Manage Account

What Are Some Similarities Between Catholics and Orthodox Christians?

He Was a Satanic Priest Who Became a Saint!

Gary Zimak recommends spending time as often as possible in the presence of God, especially in Eucharistic Adoration, to anyone who worries about what God&#8217;s plan is for his life.
Transcript:
Host: Let&#8217;s go to Mike in Dalton, Ohio, listening on Living Bread Radio. Mike, your question for Gary Zimak.
Caller: Hi guys.
Gary: Hi Mike.
Caller: Great show, thanks for taking my call. I&#8217;m a recovering worrier&#8211;not so recovered, but anyways, my question&#8211;and I have a lot of questions about worry, but my main one was pretty specific&#8211; basically, I got a bunch of racehorses. I inherited them from my family, and I love them but I worry that not what God wants for me in my life, to have a bunch of racehorses. Because they take a lot of time, they take money. I mean I&#8217;m hoping someday to make money with them, but that&#8217;s&#8230;it&#8217;s basically a big gamble. and I worry a lot about&#8230;just&#8230;does God have&#8230;is He definitely making sure that I&#8217;m doing His will in my life? You know what I mean?
Gary: I do. Mike, that&#8217;s&#8211;I&#8217;m gonna tell&#8211; first of all, I&#8217;m going to congratulate you; the fact that you care to do God&#8217;s will, that&#8217;s really, that&#8217;s impressive, you know. And that&#8217;s gonna really please Him. He wants that. The fact that you care, &#8220;Am I doing God&#8217;s will?&#8221; How do you know whether you&#8217;re doing God&#8217;s will or not? This is something that I have dealt with. I continue to deal with it, almost on a daily basis. I would say: spend some time with Him every day. Ask Him&#8211;you know, if you can go to Eucharistic Adoration, that&#8217;s been one of my&#8230;the most helpful things to me, to spend time with the Lord in His presence, and you get that feeling. &#8220;Lord, am I doing this? Is this what you want me to do? Make your will obvious to me.&#8221;
It takes time sometimes. In my case, He doesn&#8217;t give me an answer right away, but ultimately&#8211; if the Lord wants you to do something, if He wants you to maybe get rid of some of the racehorses and give more money to the Church, He&#8217;s going to make you aware of this. And the fact that you&#8217;re having that feeling, He might be saying that. But just see what happens. Continue to ask Him, and see if that feeling to do this or to do that remains. And He&#8217;s going to let you know.

I Worry That I’m Not Doing God’s Will in My Life

Even though we cannot attend Mass while we shelter in place, we can experience real liturgy in our homes by praying the Liturgy of the Hours— and it&#8217;s more accessible than you might think. Fr. Hugh Barbour explains how, even during the suspension of public Masses, you can still not just watch but participate in real liturgy.

Experience Real Liturgy in Your Home

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

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

How Should We Share the Gospel with Trans People?

How could we be happy in Heaven knowing souls are in Hell?

<div>Which came first, the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed?</div><div>The original creed is the threefold profession of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Both of these creeds are modeled on this baptismal profession of faith that we still have in the church at baptisms.The Council of Nicea simply adopted a baptismal creed and made it more precise to confront the Arian heresy. The Apostles&#8217; Creed is probably older than the Nicene Creed, since it is based on the baptismal profession of the early Roman Church. Both creeds, however, have the same ancient origin. The Nicene Creed is definitely the more important of the two in Church history as a dogmatic definition of the faith and a frequent liturgical form.
</div>

Which Creed Came First, Apostles’ or Nicene?

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

Did they really find Jesus’ tomb? 👀

Jimmy Akin joins Cy for a conversation about the historicity of the Joseph story in Genesis. Is the biblical depiction of Egypt believable? What does modern scholarship add to the story?

Joseph in Egypt

<div>If the Eucharist is really Christ, shouldn’t it heal sick or wounded people who receive it?</div><div>Not necessarily. By that reasoning, the sacrament of baptism should accomplish the same thing, because we receive God in his divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in receiving baptism. And while baptism washes away our sins and gives us the gift of sanctifying grace—and there is nothing greater than that—the healing of sick or wounded people typically doesn’t accompany reception of baptism.
Similarly, in the Eucharist, we receive Jesus Christ in his divinity as well as his glorified body, blood, soul, and divinity, but physical healings don’t typically accompany reception of the Eucharist. And yet, again, we receive an increase of sanctifying grace and grow closer to our Lord Jesus, and so we truly experience a foretaste of heaven.
</div>

Shouldn’t the Eucharist Heal People?

The Most Evidence for a Marian Apparition Ever!

The founder of <a href="http://shamelesspopery.com">shamelesspopery.com</a> defends the Catholic understanding of the interior life and shares tips for developing yours.

Interior Life

The nature of marriage has been a subject of much discussion and debate over the last couple of decades. Receiving somewhat less attention are the differences among religions over marriage, particularly the differences between Islam and Christianity. In many respects, Islam and Christianity share a common view of the importance of marriage, but there are some significant differences that all Christians should understand.
The Catholic faith teaches that marriage is an unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. The foundations for this understanding can be found in both the Old and New Testaments:
<blockquote>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” . . . Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 1:27-28, 2:24).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church (Eph. 5:28-33).</blockquote>
The Catechism builds upon God’s call to this fruitful, loved-filled, and unbreakable bond:
<blockquote>The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (1601).</blockquote>
Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God, from whom comes our help (CCC 1605a).
To Catholics, marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, which has the meaning of oath or covenant. This covenant bond is a lifelong exchange of persons with God as witness. This exchange forms the basis for a community of love that reflects the sacrificial and holy love God has for his people and is ordered for the good of the man and woman and toward the begetting and education of children. We heed Christ’s words—“Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Mark 10:9)—so, after a baptized couple consummates a validly contracted marriage, it is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-jesus-say-adultery-is-grounds-for-divorce">impossible</a> to break that union except by death. (Non-sacramental marriages, where one or both spouses are unbaptized, are also ordinarily indissoluble except in certain <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-marriages-between-unbaptized-people-be-dissolved-by-divorce">rare cases</a>.)
Like Christianity, Islam values marriage as an important institution for the building of family and society and an integral part of salvation. Various hadiths (traditional religious sayings) bear this out. For example: “There is no foundation that has been built in Islam more loved by Allah . . . than marriage. . . . Allah loves no permissible like marriage, and Allah hates no permissible like divorce” (Mustadrak al-Wasa’il). “Whoever gets married has safeguarded half of his religion” (Wasa’il al-Shia).
The Quran and tradition give further guidance and reasons to marry:
<blockquote>And marry off the single among you and among the righteous of your male and female slaves. If they are poor then Allah will supply their needs from his generosity. And Allah is expansive, knowing. And let those who do not find marriage hold back until Allah grants them of his generosity (Quran 24:32-33).</blockquote>
<blockquote>O young people! Whoever among you can marry, should marry, because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty, and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual desire” (Sahih al-Bukhari).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Whoever chooses to follow my tradition must get married and produce offspring through marriage (and increase the population of Muslims), so that on the Day of Resurrection, I shall confront other Ummah (nations) with the (great) numbers of my Ummah (Wasa’il al-Shia).</blockquote>
Marriage is so important within Islam that no other option is recognized as praiseworthy. Unlike Catholics, who view celibacy for the sake of the kingdom as a high calling, Muslims <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-islam-says-about-chastity">see the permanent celibate life as unnatural</a>, given men’s sexual needs and the community’s need to grow. Muslims are encouraged to marry early in life in order to avoid forbidden sexual relations (known as zina).
The Arabic word most often associated with marriage is nikah, which means “contract.” A widely quoted definition from influential Salafi cleric Ibn ‘Uthaimin states that marriage is “a mutual contract between a man and a woman whose goal is for each to enjoy the other, become a pious family and a sound society.”
Now, a contract is a promise regarding an exchange of goods. A Muslim marital contract is brokered between two men—the husband-to-be and a representative for the wife-to-be. The contract stipulates the exchange of a mahr, or “bride price,” in exchange for the woman’s hand. It dictates that married life be conducted in accordance with the Quran and requires consent by the woman and two witnesses.
The first and most common category of marriage is the nikah between one man and one woman.  A second category, though, is called a nikah mut’ah, or temporary marriage. This type of “marriage” is common in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam">Shia Islam</a> and is designed to make otherwise illicit sexual acts licit by a short-term legal arrangement. Although most <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam">Sunni Muslims</a> reject nikah mut’ah, they accept nikah misyar, in which both prospective husband and wife agree to give up certain normal marital rights, like living together, equality between wives, rights to income, and rights of homekeeping, in order to be married. This can be understood as a middle ground between a nikah and a nikah mut’ah.
In addition to these different types of marriage, in Islam, one man can have multiple wives and contract several different types of marriages at the same time. “And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four” (Quran 4:3). This verse and others like it condone polygynous relationships (between one man and multiple women—but not one woman and multiple men). Men are allowed to marry up to four women, provided that they can treat them all equally (see Quran 4:129).
Classically, Muslim men were also allowed to conduct sexual relations with their female slaves, a practice that was brought back recently by ISIS and is found in the Quran: “And they who guard their private parts except from their wives and those their right hands possess [concubines] . . . they will not be blamed” (23:6).
Divorce by either party is allowable within Islam, though it is discouraged. “And when you divorce women and they fulfil their term [of their ‘Iddah, or post-divorce waiting period], either keep them according to reasonable terms or release them according to reasonable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]” (Quran 2:231).
If either party violates the conditions of the signed marital contract or if they have irreconcilable differences, they can obtain a wide variety of types of divorces: from khul’ (mutual contractual divorce initiated by the wife) to talaq (a variety of simple ways for the husband to repudiate the wife, usually requiring a waiting period before the divorce is finalized) to three different types of divorce oaths and finally judicial divorce. Historically, this last right was given to men only, but recently, in some places, women have been given the right to divorce as well.
So although from a distance Christian and Muslim marriages may look a lot alike, there are major differences. Marital contracts within Islam elevate marriage above the mundane while allowing for the reality of man’s frailty, but Islam&#8217;s allowance for multiple wives, temporary sexual arrangements, and partial forms of marriage expose a baser contractual view of marriage that falls far short of God’s plan for lifelong covenantal relationships.

Marriage: Christianity vs. Islam

Psalm 91 says that the one “who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty, will say to the Lord, ‘My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust.’”
It’s a powerful and profound psalm asking for God’s protection.
But will the psalm itself protect you?
Some people are saying that this psalm has unusual protective abilities. And that you should leave your Bible open to it if you want protection. But is that true—or is this a matter of superstition?
The answer is that we need to approach this psalm in a balanced way.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that superstition “can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary.”
The Catechism says, “To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition” (CCC 2111).
So if you think that Psalm 91 is a magical text that will somehow protect you all by itself, that would be superstition.
It’s also superstition if you think leaving a Bible open to Psalm 91 will somehow protect you.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t pray Psalm 91 for protection.
After all, it is a prayer.
So if you pray Psalm 91 and ask God to protect you, that’s just fine. Because it’s God that you’re asking for protection. It’s him that you’re putting your trust in—not the words of the psalm.
In the same way, if you want to leave a Bible open to Psalm 91 as a kind of enacted prayer—
Like saying to God, “O Lord, please look down on the words of this psalm. They are my prayer to you. Please protect me.”
Then you are again asking God for protection and trusting in him to provide it.
This doesn’t mean that you’ll be protected from any and every danger.
God allows us to face difficulties in life.
As St. Paul says in Acts 14:22, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”
But we can also trust God to help us get through those hardships.
He will guide us, he will protect us, and he will make sure that we arrive in heaven at the end.
But it is in him that we need to put our trust.
Not in a particular set of words—including the words of Psalm 91.
So don’t trust in words.
Trust in God.
He loves you.

Psalm 91: Prayer for Protection vs. Superstition (Let’s Debunk)

In 1971, Irish band the Dubliners had a hit with &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoCagUKAhik">Hand Me Down My Bible</a>&#8221; about a hard-living sinner who repents. The refrain of the song is:
<blockquote>Oh oh glorio,
Now I’m the Lord’s disciple 
Oh oh glorio, 
Now hand me down my Bible</blockquote>
That’s a good jumping-off point to talk about Sacred Tradition, which is all about “hand-me-downs.”
<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/tradition">The word comes from</a> the Latin tradere, to deliver or hand over, which is itself a compound word made up of dare, “to give,” and the prefix trans, “over.” (That’s also the origin of the word traitor, which was used to describe Christians who cooperated with the Romans in handing over sacred things—or other Christians). Of course, the New Testament word for tradition isn’t from Latin but Greek, but it’s remarkably similar. The Greek word <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&amp;strongs=g3862">paradosis</a> also means to hand on, and <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3860">the verb form</a> also has the secondary meaning of betrayal.
In both Latin and Greek, it’s handing something on . . . or handing someone over.
I mention all of this because something gets lost in our English word tradition. Both the Latin and Greek nouns come from verbs, but English doesn’t have a verb form of the word. So we end up thinking of a tradition as “the way we tend to do things,” when it actually is a thing handed on.
With that understanding, you see why Catholics and Protestants often talk past one another on this topic. Protestants tend to hear “custom or rule,” whereas Catholics mean “something passed on.” And it’s too bad, because you simply can’t have Christianity without Tradition.
Think about it this way. How do we:
<ul>
<li>Have the biblical texts?</li>
<li>Know that the Bible is trustworthy?</li>
<li>Know which books belong in Scripture?</li>
<li>Understand how they’re to be interpreted?</li>
<li>Know information about Jesus, Mary, and the apostles that isn’t spelled out in Scripture?</li>
</ul>
The answer in every case involves trusting those who came before us: those who handed down the words of Scripture, handed down which books were inspired, and handed down how to interpret them. Each part is Tradition.
Jesus didn’t place a leather-bound New Testament directly into your hands. He created a Church, in which these texts were written, preserved, and passed on, under the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit. In other words, Jesus transmitted divine revelation via Tradition, so if you can’t trust Tradition, then you can’t trust the revelation.
Since Sacred Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition, that means Tradition is bigger. It tells us things about the Bible that the Bible doesn’t say about itself (for example, there’s nothing in the Bible that tells us which books belong in the Bible). The apostles recognized this about their own writings—that they were part of a broader transmission of the Faith.
That’s why, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, St. Paul instructs his readers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” The mode of transmission—written or unwritten—is irrelevant. It’s all Tradition.
The Second Vatican Council describes this relationship between Scripture and the rest of Tradition beautifully:
<blockquote>The apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3). Now, what was handed on by the apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. [&#8230;.] The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of his beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).</blockquote>
As “one sacred deposit of the word of God” and “flowing from the same divine wellspring,” Scripture and Tradition “merge into a unity and tend toward the same end”—the reliable handing-on of the Faith.
Of course, not every theological hand-me-down is divine revelation traceable to Jesus through the apostles. Some things come from other sources, and these “man-made traditions” are fine if they help us understand the gospel, but they become a problem when they interfere with it. In Mark 6:7, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of abandoning God’s commandments in favor of the tradition of men. Some cite this verse as anti-Tradition, but it’s not. Rather, it’s against man-made tradition . . . when it interferes with the commandments of God.
The New Testament uses the word paradosis in exactly this dual way. In some cases, like 2 Thessalonians 2:15, it’s used for revealed, apostolic Tradition, and there it’s treated as sacred and binding. In other cases, like Mark 7:8, it’s used to refer to things handed on from other sources—and there it’s condemned if and when it interferes with adherence to the gospel. But a lot of Protestants don’t understand that Sacred Tradition is good, or even that there’s a difference between Tradition and man-made traditions.
One reason is the Protestant bias against the word tradition that is reflected in some Bible translations. The popular NIV, for example, translates paradosis as “tradition” any time it’s used negatively. But when paradosis is used positively, the NIV tends to change the word to “teachings” (even though that’s not really what paradosis means). So, for example, it renders 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as “stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
And in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, where Paul warns the Thessalonians to “keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us,” the NIV again changes the word to “teaching.”
It’s important to realize and, when discussing Tradition with Protestants, to point out to them, that the biblical word to describe good hand-me-downs that we should accept is the exact same word used in all the places where bad, man-made hand-me-downs are rejected (when they obstruct the gospel).
The Bible doesn’t reject Tradition as inherently evil. Some Bible translations seem to, but that’s because translators put their own theological tradition over faithfully translating the sacred texts.

The Bible Against Tradition?

<div>How many archangels are there?</div><div>The only archangels mentioned in the Bible are Michael (Rev. 12:7), Gabriel (Luke 1:19), and Raphael (Tob. 12:15). How many there are besides these three is unknown. Scripture refer to the numbers of angels only as &#8220;hosts&#8221; and &#8220;a multitude&#8221; and &#8220;thousands upon thousands.&#8221;
</div>

How Many Archangels Are There?

Patrick Madrid lays out the general conditions and situations in which missing Mass on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation does or does not constitute a mortal sin.

How Bad Is it to Miss Mass?

<div>Why did the Council of Laodicea not reaffirm the same canon of Scripture from the earlier Council of Carthage? It specifically doesn’t include the deuterocanonical books.</div><div>The &#8220;Council of Laodicea&#8221; was a regional synod and not an ecumenical council. Therefore, it is useful in terms of ascertaining practices of the time period but nothing it decided is considered an infallible decree.
Canon 60 of the synod deals with the books of Scripture. This canon is not held by anyone to be a definitive list. The canon&#8217;s listing of the New Testament omits the book of Revelation. It also would not be entirely accurate to say that it does not include the deuterocanonical books. It&#8217;s listing of the Old Testament includes the normative Jewish canon plus the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah.
However, all of the debate over canon 60&#8217;s listing of books is most likely for naught. The authenticity of the canon is considered spurious. It is missing from many ancient manuscripts and is believed to have been added on at a later time.
</div>

Council of Laodicea and Scripture

<div>Has there been any changes in the Church in the past few years that would allow a pastoral associate to give a homily even though he has about two more years before becoming a deacon?</div><div>Someone studying to become a deacon is considered a layperson. Therefore, all rules that apply to preaching and the laity apply to him. The laity do not preach during liturgical services.  
Laity are generally permitted to give spiritual reflections at retreats, prayer meetings, and when bringing Communion to shut-ins.
Canon 766 does permit the laity to occasionally preach in church outside of Mass, but this requires the permission of the bishop, and this permission can only be granted if such an arrangement is necessary.
</div>

Can the Non-Ordained Preach?

Just War Theory (JWT) is not a teaching designed to justify hostile actions against another country. It exists to help us preserve as many goods as possible when states have failed to promote, preserve, and defend peace. After all, our Lord did not say, “Blessed are the war-makers.” Rather, his injunction to all of us is to gift to others the very gift of peace that he breathed upon the disciples at Pentecost. “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
To understand JWT, it has to be framed properly. We have to understand that it is one means by which the common good can be preserved. This is why the provisions of JWT all focus on the preservation of some corporate good that aids the flourishing of the individuals within belligerent nations. It is not a way to give cover to those who would make war for the sake of some personal or corporate end that is either hidden or merely self-serving. The goods sought must include those with whom war is being made. Yes! Even in war, you are required to love your enemies.
In our attempt to accomplish this moral expectation we evaluate three stages of warfare: ius ad bellum, ius in bello, and ius post bellum. 
Most of people’s energy is spent discussing the justice of going to war (ius ad bellum). However, the manner in which war is prosecuted (ius in bello) and how belligerent states deport themselves following hostilities (ius post bellum) are also of grave concern. Each of these “parts” of warfare is treated as morally distinct. This is important, because in the past, some atrocities were committed against soldiers or civilians of one country by another due to a consensus that the ius ad bellum of the former’s nation was illicit.
Separating each of these parts allows us to preserve more common and individual goods than it does by creating inextricable causal links among them. Put simply, if you were fighting on the side of an unjust aggressor, you do not lose your right to be treated fairly. In other words, you cannot be summarily executed simply because you fought on the wrong side. However, there remain some connections. One example is that it becomes the responsibility of the victorious nation to aid the rehabilitation of the defeated nation. Generally speaking, there is some relationship among these three parts of warfare, but it is also limited. Both the connections and limitations are subordinated to the promotion of the common good.
In our time, it seems as if certain nations, particularly the so-called “superpowers” of the world, are perpetually in all three stages of war. The world has become significantly smaller since Cicero, Augustine, or Aquinas treated the matter. Even Vittoria or Grotius could not fathom the manner in which power is projected in our time.
For them, warfare was fairly straightforward. It involved the overt movement of troops to a border, invasion, the manifest destruction of a nation’s goods or properties, or some clear excess of a tyrant against his own people. Today, however, belligerence is not so clear.
Setting aside the obfuscating terms that are often used today, presumably for legal rather than moral reasons, JWT considers all of these under the classical definition of war. We can observe this by how recent scholars, such as Michael Walzer, GEM Anscombe, and John Finnis, have included non-standard forms of conflict into their own analysis of the matter. But among nations, the reasons to engage in war and the means to prosecute it are ever evolving. If we are attentive to the real world, then our analysis of what constitutes a just war must grow and develop in step.
It is also important to understand that when the term “Just War” is used, not everyone is talking, precisely, about the same thing. Those who rely on Augustine or Aquinas may not accept the conclusions of Vittoria, Grotius, Walzer, Finnis, or others. Those who rely on modern thinkers may not accept the premises upon which classical considerations of Just War are established. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not represent the totality of thought within the academy (whether Catholic or not) on the matter. For instance, it departs from classical thought (and some modern thought) on the possibility of punitive war, expansion, and preventative actions. It expresses a position that war is always to be defensive in nature. However, this unnecessarily excludes many segments of the debate that may hobble important modern considerations of warfare.
We have to be able to ask:
<ul>
<li>“Can prevention of the development and proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons be a just reason for engaging in warfare?”</li>
<li>“Is a cyber-attack targeting the Linux kernel, which would grant unfettered access to worldwide defense and infrastructure assets, as nearly happened in 2016, an act of war?”</li>
<li>“How do we deal with proxy wars?”</li>
<li>“Does funding terrorism constitute an act of war?”</li>
</ul>
Certainly, as Catholics, we must reject any form of utilitarian or consequentialist justifications. However, answering these sorts of questions is precisely what is necessary today. Most of the wars that we see are billed as preventative or even punitive (consider the current action in Iran and the recent action against Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela by the United States). Both types of actions could be allowed according to the thought of Vittoria, but not, it would seem, of Finnis.
There are at least two hidden variables that affect the way in which JWT is treated by different scholars. The first is the definition one may be using for “international law.” The second is the definition used for “natural law.” It is unclear if these terms, used by various authors, are the same, or even similar. For instance, it is not clear that the New Natural Law theories proposed by Finnis easily comport with traditional notions. Related to this confusion is the definition of international law and who is the arbiter of such a body of law, written or unwritten. Even something that should be clear—“who can authorize war”—is a subject of dispute. These are just some of the questions that cause significant debate among scholars and pundits.
One strategy to navigate this labyrinth is to focus on the primary intent of JWT: to preserve and promote the common good. At its heart is the ardent concern for human flourishing. It is obvious that the state of chaos warfare causes does not immediately provide for that. This is true of any conflict, even if it is merely defending oneself against an aggressor.
However, warfare, defensive, punitive, or otherwise, can only possibly be justified if the common good is under threat. Consider the classical position that one sovereign may have an obligation, assuming other necessary conditions are met, to invade a tyrant’s land to bring that tyrant to justice. This is because the care of the common good extends beyond one’s own borders to the whole of humanity. Those tasked with the care of the common good must take the universal brotherhood of man into consideration.
On this account, JWT cannot champion nationalism. However, it is also not a license to wantonly invade lands. There must be a reasonable hope of success, legal authorization, a consideration of proportional effects, etc., if there is to be a just cause for war. Honest diplomacy, economic sanctions, and other tools of statecraft must precede any military action.
Heads of state must always keep in view the axiom that peace is always preferable to war. Peace through strength cannot be accompanied by a heavy trigger finger. Rather, and this may seem odd to many readers, the decision to go to war must stem from a love of one’s neighbor, along with the just defense of oneself and those under his care. It must not stem from fear, a desire for vengeance, or merely some foreseen threat. It must seek to restore justice, promote peace, limit harm, provide for stability, and secure all of the necessary goods to aid the flourishing of the people. To depart from this disposition and these ends is to depart from right reason, sound morals, and the laws of God.

Just War in the Modern World

Leviticus is an uncommon choice for the Mass lectionary, but today’s selection has a direct connection with the Gospel story about the healing of a leper.
To understand something of this man’s situation, we have to understand the status of leprosy in ancient Israel. It was more than just a neurological disease affecting one’s outward appearance; it represented a necessary break from common life, including the life of worship in the Temple. To be a leper was a tragic, isolating experience. As such, it has often been viewed as a symbol of sin—not that, even in ancient Israel, it was viewed as a moral affliction in itself, but its infectious disfigurement is a profound analogy for the way that sin disfigures the human person and cuts him off from fellowship with God and neighbor.
To think about leprosy in this way leads us to wonder if there is some modern equivalent or analogy. Progressive Christians have a habit of asserting that this is how we ought to think about morally objectionable states of life. We should get rid of this concept of “uncleanness” once and for all, they say, privileging instead a concept of unconditional welcome and acceptance. So we have even very high-ranking prelates who cannot be bothered to describe things as moral or immoral; we have only regular and irregular, as if the habitual practice of mortal sin should be imagined as no more significant than filling out the wrong form at the DMV.
The trouble with this view is twofold. First, even if leprosy itself wasn’t morally objectionable, it was still dangerous. St. Damien of Molokai’s death in 1889, as what we sometimes call a “martyr of charity,” is a testament to the fact that leprosy is no joke; he knew quite well that the leper colony in Hawaii needed and deserved his love and pastoral care, but I don’t think he ever imagined that this made him safe. Second, if we look to the example of our Lord, his response to leprosy, more than once, isn’t to say, “Oh, hey, you’re fine as you are, go and be well!” No, he heals the disease. Indeed, in our story today, he asks the healed man to follow the procedures of the law to make sure he is reconciled to the community through the judgment of the priest.
So I think we should be wary of associating leprosy too closely with any modern controversial state of life. Surely the closest thing, in practical terms, is our recent memory of COVID. There we faced a culture of “clean” and “unclean” in more ways than one. Although no one that I can think of ever labeled the virus as a moral sickness, it became in many places an adjacent moral issue. In other words, the decision to wear a mask or not became a sign, depending on whom you were with, of you being on the side of the good guys or the bad guys. People were shunned or publicly pilloried for either their lack of seriousness about the virus or their overreaction to it.
And I think what we saw—and, frankly, what we still see—with COVID is symptomatic of a broader culture that defines itself in terms of “clean” and “unclean.” We don’t use those words. No one wants to really use those words, even if we use various other words that mean the same thing. But the ideology of “taint” is all over the place.
There is a difference between a principled objection to a thing and thinking that seeing it, or being near it without throwing a fit, is somehow sinful. Never mind that a lot of people think they do not believe in sin. But seeing something, being able to process it and understand why it is bad, or worthy of our pity, is part of the moral development of us and our children. And this is where I think our Lord—and, again, St. Damien—can show us that there is a way of being compassionate without denying the presence of something evil, whether it’s natural disease or immorality. The leper needs healing. What some of our modern interlocutors do not seem to grasp is that the leper approaches Jesus with this specific desire. He doesn’t want Jesus to just affirm him as he is. He wants to be made whole.
The whole concept of healing—wanting it, requesting it, lacking it—requires a rational order in which there really are intrinsic goods that should be valued. The principal reason that some of the big popular causes—like “reproductive health” or “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/women-men-means-and-ends">gender-affirming care</a>”—are so false is that their concept of good and healing are completely cut off from any objective content apart from what an individual perceives to be good and real. Modern popular medicine would, if it were at all consistent with itself, demand that we “affirm” the leper and treat his disease as simply one equally valid approach to the human nervous system; we might as well go to the next stage and “affirm” the neo-Nazi who thinks that all races other than his own should be annihilated. That we are not allowed to make these comparisons in public without weeping and gnashing of teeth is a testament to our chronic inability as a culture to be rational.
St. Paul tells us that we should avoid giving offense. He also tells us to imitate him as he imitates Christ, and neither he nor Christ is exactly known for never having offended anyone. So this isn’t some blanket theology of niceness, as if all disagreements can be solved by a frozen casserole and a nonverbal like on Facebook. He has to mean something, though. Let’s not take the easy way out and imagine that his words are completely without challenge for us. The key goal isn’t niceness for its own sake, but the greater end of saving souls.
Above, I painted a picture of nonrepentance — symbolized by the leper who thinks leprosy is the new normal. That can be disturbing, to say the least, and it’s fair to say that we’re bombarded with this attitude on a daily basis, whether from politicians or celebrities or people we see at school or work or the grocery store. But it’s not the whole picture. The fact that there are some loud lepers out there demanding that we all celebrate Leprosy Pride Month doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of others who think this is all nonsense and want the grace of God to help them in their struggle, whatever it is.
This in particular is where we need to take Paul’s advice, and our Lord’s example, seriously. Maybe we aren’t all called to go, like St. Damien of Molokai, to live in the leper colony. But we meet all sorts of people, people whom popular culture would want us to categorize and sort into clean and unclean, our sort of people or not our sort of people. That’s nonsense, too, because our sort of people, according Paul just a little earlier in 1 Corinthians, include “the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers.” That’s quite the list, but, says the Apostle, “Such were some of you” (1 Cor 6:9-11). Emphasis on were, because the point of the passage is that these behaviors have no place in the kingdom of God. But we all have to start somewhere, and usually the best place to start is where we are.
Perhaps that’s where I should end, too: with a reminder that all these thoughts on lepers aren’t just about “us” and “them.” Sure, we need to think carefully about how to follow our Lord’s proclamation of the good news. But we always have to remember to hear that call ourselves. What healing do I need? Do I even recognize the places where I need healing?
As we head into Lent, there’s really no time like the present for a checkup. And let the healing of the sacraments help us all to better meet the world’s hurting people and bring them to Jesus.