
my cup overflows. 
R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want. 
or: 
R. Alleluia. 
Only goodness and kindness follow me 
all the days of my life; 
and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD 
for years to come. 
R. The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I shall want. 
or: 
R. Alleluia.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228454" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Reading 2    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/1peter/2:20">1 PT 2:20B-25</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
Beloved: 
If you are patient when you suffer for doing what is good, 
this is a grace before God. 
For to this you have been called, 
because Christ also suffered for you, 
leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps. 
He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.
When he was insulted, he returned no insult; 
when he suffered, he did not threaten; 
instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly. 
He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, 
so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness. 
By his wounds you have been healed. 
For you had gone astray like sheep, 
but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
</div>
</div>
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Alleluia    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/john/10:14">JN 10:14</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
R. Alleluia, alleluia. 
I am the good shepherd, says the Lord; 
I know my sheep, and mine know me. 
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228453" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Gospel    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/john/10:1">JN 10:1-10</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
Jesus said: 
“Amen, amen, I say to you, 
whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate 
but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber. 
But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 
The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, 
as the shepherd calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 
When he has driven out all his own, 
he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, 
because they recognize his voice. 
But they will not follow a stranger; 
they will run away from him, 
because they do not recognize the voice of strangers.” 
Although Jesus used this figure of speech, 
the Pharisees did not realize what he was trying to tell them.
So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you, 
I am the gate for the sheep. 
All who came before me are thieves and robbers, 
but the sheep did not listen to them. 
I am the gate. 
Whoever enters through me will be saved, 
and will come in and go out and find pasture. 
A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; 
I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.”
&nbsp;
</div>
Source: <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/readings">cms.usccb.org</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Sunday Holy Mass, May 3, 2020

The Church recently rolled out the final document on the Synod on Synodality and I cannot intellectually accept it. Am I essentially no longer Catholic?

Why is marriage between a man and a woman?

At what point did Jesus declare that all animals are clean to eat?

What is the Catholic stance on eugenics?

My supervisor said he would refuse to submit to his supervisor because she is a woman. He used scripture to justify this. How do we approach this as Catholics?

Regarding the year of Jubilee, when you visit 7 churches, do you receive 1 indulgence or an indulgence for every church you visit?

<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
A caller shares that his coworker refuses to take direction from a female supervisor, citing Scripture as justification. In this episode, Catholic apologists respond with clarity on what the Church teaches about gender roles, authority, and human dignity. Discover how Catholic teaching affirms the equal dignity of men and women while refuting misuse of Scripture to justify sexism.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
</div></div>

Does Scripture Support Male-Only Authority? A Catholic Response

Many single Catholic women hope not to be single forever, but struggle to find a good husband. Until recently, I was one of them.
I got married at the beginning of 2024, and around the same time, I published a book called <a href="http://prettygoodcatholic.com">Pretty Good Catholic</a> about dating and finding a spouse as a Catholic. Based on my research for the book and my own experience, here are some tips for meeting more Catholic men, getting more dates, and ultimately finding a husband.
First, expand your social circle. If you haven’t married anyone you already know, you probably need to meet new men to have a chance at marriage. But it’s easy to get into a routine that doesn’t provide opportunities to meet many new people.
These days, most young Catholics turn to online dating to meet new eligible singles. This is a great tool if it’s used rightly. Catholic psychologist Greg Bottaro <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Bx4C9yXc0">says</a> that “online dating” is a misnomer; instead, we should use dating apps for “online meeting.” Bring the relationship into the real, physical world as quickly as possible.
From talking with friends who have tried online dating, I find that women often struggle to feel interested in a picture and profile on a screen, whereas in real life, a “spark” might happen with the same guy. Keep that in mind as you use “online meeting”; give men a chance for a little longer, even if you don’t feel that initial spark.
Believe it or not, meeting in real life is still possible, too. Try “church-hopping” a bit to find parishes near you that have thriving young adult groups or other social activities you can be involved in outside of Mass. And go national, or even international: attend Catholic or Christian conferences, join pilgrimages, and go on mission trips.
Also, remember that Catholics don’t just go to Catholic-labeled events! Rekindle interests—or find new ones—that include a social element. Recreational sports are great for this, as is any form of partner dancing: swing, ballroom, salsa, etc. (I find that a disproportionate number of Catholics attend public dances!)
Of course, it’s not just where you go; it’s how you go. You’ll need to go in with a mindset that makes you open to meeting new people and being approached by men. Challenge yourself to meet at least one new single guy at every social event. (I’m going easy on you here: Henry Cloud, author of How to Get a Date Worth Keeping, challenges his readers to meet five new single people of the opposite sex per week.)
Go with a “wing woman” who will hold you accountable for your “eligible man” quota. Then separate from her for portions of the event so you’re approachable. Men often complain that the women they are interested in are always with their friends, so they can’t find a moment to ask them out. Put your phone away, look around the room, smile, and make eye contact. Sometimes, that’s all it takes to prompt a man to start a conversation with you. If he doesn’t, you can always say hello and start some casual small talk yourself.
Also, let’s face it: men’s attention is usually caught by the outside, before they get to know the inside. Your appearance will matter. Catholic men usually say they like a woman who looks “feminine”—in other words, like a woman. There are lots of ways to look like a woman, but consider what uniquely “feminine” touches you can incorporate into your appearance while still looking and feeling like yourself: more dresses, a new hairstyle, maybe a little bit of makeup? Regardless, figure out what colors and silhouettes enhance your natural beauty the most. Of course, taking good care of your health and hygiene goes a long way, too.
Once you’ve met a new man, you’ll need to send strong signals that you’re open to being asked out. Many men have told me they struggle to know whether a woman is interested in them, and that they need some encouragement before they make a move.
So learn the art of appropriate flirtation! If you’re interested in a guy, you may find you want to smile and laugh more than usual or even lean a little closer to him when he&#8217;s talking. Do it! If you tend to become shy or freeze up when you&#8217;re interested in someone, you may need to make concrete efforts not to self-sabotage: make eye contact more often and for longer than you usually do, and keep your whole body, including your feet, turned toward him during your conversation.
If your interest persists, but he doesn&#8217;t make it clear he reciprocates, you can proceed to stronger hints. When you have the chance to work it into conversation, hint that you would love to plan an activity together: “I haven’t been kayaking this summer yet, but I’d love to! Where do you usually go?” Hopefully, he’ll pick up this “dropped hanky” and ask you out.
Once you do get a date, or even before that, it can be tempting to switch to analysis mode right away: “Is he my type? Is he ‘husband material’?” Yes, you will need to do considerable reflecting and discerning as the relationship progresses, but there’s no need to do it all at once. Pace yourself.
I’ll share some advice I heard from several matchmakers, date coaches, and even a priest as I was researching for my book: get to know him on a “one date at a time” basis for up to three months before using the “boyfriend” label. During this time, slow-roll both physical affection and emotional intimacy. Think of this initial stage of dating as a time to build a friendship as a foundation for discerning marriage more concretely later.
During this stage, it is perfectly okay to go on dates with more than one person, if you have the opportunity and want to. In fact, I recommend doing so; it can help you avoid getting over-committed to anyone too quickly, and it just seems wise to get to know each potential match at least a little before deciding to commit or reject. Just be honest with each man, after the first or second date, that you’re not ready to be exclusive yet. The script I used that worked well was, “I’m getting to know a few people right now, and I won’t be ready for an exclusive relationship for a couple more months, but if you’re comfortable with that, I’d love to go out again.”
As you get to know him, allow the more serious marriage-discernment topics to come up organically, or ask questions a little at a time, without turning your dates into job interviews. Does he have a strong faith that’s compatible with yours? Is marriage an important goal for him in the foreseeable future? Does he want children? Do you align on your beliefs and desires regarding the roles of husband and wife? Do you communicate well with each other and even disagree well, with honesty and charity? These are just some of the important questions you’ll need to ponder as you gradually assess whether he’s a good husband for you, and you a good wife for him.
Most importantly, pray for guidance, and observe the fruits of the relationship. If your relationship isn’t making you holier and happier now, marrying him probably won’t, either. If it is making you holier and happier, that’s a good sign that you should keep moving forward.

How to Find a Husband

Why does the Catholic Church have priests?

Although our salvation doesn’t depend on knowing the exact date of Christ’s birth, nor is the Church likely ever to make a dogmatic definition regarding this date, it is a matter of interest to anyone who knows and loves Jesus Christ. In this article, <a href="https://cybersky.software.informer.com/">modern</a> astronomy <a href="https://store.simulationcurriculum.com/products/starry-night-pro-8">software</a> and ancient historical documents (including but not limited to the Bible) will offer one perspective on the star of Bethlehem that heralded our Redeemer’s birth.
The three scholars who deserve the most credit for this research are <a href="https://bethlehemstar.com/">Frederick Larson</a>, <a href="https://a.co/d/6kaOiNC">Timothy Norris</a>, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/the-star-of-bethlehem-and-astrology">Jimmy Akin</a>. What follows is a partial timeline of the Christ Event, from his conception in Mary’s womb to the adoration of the Magi. Powerful new software and the regularity of Kepler’s planetary motion laws offer a plausible case for the precision of each date. After this timeline, verses from the Bible and other ancient documents will provide historical support for each claim.
<h2>September, 3 B.C.</h2>
Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. After a close conjunction of Jupiter and Venus on August 12, Jupiter (the King Planet) began a rare triple conjunction with Regulus (the King Star), essentially crowning it with a halo pattern. The conjunction dates were Sep. 14, Feb. 17, and May 8. The celestial coronation took place in the constellation Leo. Just after sunset on Sep. 11, the constellation that rose in the east behind Leo was Virgo, the Virgin, literally “clothed with the Sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1). It was a new moon at her feet, coinciding with the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah). The Magi, familiar with Jewish prophecies of the Messiah, definitely took notice.

<h2>June, 2 B.C.</h2>
Nine months after his conception, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. When Jupiter had finished crowning Regulus in May, it formed a close conjunction with Venus (the Mother Planet) on June 17, such that the separation between the two would have been imperceptible to the naked eye. Light from each planet added to the other, forming the most brilliant star that had ever been seen. (The Jupiter-Venus conjunction of June 17, 2 B.C. has been the brightest such conjunction in human history.) The Magi departed in haste from Babylon towards Bethlehem.
<h2>December, 2 B.C.</h2>
The first Epiphany: the Magi arrived in Bethlehem and adored the Christ child. Jupiter had proceeded ahead of the Magi, first leading them westward toward Jerusalem and then stopping (in full retrograde motion) on December 25 over the town of Bethlehem. Jesus would have been a six-month-old baby by this time, no longer in a temporary cave-stable but now in a small house built by Joseph.
At this point, let’s make the case for the claims above. The first fact to demonstrate is that King Herod died in 1 B.C., not 4 B.C. This is extremely important, because if Herod died in 4 B.C., as is widely believed, the star of Bethlehem would have appeared before then. In fact, the great mathematician and astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), wrote two books on the subject, De stella nova (1606) and De anno natali Christi (1614). Unfortunately, he didn’t find much in the stars of 7, 6, and 5 B.C. His careful calculations could reproduce the celestial map with astonishing accuracy, but he sadly missed the star because he was searching in the wrong years.
Kepler’s mistaken idea that Herod had died in 4 B.C. was based on the historical scholarship of his time. Historian David Beyer has argued that a widely accepted reading of Josephus, which suggests that Herod died in 4 B.C., came from a transcription error introduced in a 1544 printed edition of Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, chapter 4, section 106; see also David W. Beyer, “Josephus Re-examined,” available <a href="https://www.book-info.com/isbn/0-86554-582-0.htm">here</a>.) According to Beyer, nearly all the pre-1544 editions and manuscripts he reviewed in the British Library and Library of Congress stated that Herod Philip (who succeeded Herod the Great) died in the twenty-second year of Tiberius&#8217;s reign. The 1544 edition, however, changed this to the twentieth year of Tiberius. The “twentieth year” reading would place Herod the Great’s death in 4 B.C. Presumably working from a post-1544 edition of Josephus, Kepler would have accepted the 4 B.C. death date.
Besides the transcription error, there are more important reasons to reject the 4 B.C. date of Herod’s death. Historian Gerard Gertoux has published a tour de force of research <a href="https://www.academia.edu/2518046/Herod_the_Great_and_Jesus_Chronological_Historical_and_Archaeological_Evidence">here</a>, and Jimmy Akin’s findings agree with Gertoux’s. Although historian Emil Schürer’s claim that Herod died in 4 B.C. has retained widespread acceptance over the last hundred years, it rests on weak foundations. Akin critiques these foundations based on the following key points from Josephus and related evidence. He also builds a case for Herod the Great dying in 1 B.C. (specifically between the lunar eclipse on January 10, 1 B.C., and Passover on April 11, 1 B.C., likely closer to the latter).
1. Herod&#8217;s appointment as king in 40 B.C. leading to a thirty-six- or thirty-seven-year reign:
Josephus states that Herod was appointed king in the 184th Olympiad (ending mid-40 B.C.) during the consulship of Calvinus and Pollio (which began late 40 B.C.). This creates an impossible contradiction, as the dates do not overlap. External Roman sources (Appian and Dio Cassius) place the appointment in 39 B.C. Josephus reckons reigns non-inclusively (not counting partial first years in this period). Starting the count from the first full year (38 B.C.) and then adding thirty-seven years leads to a death in 1 B.C.
2. Length of reign after conquering Jerusalem (thirty-four years):
Josephus states that Herod died thirty-four years after obtaining his kingdom by slaying Antigonus (i.e., conquering Jerusalem), but he provides contradictory dates for the conquest. Some details point to 37 B.C., whereas others (e.g., exactly twenty-seven years after Pompey&#8217;s conquest in 63 B.C., and the end of 126 years of Hasmonean rule starting in 162 B.C.) point to 36 B.C. This inconsistency undermines using 37 B.C. as a firm anchor for a 4 B.C. death. However, using non-inclusive reckoning of the thirty-four-year period, we can infer a possible death date in either 2 B.C. or 1 B.C.
3. The lunar eclipse shortly before Herod&#8217;s death and Passover:
Josephus places Herod&#8217;s death between a lunar eclipse and Passover, with numerous events (requiring significant time and travel of many different people) in between. Advocates of a 4 B.C. death cite a partial lunar eclipse on March 13, 4 B.C., twenty-nine days before Passover. The twenty-nine-day gap is too short to accommodate all the events and travel Josephus describes between the eclipse and Herod&#8217;s death (estimated minimum forty-one days, more realistically sixty to ninety days). However, a total lunar eclipse occurred on Jan. 10, 1 B.C., eighty-nine days before Passover, which better matches Josephus&#8217;s description due to the sufficient time gap. Additionally, since Josephus does not specify a partial lunar eclipse, a total eclipse aligns better.
4. Evidence that Herod&#8217;s sons assumed office in 4 B.C.:
This does not prove that Herod died then, as it was common for aging rulers to appoint successors as co-rulers during their lifetime to ease succession and reduce pressure. Historical evidence shows that Herod did grant his sons governing authority before his death.
5. Testimony of the Church Fathers:
Many Church Fathers asserted a birth date of Christ in 3/2 B.C., necessitating a death date of Herod later than 4 B.C. and around 1 B.C. These Fathers included St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, with Tertullian and Origen joining them.
Now that we’ve proven a 1 B.C. date for Herod’s death, let’s demonstrate the dates of the infant Christ’s timeline. We will proceed in chronological order:
<h2>September, 3 B.C.</h2>
The Magi weren’t just random stargazers. Most likely they were descendants of Daniel, the prophet brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible provides plenty of clues for this. In Daniel 2:48, Nebuchadnezzar makes Daniel the chief wise man (magus) of his court. In Daniel 5:11, Belshazzar’s queen reminds the king that Daniel, the chief magus, can interpret dreams and visions. In Daniel 6:28, we see that Daniel prospered in the reigns of Darius and Cyrus, implying his tremendous influence on the kingdom (including the school of magi). Daniel’s famous prophecy of weeks of years (sixty-nine sets of seven years each) in Daniel 9:24-27, predicted both the coming of Christ and the destruction of the Temple.
The point is that Daniel, a devout Jew whose God was respected and protected by King Cyrus, would have trained magi to watch the stars for signs of the Messiah. This is why the Magi took notice of the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus in the constellation Leo, representing the Lion of Judah (a type of Christ mentioned in Gen. 49:8-10, 2 Sam. 7:12-14, and Rev. 5:5). It also explains how they knew the prophecy of Micah and why they wanted to worship the newborn King:
<blockquote>In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.  They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel” (Matt. 2:1-6).</blockquote>
<h2>June, 2 B.C.</h2>
The Gospel of Luke notes that John the Baptist began his ministry in the “fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1). Tiberius assumed the throne after Augustus died in August A.D. 14, but Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius typically started counting an emperor’s regnal years from the following January 1, ignoring any partial year. Using this standard method, the fifteenth year of Tiberius would run through what we know as A.D. 29. (A regnal year is counted similarly to a person’s age: the “fifteenth year” spans from the end of the fourteenth year to the end of the fifteenth.)
Jesus began his own ministry shortly after John’s, so his public work probably started around A.D. 29 as well. Luke adds another key detail: at the start of his ministry, Jesus was “about thirty years old” (3:23). Counting back roughly thirty years from A.D. 29, and remembering there is no year zero in the transition from B.C. to A.D., we are brought to 2 B.C. as <a href="https://jimmyakin.com/2013/04/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you.html">the most likely birth year</a>.
<h2>December, 2 B.C.</h2>
In Matthew 2:9, we read, “When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was.” This was the town of Bethlehem, five miles south of Jerusalem. Jupiter was in full retrograde motion that night, the first Epiphany, on December 25. This is not why December 25 was chosen to celebrate Our Lord’s Nativity each year, but it is an interesting coincidence demonstrated by modern astronomy software.
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
Although history and science can never dictate our faith, it is always helpful to see that neither history nor science can contradict it. This is because truth can’t contradict truth. If Christ entered human history through the Incarnation, it is not surprising that he would allow us to use history and science to discover his birth date.
In any case, the most important thing to contemplate as we celebrate Christmas is that “the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

A Modern Take on Christ’s Birth Date

<div>is it legal to have a classical piano concert in a church?</div><div>The sanctuary is the location of the altar in all churches and of the tabernacle in most. As such, it is considered sacred space and cannot be used in the manner of a simple public space.
The Code of Canon Law states:
<blockquote>In a sacred place only those things are to be permitted which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety and religion. Anything out of harmony with the holiness the place is forbidden. The ordinary may, however, for individual cases, permit other uses, provided they are not contrary to the sacred character of the place (CIC, can. 1210).</blockquote>
Practical considerations in many parishes, unfortunately, leave the sanctuary space as the only space large enough for certain events. But these events must be reasonably religious in nature. For example, a parish school choir Christmas concert is reasonably religious. On the other hand, the parish school&#8217;s talent show most likely is not, unless restricted to performances consistent with or not contrary to the sacred character of a church. Otherwise, the school gym or other parish venue would be appropriate.
Even when the use of the sacred space is permissible, that doesn&#8217;t mean anything goes. The altar and the space immediately around it need to be respected. Nothing should be placed upon the altar as if it were a mere table or display location. The Eucharist may need to be removed from the tabernacle to ensure that the sacred presence of the Lord is not disrespected by being ignored.
While the pastor of the parish can grant permission to use the sacred space for a religious purpose (e.g., religious music concert, retreat, religious drama), only the bishop may grant permission for sacred space to be used for a secular purpose (e.g., non-religious classical music concert). And the bishop cannot grant permission for anything that would be explicitly contrary to sacredness (e.g., a political rally).
In addition to canon law, the Church provides important norms to follow in <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/concerts-in-churches-2164">Concert in Churches,</a> a document which the Congregation for Divine Worship issued in 1987:
<blockquote>8. The principle that the use of the church must not offend the sacredness of the place determines the criteria by which the doors of a church may be opened to a concert of sacred or religious music, as also the concomitant exclusion of every other type of music. The most beautiful symphonic music, for example, is not in itself of religious character. The definition of sacred or religious music depends explicitly on the original intended use of the musical pieces or songs, and likewise on their content. It is not legitimate to provide for the execution in the church of music which is not of religious inspiration and which was composed with a view to performance in a certain precise secular context, irrespective of whether the music would be judged classical or contemporary, of high quality or of a popular nature. On the one hand, such performances would not respect the sacred character of the church, and on the other, would result in the music being performed in an unfitting context.
9. The playing of the organ or other musical performance, whether vocal or instrument, may &#8220;serve to promote piety or religion.” In particular they may . . .
9f. assist visitors and tourists to grasp more fully the sacred character of a church, by means of organ concerts at prearranged times. . . .
10. When the proposal is made that there should be a concert in a church, the Ordinary is to grant the permission per mudum actus [by a silent act]. This excludes permission for a series of concerts, for example in the case of a festival or cycle of concerts. . . .
10f. The Blessed Sacrament should be, as far as possible, reserved in a side chapel or in another safe and suitably adorned place (cf. C.I.C., can 938, par. 4).</blockquote>
The reservation of the Eucharist, e.g., in the parish rectory chapel, is all the more important if there are non-Catholics performing, i.e., people who wouldn’t understand—let alone, believe in—the sublimity of the Blessed Sacrament and thus express proper reverence toward our Eucharistic Lord in close proximity to him in the sanctuary tabernacle.
</div>

Concerts in Churches?

<div>I recall a married Catholic couple who separated but didn’t divorce so that one or the other could enter religious life. What are their names? </div><div>You may be thinking of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-there-a-catholic-couple-who-separated-but-did-not-divorce-so-that-one-spouse-could-enter">Cornelia Connelly</a> (1809-1879), who with her husband, Pierce, an Episcopalian minister, converted to the Catholic Church. Pierce Connelly decided he wanted to become a Catholic priest. In those days, no special dispensation existed to allow a converted Episcopal priest to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood and continue to share a common life with his wife. To accommodate his vocation, Cornelia became a religious sister and founded the Society of the Holy Child Jesus.
Pierce’s vocation didn’t last. He eventually left the priesthood and the Church altogether, denied Cornelia contact with their three children, and pressured her to abandon religious life to resume life with him and the children. She refused and entrusted her children’s future to God.
A cause for her canonization has been opened and she has been given the title <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/all-saints-in-the-family">Venerable</a>. You can read more about her in Ronda De Sola Chervin’s book <a href="https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/avoiding-bitterness-in-suffering">Avoiding Bitterness in Suffering</a> (Sophia Institute Press).
</div>

Cornelia and Pierce Connelly

Fr. Bjorn Lundberg recommends <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/adoration">Eucharistic Adoration</a>, counseling, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-can-i-explain-to-protestant-friends-why-catholics-go-to-confession">Confession</a>, and Deacon Neal Lozano&#8217;s book &#8220;Unbound&#8221; as means of recovering our trust in God after having negative experiences both inside and outside of the Church.
Transcript
Host: We go next to Ray in Lexington, Kentucky. Ray, you are on with Fr. Bjorn Lundberg, what’s your question?
Caller: Hi, Father. I had a question as far as, you know, people have had bad experiences with the Church, you know.
Fr. Bjorn: Right.
Caller: Having the ability to surrender themselves and be vulnerable after having—being hurt in the past. What would you say there?
Fr. Bjorn: This is a huge problem, and it’s a great question, because whether it’s a bad experience with the Church or our experiences in life; whether it’s in relationships within our family or things that have happened to us or crises we’ve gone through; these wounds affect how we look at God. And so, you know, they use this term, like we can be “anthropomorphic;” we can project on God our experience of life. So especially when someone’s been wounded in an area of trust by an authority figure or anyone in the Church or in life, this can then set up problems for trusting God.
So, a couple things I would recommend: one is to spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament. If the person believes in the Real Presence, that’s a starting point. If they don’t, you know, you kinda just want to work them into—whether it’s Scripture reading, or devotions, or healthy discipleship with other people, that would be a starting point—who they trust. But if you can—you or I or anyone can spend time with the Lord. Even if you do nothing but just sit in His presence, it’s healing. Because Sister Briege McKenna makes the point that if someone goes to the beach and they’re in the sun, you can tell; they’ve got a sunburn, or a tan, or they’re freckled, or whatever. And the same thing: when you spend time with Our Lord, in front of the Blessed Sacrament, it’s like, you know, nuclear—or spiritual chemotherapy or radiation treatment.
A book I’d also recommend is called “Unbound,” by Neal Lozano, he’s a Catholic deacon who’s been involved with the charismatic renewal. And he has these five keys, or five steps, that a person can take to experience greater freedom. He starts—well, there’s an analogy you can use that if someone gets up on a Saturday morning to go into their kitchen for coffee, and it’s wintertime, and they’ve run the heat all night, but when they get to the kitchen it’s freezing cold, they say, “Why is it cold in here? We had the heat on.” Well, they realize someone left the window open or the door open. So they close it and the room warms up. Well, in life, when we’ve gone through trauma or crisis or abuse, there can be sort of spiritual doors that are opened. It’s great to go to counseling, it’s of course essential to go to Confession when we need it, but even with those things, there can sort of be a dark cloud that follows us around, and this would be some kind of form of spiritual attack. So the book “Unbound” is a very practical way to grow in a relationship with our Heavenly Father and have greater healing too.
Host: Ray, how does that strike you? That is awesome, thank you so much, Father.
Fr. Bjorn: You’re welcome, great.
Host: Thank you very much, Ray.

How Do We Trust God Again after a Bad Experience?

5 Bad Catholic Arguments We NEED TO STOP Using…

<article class="text-token-text-primary w-full" dir="auto" data-testid="conversation-turn-18" data-scroll-anchor="true">
<div class="text-base my-auto mx-auto py-5 [--thread-content-margin:--spacing(4)] @[37rem]:[--thread-content-margin:--spacing(6)] @[72rem]:[--thread-content-margin:--spacing(16)] px-(--thread-content-margin)">
<div class="[--thread-content-max-width:32rem] @[34rem]:[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @[64rem]:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto flex max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 text-base gap-4 md:gap-5 lg:gap-6 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden" tabindex="-1">
<div class="group/conversation-turn relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn">
<div class="relative flex-col gap-1 md:gap-3">
<div class="flex max-w-full flex-col grow">
<div class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal [.text-message+&amp;]:mt-5" dir="auto" data-message-author-role="assistant" data-message-id="363e6657-df2c-4255-85b1-49be7bae805c" data-message-model-slug="gpt-4o">
<div class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden first:pt-[3px]">
<div class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full break-words dark">
A 14-year-old asks if wearing the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings could be a mortal sin. Jimmy Akin explains how Catholic teaching on temptation, free will, and culpability applies—even in Middle-earth.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</article>
Transcript:
Cy: Nicholas says, Hi! I&#8217;m a mega fan of Jimmy Akin&#8217;s Mysterious World. I am 14, and I have a weird question for you. First, in the Lord of the Rings, how culpable are people for mortal sin when they wear the One Ring? I would just like to say, 14 years old, using the word culpable. Good job, Nicholas. I am asking because it is possible to ignore the temptation of the ring.
Jimmy: My. Oh, so let&#8217;s do that. Then we&#8217;ll do his second question. Gotcha. Okay, so I have to start by saying that I have never read in their entirety the Lord of the Rings books. I have seen the movies. I&#8217;ve seen all the movies, and not just the Peter Jackson ones. I&#8217;ve seen the Nelvana, Ralph Bakshi productions, too, from back in the 70s, one of which only ended up on TV and was never theatrically released. So I&#8217;m familiar with the basic plots. But Tolkien may have stuff in the books that provides more detail about how the Ring works than what I&#8217;m aware of. So I don&#8217;t know, Cy. You may know more about that than me. You may have read the books in their entirety.
Cy: I did, yeah.
Jimmy: Okay, so you may be able to add some color to this. But assuming that it is possible to ignore the temptation that the One Ring provides, which it would seem to be given that Tom Bombadil is totally unfazed by the One Ring, he&#8217;s playing with it at the beginning of the first of the Lord of the Rings books, which I understand why they dropped that sequence from the movies, because the movies open with a very effective portrayal of how dangerous the ring is. And it would totally undercut that to have Tom Bombadil spinning it around his finger and not caring. So I think that was actually a good cut for the movies.
But the mere fact that it&#8217;s possible to ignore the temptation does not mean that a person is not going to have. Is not. Is not going to be committing mortal sin. The person may or may not commit mortal sin. The Church&#8217;s understanding is that in order for mortal sin to occur, three conditions must be met together. One of them is there has to be grave matter. And we&#8217;ll just specify that that&#8217;s the case in whatever mortal sin the ring is tempting someone to do.
The second is you have to have full knowledge of the moral character of the act. And that may or may not be present, depending on the extent to which the ring is impacting your perception of what&#8217;s going on. So it could be that the ring is depriving you of adequate knowledge of what you&#8217;re doing and what it really consists of.
And then the third condition is that there must be deliberate consent, meaning this is a free choice that the person is making. But it&#8217;s not deliberate consent if the person is under some kind of psychological compulsion. And the Ring would seem to provide, since it tends to corrupt folks in some cases in radical ways like Gollum, it would seem that there is a strong psychological compulsion there such that even Frodo succumbs to it by the end of the story.
And it&#8217;s only because of divine providence that the Ring ends up being destroyed. Because Frodo was not going to destroy it there at the end and he knew what the stakes were. He knew the Shire and other places would just be ravaged by Sauron if he didn&#8217;t destroy the Ring. And so that would seem to indicate that the Ring, at least in some circumstances, has tremendous psychological compulsion power.
So even if it&#8217;s possible for some unusually strong individuals like Tom Bombadil to ignore it, and even if a normal person could ignore it in some circumstances, like let&#8217;s say when you&#8217;re far from Mount Doom, your culpability will be diminished by the Ring&#8217;s noetic effects, which are its effects on your beliefs and, you know, what you perceive yourself to be doing.
And it will also be. Your culpability will also be mitigated by the degree of compulsion the Ring has over you in that moment. So on two grounds. Both by interfering with your knowledge of what you&#8217;re doing and by interfering with the normal exercise of your will to make deliberative choices, you could end up not being responsible in a mortal sin way for what you&#8217;re doing.
So it might end up being a venial sin or even not a sin at all if your knowledge or culpability were fundamentally removed from you. If your knowledge or your volition, your use of the will was fundamentally removed.
On the other hand, this is. It&#8217;s not guaranteed that you might not commit a mortal sin. You might still have enough control and knowledge to be mortally culpable for what you did. And even if you&#8217;re not, you may have made a free choice to wear the ring knowing what the consequences of that would be.
Like Bilbo, you know, Bilbo originally started wearing the ring not knowing what it would do. But by the time in The Hobbit, but by the time of The Lord of the Rings, he had learned the corrupting effect of the Ring. And there&#8217;s even a moment in the Peter Jackson movies where he&#8217;s, you know, given the ring to Frodo, but he just doesn&#8217;t want to let it go.
And he becomes. He starts. He even looks monstrous as he lunges for the ring at one point because he wants to wear it because it&#8217;s addictive. Well, okay, someone who engages when they are in control of themselves, who, let&#8217;s say, gets drunk or high knowing that that&#8217;s going to lead them to do immoral things is responsible for the path that they set themselves on.
So if, you know, let&#8217;s say someone goes out to a bar and starts drinking like crazy knowing they&#8217;re going to drive home in an unsafe state, they assume responsibility for driving home in an unsafe state. And that can be mortally sinful. Same thing if they know they&#8217;re going to get high, let&#8217;s say they&#8217;re smoking weed and they know they&#8217;re going to get high, and then they&#8217;re going to drive to the store to get snacks because they&#8217;re going to have the munchies. Well, they&#8217;re responsible for the dangerous condition they&#8217;re going to be driving in.
And so in the same way, one could have the ring and not be wearing it, but be tempted to wear it in a state where you still have control of yourself and you know, your addiction is not so far gone that you have no control over this. And if you then, while you have control of yourself, choose to wear the ring knowing what it&#8217;s going to lead to, then you have assumed the moral responsibility for what it will lead to.
And you could mortally sin by wearing the ring, by choosing to wear the ring once you know what the consequences of that act are going to be and you just want to do it anyway.
Cy: All right, Nicholas, there&#8217;s question number one for you. Nicholas&#8217;s second question&#8230;

Is Wearing the One Ring a Mortal Sin?

&#8220;<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/modernism">Modernism</a>&#8221; is the charge against the Church in many parts of the internet. In fact, it is common to find Catholics <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/tba-49">attacking the Second Vatican Council</a> as modernist heresy. So what is modernism, and has it infected the Church? Father Sebastian Walshe, author of <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/secrets-from-heaven/">Secrets From Heaven</a> and <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/always-a-catholic-how-to-keep-your-kids-in-the-faith-for-life-and-bring-them-back-if-they-have-strayed/">Always a Catholic</a>, explains modernism and engages with the charge of modernism against the Church.

Modernism

Jesus’ command to “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” in John 6 has been the subject of much debate since the time of the Protestant Reformation. And Catholic apologists have done their fair share of defending the realistic understanding of these words (we must eat Jesus’ real flesh and blood) as opposed to a metaphorical reading (we need only come to Jesus and believe in him). Thus, you might think, “What more can be said about it?”
Well, I’d like to answer that question here.
What I say below is nothing entirely new. However, there is enough twist that I think it’s worth sharing.
We all know that Jesus’ disciples struggled to accept his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60). Some of them even left him for it: “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him” (v. 66).
We also know that Jesus recognized their difficulty: “Do you take offense at this?” (v.61).
Now, the question is, “Did Jesus attempt to ease the difficulty by clarifying their realistic understanding?”
As others have <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/the-living-bread-mp3/">argued</a>, and as I argue in my book Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments, the answer is no. Rather, Jesus underscored the difficulty by appealing to his ascension: “What if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” (v. 62).
Such a response suggests that Jesus was not clarifying his disciples’ realistic understanding. Rather, he was affirming it. Why would Jesus appeal to his ascension—something even more difficult to believe, given its observably miraculous nature—if he were trying to ease the difficulty by clarifying the literal thoughts of his disciples concerning his teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Most who swim in the waters of apologetics are familiar with the above argument. There are two other lines of reasoning, however, that aren’t so familiar.
For the first one, consider that in verses 33-35 of John 6, the metaphor of “eating” and “drinking” are used in conjunction with Jesus’ command to “come to” him and “believe” in him:
<blockquote>“For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.”</blockquote>
The “eating” and “drinking” metaphors are implied in Jesus’ promise that we will never hunger when we come to him and never thirst when we believe in him. So, at least here, “eating” and “drinking” are metaphors for following Jesus and believing in him.
Now, if Jesus wanted to ease the difficulty that the disciples were having with his command to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” and clarify their realistic understanding, then he could have easily done so by retreating to the “come to me” and “believe in me” language. You can imagine him saying something like, “Hey guys, why are you having such a hard time with this? I just gave you the interpretive key for this language. All I’m asking you to do is come to me and believe in me.” And the disciples would have responded, “That’s all you mean? Whew! I thought you meant for us to actually eat your flesh and drink your blood. In that case, no problem here! We’re already following you and believing in you.”
Not only could Jesus have done this, but he would have done it. Jesus wouldn’t leave his disciples in the darkness of their misunderstanding when he had an easy fix available. That’s just not Jesus’ M.O. Sure, at times, he left his critics in such darkness (John 2:1-15). But he never did that for his disciples.
When Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes, “privately to his own disciples he explained everything” (Mark 4:33-34; see also Matt. 13:10-11). When Jesus’ disciples thought he was speaking of real food—“I have food to eat of which you do not know” (John 4:32), Jesus clarified their misunderstanding: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (v. 34). When Jesus’s disciples thought Jesus was speaking of the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees—“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6)—Jesus, again, clarified their misunderstanding: “How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread?” (v. 11). Matthew tells us that the disciples then understood Jesus to be speaking of the “teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (v.12).
So, to repeat: If Jesus wanted to ease the difficulty that the disciples were having with his command to “eat his flesh” and “drink his blood” and clarify their realistic understanding, then he could have, and would have, done so by retreating to the “come to me” and “believe in me” language.
But Jesus didn’t retreat to such language.
Therefore, Jesus didn’t want to ease the difficulty and clarify their realistic understanding.
Now, given this, we have only three possibilities that would follow:
<ol>
<li>a) Jesus wasn’t concerned with the disciples’ difficulty,</li>
<li>b) Jesus intended to leave the disciples in their false realistic understanding, or</li>
<li>c) Jesus intended the disciples’ realistic understanding.</li>
</ol>
It can’t be that Jesus wasn’t concerned with their difficulty. He was: “Do you take offense at this?” (v. 61).
Nor can it be that Jesus intended to leave his disciples in their false realistic understanding. The examples above where Jesus clarifies his disciples’ misunderstandings suffice as evidence.
Our only option left is that Jesus intended the disciples’ realistic understanding. Thus, there was no misunderstanding on the part of the disciples. They got it! And they left Jesus for it.
There’s yet another line of reasoning that suggests Jesus’ affirmation of the disciples’ realistic understanding. After we’re told that the disciples “drew back and no longer walked with [Jesus]” (v. 66), Jesus asks the apostles, “Will you also go away?” (v. 67).
Here’s the question for us: Why would Jesus think the apostles might leave him for his teaching to believe in him when they already believed in him?
This is what Jesus would have to have thought if he intended his words to be taken as an idiom for coming to him and believing in him. But that doesn’t make sense.
The question as to whether the apostles would leave Jesus, along with the other disciples, makes no sense if all Jesus meant was to come to him and believe in him. No difficulty would have existed for the apostles, especially a difficulty of such a degree that they might leave him for it
Therefore, Jesus’ question to the apostles is further evidence that he intended a realistic understanding of his words as opposed to a metaphorical or figurative one.
There you have it: a few more lines of defense to add to the stock defenses for the realistic understanding of Jesus’ words “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood.” The mystery of these words never ceases to inspire awe within us and draws us ever deeper into reflection on God’s Word.

Jesus: ‘No, Seriously, Guys’

<div>I want to receive Communion. If I made up a lie or got mad at someone, does this require a confession?</div><div>Whether a lie or our anger is a mortal sin depends upon their severity. Lying that I did not leave the bathroom light on would be a venial sin. Lying about a murder would be a mortal sin.  In the same way, a brief fleeting anger wouldn&#8217;t be a mortal sin, but a deep-seated anger could very well be a mortal sin.
You would need to examine your conscience and what the potential consequences of your lies or anger might have been.  However, a good rule of thumb would be: when in doubt, confess it. Your confessor can help you with a spiritual assessment.
</div>

When to Go to Confession?

Jimmy Akin answers a caller who wonders how to reconcile seemingly contradictory stories in Scripture, and in particular the differing accounts of the Gaterine demoniacs in Matthew&#8217;s and Mark&#8217;s Gospels.
Transcript:
Host: Chris from England, listening on the Catholic Answers app, you are on with Jimmy Akin on open forum. And I have a question for you: What part of England are you in?
Caller: I&#8217;m from Manchester.
Host: Manchester, ok very good, awesome, great to hear from you.
Caller: Thank you. And so my question is, is that we have the belief that the Holy Spirit is the primary author of Scripture. And so I would like to know, how can we account for apparent factual contradictions? One story comes to mind of the demon-possessed man in the Gospel of Mark and also in the Gospel of Matthew. In the Gospel of Matthew there&#8217;s two possessed men and also the location seems to be different from the same story from the Gospel of Mark. And so how can we counter the seeming factual contradictions?
Jimmy: Ok, the incident you&#8217;re referring to is the&#8230; it&#8217;s described in one place as the Gadarene demoniac, because Jesus is in the area of Gadara; and so there are a couple of things to note here, because you&#8217;ve asked about the location and about the number of the possessed men.
One of the things that we find in Scripture is that the location terms often overlap. So you can describe&#8211; because they didn&#8217;t have, you know, geo-location coordinates back then, geocaching was not a big thing in the first century&#8211;and so you could describe locations in a variety of different ways. Sometimes you could describe them based on where they were in terms of the region that they&#8217;re in; sometimes you could describe them in terms of what town they were close to; sometimes you could describe them in terms of how you got there; sometimes you could describe them in terms of what features geographically were nearby; and so there were a bunch of ways that you could more or less describe the same area, and because they weren&#8217;t, you know, trying to geocache these things, you could say, well this happened in this region or in this approximate area.
And different authors can take different approaches to how they do that, and so that&#8217;s how I would account for the difference in location descriptions that you find in Matthew and Mark, both of whom have a version of this incident. If you&#8217;d like to read more about that, I&#8217;d suggest you check out my commentary on Mark which is called &#8220;Mark: A Commentary&#8221; by Jimmy Akin, and it&#8217;s available on Verbum Bible Software. I have a&#8211;it&#8217;s actually a really thorough commentary and I go through that question, among others, in this.
Also, I go into the question of the the number of the demoniacs, and that is one that&#8217;s actually even easier to solve, because one of the things that authors have to make a decision on when they&#8217;re writing&#8211;and this is true of all authors, certainly I know it&#8217;s true of me when I&#8217;m writing&#8211;is how much detail you&#8217;re gonna go into. Because frequently you know way more about something than you have space to go into, either because you&#8217;ve gotten a word count from your editor that you have to meet, or you&#8217;re gonna run out of paper, or you simply don&#8217;t want to bore your audience so they lose interest and stop reading and you&#8217;re writing for no purpose.
So every author is conscious of &#8220;How much detail am I gonna go into here?&#8221; And therefore authors make different choices. They may choose, for example, to simplify an account in terms of how many of the details they record, like, suppose something happened with two guys, but&#8230;they&#8217;re both demoniacs, they both get exorcised by Jesus, they&#8217;re both in the same location; do I really need to mention both, or can I just make as an author the point that, okay, Jesus exorcised a demoniac here. And that&#8217;s the choice that Mark makes when Mark only mentions one. He&#8217;s using a simplified account.
Now in Mark&#8217;s case, he may not have been the one who did the simplification, because Mark is dependent in his Gospel on Peter&#8217;s preaching. And so if Peter, in his preaching, simply decided, &#8220;I&#8217;m gonna talk, for the sake of my audience, about one guy rather than confuse him with two,&#8221; then that could have been the form of the account that Mark was familiar with, and so that&#8217;s the one he wrote down.
But either way, either Peter or Mark is simplifying. Matthew, also as an eyewitness, would have known, &#8220;Well okay, there is&#8211;&#8221; assuming he was there for this incident, assuming, you know, he wasn&#8217;t taking the day off, and that he was already a follower of Jesus by this point, but as a witness of Jesus&#8217;s ministry, could well have been there and he could have said, &#8220;You know, there are actually two guys there, and I think that&#8217;ll suit my literary purposes in helping my audience in writing my Gospel, so I&#8217;m not gonna use the simplified account I found in Mark; I&#8217;m gonna give a little bit more detail than Mark did, and mention the second guy.&#8221;
So that&#8217;s the basic approach that I take in looking at those. It&#8217;s not actually a contradiction, it&#8217;s just a question of how much detail are you gonna go into, and different authors make different choices.

How Can We Account for Factual Contradictions in Scripture?

Have you ever felt awkward listening to the Gospel reading during Ash Wednesday services? It sounds as if Jesus is telling us not to put ashes on our foreheads during a day devoted to fasting.
In one part of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says,
<blockquote>And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you (Matt. 6:16-18).</blockquote>
Doesn’t this mean we should wash our faces of ashes or anything else that would show people we’re fasting?
When you come across a passage in scripture that seems to teach that a Catholic doctrine is unbiblical, slow down and try to find as much context as possible behind the passage. In reading a passage slowly, we can also ask questions and notice details that change how we understand the text.
All right, let’s give it a try. Jesus says, “And when you fast . . . ”
Notice that Jesus does not say “if you fast.” Jesus expects his disciples to fast, and it would be a hasty assumption to think Jesus’ disciples engaged only in secretive, personal fasts that no one else knew about.
In fact, some critical scholars doubt that Jesus’ statement “and when you fast” actually comes from Jesus. They say this statement contradicts the criticism that Jesus’ disciples didn’t fast like the Pharisees or John the Baptist’s disciples (Mark 2:18). However, as the Protestant scholar Craig Keener notes, “Mark cannot mean that they never fasted,” because “omission of the biblical fast, Yom Kippur, would have yielded serious charges of which the Gospels provide no hint” (The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 226).
The criticism about Jesus’ disciples may have been related to the fact that they did not keep certain optional fasts that were popular among groups like the Pharisees (who may have fasted twice a week, as Luke 18:12 suggests). Jesus’ explanation is that just as one cannot mourn while the bridegroom is present, Jesus’ disciples do not fast while he is still with them—but this will change after “the bridegroom is taken away from them.” Indeed, Acts 13:2 says the Holy Spirit spoke to a group of Christians in Antioch who “were worshiping the Lord and fasting.” A first-century Catechism called the Didache says that Christians fasted on Wednesday and Friday (8:1).
Not only did Jesus expect his disciples to fast, but they fasted during periods when everyone knew they would be fasting, such as the annual day of atonement, Yom Kippur. (Luke probably mentions this when he refers to “the fast” in Acts 27:9.)
Jesus’ warning, therefore, is not about doing something that would reveal you’re fasting. If it was Yom Kippur (or a similar holy day), everyone would expect a faithful Jew to fast. The warning is about doing something to draw attention to your fasting and the toll it takes on your body. That’s why Jesus gives the following command: “Do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces.”
How would someone look “dismal” by disfiguring his face? What makes him a hypocrite?
The word hypocrite refers, in part, to the masks that an actor in a Greek play would wear on stage. A hypocrite only plays a part, so a religious hypocrite is someone who appears pious but actually isn’t (one of Jesus’ stock complaints about the Pharisees). But, in general, Catholics don’t wear ashes in order merely to appear to be pious. Ashes are instead a genuine sign of internal repentance and recognition that the wearer of the ashes comes from dust, and to dust he shall return (Gen. 3:19).
Jesus even speaks in a positive way of wearing ashes as a sign of repentance. Matthew says Jesus “began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.” Jesus then thunders at them, “Woe to you, Chorazin! woe to you, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matt. 11:20-21).
Jesus’ criticism is not of people who engage in religious activities that outwardly manifest genuine repentance or spiritual sacrifice. Instead, Jesus criticizes people who engage in exaggerated behaviors, who “disfigure” themselves, in order to draw attention to their fasting, or even to fabricate it. That’s why St. John Chrysostom said, “I know many, not merely fasting and making a display of it, but neglecting to fast, and yet wearing the masks of them that fast, and cloaking themselves with an excuse worse than their sin” (Homily 20 on Matthew).
In other cases, the person may be sorrowful, but he is also vainly seeking some measure of glory through his fasting. For example, rabbinic literature like the Talmud criticized the nikpi Pharisee who “knocks his feet together” out of exaggerated humility or the kizai (or “black and blue”) Pharisee who walked into walls because he kept his eyes closed out of a desire to avoid temptation. Another kind of Pharisee were those who “rub” or “strike” themselves against walls in order to show how weak they had become from fasting. Protestant scholar Craig Evans connects this kind of Pharisee to Jesus’ warning about those who “disfigure” themselves to show they are fasting (Matthew, 139).
Jesus then says of the hypocrites, “They have their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face.”
Notice that the goal here isn’t to hide the fact that you are fasting. After all, friends and family would have noticed during mealtimes that a disciple of Jesus wasn’t eating. Jesus must have told someone about his forty-day fast in the desert so that it would be recorded in Scripture (Matt. 4:2). Instead, the goal is not to draw unnecessary attention to your fasting by making it look as if the lack of food has caused you to become gaunt or sickly.
 We also have to remember, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/doesnt-jesus-say-not-to-wear-ashes-on-your-forehead">as my colleague Tim Staples notes</a>, that Jesus often uses hyperbole in his teachings. Jesus commands that we pray in secret, but he prayed in the sight of others (Mark 14:32-35, John 11:41). Jesus says not to make any oaths to God (Matt. 5:34), but St. Paul made oaths calling on God as a witness to his truthfulness (2 Cor. 1:23). Likewise, Jesus says we should fast in secret to emphasize that we should not fast in order to receive praise from other people, not that our fasting should be done only in secret.
In closing, Matthew 6:16 does not condemn wearing ashes for the purpose of entering into a spirit of repentance for observing Lent. But that doesn’t mean Jesus’ warning is irrelevant to us today. If we treat ashes as a hip way to stand out from the crowd and announce to others that we’re Catholic, then Jesus will tell us that we “already have our reward.” This also applies to people who might not “disfigure their faces” but enjoy complaining about how difficult it is to fast or give up something during Lent in order to get sympathy from other people.
But if we maintain a holy disposition while wearing ashes or fasting, then we will carry out Jesus’ command to “let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).

Is Ash Wednesday Unbiblical?

Martin Luther (1483-1546) took the Christian world by storm in the sixteenth century. His work “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Protestant-Reformation-Hans-J-Hillerbrand/dp/0061148474">The Freedom of a Christian</a>” (1520), turned the theology of Christ’s atonement on its head.
Catholics thought that faith in Jesus, works of charity, and all seven Catholic sacraments contributed to man’s just standing before God. They also thought that certain works, called <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-do-i-know-if-its-a-mortal-sin">mortal sins</a>, forfeit salvation. Luther, on the other hand, said that faith in Christ alone contributes to man’s just standing before God. His teaching separated such works from salvation, and he supported it with multiple biblical quotations. With works separated from justification, Luther then naturally denied the existence of mortal sins, saying that only a lack of faith would forfeit salvation.
Two significant responses to Luther came out the next year. These responses were not as careful and specific as modern scholarly responses are, but they give an interesting glimpse into the past.
A bishop in England, St. John Fisher (1469-1535), preached a highly developed <a href="https://www.amazon.com/English-Works-John-Fisher-Part/dp/1164945734">sermon</a> on Luther in 1521 to refute his teaching on salvation. King Henry VIII of England (1491-1547), who ultimately became Fisher’s enemy, wrote (with the help of St. Thomas More) on the same team as Fisher in his <a href="https://www.google.fr/books/edition/King_Henry_the_Eighth_s_Defence_of_the_S/jpFdAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=henry+viii+defense+of+the+seven+sacraments&amp;printsec=frontcover">Defense of the Seven Sacraments</a> (1521). Because Luther’s “faith alone” teaching eliminated the salvific element of most of the sacraments, Henry attempted to rebut Luther’s views with various arguments.
Fisher’s “Sermon Made Against the Pernicyous Doctryn of Martin Luther Within the Octaves of the Ascensyon,” covered Luther’s teachings and salvation by faith alone. Fisher agreed with Luther that a Christian’s state of justification is maintained by faith but disagreed that it is by faith alone. Faith needs to be coupled with hope and love. To explain this, Fisher utilized an analogy and various scriptural quotations.
Fisher’s setup analogy would have been effective for his congregation to grasp. He said, “What marvelous power, what wonderful energy is in the beams of the sun, which, as we see this time of year, spread over the ground and quicken and bring to life many creatures which before appeared to be dead.” The sun’s beams bring life typically, but in the winter, they are unable to make trees grow. Fisher compared this to Luther’s teaching of faith alone: “Faith is a thin light without the rebounding of hope and the heat of charity.” In Fisher’s estimation, Luther’s idea about salvation does not bring life. Life occurs only with hope and love, for “no matter how much light a person has, unless he also has the heat of charity . . . he is only a dead stick and like a tree without life.” Faith alone is not sufficient.
To support this analogy, Fisher cited Scripture. He quoted three passages:
<ul>
<li>Paul: “If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).</li>
<li>James: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).</li>
<li>Luke: “Give alms and everything will be clean for you” (Luke 11:41).</li>
</ul>
The passage from Paul prioritizes love above faith, the passage from James denies Luther’s “salvation by faith alone” teaching, and the passage from Luke gives a specific work that contributes to salvation. Fisher said of Luke 11, “What is this cleanness but the justifying of our souls which is promised for the work of almsgiving?” Fisher saw a good deed as integral to justification in Luke 11, so Luther, he insisted must be mistaken.
Fisher then quoted a flurry of passages, as modern apologists do. Among them:
<ul>
<li>Matthew 6:14, 7:21, 5:20, 7:26</li>
<li>Romans 2:13</li>
<li>James 1:27</li>
<li>Romans 8:13</li>
<li>Galatians 5:6</li>
</ul>
For Fisher, Luther was wrong on salvation by faith alone, for he contradicted Scripture.
King Henry VIII tag-teamed with Fisher in one of the best plays of historical irony: he quoted from Luther’s various writings, then utilized scriptural passages to combat Luther’s “salvation by faith alone” doctrine. Henry’s evidence against “faith alone” included various aspects, but the largest was probably his reliance upon James 2. Then Henry provided a practical and historical argument against Luther’s single mortal sin of a lack of faith.
Henry quoted James 2 multiple times throughout his work. For example, in the context of baptism and confession, “faith without works is dead.” Henry also quoted James in the context of anointing. In short, per Henry, James “so narrowly touches Luther everywhere, as if, by his prophetic spirit, he had plainly foreseen him. For when Luther . . . despises good works . . . St. James on the other hand disputes.”
On to mortal sin, because Luther said that “no sins can damn thee but infidelity [lack of faith] only,” thereby abolishing the normal Catholic list of mortal sins by works, Henry attempted to refute him with a historical argument. Luther needed to be rejected because he contradicted St. Hierom (probably old English for Jerome), who had said that penance is “the table after shipwreck.” This statement is an analogy for the teaching that, after initial justification, man sails onward toward God, but if he commits a mortal sin, then he will wreck his ship. The man will lose his justification, but through the sacrament of penance, he can reboard a ship and be justified again. If the work of the sacrament of penance is intimately involved in salvation, then Luther’s “faith alone” idea does not work. So Henry cited St. Hierom as an authority on his side.
Besides this historical argument, Henry emphasized that Luther’s denial of mortal sin was a bad teaching practically. For if Luther was right that only a lack of faith is a mortal sin, then this, according to Henry, would encourage men to sin. Such a teaching by Luther was the “mistress of all impiety.” For suddenly, Henry exclaimed, “adultery will not damn them! Murder will not damn!” Henry’s point was that if such sins did not damn Christians to hell, then why would Christians avoid them?
Luther shook Christian Europe when he separated good and bad works from righteousness and supported this with Scripture. Catholics responded to Luther with practical, historical, and biblical arguments. St. John Fisher argued that Luther’s teaching was comparable to the sun in the wintertime, unable to give life to the trees. To support this analogy, he provided numerous biblical citations that appeared to contradict Luther. Two of King Henry VIII’s rebuttals were that Luther contradicted St. Hierom and practically encouraged men to sin. James 2 was important to both Fisher and Henry, as it is important to apologists today.
And so, as spectacular as it sounds to those familiar with <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/yes-more-and-fisher-were-real-martyrs">St. John Fisher’s end</a>, King Henry shines as a coworker with Fisher in their respective rebuttals to Luther.

Martin Luther’s Most Shocking Opponent

“Come away by yourselves to a lonely place, and rest a while.”
There is a question, and a problem, deeply embedded in modern life: why this place and not another? Why Bridgeport and not Phoenixville? Why Philly and not Boston? What is the difference between one place and another?
We all know that there are differences. We like some places better than others. We know some places better than others, and in fact that some places are more knowable than others. An old church is much more memorable than a supermarket. Say what you will about the streets of many cities in the American Northeast—twisty, incomprehensible, names changing every few blocks—but some studies have shown that a given street corner in a city like that is more recognizable than one in a city with streets laid out in a perfect grid.
Places give us all kinds of feelings. The modern world, however, dislikes these feelings. It dislikes the kind of distinctions that make one place better than, or even different from, another. Think of the brutal modern architecture that we sometimes still see, emphasizing uniformity, blandness, function. Even better, think of the way we make maps. In ancient times, through the Middle Ages, maps were made to help you get from one place to another, and they were more often than not itineraries to help you remember and distinguish one thing from another—but they were also made to show the underlying significance of each place. This is why, for example, you see the old maps with sea monsters in the ocean: because the ocean can be a place of danger and the unknown.
Today’s maps are more accurate, more precise. They lay out the world on a grid. Latitude, longitude, north, south, east, west. This is all useful. But it presents a different model of place. What we have in modern maps is not a collection of places, but absolute space—an endless void, spreading out in all directions, that can be filled with anything at all. In the drive to make all things equal, to flatten all distinctions, the world tells us that places have no inherent significance. They are simply points on a map, coordinates in space.
The view of the Bible is quite different, and we don’t need to look very hard to find it. From the beginning, God hallows certain places. The garden of Eden. Mount Sinai. Jerusalem. The Temple. Whenever something good happens in the Old Testament, it seems that the place where it happens gets a special name, perhaps even a monument for remembrance. This is the place where Jacob wrestled with God. This is the place where we crossed the Jordan into the promised land. This is the place where God’s glory rests with his people.
If we look closer, the picture is a little more complicated. The Bible is not, in fact, unreservedly on board with the consecration of place. In the Old Testament, for example, Israel makes a name for itself by denying the sacred places of other people. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not a local god, like the others; he is not lord of a place—the god of the Nile, or of the Jordan, or of the city of Tyre—no, he is the God, period.
The scriptures begin with creation, emphasizing that this God is no mere local lord; he is the Lord of all things. He is worshiped not at a shrine, at a special place, but everywhere, because he is everywhere, and because every place belongs to him. As much as the prophets emphasize the goodness of the land, they emphasize, maybe even more strongly, the source of that goodness. The frequent Old Testament imagery of shepherds and flocks goes alongside a suspicion of cities and places of man-made permanence—take Babel, for example, or Sodom and Gomorrah—emphasizing that the true identity of God’s people centers less on where they are than on whom they follow. “Judah shall be saved,” Jeremiah tells us, when the true and ultimately just shepherd arrives. In other words, the flock can really settle down into a permanent place only when that place is ruled by the right person.
This universal, catholic faith of the Jews took an even stronger form in the early Church. Jesus Christ is Lord not just of the Jews, not just of Jerusalem, but of the whole earth. This was one reason why the catholic nature of the Church has always been so deeply associated with the city of Rome. Rome was about as far from Jerusalem as one could imagine. It was a city of pagans, of Gentiles. And yet it became the seat of the apostles and the principal church of the world. The early Christians venerated certain places, to be sure: the places where Jesus walked, the places where the martyrs died, the places where miracles happened. But they also insisted that theirs was a universal Lord, a universal gospel, that did not depend on Jerusalem, on Rome, on any holy place—but could be carried to the uttermost parts of the earth and remain the same.
Perhaps you can see how the modern idea of space is related to the Christian concept of universality. In a sense, the modern view toward space, toward place, is a corruption of catholic Christianity. You see, Christians have always affirmed the equality of all places: God can be found anywhere. And yet, at the same time, they have affirmed that, because God can be found anywhere, places matter.
Jesus Christ is the Lord of all space and time. Yet he entered space and time in a very specific place: the womb of the Virgin Mary, which was prepared for him by God as a “meet dwelling place.” He was born and baptized in places with names; he was killed on a hill known as the “place of the skull”; he rose again from the tomb—a place, again, that you can still visit.
He has redeemed people from every place—those far off and those near. But he has done so in a specific place, and that place is his body, his blood. As St. Paul says, “but now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.”
Jesus is our home, our house, our body—he is our only dwelling place, our final destination. In him we are home. Apart from him we are homeless. Perhaps that is why Holy Church in her wisdom appoints today’s passage in Mark as an introduction to the feeding of the five thousand and an extended meditation on the “bread of life” discourse in John 6. Sometimes we wander the wilderness a while before remembering where home is.
We are at the end of a great “eucharistic revival” promoted by our bishops. Whether it succeeds or not, I think the goal has been to remind Catholics that the worship of Jesus is actually the most central thing about our faith. I didn’t grow up Catholic, so my experience is hardly universal, but I met a lot of Catholics, growing up, and it wasn’t until I was in my twenties that I ever really met Catholics who seemed interested in Jesus. Oh, they were interested in community service, in making the world a better place, in being instruments of peace and all that. They were wandering the wilderness, trying to make their own bread, build their own heaven. Woe to the bad shepherds who let them imagine there was such a thing as the Catholic faith without Jesus.
Though we are called to display the kingdom of God in this world, the mission of the Church is not simply to make the world a better place. The mission of the Church is to show the world that it is the world, to show that it cannot find its own meaning without God. Our mission is to live in such a way that Jesus can be known where we are, even in this world of suffering and sin
This place, like any real church, is a holy place—not because it has been made perfect, but because Jesus is here. Our true home, the end of our long pilgrimage, is here in sight, just beyond that altar rail. Everything about this holy place is designed to remind us that there is another place, beyond this, to which all places point, and in which all created places are fulfilled and find their meaning.
Come away to a lonely place, and rest a while. Come away to the cross, to the Resurrection, to the glory of the Lord. Come to this altar, one with the heavenly altar, and find your true home.

A Lonely Place to Rest

Here&#8217;s a skeptical meme I recently came across:

There are three problems with this (admittedly kind of funny) picture. Let’s take the first: Christians neglect the poor. 
This hardly seems worth the trouble to rebut. More than any other group you can identify, for centuries Christians have fed the poor, sheltered the homeless and orphan, tended to the sick, protected the refugee, comforted the afflicted, supported the widow and unwed mother, and generally lifted up the down and out. This includes official Church charities, parishes and religious orders, independent charities related to Christian groups or motivated by Christian conviction, and individual Christians who give their time, talent, and treasure to improve the lot of others in the world who need help. Christians do this because their Lord commands it, and a lot of his followers take him very seriously.
It&#8217;s not hard to Google websites that track nonprofits and see the enormous efforts undertaken by Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, Caritas, and Food for the Poor, to name just a few of the big ones that spring immediately to mind. And they’re just the tip of the iceberg.
So any meme that starts with the ridiculous premise that Christians neglect the poor hardly deserves consideration for that reason alone. But let’s take a look at the other two assumptions anyway.
Are cathedrals useless? There are two ways we can respond here.
One is point out that the claim begs the question against Christians. This claim would be true if and only if God didn’t exist. If there were no God, it would be futile—and a big waste of time and effort—to erect enormous buildings for glorifying and worshipping him. But if God does exist, then he deserves the best, most beautiful, most sacred things we can make. (And believers deserve places that help lift their hearts and minds to him.) This objection assumes there’s no God to persuade someone to give up on believing in God. That’s classic circular reasoning—begging the question.
Finally, the third assumption: Christians who build cathedrals do so to feed a disordered desire to have expensive and ornate structures. Though this may be true for some, it doesn’t follow that it is true for all. Building ornate structures to glorify the Creator is an appropriate end-goal. If some Christians lose sight of that purpose, building cathedrals (for example) to indulge vanity or for personal profit, the problem is not with building cathedrals—it’s with those Christians’ disordered motives.
The meme may be cute and creative in its own way (when is Elmo not cute?). But trying to score cheap points against Christians and the ancient practice of building cathedrals is a waste of cuteness and creativity.

Quit Snorting Cathedrals! (and Other Atheist Admonitions)

The doctrine of scriptural perspicuity, championed particularly during the Protestant Reformation, contends that the Bible <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-protestants-biggest-bible-problem">communicates clearly</a> such that an individual reading it should be able to understand the contents without an outside source. This belief should not be confused with the early Church’s statements on Scripture being clear, as those examples are often talking about a specific belief that is clear in Scripture, other beliefs notwithstanding.
The Protestant Revolution created a rather new idea: that Scripture is not only clear on some points, like that Jesus is God, but clear on every essential point. If this is the case, I am unsure why so many Protestants have <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/sola-scriptura-and-basic-illogic">differing views</a> on the essential points. This would seem to completely invalidate the point, but I digress.
Protestant apologist James White is a huge proponent of this belief. In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/g0iiVcz425k">a debate this past weekend</a>, in the process of making his point, White employed a formal logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent to make his claim.
Before getting to the specific example, it would be beneficial for me to explain what this fallacy consists of. Denying the antecedent has this logical form:
<ol>
<li>If A, then B.</li>
<li>Not A.</li>
<li>Therefore, not B.</li>
</ol>
This logical form is invalid, because even though A leads to B, the negation of A would not necessarily lead to the negation of B. Real-world examples often make it much easier for someone untrained in philosophy to recognize this. In plain English, we could think of this example:
<ol>
<li>If it rained, then the ground is wet.</li>
<li>It did not rain.</li>
<li>Therefore, the ground is not wet.</li>
</ol>
This is clearly an invalid logic structure. If it rains, the ground will be wet, but just because it didn’t rain, it wouldn’t necessarily mean the ground is not wet. There could be other reasons why the ground might be wet, like someone’s sprinkler going off or someone watering some plants.
Another example may go like this:
<ol>
<li>If Person X is a doctor, then he studied medicine.</li>
<li>Person X is not a doctor.</li>
<li>Therefore, Person X did not study medicine.</li>
</ol>
This is also an invalid logic structure. Although doctors study medicine, so do other professionals, such as nurses, as well as former medical students who decided to change paths.
As obvious as this may seem, it is the exact fallacy James White made in his debate against Joe Heschmeyer in their debate on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/g0iiVcz425k?si=ldKFbEMtvS3PWiZC&amp;t=3050">Mass</a>.
The passage that White was quoting comes from 2 Peter 3:16. It reads, “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
Specifically relating to the subordinate clause in this sentence, White used the phrase “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” in the debate to argue that if ignorant and unstable men twist Scripture, then knowledgeable and stable men will be able to understand them. Here is White making his point:
<blockquote>Peter warns that untaught and unstable men distort Paul&#8217;s words. . . . If he says “untaught and unstable men,” would it not follow that a taught and stable man can understand Paul&#8217;s words and can accurately handle what he wrote?</blockquote>
This statement is a textbook denying the antecedent fallacy. The form goes like this:
<ol>
<li>If they are untaught, they will twist Scripture.</li>
<li>They are not untaught.</li>
<li>Therefore, they will not twist Scripture.</li>
</ol>
This argument holds the same form as the logical form originally given in the original examples. It does not follow.
It also seems unusual to quote a verse from Peter’s letter saying that some things in Paul’s letters are hard to understand while also attempting to argue that taught men will not have trouble. Putting aside the formal logical fallacy problem, if White is attempting to argue that taught men will understand Paul’s writings, why is Peter saying they are difficult to understand? Was Peter not taught? One may argue that Peter meant that these difficult passages would be difficult to understand “for some,” but Peter never makes such qualifications. Why read into the text?
In any case, despite not naming the fallacy, Joe did a good job of giving a counterexample on the spot to prove that the logical form is invalid: “If I said Gnostics misuse this text, that doesn&#8217;t mean that if you&#8217;re not a Gnostic, you&#8217;re going to use it correctly. That doesn&#8217;t follow at all. That&#8217;s not logical.”
This is absolutely correct. If I say A leads to B, the negation of A does not necessarily mean the negation of B.
In conclusion, White&#8217;s defense of scriptural perspicuity through 2 Peter 3:16 falters due to his use of the denying the antecedent fallacy. The absence of the antecedent would not necessarily mean that the consequent would not occur. Heschmeyer&#8217;s counterexample effectively exposes this flaw. When defenders of perspicuity must employ fallacious reasoning, perhaps the doctrine needs reconsideration.

Peter Too ’Untaught’ for Paul?

The United States is just a few weeks away from the presidential election, and things just keep getting more depressing. Each of the leading candidates has endorsed intrinsic evils, including Donald Trump, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-wants-make-ivf-treatments-paid-government-insurance-compani-rcna168804">who wants to fund IVF procedures</a>. Many Catholics might ask in response, “What should I do in the face of these choices?”
One choice is to vote for a minor candidate who doesn’t endorse intrinsic evils.
You might vote for <a href="https://www.petersonski.com/">Peter Sonski</a>, the 2024 presidential nominee of the American Solidarity Party. This party describes itself as “upholding a vision of the common good of all and of each individual informed by Christian tradition.” They oppose abortion, euthanasia, and even in vitro fertilization.
But in the last election, the American Solidarity Candidate received only about 40,000 votes, or 0.026 percent of votes. So it’s safe to say they won’t win and voting for them is more about sending a message. Other people send a message about the political process by not voting at all.
Can Catholics vote for a minor candidate or not vote at all? Yes, they can.
In “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the United States Conference of Catholic bishops recognizes a Catholic’s right not to vote when every viable candidate in a race endorses an intrinsic evil. It says, “When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate” (36).
But just as it isn’t sinful not to vote or to vote for a minor candidate, it isn’t always sinful to vote for a major candidate who endorses an intrinsic evil. It is sinful to vote for a law that expands an evil like abortion or to vote for a candidate because you agree with his support for an intrinsic evil. This is called formal cooperation with evil. However, in some cases, you can vote for a flawed candidate if you have other good reasons to justify it.
<a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153">Cardinal Ratzinger said</a>, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says, “Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (35).
This means you can vote for a candidate who endorses grave evils, but you need a proportionate or really good reason to justify such a vote. What might that be? Typically it would be that this candidate represents the lesser of two evils. Pope Francis weighed in on that recently, saying that both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are “against life.” He told reporters on a recent flight that Trump’s stance on deporting illegal aliens is against life and that turning away migrants is “a grave sin.” He also likened abortion to assassination. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-harris-trump-lesser-evil-rcna171127">He said</a>: “One must choose the lesser of two evils. Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know.”
I find little way to make sense of the Pope’s prudential judgment on this matter.
The Church teaches that direct abortion is always illegal and that the state has a duty to protect the life of unborn children. Pope St. John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae,
<blockquote>Civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being (71).</blockquote>
Church teaching on immigration is not as absolute. The Catechism’s position is that people have a natural right to migrate, but, in service of the common good, the state may make “the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions” (2241). Presumably, this would include penalties for those who violate these juridical conditions, including deportation.
I have addressed how deportation is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/illegal-immigration-and-the-morality-of-deportation">not intrinsically evil</a>, and Pope Francis has on numerous occasions said it can be legitimate to “send back” people who try to enter a country illegally. He recognizes that it can be justified, and Harris has claimed that she will “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/09/harris-promises-to-go-tough-on-border-security-00173485">secure the border</a>,” which involves what Pope Francis calls the grave sin of “turning migrants away.” And at one point, the Biden-Harris administration <a href="https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/MIGRATION-DEPORTATIONS/akpeoeoerpr/">deported more people</a> than the Trump administration did.
But when it comes to abortion, Trump wants to make it possible for states to legally protect the unborn, and Harris wants to make it impossible by codifying Roe v. Wade at the federal level. This would result in tens of thousands more deaths of unborn children every year in America. How is one candidate being more inclined to non-violently deport people a greater offense against human life?
A pro-lifer who votes for Trump might also point out that Trump is more likely to nominate judges who are friendly to pro-lifers, whereas Harris has repeatedly targeted pro-lifers through the U.S. Justice Department and even when she was a California prosecutor, such as in her <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/anti-abortion-groups-kamala-harris-resign-david-daleiden-221681">campaign against David Daleiden</a> for his undercover work exposing Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in fetal body parts.
In response, some people say the president can’t affect the issue, since Roe is overturned, so you’re justified in voting for anyone who might bring the abortion rate down, even if he’s totally pro-abortion. But even left-leaning sites like Snopes have rated <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abortion-rates-presidencies/">as false</a> the claim that “abortion rates drop during Democratic presidencies and rise during Republican administrations.”
It’s not obvious that Democratic economic policies dramatically decrease abortion rates. Sweden has generous welfare and maternity care policies, but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_abortion_rate">its abortion rate is higher</a> than the United States’. However, it should be obvious that if the next president codifies Roe v. Wade into federal law and overturns state bans or allows Medicaid to fully cover abortions, this will result in children being killed who otherwise would have lived.
Abortion is a moral problem, not a money problem. Like the moral problem of stealing, abortion can be exacerbated by poverty, but poverty is not the root cause of abortion, since many moral poor people don’t kill their own children and many evil wealthy people do get abortions.
So even if a candidate advocates for intrinsic evils, you could still licitly vote for him if, as the USCCB says, he is “less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” Or you could, in an act of protest to demand better candidates, withhold your vote. Both options are licit, though one might debate which one is more prudent.
Finally, we shouldn’t be naïve about the importance of the political process, but we also shouldn’t idolize it. There is a reason the Psalmist said, “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish” (Ps. 146:3-4).
Choosing elected leaders is important, but we can’t trust in them for our salvation even in this life. That’s because it is God who providentially arranges everything for good for those who believe in him (Rom. 8:28), which includes the institution of earthly rulers (13:1). So let’s trust in God and use our best judgment when it comes to electing civic leaders. And whoever does end up being elected, let’s follow St. Paul’s exhortation that
<blockquote>supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4).</blockquote>

Can a Catholic Just . . . Not Vote?

Erik Tafoya&#8217;s story of imprisonment and redemption is a powerful demonstration of God&#8217;s mercy. Now Tafoya is on a mission to bring apologetics to everyday folks. He shares his story and his techniques for explaining and defending the Faith.

Apologetics for Regular People

Tim Staples dispels the common myth that priests turn to pedophilia due to sexual repression from celibacy, and explains why celibacy is actually a sign of the highest love of all which wills the good of another.
Transcript:
Host: This question comes from Connie on Facebook Live: “Tim, can you explain why priests are to live chase lives? I recently had someone tell me that the Catholic Church is the reason why so many priests stray and have relationships with other people and abuse children.”
Tim: You know, that’s another popular myth. In fact, oh, what was our good friend from Penn State University that wrote the book “Priests and Pedophiles: The Anatomy of a Crisis?” What was his name? Dr…it’ll come—Philip Jenkins. Dr. Philip—great book. I read it back in 2001. He did extensive research on this whole quote-unquote “pedophile crisis.” And—parts are comical, because in one section he talks about a forty-year study that was done by the Archdiocese of Chicago on the “pedophile crisis,” and it was—when the actual information was gathered, he said there was actually only one case of actual pedophilia. It was mostly ephebophilia, which is— Oh, teenagers. Relationships with post-pubescent teenagers. And he says in this book, “Were it not for this one sad case, there would have been an absolute lack of actual pedophilia in the ‘pedophilia crisis’ of the Archdiocese of Chicago.” The problem was actually homosexuality, but of course the culture can’t say there’s anything wrong with homosexuality, because we say “It’s normal” as a culture, right? But that was really the issue, at least for the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Now there have been pedophilia problems and so forth, and one case is one case far too many. But the point is, in Dr. Philip Jenkins’ book, he did extensive research and found, number one: the percentage of priests actually involved is EXTREMELY low. We’re talking, like, 1.7%, versus in Protestant ministry it’s actually much higher. It’s not even close, it’s like three times higher. And most ministers are married. Yes! In fact, most pedophiles are married. Most—it’s father with daughter and such.
I mean, it’s—this thing got so blown out of proportion, number one, even on the numbers, but number two: celibacy has nothing to do with it. I mean, when we’re talking about pedophilia, we’re talking about a sickness. This is not—even secular psychologists will tell you—this isn’t even the normal sexual sort of deviancy like adultery or fornication or masturbation; this is a sickness, this is about power and control, and these people really need some serious psychological help.
Alright. But now, when it comes to actual celibacy, what you find is, celibacy is not part of the problem, it’s part of the answer! Celibacy is a great gift to the Church, and it is needed so desperately now because of the fact that we live in the midst of a sexually crazed culture where, oh my gosh, just go out and look at the billboards, open a magazine, turn on the TV. Celibacy is an eschatological sign for us today. When we see a Pope St. John Paul the Great, a Mother Teresa—St. Teresa of Calcutta, we see, lived out in their lives, the fact that sex dies when we do; love is eternal!
I mean, my gosh, we’re so crazy—the mentality in our culture is, “If you’re not having sex, you’re gonna go crazy!” Right? Which is an absolute lie! What does that say to elderly couples who can’t have sex anymore, or people in various situations in their marriages where they can’t have sex—“Oh, you must be deviant and sick because you’re not—” I mean, that is, it’s absolutely a lie, and thanks be to God for the celibates, like I’ve mentioned, who are that sign to us. Love, my friends, love which, at its core, is to will the good of the other, it’s completely disinterested.
And by the way, this is why Plato held the love between two men to be of such a high level, it’s because—not because he taught homosexuality, he didn’t—but it’s because it’s disinterested. You’re not asking for anything. It’s a love. That’s kind of—you know, Plato didn’t have the sense of celibacy that we do with the advent of Christ, but it’s that sense of disinterested love that is God. God gives, He creates, He redeems; not because he’s gonna get anything back, but He gives because He is Love. And that’s what we’re called to do even in a marriage situation, where I have a conjugal relationship; we have to constantly be reminded—and our celibate brothers and sisters remind us of this—of what love is. My wife is not a sexual object for me. She is to be put up on a pedestal, and I love her, and I give myself until it hurts to her without asking for anything in return. We have to remember that.
So at any rate, forgive me for going on and on about this, but I do think, in our modern era, too often we fall prey to that myth, that celibacy is the problem. No, my friends, celibacy is the answer. Jesus recommended it in Matthew 19:12. St. Paul recommended it in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. And I think those are two pretty good guys to take wisdom from: Jesus and St. Paul—and by the way, the Holy Spirit too.
And—don’t you think there’s something about the 19th century, the Freudian stuff and all that, it polluted our society with ideas that, in a weird way, have now been proven—no, that’s not how the psyche works. But yet, people are still poisoned with that idea that any kind of repression means I’m losing my humanity or something. Yes, it is incredible how we have ended up lowering humanity to the level of the lower appetites, and—to the animal level, when it’s our intellect and our will and our ability to rise above our appetites and our passions that makes us human.

Is Priestly Celibacy Responsible for Pedophilia?

<div id="cs_control_3683" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<h3>Thursday of the Fourth Week of Easter
Lectionary: 282</h3>
</div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<div id="cs_control_3684" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Reading 1    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/acts/13:13">ACTS 13:13-25</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
From Paphos, Paul and his companions 
set sail and arrived at Perga in Pamphylia. 
But John left them and returned to Jerusalem. 
They continued on from Perga and reached Antioch in Pisidia. 
On the sabbath they entered into the synagogue and took their seats. 
After the reading of the law and the prophets, 
the synagogue officials sent word to them, 
“My brothers, if one of you has a word of exhortation 
for the people, please speak.”
So Paul got up, motioned with his hand, and said, 
“Fellow children of Israel and you others who are God-fearing, listen. 
The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors 
and exalted the people during their sojourn in the land of Egypt. 
With uplifted arm he led them out, 
and for about forty years he put up with them in the desert. 
When he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, 
he gave them their land as an inheritance 
at the end of about four hundred and fifty years. 
After these things he provided judges up to Samuel the prophet. 
Then they asked for a king. 
God gave them Saul, son of Kish, 
a man from the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 
Then he removed him and raised up David as their king; 
of him he testified, 
I have found David, son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; 
he will carry out my every wish. 
From this man’s descendants God, according to his promise, 
has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus. 
John heralded his coming by proclaiming a baptism of repentance 
to all the people of Israel; 
and as John was completing his course, he would say, 
‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. 
Behold, one is coming after me; 
I am not worthy to unfasten the sandals of his feet.’“
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228452" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Responsorial Psalm    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/psalms/89:2">89:2-3, 21-22, 25 AND 27</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
R.    (2)  For ever I will sing the goodness of the Lord. 
or: 
R.    Alleluia. 
The favors of the LORD I will sing forever; 
through all generations my mouth shall proclaim your faithfulness. 
For you have said, “My kindness is established forever”; 
in heaven you have confirmed your faithfulness. 
R.    For ever I will sing the goodness of the Lord. 
or: 
R.    Alleluia. 
“I have found David, my servant; 
with my holy oil I have anointed him, 
That my hand may be always with him, 
and that my arm may make him strong.” 
R.    For ever I will sing the goodness of the Lord. 
or: 
R.    Alleluia. 
“My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him, 
and through my name shall his horn be exalted. 
He shall say of me, ‘You are my father, 
my God, the Rock, my savior.’” 
R.    For ever I will sing the goodness of the Lord. 
or: 
R.    Alleluia.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228454" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Alleluia    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/revelation/1:5">RV 1:5AB</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
R. Alleluia, alleluia. 
Jesus Christ, you are the faithful witness, 
the firstborn of the dead, 
you have loved us and freed us from our sins by your Blood. 
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228453" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Gospel    <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/john/13:16">JN 13:16-20</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
When Jesus had washed the disciples’ feet, he said to them: 
“Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master 
nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him. 
If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it. 
I am not speaking of all of you. 
I know those whom I have chosen. 
But so that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 
The one who ate my food has raised his heel against me. 
From now on I am telling you before it happens, 
so that when it happens you may believe that I AM. 
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send 
receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
</div>
Source: <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/readings">cms.usccb.org</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Daily Holy Mass: Thursday, May 7, 2020

Is male headship biblical or misunderstood?

Dr. Stacy Trasancos talks with Cy Kellett about her book Particles of Faith: A Catholic guide to navigating science. Trasancos encourages Catholics to take the widest possible view of science and faith in order to see both in the context of God’s gift of creation. She also defends the idea that Christ is the savior of science.

A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science

With the Supreme Court weighing in on abortion, all the old pro-choice arguments are being dragged out again, and they haven&#8217;t gotten any stronger. Trent Horn breaks down some of them with us.

Debunking Common Pro-Choice Arguments

Does the Catholic Church still teach that divorce is wrong, even sinful? And if so, why, especially given that so many Catholics are divorced? Leila Miller, author of Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak, explains what the Church teaches about divorce and why this teaching remains essential.

Is Divorce Really a Sin?

“There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts.”
You may notice in this reading from Mark that Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. They are the people in the New Testament whom everyone today loves to hate. If Jesus is the peace-loving, friend-making, rule-ignoring rebel healer, the Pharisees are the mean-spirited, narrow-minded religious authorities who stand in his way. And as such we find it very hard to <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/in-defense-of-the-pharisees">identify with them</a> or understand them.
But it’s important that we do so if we hope to understand what Jesus says about the human heart. The Pharisees were not the monsters we might want them to be. They were, as they saw it, the guardians of Jewish religion and culture. They were half political party and half religious order: they were teachers and spiritual leaders, scholars and legislators. They knew the Jewish scriptures inside and out, and their goal was to share and preserve that knowledge in a world that seemed to be falling apart. Things that might seem fussy to us—questions about exactly what to wear and how to wash one’s hands and so on—these were for them ways of preserving the identity of an ancient culture in the face of the Roman Empire’s expanding authority.
I have to say: I find this all very familiar, and I wonder if you do too. As Catholics, we put a lot of energy into teaching and following the rules. We have rules that make us unique, rules that preserve a certain distinctive culture that can, we hope, be shared with the world. When to sit, stand and kneel, when to make the sign of the cross, when to fast, when to abstain, how to make your confession, how to receive Holy Communion, how to get married, how to calculate the date of Easter. These rules at times seem arbitrary, yet they function within an organic system whose goal is the health of the whole community. Add to this our heritage in the Ordinariate: a certain speech idiom in prayer, a culture of fellowship, a notoriously dry English wit, our own particular prayers, and a liturgical culture that we think is a treasure worth preserving and sharing. In external terms, we are much more like the Pharisees than we are like Jesus’ roving band of misfit disciples.
Some people, reading what Jesus says to the Pharisees, may jump to the conclusion that, if we are like the Pharisees, then we must change: we should do away with the rules and the rituals and seek some kind of purer, more internal version of Christian practice, some less disciplined and more relaxed version of Church life. But this reaction misses the point of what Jesus says. Let’s hear that key phrase again: “There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts.”
What, after all, are rituals for? Jesus doesn’t tell the Pharisees to abandon their tradition. But he does insist that external things, external rituals, do not make us good or evil. Wearing the wrong vestments at Mass or making the sign of the cross in the wrong place, or forgetting to abstain from flesh meat on Friday, is probably not a moral failure unless it is an intentional rebellion against authority. But the ritual matters, because ritual forms us internally through external habit. Following the Church’s precepts and her liturgical law will not automatically make you into a good person. It may, however, mold you in such a way that the choice to do good will be easier, more natural, than it would otherwise have been, because here you get used to the existence of standards and expectations outside your own imagination and understanding.
So what, then, is the warning for those of us who, in so many ways, resemble the Pharisees of Jesus’ day?
I’ll leave you with two thoughts.
First, the Pharisees seem to have forgotten, much of the time, what ritual and rules were for. The law in itself does not make us holy or good, and the Pharisees therefore used it too often as an excuse from truly good work. The modern Catholic Pharisee might say something like this: As long as I’m not breaking the rules, anything I do is fine. Or: As long as I show up at Mass and avoid any scandalous public sin, I’m doing what’s required; it’s not necessary for me to pay attention, or participate, or put in extra effort. Frankly, when non-Catholic Christians accuse Catholics of Pharisaism, this is what they mean: the Catholic who checks all the boxes but couldn’t care less in his heart about loving God or his neighbor, who treats the Church as just another institution whose rules have be followed, not categorically different from the DMV.
Second, the Pharisees probably did understand, at least in a theoretical way, that the law and the ritual were designed to bring them closer to God. And yet when God stood in front of them, in the person of Jesus, they missed it. They were so scandalized by the notion that God might meet them in some new and unexpected way that they missed it. They missed, in one sense, the whole point of all their training in scripture and tradition and ritual, because they were so focused on getting it right that they never actually let themselves be changed by it. They were so focused on following the rules that they never let the rules transform their hearts.
That’s a hard lesson, and again a relevant one: we can run the risk of focusing so much on getting it all right—whether that means following all the rules, or standing firm against the shifting sands of secular culture, or making our fundraising goals, or creating the perfect parish program—that we forget to let all these good things be means to a greater end. We need to do those things; we need those rules and those goals. We need them not because they will themselves make us happy or good, but because they train us, in their own particular ways, to recognize and finally take hold of the perfect happiness of the saints in God’s kingdom.
So, as the Lord tells us elsewhere, “the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do” (Matt. 23:2). In other words, observe the law, respect the tradition, but, even more importantly, let it transform your heart.

Our Friends the Pharisees

<div>Is it right for laypersons to be eucharistic ministers? </div><div>Yes, laypersons may serve as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. This is a matter of changeable Church discipline, not unchangeable doctrine, and thus falls under the Church’s God-given disciplinary power to bind and loose, with the pope having “full, supreme, and universal authority” in such matters (CCC 882; see Matthew 16:18-19, 18:15-18). Priests and deacons are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Despite the term “extraordinary minister,” laypersons can serve in this role at their parishes regularly if there is legitimate liturgical need. 
For guidelines on the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, see <a href="http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/extraordinary-ministers-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm">this presentation by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops</a> (USCCB). In addition, for information on the origins of this practice, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/origin-of-extraordinary-ministers">see our previous answer</a> on the subject.
</div>

Is It Right that Laypeople Distribute Holy Communion?

<h2>Remember St. Boniface</h2>
With Christmas just behind us, it is worthwhile to remember St. Boniface (680–754), known in Church history as the apostle to the Germans. Boniface is regarded as “probably the greatest missionary since St. Paul” for his extensive travels and successful evangelization efforts in modern-day Germany <a title="" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>. Although he is well known as a great bishop and evangelizer, Catholic legend, based on actual historical events, also holds that Boniface is the founder of the use of a Christmas tree to celebrate the birth of the Christ Child.
The story of the Christmas tree begins in England, where the very young Winfrid decided to enter a Benedictine monastery over the objections of his parents. Winfrid grew in holiness and piety but yearned to leave the monastery and bring the light of Christ to the pagan Germans just as the monks had brought the Faith to England a century earlier. Winfrid heard reports that Pope Gregory II (r. 715-731) had sent missionaries to Bavaria in 716 and decided to travel to Rome to become a missionary to the Germans. Gregory was delighted at the arrival of the eager Winfrid and after a period of time commissioned him to preach the gospel in the regions of Thuringia, Bavaria, Franconia, and Hesse. In recognition of his special missionary commission, the pope also changed Winfrid’s name to Boniface.
The newly named monk traveled to Hesse (central Germany) in 721 and “with his tireless activity, his gift for organization, and his adaptable, friendly, yet firm character” achieved great success, including the conversion of the twin chieftains Dettic and Deorulf <a title="" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a>. Boniface also established Benedictine monasteries throughout his area of evangelization, including the great monastery of Fulda in 744 <a title="" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a>. News of his great achievements reached Rome, where Pope Gregory recalled him to provide a status report. Impressed and pleased with Boniface’s efforts, Gregory consecrated him archbishop for all Germany east of the Rhine (without a specific episcopal seat) and placed his territory under the pope’s jurisdiction. Imbued with this new authority and pontifical mandate, Boniface returned to Germany in 723.
Boniface spent the rest of his life evangelizing the areas of modern Germany and parts of the Netherlands. He also became a friend of the Frankish court and helped reform and reorganize the Church in that area. From his missionary travels, Boniface knew that in winter the inhabitants of the village of Geismar gathered around a huge old oak tree (known as the “Thunder Oak”) dedicated to the god Thor. This annual event of worship centered on sacrificing a human, usually a small child, to the pagan god. Boniface desired to convert the village by destroying the Thunder Oak, which the pagans had previously boasted the God of Boniface could not destroy, so he gathered a few companions and journeyed to Geismar.
His fellow missionaries were fearful that the Germans might kill them, so they balked when they reached the outskirts of the village on Christmas Eve. Boniface steadied the nerves of his friends, and as they approached the pagan gathering, he said, “Here is the Thunder Oak; and here the cross of Christ shall break the hammer of the false god Thor” <a title="" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a>. Boniface and his friends arrived at the time of the sacrifice, which they interrupted. In a show of great trust in God, and born from a desire to enkindle the fire of Christ in the German pagans, Boniface grabbed an axe and chopped down the Thunder Oak of mighty Thor.
The Germans were astounded. The holy bishop preached the gospel to the people and used a little fir tree that was behind the now felled oak as a tool of evangelization. Pointing to it, he said,
<blockquote>This little tree, a young child of the forest, shall be your holy tree tonight. It is the wood of peace. . . . It is the sign of an endless life, for its leaves are ever green. See how it points upward to heaven. Let this be called the tree of the Christ-child; gather about it, not in the wild wood, but in your own homes; there it will shelter no deeds of blood, but loving gifts and rites of kindness” <a title="" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a>.</blockquote>
Awed by the destruction of the oak tree and Boniface’s preaching, the Germans were baptized.
Boniface continued his missionary efforts into old age, when in 754, he left for a trip to Frisia with fifty monks. Their work was successful, and many pagans agreed to receive baptism. When the appointed time came to celebrate the sacrament, a large armed crowd of pagans approached the missionaries. Knowing that his time to die was at hand, Boniface discouraged his followers from fighting and said, “Cease, my sons, from fighting. Give up warfare, for the witness of Scripture recommends that we do not give an eye for an eye, but rather good for evil.  Here is the long-awaited day; the time of our end has now come; courage in the Lord!” <a title="" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a>. The ferocious pagan attack left Boniface and his fellow companions dead and celebrated as martyrs for the Faith.
His later biographer, Othlo, recalled Boniface’s deep love for the people who he endeavored for so long to bring to Christ:
<blockquote>The holy bishop Boniface can call himself father of all the inhabitants of Germany, for it was he who first brought them forth in Christ with the words of his holy preaching; he strengthened them with his example; and lastly, he gave his life for them; no greater love than this can be shown <a title="" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a>.</blockquote>
In the centuries that followed, the Catholic tradition of using an evergreen tree to celebrate the birth of Jesus spread throughout Germany, and German immigrants in the eighteenth century brought the custom to the New World. Although there are many stories, legends, and myths surrounding the founding of the Christmas tree, including the claim that the custom originated with Martin Luther, there is only one story rooted in a real person and a real event: Boniface, converter of the Germans, who destroyed Thor&#8217;s mighty oak.
<div>

<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> John Vidmar, OP, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005), 83.
</div>
<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Pope Benedict XVI Wednesday Catechesis on “Saint Boniface, the Apostle of the Germans”, on March 11, 2009in Church Fathers and Teachers – From Saint Leo the Great to Peter Lombard (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 80.
</div>
<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Boniface placed Fulda under the jurisdiction of the papacy, which was a novel concept at the time. This was the same arrangement for the more well-known monastery at Cluny in the early tenth century.
</div>
<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Fr. William P. Saunders “The Christmas Tree”, Straight Answers article in the Arlington Catholic Herald.
</div>
<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Ibid.
</div>
<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Willibald, Vita S. Bonifatii, ed. cit., 46. Quoted in, Pope Benedict XVI, Wednesday Catechesis on “Saint Boniface”,March 11, 2009.
</div>
<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Othlo, Vita S. Bonifatii, ed. cit., lib. I, 158. Quoted in, Pope Benedict XVI, Wednesday Catechesis on “Saint Boniface”,March 11, 2009.
</div>
<div>
<a title="" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> The Washington Post – The Mini Page, “O Tannenbaum*!”, December 6, 2009, SC5.  For Boniface chopping the oak tree see Fr. John Laux, Church History – A Complete History of the Catholic Church to the Present Day (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1989), 221 &amp; Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom (Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press, 1987), 276.
</div>
</div>

Boniface and the Christmas Tree

Faith or works or faith plus works or just lots of good works? How are we justified before God? Tim Staples explains the Catholic understanding of the role of grace before all else.

The Truth About Justification

If you’ve been following the news coverage of Pope Francis’s health, you might have noticed something: there are no photos of the holy father in his hospital bed. Or, more accurately, there are no real photos: <a href="https://spotlight.ebu.ch/p/wave-of-content-purporting-to-show">viral pictures</a> currently circulating on Catholic social media, purporting to be of Pope Francis in a hospital bed, on a respirator, are AI-generated fakes. (As are the “videos” that show <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47aMPfaiDig">Jesus and Mary are visiting him in the hospital</a>, but I assume you knew that!)
But you might be wondering why we’re not seeing photos of the sick pontiff. Is there some kind of coverup? Nope. The simple answer is that photos of the pope on his deathbed are actually forbidden, according to a 1996 apostolic constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II. “No one is permitted to use any means whatsoever,” it reads, “in order to photograph or film the Supreme Pontiff either on his sickbed or after death, or to record his words for subsequent reproduction” (Universi Dominici Gregis 30).
Why, you might ask? Likely to avoid sensational exploitation of the pope’s condition. That motive may have stemmed back to 1958, when Pope Pius XII&#8217;s doctor, Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi, tried to sell photos of the dying Pius XII to the papa-razzi. For such a violation of his role as the papal physician, he was forced to resign and was barred from the Vatican.
There are photos of JPII recovering in his hospital bed after he was shot by Mehmet Ali Ağca in 1981, as well as photos of his sitting in his hospital room (in papal garb, including red shoes!) near the end of his life. But to protect the tiny bit of privacy the pope has, and out of respect for the high dignity of his office, we have no photos of him (or any other pope) in a hospital gown, connected to medical machinery, or unconscious near or at the moment of death.
And it’s for this same reason that Pope Francis has been (and, hopefully, will continue to be) treated with the same dignity. It’s a reminder that Francis is not only the Roman pontiff, but also a man like us, facing all of the same weaknesses—including mortality—that we all face. And it’s in these moments that we all need the prayers of the other members of the Body of Christ. So let us pray not only for the holy father, Pope Francis, but for our ailing brother Jorge.

Don’t Fall for Fake Pope Photos

Offering a Plenary Indulgence for the Souls in Purgatory

What categories does the Church classify apparitions into?

Are we required to believe them?

Fr. Michel Rodrigue

La Salette

Mejugorje

This Catholic Answers Live episode explores how the Church evaluates and ranks Marian apparitions, explaining the official categories used to judge reported visions and whether Catholics are required to believe them. The discussion also examines specific and controversial cases, including Fr. Michel Rodrigue, La Salette, and Medjugorje, helping listeners understand how the Church discerns authenticity, safeguards the faithful, and distinguishes approved devotion from private revelation.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

La Salette , Mejugorje and More | Ranking Marian Apparitions

If a person professes belief in Jesus Christ then later says they do not believe, were they actually ever Christian? Some protestants think not, and today Joe Heschmeyer dismantles the false doctrine of Eternal Security.
Transcript:
Joe:
Welcome back to Shamless Popery. I&#8217;m Joe Heschmeyer. Is it possible for a Christian to lose their salvation? Can a Christian forfeit their salvation by returning to a life of serious sin? Can a Christian forfeit their salvation by deciding that they no longer believe in Jesus Christ? This is an important question that is long divided, even different groups of Protestants, if it is possible that Christians can lose their eternal salvation through sin or unbelief, telling them that they can&#8217;t, would be like convincing someone standing on the ledge of a bridge that even if they throw themselves off, they&#8217;ll survive because they&#8217;re immortal. So you might be wondering, how do people who claim this handle the obvious objection that there are a lot of former Christians. I mean, you can see people whether in the public square or perhaps in your own life who have gone from being seemingly devout Christians to rejecting Christianity entirely.
Now, the usual claim here is that these ex Christians must never have really been Christians in the first place. If you&#8217;re familiar with the no true Scotsman fallacy, this seems like an obvious version of that. So much so that my Catholic answers colleague Trent Horn calls it the no true proman objection. But I want to propose four reasons to suggest that this idea of one saved, always saved is a dangerous falsehood. And the fourth one in particular is an argument that I suspect you may not have heard before. And by the way, if this is a kind of project that you think is helpful in building up the body of Christ, I&#8217;d ask you to consider joining my Patreon over@shamelessjoe.com. It&#8217;s a lovely community of both Catholics and Protestants, and I&#8217;m loving the conversations over there. I can&#8217;t promise you eternal security, but I can promise you my sincere gratitude in my prayers for your direct support. So the idea that you can&#8217;t lose your salvation is called different things by different groups of people.
CLIP:
Today we&#8217;re going to be talking about eternal security or the concept of once saved, always saved perseverance of the saints. There&#8217;s many different ways in which we describe this particular doctrine,
Joe:
But whether you call it perseverance of the saints or one saved, always saved or eternal security, the core idea is the same.
CLIP:
The Bible teaches that once you become a genuine follower of Jesus Christ, it is absolutely impossible for you to lose your salvation.
Joe:
So let&#8217;s look now at the four reasons why this can&#8217;t be true. Number one, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. What&#8217;s the appeal of one saved, always saved? Frankly, we all want it to be true, and the people promoting the idea that you can&#8217;t lose your salvation often appeal to this pointing out how psychologically comforting it is to imagine that this is true.
CLIP:
And I think without question, this is the most comforting doctrine in the panoply of salvation doctrines. It is most comforting to me and to you to know that our salvation is forever, that our salvation is a secure salvation. This takes away the fear and brings joy, the believer&#8217;s joy, the believer&#8217;s comfort, the believer&#8217;s sense of wellbeing. Certainly the believer&#8217;s hope is anchored to this great security of salvation.
Christians can know for sure if they are saved, and this will lead to a godly peace that can look death in the eyes and smile because they know where they&#8217;re going once they breathe their last breath.
This enables us to enjoy being saved. If I thought that I could lose my salvation, I want to tell you I&#8217;d be scared to come out of my closet each day. I&#8217;d be scared to come out of my bedroom. I would live with such fear and terror that I would somehow, some way do something that would forfeit the saving grace in my life.
Joe:
I was hesitant about using that last clip once I realized that the speaker in question was the disgrace, Steve Lawson, who was caught having a five-year long adulterous relationship with a woman four and a half decades his junior, and who&#8217;d been a student at the seminary where he was the dean. But I think it&#8217;s worth taking Lawson seriously when he says of the idea of eternal security,
CLIP:
But the fact that I&#8217;m eternally secure, you know what that does? It does the very opposite that propels me out into the world.
Joe:
Eternal security is absolutely a comforting thought, but the fact that it&#8217;s nice to imagine something doesn&#8217;t make it true, and it might even be a dangerous delusion that lowers your guard against sin. In fact, our guard should be up precisely when a doctrine sounds too good to be true. In two Timothy four verses three to four St. Paul warns that the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they&#8217;ll accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. Paul is telling us to watch out for doctrines that bear two features. Number one, there are doctrines that at least for Paul in the first century lie sometime in the future. And number two, there are doctrines that people really want to believe. So if you hear someone preaching how comforting a particular teaching is, how to cure your anxiety, and they can&#8217;t show you that this is in fact the 2000 year traditional understanding of Christianity going back to the time of St.
Paul, watch out. Now of course, the fact that a doctrine sounds too good to be true, while it&#8217;s good reason to be skeptical, it doesn&#8217;t automatically disprove it. After all, it could have good biblical support. So does it. Number two, the Bible never teaches assurance of salvation. If you ask people to show where assurance of salvation is in scripture, there are largely two places I don&#8217;t want to claim there are only those two places. I&#8217;ve actually got a much longer video going into much more of the weeds on this, and I&#8217;ll link to that at the end of this video. But there are two major areas that I find people going. The first are passages that talk about how external threat can separate us from the love of God. A classic one is Romans eight, verses 38 to 39, where St. Paul says, I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers nor height, nor depth, nor anything in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
But obviously what Paul doesn&#8217;t say is that we can&#8217;t separate ourselves. If you tell your beloved nobody&#8217;s ever going to come between me and you, you&#8217;re hopefully not saying you&#8217;re never allowed to leave. So if St. Paul meant to say that we can&#8217;t separate ourselves from the love of God, it&#8217;s kind of striking that he forgot to mention that or even give a clear hint of it. But there&#8217;s another place people often turn and it&#8217;s a verse that I think gets badly misused. Now, before I get to it, I want to propose a question to you. It&#8217;s an easy one. In Matthew 13, three, Jesus says that a sower went out to sow. Does this mean that if I learned that someone else went out, that they must also have gone out to sow? Of course not. Right. Good. Remember that because the verse that gets badly proof texted by the assurance of salvation crowd is first John chapter two verse 19, where St.
John describing some people he calls antichrist, meaning in his terminology, people who deny the incarnation. And he says of them, they went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they&#8217;d been of us, they would&#8217;ve continued with us, but they went out that it might be plain that they all are not of us. Now, look, it is really clear that the reason these people who are probably early gnostics left the Christian fold is because their beliefs were never orthodox Christianity in the first place, but saying they went out for that reason. Therefore, everybody who leaves goes out for that reason is as obviously false is saying everyone who goes out goes out to sow. So it should be a red flag when people claim a doctrine is biblical. But when you ask them to support it, the most commonly cited passages seem not to actually be teaching the thing that they&#8217;re claiming.
But in fact, the Bible does have a lot to say on the topic of eternal security, just not what these people want you to believe. Number three, the Bible actively teaches against one saved, always saved. There are actually several places in the New Testament that explicitly talk about people who get saved than wander from the path of salvation and end up worse off than before. I&#8217;m going to give you just a handful, but there are more to start with. You have Hebrews chapter six, verses four to six. It warns about those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, but then reject Christ and commit apostasy. So that thing that the eternal security crowd claims never happens. Hebrews six says that it does in no uncertain terms, four chapters later, Hebrews 10 addresses the problem of a Christian who returns to a life of deliberate sin. Now, according to Protestants in the eternal security crowd, people like Dr. Charles Stanley Christians who do that will lose some of their heavenly reward, but they won&#8217;t lose their salvation and Dr. Stanley&#8217;s words.
CLIP:
And so we&#8217;re talking about a person you say, who just goes back into a life of sin? Do they lose their salvation for all eternity? And the answer is no.
Joe:
Now in contrast, let&#8217;s hear how the Bible answers the same question Hebrews 10 says, for if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. So either Dr. Stanley is right that a Christian who turns back to a life of sin is fine. They&#8217;re guaranteed to go to heaven, just won&#8217;t get quite as many heavenly rewards. Or Hebrews 10 is right, that such a person is no longer saved by Christ&#8217;s sacrifice and is now facing judgment and hell fire. But I don&#8217;t see how you can say it as both. Let&#8217;s turn now from Hebrews to second Peter. In fact, the entire second chapter of second Peter is about those who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Did you catch that? These folks were rancid by Christ, but then they deny him and they bring upon themselves swift destruction. And in verse four, Peter compares them to the fallen angels. Angels were made to be God&#8217;s messengers. That&#8217;s what the term angel means. They were in the company of God, but they rebelled against him and were sent to hell. They didn&#8217;t have eternal security and nobody says they must never have been angels in the first place. No, they lost their salvation. In Peter&#8217;s point is that&#8217;s also true a view if you follow heretics at the end of the chapter. Peter then says, for if after they&#8217;ve escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness.
Then after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them, it has happened to them. According to the true proverb, the dog returns back to his own vomit and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire. So these are people who were once saved, who really had escaped the defilement of the world, who really had been washed, who were on the way of righteousness, who then turned back, who go back to their old way of life of filth. And Peter says, they&#8217;re actually worse off now than before they got saved. Now, in case you think this is just a hypothetical of a thing that would never really happen, the Bible gives us concrete cases. For instance, Simon Magus in Acts chapter eight in verse 13, he believes and is baptized. It doesn&#8217;t say that he pretended to believe or pretended to get baptized.
He believes and is baptized. This is the formula for how you get saved in Mark chapter 16. But then he sends gravely by trying to buy the sacramental power of the laying on of hands in verse 18. And St. Peter rebukes him and warns him that he now has neither part nor lot in this matter. For your heart is not right before God. Repent thereof of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. So there&#8217;s someone who very clearly got saved and yet just as clearly returned to the bond of iniquity for even people claiming eternal security aren&#8217;t really assured of their ultimate salvation. Now, as I said at the start of the episode, I think one of the promises of eternal security is this idea that you&#8217;ve got an unshakable assurance that you are going to be saved no matter what. That then leaves this serious problem. What about all of those ex Christians who were once assured that they too were saved no matter what. Take the case of Charles Templeton, the influential preacher who co-founded Youths for Christ with Billy Graham after preaching Jesus Christ. Huge crowds of people, almost certainly leading to the salvation of many, many people. Templeton himself had a crisis of faith and left Christianity. As John MacArthur puts it,
CLIP:
He abandoned all Christianity and all biblical truth Became a journalist in Canada in 1999. He wrote a memoir on his life titled Farewell to God. And in it he listed his reasons for rejecting Christianity and becoming an atheist. He left all ministry at that point. In 1957, returned to Canada, stepped into eternal blackness and apostasy, blasphemed Christ for his remaining years and died in utter unbelief.
Joe:
Now that&#8217;s a problem for eternal security. How can someone like Templeton die in apostasy? And I know that the standard answer to offered here is that Templeton must never have really been a Christian. But such an answer beggar&#8217;s belief when you consider just how much time and effort the young Templeton spent in trying to bring people to Jesus Christ. At the very least, we must say that Templeton thought he was a Christian, thought he was saved and was thought by the Christians around him to be saved. In 1946, the National Association of Evangelicals published the portraits of the Evangelicals best used by God. Charles Templeton made the cut. Billy Graham did not. So this was not somebody who seemed to either himself or others to be just a nominal or lukewarm Christian. This is such an obvious problem for the doctrine of eternal security that the Protestant reformer, John Calvin, was forced to invent another doctrine called Evanescent Grace to try to explain it away.
According to Calvin, God sometimes gives people that he&#8217;s not planning to save a confused sense of grace, leading them to think that their sins are forgiven and that they have the faith when in reality they&#8217;ve been damned the whole time. Now, that solves the Charles Templeton problem in one way. No wonder Charles Templeton could appear so sincere, he was just being tricked by God. But even leaving aside what this says about Calvin&#8217;s vision of God&#8217;s goodness, the idea that maybe God is just tricking some of us into thinking that we&#8217;re saved when we&#8217;re not. Well, surely that undermines the whole promise of assurance of salvation and eternal security. After all of the symptoms of being saved appear to be the same as the symptoms of being tricked into thinking you&#8217;ve been saved. Whatever it is that you would describe that makes you confident that you&#8217;re never going to fall away.
You can find numerous people like Charles Templeton who would&#8217;ve claimed the same about themselves, but then did fall away. So where does that leave us? Well, hopefully a bit chase it with a sense that our salvation is a gift, but it&#8217;s a gift that we can lose through our deliberate turning away from God, the gift giver. We would do well to remember the words of St. Paul and one of his epistles. You can guess which one He addresses. All the saints in Christ Jesus, who at Philippi, and even though he calls them saints, his words to them are simple. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Apparently nobody told St. Paul that the saints can&#8217;t lose their salvation or that there&#8217;s no room for Christians to treat eternal life with fear and trembling because then they&#8217;re going to go hide in the closet. If you enjoyed this video, please like, subscribe and consider joining over on Patreon for Shameless Popery, I&#8217;m Joe Heschmeyer. God bless you.
&nbsp;

Once Saved, Always Saved CAN’T be true. Here’s why…

<div>is going to a psychic a mortal sin if you didn’t realize it was?</div><div>Consulting a psychic or other medium is undoubtedly grave matter and thus certainly to be avoided (CCC 2116; see also 2115-17). Grave matter is one of three components of a mortal sin. The other two are full knowledge and complete consent (see CCC 1854-64).
We cannot evaluate your subjective culpability in this matter from afar, but your self-reporting sounds like there could be mitigating circumstances. In any event, seek a faithful Catholic priest in confession so that through the ministry given to him by Jesus Christ he can absolve you of this sin (see John 20:21-23). And then go and strive diligently with God’s help to avoid this sin.
</div>

Is Consulting a Psychic a Grave Sin?

Father Hugh Barbour takes on the growing Marian Consecration movement and explains its theological roots. What is consecration and can one really consecrate oneself to Mary?

Hard Truths About Marian Consecration

<div>Is heaven promised to me?</div><div><a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-heaven">Heaven</a> is promised to us if we remain in union with God (Mark 16:16).  If we keep God&#8217;s commandments and repent of the times that we sin, then we remain with God forever.
</div>

Is Heaven Promised to Me?

Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer joins host Thomas Graf to answer a caller’s question about praying for a loved one who died by suicide and practiced a different religion. Is there hope for salvation in such tragic circumstances? Joe explains how the Church considers mental distress when assessing moral responsibility for suicide, and why Catholics can and should pray for those souls, trusting in God’s mercy to offer them the chance for repentance, even at the hour of death.
Transcript:
Caller: Hi. I have two questions, actually. The first one is about my mom. She wasn&#8217;t a believer and she committed suicide when I was six months old.
Joe: I&#8217;m so sorry.
Caller: My grandmother keeps telling me I need to keep praying for her. So I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s a lost cause to pray for her, considering she worshipped idols, she was of a different religion, and then she committed suicide. So I have always wondered, is there any&#8230; is it even worth it to pray for her?
Joe: So, the Church says yes, the Church says you should. And I&#8217;m going to go ahead and quote why. Because we want to say, on the one hand, suicide is a grave offense. It is. You&#8217;re doing something horrible to yourself and to those you love and who love you.
But on the other hand, we also recognize that people who do this are often not in their right mind. And you have less moral culpability for things that you do when you&#8217;re not in your right mind.
So there&#8217;s two things going on there. One is that she apparently didn&#8217;t know Jesus in the full sense; she may have been of a different religion. And so we want to pray for her there because, as we know from St. Paul, when he&#8217;s talking to the Athenians in Acts 17, he&#8217;s able to look at their worship. These are pagans, and he recognizes amongst the gods that they worship is this unknown God. And he recognizes this as the true God.
So we want to take a view that it is possible that in her religious yearning she has come in contact in some way with God and has tried to serve Him, well or poorly, God knows. But we can hold out hope for her there.
There&#8217;s a difference. We want to be very clear. There&#8217;s a difference between intentional disobedience and an innocent misunderstanding. And so we&#8217;re hopeful for her there.
And on suicide, well, let me just quote the Catechism directly. It says, beginning in paragraph 2282, if suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it takes on the gravity of scandal; voluntary cooperation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
So it talks all about how suicide is wicked, it&#8217;s evil. But then it says grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
Then you look at cases in which people have killed themselves. This is such a strange thing for a human person to do that you immediately have to ask what would cause someone to do this thing that is so destructive to themselves. We spend all this time fighting for self-preservation. Think about it: you eat and you drink and you sleep and you drive with a seatbelt on. You do all of these things because you have deeply ingrained in you this desire to preserve your life.
And yet here&#8217;s this action totally contrary to that. And it&#8217;s so unusual that we want to say what could lead someone to do that. And if they are not in their right mind, they don&#8217;t carry the same moral culpability.
And so then the next paragraph says we should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to Him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.
And take this for what it&#8217;s worth, but there are cases where, you know, saints and visionaries have talked about people who had begun to do whatever action it was that led to their death. They jump off a bridge or they take pills or they do something like this.
And in the time between when they begin this deadly plot and when they actually die, they have a moment of repentance. They realize halfway down, this was wicked. I shouldn&#8217;t have done this. And in that split second, it is possible for them to get right with God.
And we simply don&#8217;t know. We don&#8217;t want to presume the answer to that in either direction. And so, as the Church says, we pray for people who&#8217;ve taken their own lives. That&#8217;s the only thing we can do.

Should I Pray for Someone Who Died by Suicide?

Mark Brumley explains why Last Rites are only administered to those near death, while Anointing of the Sick is for people with serious illnesses who are not necessarily about to die.
Transcript:
Host: Sara in San Antonio, Texas, a lot of Texas calls today, happy to have your calls from Texas. Sara listening on Guadalupe Radio, you are on with Mark Brumley, what&#8217;s your question?
Caller: Hi, thank you for taking my call. I was wondering what&#8217;s the difference, if any, between <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/anointing-of-the-sick">Anointing of the Sick</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-guide-to-the-last-rites">Last Rites</a>? Are they under the same umbrella of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick?
Mark: Good question, and the answer is no, they&#8217;re not. They&#8217;re really distinct. Last Rites are the set of prayers and Sacramental activities that occur as someone is preparing to die, when it&#8217;s pretty clear that that person is dying, in the process of dying.
Anointing of the Sick is a Sacrament that is given for the healing&#8211;bodily healing and spiritual healing&#8211;of a person who is seriously ill. That person may not be dying, but may be, you know, at serious risk from illness or something of that sort; but the purpose of Anointing of the Sick is to bring about a healing&#8211;if it&#8217;s God&#8217;s will&#8211;bodily healing, but certainly spiritual healing&#8211;with the idea that that person may well then go on to live life and recover.
When we&#8217;re talking about the Last Rites, we&#8217;re usually talking about the Eucharist Viaticum, which is the receiving of the Eucharist for someone who is in the process of dying, and last Confession, somebody who is going to die. Now that doesn&#8217;t mean that that person can&#8217;t also be anointed as a way of asking for God&#8217;s healing, but the association of Anointing of the Sick with the dying needs to be clarified, that many people who are not dying nevertheless receive anointing the sick; whereas the Last Rites, those Sacraments and those prayers and sacramental and liturgical activities, really are oriented towards someone who&#8217;s ending his life and is preparing for the next life.
Host: Does that help you, Sarah?
Caller: Yes, thank you.

What is the Difference Between Anointing of the Sick and Last Rites?

Protestants often claim the Catholic practice of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-rosary">praying the rosary</a> is condemned by Jesus when he teaches against “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-the-rosary-isnt-vain-repetitions">vain repetitions</a>” in Matthew 6:7. But is this true? Karlo Broussard gives the reason why the answer is no, and explains what Jesus meant by these words.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
Does Jesus condemn praying the rosary in Matthew 6:7 when he says, as the King James renders it, “Use not vain repetitions as the heathens do”? Protestants think so.
What’s the Catholic response?
First, Jesus is not condemning repetitious prayer per se. If he were, then he would be condemning himself since, according to Mark <a class="yt-simple-endpoint style-scope yt-formatted-string" spellcheck="false" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkcTwl6Wo1U&amp;t=879s">14:39</a>, he prayed multiple times “Father…remove this cup…not what I will, but what you will.” But that’s absurd!
Furthermore, right after Jesus condemns the “vain repetitions” of the Gentiles he commands the apostles, “Pray like this…Our Father who art in Heaven….” Does Jesus intend for us to only say it once? Are we forbidden to repeat the Our Father? Of course not!
Finally, if we accept the objector’s interpretation of Matthew 6:7, then we would have to condemn the four angels of Revelation 4:8 singing day and night without ceasing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty…” Of course we don’t want to do that!
So, what was Jesus condemning? He was condemning Gentile prayers, which were meaningless or mindless repetitious prayers, as the Greek word battalogesete suggests. The Gentiles recited prayers only to appease their gods. They were, as the RSV translates it, “empty phrases,” having nothing to do with expressing one’s love for and trust in God. They would simply say the words and that’s it—they could go on their merry way and live their lives like they wanted. That’s what Jesus is condemning, not repetitious prayer like we find in the rosary.
If you want to learn more about this topic and others like it, visit our website at catholic.com.
For Catholic Answers, I’m Karlo Broussard. Thanks for watching.

Did Jesus Condemn Praying the Rosary?

Get more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp

Is the Hail Mary idolatry?

Often times, the LGBT community criticizes the Catholic Church for ideologies the Church does not support. We sit down with Andrew and Marco from Desert Stream Ministries to discuss the falsehood of the emotionally charged reaction to &#8220;pray away the gay.&#8221;
For more information on the Catholic teaching about LGBT issues:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/god-made-me-gay 
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/homosexuality 
https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-can-we-be-more-accepting-of-gay-people
More about Andrew and Marco&#8217;s ministry: https://desertstream.org

Can Catholics “Pray Away the Gay?”

Does Paul reject the idea that Peter was the first pope? Some Christians think so, especially in Galatians 2:6. Paul writes,
<blockquote>And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me.</blockquote>
It would seem Paul is asserting an equal authority with Peter and thereby rejecting the idea that Peter is of a higher rank. Protestant apologist Jason Engwer from <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/">triablogue</a> reads it this way, and he appealed to it in a 1999 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220706184848/http:/www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/debate15.htm">debate</a> with Mark Bonocore:
<blockquote>Paul asserted his equality with, not his superiority to, the other apostles ( . . . Gal. 2:6-8). Paul was not a pope, nor was Peter or any other apostle. It is the express testimony of Paul that what Peter and other prominent church leaders were meant nothing to him. . . . The equality and independence of Paul are a contradiction of the doctrine of the papacy.</blockquote>
So does Galatians 2:6 prove that Paul didn’t see Peter as having a higher rank of authority? No, it doesn’t!
First, the argument assumes that Peter’s authority meant nothing to Paul. But that’s not the case. What meant nothing to Paul was the high esteem Peter (along with James and John) was held in by the Christians in Galatia. As Evangelical Richard N. Longnecker writes in his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Word-Biblical-Commentary-Vol-Galatians/dp/0849902401">Galatians</a>,
<blockquote>Contrary to many who deny irony in Paul&#8217;s usage, it seems hard to ignore at least a certain “dismissive” tone in Galatians 2—a dismissal, however, not of [Peter or] the Jerusalem apostles themselves, but of the Judaizers&#8217; claims for them.</blockquote>
What might these claims be? D.B. Orchard <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Commentary-Holy-Scripture/dp/B000P0NEAI">explains</a>: “the fact that the Twelve knew Jesus in the flesh before his Resurrection.” It was this fact that made them of “repute” in relation to Paul.
That their esteem was Paul’s focus becomes clear in context:
<ul>
<li>v. 2—“those who were of repute”</li>
<li>v. 6—“who were reputed to be something”</li>
<li>v. 9—“who were reputed to be pillars.”</li>
</ul>
The thrust of Paul’s argument is that he is just as legit an apostle as the three held in high esteem: James, Cephas, and John (v. 9).
Paul’s point is that just because these guys are the most reverenced by those in Galatia, he is still equal to them insofar as he is an apostle. He has been called directly by Jesus, and therefore they must accept him as such. To state it differently, the circumstances of his calling didn’t make him any less an apostle than the three pillars.
But being equal as an apostle doesn’t mean Peter and Paul have equal authority among the college of the apostles. For example, my wife and I are equal as human beings, but I have the role of headship within the family. Chris Check and we apologists at Catholic Answers are equally and fully employees of Catholic Answers (it’s not like we’re just half-employees). Yet Chris Check is at the helm.
So Paul emphasizing his equality with Peter as an apostle doesn’t take away from the fact that Peter has a higher rank of authority as the “chief apostle” (Matt. 10:2—“first [Gk., protos; “first, chief”] Simon”).
Another response is that the argument fails to consider the contextual details that support Paul’s recognition of Peter’s authority.
Consider, for example, Galatians 1:18-19, where Paul speaks of his first trip to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion and implies that Peter’s in charge. He writes, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
Why would Paul go to visit Cephas unless he viewed him to be in charge?
Galatians 2:2 is another contextual detail. There, Paul writes,
<blockquote>I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.</blockquote>
Greek-English lexicons note that the Greek word translated as “laid before them” (anatithemi) connotes “laying for the sake of consideration.” For example, the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331/ref=sr_1_1?crid=12D11PNSDURYJ&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.EYCB9B3a_l3IleB4slwb4tSaftp5fPFLwbCQQQvEVhwjIYZMJaeYx3aZw2OPZuS9T6YixnorQKw0Ze1p7ikmtFz-5N5Qm8j5O7SbI7Y25d72EU-2VBdu3vZ4bntHivg3tdsLp9MSxDFQMHDxpMdgJWrumD2fN7y51gnWSDhCRpNrymPIHP3BjbqeTvu9jR0V3gmmEbzCkb3xkoZOi9g_xWAqOVnxYW4iivDEgWXT1u0.AXbAiGDLtpB2SurvtV9-FrAdzPySLjiir3L69Zjs0f4&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=Greek-English+Lexicon+for+the+New+Testament+and+Early+Christian+Literature&amp;qid=1741621296&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=greek-english+lexicon+for+the+new+testament+and+early+christian+literature%2Cstripbooks%2C343&amp;sr=1-1">Greek-English Lexicon for the New Testament and Early Christian Literature</a> (famously referred to as BDAG, which is an abbreviation for names of the editors), defines the Greek word anatithemi as
<blockquote>to lay something before someone for consideration, communicate, refer, declare w. connotation of request for a person’s opinion . . . I laid my gospel before them Gal. 2:2. Cp. Nägeli 45; on the use of ἀ. as an administrative term s. Betz, Gal, 86, 268. —M-M. TW.</blockquote>
Why would Paul feel the need to lay his preaching before Peter for consideration if he didn’t think Peter was the visible principle of unity for the preaching of the gospel?
Galatians 2:6 may appear to some Christians as a challenge to the idea of Peter as the first pope. But upon a deeper examination of the context, Paul’s words aren’t rejecting Peter’s unique authority among the college of the apostles. Rather, they’re addressing the inflated view of Peter and other prominent apostles on account of the circumstances of their calling as apostles. Additionally, the wider context of Galatians reveals that Paul recognized Peter’s authority and leadership within the early Church. Therefore, Galatians 2:6 can’t be used to support the notion that Paul rejects the idea of Peter being the first pope.

Rejection of the Pope

Lee Strobel joins Cy for a conversation about his new movie – The Case for Christ. Cy and Lee also discuss how Christians can evangelize in a post-Christian era.

The Case for Christ

Did he just say that the cross is WORTHLESS?

The Sacraments Work!

One of the events recorded in all four Gospels is Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple. On this occasion, Mark tells us, Jesus “entered the Temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the Temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple” (Mark 11:15-16).
A question that occurs to almost everyone who reads this passage is: Why did Jesus do this?
However, a second question occurs to those who study the Gospels closely: When did Jesus do this? Matthew, Mark, and Luke present it as occurring at the end of Jesus’ ministry, but John presents it as occurring at the beginning of the ministry.
Here we’ll look at both questions.
On why Jesus did it, the Gospels provide clues. The fullest version is found in Mark, who records Jesus saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17).
Here Jesus combines two quotations from the Old Testament. The first is from Isaiah 56:7, where the prophet describes a day when God will bring Gentiles to Jerusalem, where they will worship him, and he will accept their offerings. Thus the Temple is called “a house of prayer for all the nations.”
The Temple was structured as a series of four progressively more holy courtyards. From the outermost to the innermost, they were
<ul>
<li>the court of the Gentiles, where Gentiles could (and did!) come to worship God;</li>
<li>the court of women, where Jewish women could worship;</li>
<li>the court of Israel, where Jewish men could worship; and</li>
<li>the court of priests, where Jewish priests ministered.</li>
</ul>
Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple on the grounds that it was to be a house of prayer for all the nations may indicate that the money-changers and the sellers of sacrificial animals had set up shop in the court of the Gentiles and were misappropriating worship space for ordinary commerce.
That leads us to the second quotation, which is from Jeremiah 7:11, where the prophet excoriates the people of his day for performing immoral and pagan practices and—in God’s eyes—turning his Temple into “a den of robbers” (that is, a place where robbers feel safe in their immoral lifestyle).
The fact the money-changers and sellers felt safe in the Temple—and the fact they were engaged in commerce—make the reference to the den of robbers appropriate.
The other Gospels do not pick up on the detail about the Gentiles that Mark includes. Matthew and Luke omit “for all the nations” from the Isaiah quotation, and John has Jesus telling the sellers of pigeons, “Take these things away; you shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade” (John 2:16).
These accounts focus more on the use of the Temple to earn a living rather than for worship as what is objectionable, though this is consistent with Mark’s account.
On the question of when Jesus did it, there have been several proposals:
<ol>
<li>Jesus chronologically did it at the end of his ministry (per the Synoptic Gospels), and John presents it at the beginning for theological reasons.</li>
<li>Jesus chronologically did it at the beginning of his ministry (per John), and the Synoptics present it at the end for theological reasons.</li>
<li>Jesus did it twice—at both the beginning and the end of his ministry.</li>
</ol>
None of these options should be dismissed out of hand. It is demonstrable that the Evangelists do not always record events in chronological order. Instead, they sometimes put material in topical order—as when Matthew gathers together teachings of Jesus into major discourses (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount is a collection of Jesus’ ethical teachings that are scattered in different places in Luke).
There’s more to say about these three possibilities than we can explore here, but I’ll offer a few thoughts.
You might argue for proposal 1 by noting that the Synoptic Gospels link the cleansing of the Temple to Jesus’ death. Immediately after his remark concerning the den of robbers, Mark continues: “And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him” (Mark 11:18).
Matthew and Luke put a little more space between the clearing of the Temple and the plot to kill Jesus, but all three have the cleansing as an initiating event in the conflict between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities. Mark links them explicitly, and it’s understandable why—after a public outburst in the Temple—the authorities would act against Jesus. One might thus regard this as the chronological placement of the event.
However, you might argue for proposal 2 by pointing out that John is demonstrably concerned with chronology, so one could view his account as an attempt to clarify exactly when the incident happened.
Like the Synoptics, John notes that the incident happened when “the Passover of the Jews was at hand” (John 2:13). The question would be which Passover, and here John provides a clue. Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” after which “the Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple [Greek, naos], and will you raise it up in three days?’” (vv. 19-20).
Unfortunately, this common translation appears to be mistaken. John distinguishes between the Temple in general, including its courtyards—for which he uses the term hieron—and the inner part of the Temple that only the priests could enter—for which he uses the term naos. Here John uses naos, and the naos was completed in 18/17 B.C.
This reveals that the verse should be translated according to another grammatically possible reading, which would be “This temple [naos] has been built for forty-six years.”
The forty-sixth anniversary of the naos’s completion would be A.D. 30, so John is locating the clearing of the Temple at Passover in A.D. 30.
While some think Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30, this is mistaken. The evidence indicates he was born in 3/2 B.C., and Luke states that he “was about thirty years of age” when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23). That means Jesus began his ministry about A.D. 29, so John situates the clearing of the Temple toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry—in A.D. 30—with Jesus not being crucified until A.D. 33.
We thus have an indication from the Synoptics that the clearing led directly to the death of Jesus and an indication from John that it happened at the beginning of the ministry.
This leads us to proposal 3—that Jesus cleared the Temple twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of his ministry, like bookends.
This proposal is rejected by many scholars, but it is the most straightforward reading of the evidence.
One author who defends the two-clearings hypothesis <a href="https://www.lambsreign.com/blog/why-jesus-cleansed-the-temple-twice-a-long-standing-mystery-solved">is Joel McDurmon</a>, and he proposes a reason why Jesus would clear it twice.
Simply to bookend his ministry with the two actions would be reason enough to do this, but McDurmon proposes that Jesus was modeling his actions after an Old Testament ritual whereby a priest was required to inspect a house that had become infested with “leprosy” (Lev. 14:33-53).
Houses can’t get the disease we call leprosy, so this was most likely a form of mold or mildew. The priest was required to inspect the house more than once:
<ol>
<li>If he found “leprosy” in the house, he would order it closed for seven days.</li>
<li>If, when he came back, it appeared that the disease had spread, the priest would have the affected plaster and stones yanked out and replaced.</li>
<li>If the disease broke out again later, the priest would order the house destroyed.</li>
</ol>
McDurmon links the first and second clearings of the Temple to the second and third of these inspections. He concludes that after the initial clearing, Jesus rejected the Temple officials and replaced them with his disciples as “living stones,” and after the second clearing, he announced the destruction of the Temple.
This is interesting, but it is very speculative. The text does not mention or clearly imply a connection to Leviticus 14. Further, the priest is required to visit the house three times before ordering its destruction: (1) an initial inspection, (2) a second inspection seven days later, and (3) a third inspection at a later time if the disease breaks out again.
For the parallel to fit, Jesus would have needed to visit the Temple seven days before the first cleansing and see its corruption, but there is nothing like that in John or the Synoptics.
McDurmon tries to argue that the first visit is accomplished seven days before John’s cleansing by Jesus’ baptism and his constitution as the new Temple, but there are multiple problems with this: (i) Jesus was always the new temple; he didn’t become it upon baptism, (ii) he didn’t see corruption in himself when he was baptized, (iii) he didn’t visit the Jerusalem temple and see its corruption between his baptism and the first cleansing, and (iv) there are more than seven days between Jesus’ baptism and the first cleansing.
McDurmon tries to argue that this period is only seven days, but John does not say or imply this. In John, the length of time between the two is indeterminate. Further, we’ve already seen that Jesus’ ministry began in A.D. 29, but the first cleansing didn’t happen until Passover of 30—considerably more than seven days later.
The theory McDurmon proposes is thus interesting, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Even apart from McDurmon’s proposals, there is reason to favor the two-cleansing hypothesis. John is clearly writing with supplemental intent—that is, he intends to supplement the material found in the Synoptic Gospels by principally relating stories not found in them.
In fact, the outline of John’s Gospel is <a href="https://jimmyakin.com/2014/11/did-john-use-mark-as-a-template.html">designed to interlock with the Gospel of Mark</a>, so John expects you to already know the Synoptic tradition, including the clearing of the Temple at Jesus’ final Passover in A.D. 33.
Why wouldn’t he mention both clearings, then? Because of economics. All four Evangelists keep their Gospels to the length of a single scroll because books were fantastically expensive at the time. <a href="https://jimmyakin.com/2016/01/the-cost-of-the-gospels-and-the-synoptic-problem.html">A single copy of Matthew cost the equivalent of more than $2,200.</a>
Because of his supplemental intent, John chose to include the clearing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and because of economics, he chose to omit the one at the end so that he could keep his Gospel to a single scroll.
We also have other indications that John’s clearing of the Temple is designed to flesh out the Synoptics’ record. In Mark, Jesus’ accusers claim, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands’” (Mark 14:58; cf. 15:29).
Jesus doesn’t say anything like that in Mark, but John records that during the first clearing of the Temple, Jesus had said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). John thus appears to be supplementing Mark to indicate when the witnesses heard Jesus say something along these lines—it was during the first cleansing of the Temple, at the beginning of the ministry.
On that occasion, the Temple authorities didn’t act against Jesus. However, after he grew a reputation as the Messiah over the course of his ministry (cf. John 6:15), when he proved to be a repeat offender by clearing the Temple again, they did act against him.
More can be said about all this. In his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Reliability-Gospels-Craig-Blomberg/dp/0830828079/">The Historical Reliability of the Gospels</a>, Craig Blomberg offers additional considerations favoring the two-clearings hypothesis (see pp. 216-219). But for our purposes, it’s enough to say that the idea that Jesus cleansed the Temple two times should not be rejected out of hand.
The case may not be 100 percent conclusive, but the hypothesis should not be dismissed as a naïve “harmonization” of the Gospels. John writes with supplemental intent and crafts the outline of his Gospel around that of Mark, so he clearly expects us to read his Gospel in light of the Synoptics.

How Many Times Did Jesus Flip Tables?

Question Covered:
<ul>
<li>06:07 &#8211; How can Catholics affirm evolution if we believe that Adam and Eve could not have experienced death and decay before they fell into sin?</li>
<li>11:25 &#8211; How does Prevenient grace work if the concept of total depravity is heretical? They seem like the same thing?</li>
<li>19:00 &#8211; Why is it necessary for Jesus to continually offer his body through priests?</li>
<li>23:30 &#8211; How can I discuss uniquely Catholics doctrines to my evangelical friends and family?</li>
<li>38:34 &#8211; I’m Catholic looking into Orthodoxy. Am I wrong to assume that papal primacy wasn&#8217;t as apparent as we claim because if it was, they wouldn’t have split?</li>
<li>47:52 &#8211; Is it true that souls in purgatory can’t pray for themselves but can pray for us?</li>
</ul>

AMA: Evolution, Prevenient Grace, and Papal Primacy

Cy&#8217;s Wishes you all a Merry Christmas and shares some updates at Catholic Answers.

Cy’s Christmas Message

Muslims deny Trinity... do they worship a different God?

<div>Is it a sin to be a surrogate mother? </div><div>While the pain of sterility is undoubtedly significant for some married couples, adoption is the moral way to rectify the desire to have a child. Surrogate motherhood, though perhaps well-intended, <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html">is gravely wrong</a>, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) further affirms:
<blockquote>Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child&#8217;s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other” (CCC 2376; cf. CCC 2377-79).</blockquote>
</div>

Is Surrogate Motherhood Sinful?

The Best Protestant Apologists Can’t Answer This Argument

<div>Should a funeral/burial be performed for an embryo that wasn’t implanted via en vitro fertilization? What about baptism?</div><div>The sad answer is no. The instruction Dignitas Personae, issued by the Holy See on order of St. John Paul II, points out that the issue of frozen embryos is a case where immorality has gone to such a point that there is no morally acceptable solution to their existence and development. This document argued against the practice of &#8220;adopting&#8221; frozen embryos, a practice promoted by some Catholics in good faith but which is too fraught with moral difficulties to be an acceptable solution. At the least, the embryo, say, if left to thaw and so to die definitively, should be treated as would a miscarriage. And there has never been and is not now any obligation to baptize or to bury a miscarriage.
Although it is unfashionable to say it, it remains true that the Church has never and can never pronounce on the exact moment of the infusion of the rational soul of the unborn, which alone makes the unborn a person. Even St. John Paul, always a careful theologian, who personally held that the rational soul was present from fertilization, did not present this opinion as certain. The older Catholic tradition assumed for various reasons that the rational soul was infused later in the process of gestation. In all cases, however, the human embryo and fetus must be treated as a full human person.
As St. Cyprian taught, &#8220;He who intends to kill a man, kills a man,&#8221; meaning that abortion at any stage involves the willingness to murder a human person. This is perhaps more information than you asked for, but it is necessary as a context for the answer you are seeking.
</div>

Treat a Dead Embryo Like a Miscarriage

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent examines popular devices and inventions in science fiction media and shows why they are physically impossible or why you’d simply regret creating them.

FFAF: 6 Useless Sci-fi Technologies

This is why Catholics make such a big deal about Mary...

Episode 149: 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time Year C
In today’s episode, we look at the readings for this upcoming 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C, which provide us with a treasure chest of apologetical details. The detail from the first reading, which is taken from Amos 6:1a,4-7 relates to the question of whether the Bible forbids drinking alcoholic beverages, like wine. The detail from the second reading, which is taken from 1 Timothy 6:11-16, relates to discussions with Seventh Day Adventists about the immortality of the soul. Finally, the Gospel reading from Luke 16:19-31—the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus, provides us with details that relate to the topic of Hell.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

What Scripture Really Teaches about Wine, Soul, and Hell

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Cy Kellett is joined by Tim Staples to explore the question of why Catholics claim to have the &#8220;fullness of the truth&#8221; and complete Gospel.
Transcript:
Cy: I grew up Mormon and one of the big things that Mormonism teaches is that it has the full, the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, which is something that has been said on this session of Catholic Answers Live a few times. And I&#8217;m curious what sets Catholicism apart in the way of knowing that this is what has the fullness of the Gospel? Because Mormonism has, oh, we have modern day prophets and there&#8217;s the Book of Mormon and all these things. What does Catholicism have in order to run with that? Hey, I know that I&#8217;ve got the fullness of Christ God.
Tim: Great, great question, my friend. And of course, the big problem we have with the LDS, the Latter Day Saints, is the fact that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle in the first century. And of course, Jesus warned there would come false prophets. As you know, in Matthew chapter 24, he warned that false prophets would come. And of course, Joseph Smith was one of those false prophets who claimed to have new revelation. And of course, revelation ceased, as I said before.
But what makes the Catholic Church separate from all the others, my friends, is the papacy. That is, Jesus Christ chose 12 apostles, which by the way, the LDS agree with us on. They believe in the 12 apostles. But of course, they came up with their separate quorum of the 12; they have the prophet, which of course is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. Because in the New Testament, you have 12 apostles, Peter being the chief of the 12.
More problems with Mormons when it comes to the New Testament. But the bottom line is we see clearly in the New Testament he established the 12 apostles, their successors, according to Acts chapter 1, verse 21 and 1 Peter 3, one are called bishops, the successors of the apostles. But among those 12, you have one that Jesus chose to make the visible head of the 12, and indeed the visible head of the Church to him and him alone.
You&#8217;ll notice that in Matthew 18:15-18, he gives to all the apostles the authority to bind and loose in tandem with Peter. But two chapters before, he gave to Peter and Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, a singular authority. And in fact, in other places where Jesus communicates the authority to all the apostles, he always singles out Peter as having a unique authority.
For example, in Luke 22:29-32, he says to all the apostles, well, he says to Simon in the context of all the apostles, &#8220;Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to destroy all of you.&#8221; In the Greek text there, it&#8217;s &#8220;Humas&#8221; in Greek; he wants to have you, to destroy all of you. But I have prayed for you, &#8220;Su&#8221; in Greek, singular, so that when you are converted, strengthen the brethren. And all the other apostles know that if they want to be protected from the divisions that come by the devil, they have to stay in union with Peter.
And of course, the apostles&#8217; successors are the bishops, and all of the bishops of Rome. In fact, we can trace from Pope Leo XIV all the way back to St. Peter, just as we can trace every bishop in the world, their ordinations, all the way back to Peter and the apostles. We can do the same with the popes.
And really, it&#8217;s the papacy that makes us distinctive because that&#8217;s the principle, what Saint Cyprian of Carthage called the principle of unity for the entire people of God in a work he wrote in the third century, 250 A.D., called *On the Unity of the Catholic Church*. It&#8217;s Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, that are that principle of unity. That&#8217;s why we have one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, because all must be in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
And that&#8217;s why, my friend, we have had one Lord, one faith, one baptism. As Ephesians 4:5 says, for 2000 years you cannot find one example of how any pope or any ecumenical council, any infallible teaching whatsoever in the Church has ever contradicted another in 2000 years.
And as you know, my brother, when you look at the Latter Day Saints, even in matters of basic morality like abortion, as you probably know, the prophet back in 1973 declared it&#8217;s okay to have abortions in certain situations like rape, incest, and life of the mother. Whereas before, the LDS were strictly against abortion all the time. Well, guess what? The Catholic Church has never wavered, never will. It&#8217;s impossible.
Because when Jesus communicated the power of the keys to Peter there in Matthew 16:18-19, my brother, he said, &#8220;I will give to you, Peter, the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.&#8221; But he also said this, &#8220;I will build my Church,&#8221; right? And so he&#8217;s building his Church on the foundation of Peter and the bishops of Rome. He&#8217;s building his Church with the foundation being the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone in Ephesians chapter 2, verse 20.
So all the apostles or the bishops in union with Peter are that foundation, but Peter having that unique authority, it&#8217;s the hinge upon which all, all, all, you know, is based upon, but ultimately the power of Jesus Christ.
Listen, I wish we could talk all day, my friend. You stay in touch with us because we&#8217;d like to see you come to the fullness of the gospel that we have in Christ.
Cy: Let&#8217;s give him why we&#8217;re Catholic. If you&#8217;ll hang on the line, we&#8217;ll give him why we&#8217;re Catholic. Because I want to go back to a little bit of fundraising for just a quick minute and then we&#8217;ll get back to chatting with people.

Why Do Catholics Say They Have the Full Gospel?

What are the morals of self-defense? Can we use <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/may-i-use-defensive-lethal-force">lethal force</a> against someone trying to kill us? What about to defend our property? Fr. Sebastian Walshe gives the Church&#8217;s answers these questions on Catholic Answers Live.

What Does the Church Teach about Self-Defense?

When my editor proposed I write about wedding dresses, I hesitated. True, I am married, but I thought I was more likely to be told I had less of a right to a view on wedding dresses than a man on “choice.” Not having yielded to the latter attempts to censor me, I figured, why not grab the third rail one more time?
Many people regard the wedding day as “the bride’s day.” It’s why priests and parish organists still have to fight about why “Here Comes the Bride” is not an appropriate entrance hymn for a nuptial Mass. So am I going to rain further on the secular-ish wedding day parade?
No. Let me instead try to bring the three evangelical counsels—chastity, poverty, and obedience—to bear on it.
1. Chastity
The idea that chastity has a place in marriage might seem fantastic. But it does. What, after all, is chastity? Here I follow Karol Wojtyła: chastity is a virtue that lifts up to the value of the person the values of sex and sexual attraction. Sex and sensuality are powerful elements in human life. God created them, and so they are good, but they can be abused. They are abused when they overshadow the value of the person, when the person becomes first and foremost a sexual object. That is wrong, outside marriage or in it.
Now, let’s be honest. There are styles and fashion that do just that—accentuate the sexual over the person. That is not a Christian perspective, and it shouldn’t be our perspective as we celebrate a Christian marriage.
I won’t venture to provide norms or measures of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/homecoming-dresses-and-the-dreaded-m-word">modesty</a>. Suffice it to say that people tend to know what is modest (and attractive)—or immodest—when they see it. And the Christian bride, “all dressed in white” (a symbolic color), should be at least sufficiently attired so as not to be confused with “the lady in red.” Modesty and taste never go out of style.
2. Poverty
No, poverty should not be the consequence of buying a wedding dress. Brides are frequently pressed to “say yes to the dress,” no matter how obscene . . . the price tag. Yes, a wedding is a great day, a celebration, a once-in-a-lifetime event. Maybe a family even has a tradition of handing down a wedding dress to the next generation, which augurs for a better investment.
But I suspect that this is rare, which again reminds us: it’s a one-time use. A bride can be beautiful, attractive, modest, and appealing without necessarily spending a fortune on the gown. That suggests some moderation in the outlay, especially when the excess can be put to longer-term use by today’s young couples, who are often starting out in tenuous financial circumstances.
Why mention poverty? After all, what’s so great about poverty? Well, a basic part of any spirituality is detachment from worldly things. Pretty things often get in the way of our path to God. One way we learn not to be diverted on that path is being able to say “no” to them. And let’s face it: a young couple will probably not be initially rolling in the dough, so learning to do what is beautiful without breaking the bank and without incurring extra debt for just a moment is a good thing. It’s a preparation for life, of being able together to say “no” to things and to sacrifice what’s dear to us for the other. Want an example (and get a jump on Christmas)? Read O. Henry’s short story “<a href="https://webhome.auburn.edu/~vestmon/Gift_of_the_Magi.html">The Gift of the Magi</a>.”
Poverty does not mean shabby, but it does mean simple. And simple can be elegant.
3. Obedience
No, I am not going to quote you the traditional marriage vow about “love, honor, and obey” (which is probably heard far more often from English-accented Protestant clergy in old movies than anywhere else). In speaking of obedience, I want to suggest Someone to whom both husband and wife need to be obedient.
God is Love (1 John 4:8). God is also Life (John 14:6). Those two realities—life and love—are what marriage should be about. They are authentic in spouses only insofar as they mirror God, who is Life and is Love. That’s why I resist the idea that the wedding day is the “bride’s day.” It’s also the groom’s day. But above all, it’s God’s day.
It is this day that God has prepared both bride and groom for, and this day that he gives them is a special sacrament for the rest of their lives. That’s why the focus ought to be there. That doesn’t diminish the celebration or the joy or the specialness of the day. It should, in fact, amplify all of those.
But it’s out of obedience to that God—who is the true measure of any love and the lord and giver of life—that we want to celebrate this day. In that sense, our celebration wants to be modest, because God is the giver of all gifts, including sex and sex appeal. We want it to be simple, because yes, this is the beginning of a lifetime together, but there’s still that whole lifetime to live.
Obedience is an important virtue with regard to marriage because it involves obedience to God and his plans for marriage—a vision alien to our culture. It involves a commitment “till death do us part,” not just in words, but in deeds. How many Catholics explicitly say to themselves, “Divorce will never be for me?” It involves commitment to openness to life when God plans it (even if we didn’t). How many Catholics think contraception, even abortion, is “okay”? It involves a commitment to exclusivity. Just look in the papers to see the campaign for “polyamory,” previously simply called adultery.
The Christian marriage that is modest, simple, and obedient to Christian faith need not be dull or depressing. Rather, it can be a model of the expectations of a life lived in faith according to those values for the rest of the bride’s and groom’s life together, starting today. In that sense, the wedding day is not so much the occasion for excess bling as it is the model for a lifetime—a lifetime that will be challenged by chastity, one that will sometimes have to be simpler in living the “poorer” of “for richer, for poorer,” one that is obedience to the law and teaching of Christ, whose union to his Church is the model and measure for what the Christian marriage is.
Takers?

3 Vows and a Wedding Dress

How do we Approach the Timeline of Genesis?

Despite the Lord’s insistence that his disciples listen to what the Pharisees say, his instruction to ignore or avoid what they do leaves us with a rather bad impression of their religious example. This is a regular problem in salvation history.
Our reading from Malachi comes at a moment after the exile, when Israel’s priests are her only real leaders—the Persians have allowed the Jews to return to their homeland, but they remain a subject people without their own government. And it seems that the priests in this era largely squandered the opportunity for spiritual leadership. Instead of teaching and blessing, they have led astray and cursed. These priests are therefore rejected by God, condemned for their treachery.
But the damage is done. In the focus this week on spiritual leadership gone awry, we might as well name some realities of the modern Church. The clerical abuse scandal in this country, and in many other countries, has left and continues to leave gaping wounds in the body of the faithful. On any given day, more people leave the Catholic Church in America than join it, and it is not usually hard to see why.
The crisis of trust is at times overwhelming. I say this not just from reading the news—like the news that priests, as a group, do not trust the bishops, as a group—but from the nonstop reality of those in the confessional struggling with what priests, bishops, and popes have said and are saying. So these hard words from Malachi and Matthew—and less directly from St. Paul—seem to apply pretty pointedly at some of our leaders. Why is it so hard for the Holy Father to give a clear “yes” or “no” to a question of fundamental Catholic doctrine? Why do the bishops, and the Roman authorities, continues to say one thing and do another when it comes to dealing with corruption and abuse?
I wish I knew, but I don’t. I know that all of us will answer before the dreadful judgment of God. And it is not especially useful to speculate about the motives and intentions of those above us in the Church’s hierarchy. Our job is not to judge authority, but to be judged by ultimate authority: like those in the first century, we could easily become so distracted by the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that we neglect to hear their legitimate teaching, which ultimately has nothing to do with them and everything to do with God.
“Call no one on earth father,” Jesus says. We all know the tired Protestant gloss on this, which seems to think it a nail in the coffin for Catholic understandings of priestly ministry. Anyone who knows how to google something can figure out pretty quickly that, in the context of both the whole Gospels and the New Testament, the Lord is speaking in rhetorical hyperbole. That is, the apostles themselves, and the entire early Church, did not seem to think it problematic to refer to elders and non-family members as “father.” In fact, we might go a little farther and speak directly to the supposed “problem” of the hierarchical priesthood and the “priesthood of all believers.” Catholics just do believe in both. Period. We have priests who minister at the altar, and at the same time, we all participate in the priestly identity of Christ.
That nuanced understanding of priesthood should help us understand what’s at stake in the Lord’s exaggerated claim that we should call no one father. The fact that we have spiritual fathers and mothers, the fact that there are authorities over us, does not rid us of the responsibility for our own minds and our own wills. It’s insufficient for me to say, “Oh, well, my bishop told me to do this, so that’s all there is to it.” If it’s a simple legal or canonical matter, that may be the case. But “father knows best” doesn’t work very well as an absolute theological principle when “father” is a fallible human being.
Where I’m going with this isn’t to give you a primer on ecclesiastical dissidence. Lord knows that’s not what we need. What we need is just plain holiness, and the clear obedience to the God who is the ultimate father of all. That never requires a bad attitude toward the hierarchy, as tempting as it may be.
You see, all the words of Malachi, and of Matthew, don’t just slide over all of us to hit the ultimate target of the Important People in charge. Because you and I are members of Christ’s body. We are a priestly people. We may not offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in persona Christi with consecrated hands at the altar, but we do all participate in the offering in our own priestly way—the prayers of the Mass itself affirm this over and over, from the “Pray, brethren” invitation to the Roman Canon’s reference to the faithful who “themselves offer” sacrifice united with the sacrifice of the altar. Likewise, all God’s holy people have a “priestly” ministry of prayer and sacrifice and intercession in the world. They have a ministry of mediation, even, between God and the world, just by being baptized Catholics in the world.
Here’s what Peter Kreeft says, and let this sink in: “Not everyone we meet reads Paul’s epistles, or the rest of the Bible, but everyone we meet reads us. We are Christ’s epistles, whether we like it or not.” Perhaps we ought to add: not everyone we meet cares about what the pope says; not everyone we meet cares about our little struggles in parochial life; not everyone we meet even has any clue what a Catholic or a Christian is . . . but everyone we meet sees us, reads us, has the opportunity to know Christ—or reject Christ—in us.
What would it look like if every Catholic took that idea to heart? I think it would be explosive in the best possible way.