Manage Account

<div>Why is there death and violence in nature if God created the Earth good?</div><div>God’s creatures—beginning with the devil and his demonic confreres, and then mankind, beginning with our first parents—are responsible for the moral evil in the world, not the Creator. Moral evil results from the misuse of the God-given gift of free will, first with the fallen angels and then mankind, and there is associated general disorder that results from that moral evil.
For more on this general subject, please see our responses on <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-free-will-thwart-gods-plan">how the free will of creatures can’t thwart God’s plan</a>, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/to-hell-with-heaven">the devil’s creation and related consequences</a>, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/augustine-had-it-right-calvin-did-not">how St. Augustine had it right on free will and John Calvin didn’t</a>.
</div>

Why Death and Violence in God’s Good Creation?

Why is the Church so defensive about marriage even when it is not sacramental? Why does the Church insist on the goodness of natural marriage? What does this say about sacramental marriage?

Why Is Marriage a Sacrament?

The French mathematician, philosopher, and apologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal">Blaise Pascal</a> (1623-1662) was born 400 years ago. The anniversary of his birth was recently celebrated by Pope Francis in an apostolic letter titled <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/20230619-sublimitas-et-miseria-hominis.html">Sublimitas et Miseria Hominis</a> (“The Grandeur and Misery of Man”)—reflecting one of the themes in Pascal’s writing.
Recent popes, such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have expressed appreciation for Pascal, and in 2017, Pope Francis <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/254599/pope-francis-publishes-apostolic-letter-on-blaise-pascal">reportedly</a> said that he “deserves beatification.”
The pope’s 5,400-word apostolic letter makes for interesting reading. Papal documents like this are commonly ghostwritten, and the pope then makes the words his own when he signs and issues the document. The same is presumably true of this letter, and it is clear that whoever drafted it knows Pascal’s life and thought very well. It’s a quality read!
At least in Catholic circles, Pascal is best known today for two things: his Provincial Letters, which are a defense of the Jansenists against their Jesuit opponents, and his Pensées (French, “Thoughts”), which consists of notes that he took in preparation for an apology defending the Christian faith that he wanted to write.
However, these writings come from the later period of Pascal’s life, and he is remembered outside Catholic circles for other contributions. As the letter notes, “in 1642, at the age of nineteen, he invented <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator">an arithmetic machine</a>, the ancestor of our modern computers.”
Pascal also made contributions in other areas, including physics (specifically, fluid dynamics, where he proposed what is now known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_law">Pascal’s law</a>) and mathematics (where he made numerous contributions, including being one of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal#Mathematics">the founders of probability theory</a>).
Pope Francis’s apostolic letter touches briefly on such contributions, but it focuses on the development of Pascal’s life and his Christian faith, which became more prominent as he got older.
A turning point in this regard occurred on the night of Monday, November 23, 1654, when Pascal was thirty-one years old. For two hours—between 10:30 P.M. and 12:30 A.M.—he had a profound mystical experience that led to a religious conversion.
Afterward, he wrote an intimate series of thoughts about this experience on a sheet of paper. How meaningful the experience was to him is illustrated by the fact that he thereafter carried the paper with him, keeping it in the lining of his coat, where it was discovered after his death.
What we know about this powerful mystical experience comes from the brief, tantalizing statements he made on the paper. It is now known as Pascal’s Memorial, and an English translation is <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/pascal/memorial.i.html">available here</a>.
Pope Francis’s letter discusses the Provincial Letters and the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jansenism">Jansenist controversy</a> that occasioned them. Since the Jesuits were the target of the Provincial Letters, it is interesting to see what Francis—the first Jesuit pope—has to say. He writes,
<blockquote>Before concluding, I must mention Pascal’s relationship to Jansenism. . . . The controversy [between the Jesuits and the Jansenists] dealt chiefly with the question of God’s grace and the relationship between grace and human nature, specifically our free will. Pascal . . . was charged by the Jansenists to defend them, given his outstanding rhetorical skill. He did so in 1656 and 1657, publishing a series of eighteen writings known as The Provincial Letters. . . .
We should realize . . . that, just as Saint Augustine sought in the fifth century to combat the Pelagians, who claimed that man can, by his own powers and without God’s grace, do good and be saved, so Pascal, for his part, sincerely believed that he was battling an implicit pelagianism or semipelagianism in the teachings of the “Molinist” Jesuits. . . . Let us credit Pascal with the candor and sincerity of his intentions.</blockquote>
Pope Francis also touches on Pascal’s apologetics and his famous work, the Pensées. Interestingly, he does not mention the most famous part of the Pensées, which is a passage in which Pascal seeks to help those who feel unable to choose between skepticism and Christianity based on evidence.
He proposes what has become known as <a href="https://jimmyakin.com/2022/06/pascals-wager-eternal-gamble.html">Pascal’s Wager</a>, in which he offers a way to use practical reason to decide between the options when an evidential solution seems unavailable. In essence, Pascal argues that if we adopt or “bet” on skepticism and it turns out that skepticism is true, then we will at most reap a finite benefit. However, if we “bet” on Christianity and it turns out that Christianity is true, then we will receive an infinite benefit. It is thus in our interest to wager that Christianity is true if we feel unable to decide based on the evidence.
It should be noted that the Wager is designed only to decide between Christianity and skepticism. However, Wager-like reasoning can be applied to other religious options. (For example, if we are deciding between reincarnation and the view that we have only one life, it is better to wager that we have only one life, so we need to make this one count.)
Pascal experienced his final illness in 1662. Shortly before his death, he said that if the doctors were correct, and he would recover, he would devote the rest of his life to serving the poor. However, he did not recover, and he passed on to his reward at the age of thirty-nine. It is not clear what he died of, but tuberculosis and stomach cancer have been proposed.
It is good to see Pascal being recognized for his contributions. He was, indeed, a genius, as well as a man of profound faith and insight. He is well worth studying by contemporary apologists.

Wanna Place a Bet on God?

<div>Is it alright to travel overseas with my girlfriend (just the two of us)? What if we plan to stay in separate rooms?</div><div>Yes, but don&#8217;t just &#8220;plan&#8221; to stay in separate rooms, really stay in separate rooms. You will have a much happier trip if the two of you manage to live by the commandments of God the whole time. The principle at work here is that of avoiding the near occasions of sin—that is, not deliberately putting ourselves in a situation where it is likely that we will fall into grave sin.
The chances are great that if you sleep in the same room or bed with a woman who is not your wife, but to whom you are attracted, you will end up having intercourse with her. Thus, if you are sincere in avoiding this sin, then you must be resolute to stay out of situations wherein it would be likely. Pray together for a happy and holy relationship, but don&#8217;t fool yourself that you can live together before marrying, even for a short time. And don&#8217;t use saving money as an excuse: if you want a room together, then get married!
</div>

Is It OK to Travel Together?

Tim Staples delves into the Catholic perspective on salvation, addressing the common misconception of &#8220;faith alone.&#8221; He clarifies the role of grace, faith, and good works in the Christian life, while emphasizing the importance of the seven sacraments as channels of God&#8217;s grace. Tim weaves Scripture and Catholic teaching to provide a clear and compelling explanation of this fundamental doctrine.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
I was curious why in the Catholic faith they hold to the seven, I guess, the seven sacraments, like the requirements to salvation, because in a Christian standpoint, I know we hold to just grace through faith and obviously have works that is a fruit of your faith. But just curious where or why they hold so strong to that.

Yeah, great question, Joshua.
The key is understanding first that, and you mentioned, you didn&#8217;t quote the verse, but you alluded to Ephesians 2, verses 8 and 9, &#8220;For by grace you have been saved through faith,&#8221; and that not of yourselves, it&#8217;s a gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast. The Catholic Church teaches that, that our salvation is first of all by grace. In fact, there&#8217;s a sense in which we can say as Catholics, by grace alone, in fact, through faith and our obedience and good works and all of the sacraments, but of course it&#8217;s only by, through, and in the power of God&#8217;s grace merited for us on the cross by Jesus Christ. But see, the key is this, though, of course both faith and grace do not come from us, and that&#8217;s Paul&#8217;s point. It&#8217;s not of yourselves, it&#8217;s a gift of God. And by the way, he&#8217;s referring there to both grace and faith, being a gift from God, and we believe that. However, Jesus is the one who tells us how he distributes that unmerited favor that we call grace, right? He distributes that grace, and seven of the principal ways that he communicates that grace to us. Not taking away, because of course it&#8217;s Jesus who established those seven sacraments. And by the way, we don&#8217;t all have to receive all of those sacraments because sacraments, for example, of holy orders, that means ordination, or holy matrimony, which means marriage is not for everyone. So it depends, not everyone gets married, not everyone is an ordained priest. So they are necessary for salvation, but in accordance with our particular calling in life. But Joshua, here&#8217;s the key. So we understand that Jesus merited our salvation. He is, as 1 John chapter 2, verses 1 and 2, he is the perpetuation for our sins, not only our sins, but the sins of the whole world. He merited infinitely, right? So all of the grace that we receive comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone.
Mary can&#8217;t merit grace on her own. Cy Kellett can&#8217;t merit. No one can merit grace. However, once we enter into grace, that&#8217;s when we can begin to merit rewards from God. That&#8217;s the Catholic position, and that&#8217;s what we see all over the New Testament. I&#8217;ll just mention, for example, Galatians 6, verses 7 through 9, &#8220;Be not deceived, God is not mocked whatsoever man sows. That shall he reap.&#8221; &#8220;If a man continues to sow to the flesh, he shall of the flesh reap death. If he continues to sow to the spirit, he shall of or from the spirit reap everlasting life. Therefore, let us not grow weary in well-doing, because we know we will reap the reward,&#8221; what reward? Eternal life, &#8220;if we faint not.&#8221; Okay, but the key is, how do we get this grace into our lives, right? And of course, faith is essential, but not faith alone, my friend, at least in the way that Luther taught faith alone. He went wrong, and why is that? Because yes, faith is necessary, as Hebrews 11 says, Hebrews 11, verse 6, &#8220;Because without faith it&#8217;s impossible to please God.&#8221;
But notice, in Mark 16, 16, now we&#8217;re going to talk sacraments here, just for a minute, Joshua.
In Mark 16, 16, Jesus says, &#8220;He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.&#8221; That&#8217;s one of the reasons why we believe faith alone is not enough if you&#8217;re going to say faith alone apart from baptism. No, because Jesus says that it&#8217;s faith and baptism that leads to salvation. In 1 Peter 3, 21, St. Peter tells us, &#8220;Baptism does now save us.&#8221; Now, by the way, that doesn&#8217;t mean baptism alone, because we also need faith. John 3, 16, I hope you&#8217;re following me on this, Joshua. And I guess St. Paul sums it up in Romans 6, 3 when he says, &#8220;We are buried together with Him through baptism.&#8221; Notice, that&#8217;s how we enter into Christ&#8217;s death. We&#8217;re buried together with Him through baptism just so that just as Christ was raised to nudists of life, we would be raised to nudists of life in Him. So that&#8217;s why we see baptism as necessary because that&#8217;s the instrument that Jesus established. He&#8217;s the one who told the apostles to baptize in places like John 3, 22, John 3, 5, Mark 16, 16, as I said. And through that great gift we enter into Christ and we experience new life. However, there&#8217;s a second sacrament called, we call it confirmation, that Jesus also promised to give. Remember, in John 16, 13, the apostles who had already come to faith, they already believed. In fact, Jesus said in John 15, 3, a whole chapter before, He said, &#8220;You are already clean,&#8221; He says to the apostles, &#8220;because you&#8217;ve received My word.&#8221; And yet, He tells them in John 16, 13, &#8220;Don&#8217;t go anywhere,&#8221; right? He says, &#8220;Wait for the promise of the power of God.&#8221; He says, &#8220;I am going to sin the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth.&#8221; In fact, I was referencing two texts there, John 16, 13 and Acts 1, verses 6 through 8, especially verse 6, where He says, &#8220;Tarry in Jerusalem, don&#8217;t go anywhere, and wait for the promise of the Father.&#8221; And what is that promise? The gift of the Holy Spirit who will lead you, John 16, 13, lead you into all truth.
And through the Holy Spirit we receive power. Skip down to Acts 1, verse 8, &#8220;You shall receive power, dunamis, after that the Holy Spirit has come upon you.&#8221; So that is the sacrament of confirmation, which takes the power of the Holy Spirit we already have in baptism and increases it and empowers us to be able to live. And that&#8217;s what we see in Acts chapter 1 leading up to chapter 2, verse 4, of course, at Pentecost where the apostles, the flames of fire come upon 120 people&#8217;s heads and they transform the world. That&#8217;s the sacrament of confirmation. But notice that&#8217;s power. That&#8217;s the power of the Holy Spirit. That&#8217;s sanctifying grace. That&#8217;s an increase in the grace that we&#8217;ve already received through baptism. And then we could go to the third sacrament, which is the Eucharist. Now unfortunately I&#8217;m not going to be able to go through all seven because we&#8217;ll take the whole show here. But maybe, Joshua, if you want to be a guest on my podcast we&#8217;ll go through all seven in detail. But the Eucharist, of course, is the source and summit of our faith as Catholic Christians. This is the sacrament Jesus taught us about in John 6.53. In fact, the whole chapter of John 6 where he said, &#8220;Unless you eat the flesh, the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.&#8221; This is the sacrament that St. Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 15, where he says, &#8220;The cup which we bless.&#8221; He&#8217;s referring to communion, Joshua. He says, &#8220;The cup which we bless, is it not the partaking in the blood of Christ?&#8221; That is a very plain reference to the Eucharist. 
That&#8217;s the term we use for communion, eucharist, which means to give thanks. Because Jesus, when He instituted the Eucharist, He started with giving thanks, eucharisto in Greek. But Paul says, &#8220;And the bread which we bless, is it not a partaking in the body of Christ?&#8221; And you see, that&#8217;s how, ultimately, we get to heaven, is by the blood of Jesus Christ. As you&#8217;ve been taught, I&#8217;m sure, Joshua, in your church, right, we&#8217;re covered in the blood of Jesus. In fact, 1 John chapter 1, verse 7, St. John says that if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ continues to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Notice there, John&#8217;s talking about an ongoing relationship with Jesus Christ, and the blood continues to cleanse us. See, not just one time when you accept Jesus according to St. John, but you continue. And this is one of the ways we receive the blood of Christ, of course, in the Eucharist. So Joshua, that&#8217;s just three out of the seven sacraments that we could talk about. But does that make sense? You see, Joshua, the key is, I&#8217;m finding more and more as a Catholic, this thing really is about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the sacraments are all about Jesus Himself empowering us to have that personal relationship. 
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

Why Catholics Need the Sacraments for Salvation

<div>How can I explain to my Catholic friend who missed Mass without a serious reason that she should go to confession before receiving Communion?</div><div>First, share Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2181, which states,   
<blockquote>The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-is-it-a-mortal-sin-to-miss-mass">the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation</a>, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin (emphasis added). </blockquote>
The next step is to share CCC 1385, which reads, “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to Communion.” The Catechism bases this precept on St. Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians: 
<blockquote>Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Cor. 11:27–29). </blockquote>
The last step is to take the above two principles and put them together, saying something along the lines of, “Since you’ve missed Sunday Mass without a serious reason, which is a grave sin, and Catholics who are conscious of grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving Communion, it follows that you must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving our Lord in Holy Communion.” 
Whether your friend abides by this precept or not is beyond your control. But at least you can present the Church’s teaching and charitably invite your friend to abide by it. 
</div>

Why Do We Need to Confess Skipping Mass?

The doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist entails the idea that what is substantially there—the body and blood of Jesus—is not what our senses perceive, i.e., bread and wine. But isn’t that deception? Giving us a sacrament that deceives our senses doesn’t seem to fit the M.O. of an all-good God.
We can respond with St. Thomas Aquinas and say there is no deception. He gives two reasons why  in his Summa Theologiae (III.75.5 ad 2).
First, the senses perceive what they are ordered to perceive—namely, the accidents of bread and wine (e.g., their color, size, shape, taste, smell, material quantity, etc.). The sensible qualities of bread and wine are what our senses are meant to capture. Our senses are not meant to capture the essence or substance of the thing. That’s the job of the intellect. So, our senses aren’t being deceived when they fail to capture the true essence of the consecrated bread and wine as Jesus’ real body and blood.
Now, someone might counter, “But doesn’t the intellect normally arrive at knowledge of a substance by way of its accidents? If so, then the intellect is deceived when told that what appears to be bread and wine is not.”
This leads us to the second reason why there is no deception: the intellect does in fact perceive the real substance of the Eucharist, but in a supernatural way—by faith. It’s true that the intellect naturally penetrates to the substance of a thing via its accidents. But the key is naturally.
The Eucharist is not natural; it’s supernatural. Thus, the intellect can’t penetrate to the substance of the Eucharist on its own. It needs some assistance to do its job. And that assistance comes through the gift of faith.
So, as Aquinas states, “[T]he intellect, who proper object is substance… is preserved by faith from deception.”
The mind’s judgment concerning the Eucharist is like its judgment that in Christ “the whole fulness of deity dwells” (Col. 2:9). According to what appears to our senses when looking at Christ, the mind would normally judge this man to be merely a man. But by the gift of faith, the intellect penetrates to the Word of God who is God (cf. John 1:1). There is no more deception in the Eucharist than there is in Jesus who is the Word of God made flesh.
Given the Incarnation, we can say that the Eucharist is the M.O. of an all-good God after all!

God Isn’t Fooling You

Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard joins Cy Kellett to engage with a college student exploring the complexities of faith. Natalie shares her perception of judgment and hate within Christianity, prompting Karlo to delve into the nuances of Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Together, they navigate the conversation about how to understand God’s forgiveness amidst differing interpretations of faith.
Transcript:
Caller: Hi. I was just calling because I&#8217;m a college student and I never had religion forced on me or anything like that, so I&#8217;m just kind of exploring. I do want to know more about your religion. And, like, obviously, I&#8217;m just going to say from an outside person&#8217;s view, from what I&#8217;ve learned, like Catholicism and Protestantism, I feel like when people should talk about God, they should talk about someone who&#8217;s all forgiving. That&#8217;s all like, just like an overall better person that anyone could ever be. And I just feel like there&#8217;s a lot of, dare I say, hate and judgment within the religion that I&#8217;ve heard so far.
Cy: Natalie, thank you for. I&#8217;m so glad you picked up the phone to call Dr. Broussard.
Karlo: Okay. So specifically with regard to your comment, Natalie, and first of all, thank you for calling in. You&#8217;re perceiving hate and judgment so far that is manifest on behalf of Catholics and Protestants. So my question to you, Natalie, in order to further the conversation, which particular instance or what exactly makes you think that it&#8217;s hateful or that we&#8217;re being judgmental? Is there a particular example that you can provide me in order to entertain and have a conversation with you about, like, what&#8217;s making you think we&#8217;re being hateful? What precisely?
Cy: Okay, go ahead.
Caller: I. I don&#8217;t think that, like, Protestants are completely hateful. I think there are perhaps maybe some scriptures or some ways that things are being addressed by followers. I&#8217;m not directly attacking the church or the Bible or anything like that. I would say some of the followers perhaps take some of the preachings to another level where I grew up in Texas and people were very hateful towards people who I thought were very, very good people. They gave back to the community. They volunteered, but they were attracted to the opposite sex or&#8230;
Karlo: Okay.
Caller: I had one of my friends have a really, really terrible situation where she had to make a really sad decision for her future, where she had to abort a baby, and it affected her, but there was just so much hatred towards her from the people following the Catholic religion.
Karlo: Okay, gotcha. All right. All right. So that gives me a little bit to work with, Natalie, and bear with me. I&#8217;m going to try to unpack that and share a few thoughts with you. So if by hate you mean showing a disgust for these individuals and looking down upon them as if they are no good and even wanting, expressing ill will towards them, if that&#8217;s what you mean by hate, and if that is what Catholics or whoever, whatever Christian was manifesting, then, Natalie, I would agree with you 100% and the Catholic Church would agree with you 100% that they need to repent because they were failing in charity and love toward another.
Now, if, and I&#8217;m going to be very careful and clear here, so see if you can follow me. If by hateful you simply mean a Christian voicing their opinion that killing an unborn baby is wrong and immoral, or that having same-sex romantic relationships is wrong and immoral, then we would respectfully disagree with this hateful charge. And the reason is, is because simply to say something is wrong and immoral doesn&#8217;t mean the person is hating them, right? I mean, because you just called in and you&#8217;re making a judgment. You&#8217;re saying, hey man, those Catholics are being hateful and that&#8217;s wrong and they shouldn&#8217;t be doing that. But Natalie, that very opinion that you have, that&#8217;s not hateful, right? I mean, because you can rightfully recognize wrong behavior by other people.
And so it&#8217;s possible, I don&#8217;t know what these Christians were saying, you know, so we would have to have more conversation as to exactly what they&#8217;re saying. But one thing to keep in mind, especially like in the Catholic-Protestant world, even we disagree with some things. We think Protestants believe things that are wrong and they will, and we&#8217;ll say it, and then they think we believe some things that are wrong and they&#8217;ll say it. We think certain lifestyle choices are wrong and immoral, contrary to human good and happiness, and we voice those opinions and judgments, but that doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean we&#8217;re hating the person.
And here&#8217;s the reason why, Natalie, think about this. Love. Would you agree with me that love is to wish what&#8217;s good for the other person and do what you can to try to help that person experience that good? Would you agree with that definition of love? Do you think that&#8217;s pretty sound?
Caller: Yes
Karlo: Okay. All right. Now consider this next step. Consider this next thought. Whenever I perceive somebody in the lifestyle choice of a same-sex romantic relationship, say, okay, we judge that behavior to be not good for the other individual. Like that&#8217;s not good for them. Now why is that the case? That&#8217;s a different question and that requires a lot of time to unpack. But just follow me for argument&#8217;s sake. Here we make a judgment that that&#8217;s not good for them.
Caller: The person has a right to make a judgment. God should be able to make that, unfortunately&#8230;sorry sir
Karlo: Well, okay. All right, I&#8217;ll answer that question, Natalie. I&#8217;ll answer that question. I understand. I understand. Notice the type of judgment we&#8217;re making. And I recognize that was a buzzword. I shouldn&#8217;t have used that word. When I say judgment, Natalie, what I mean is I&#8217;m thinking in my mind, you know what? That behavior is not right now. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with that, right? I mean, because you&#8217;re calling in saying those behaviors aren&#8217;t right. So notice I&#8217;m just making this thing in my mind like I&#8217;m thinking to myself, I. That behavior is immoral. I am not judging their culpability, nor is the Catholic Church, Natalie.
Anybody who is engaging in same-sex romantic relationships, or even a young girl who&#8217;s aborting killing her baby in her womb, we do not make judgments as to whether those people are culpable or responsible for these behaviors. What we&#8217;re saying, Natalie, is, hey, look, those behaviors are not right. They&#8217;re immoral. They&#8217;re contrary to human happiness. As to why we say that, that&#8217;s a different question. We&#8217;re gonna have to have a conversation about that. But at least you can see we&#8217;re trying to express goodwill toward another because we&#8217;re recognizing that these behaviors are not good for the person.
But my point here, Natalie, is to try and help you see that simply voicing one&#8217;s opinion that certain choices are contrary to what&#8217;s good for us is a manifestation of our love for them as opposed to hating them. And furthermore, we are not judging their responsibility or their hearts and what they&#8217;re thinking and what they&#8217;re feeling. We recognize it&#8217;s super complicated, but what we can voice our opinions about are the behaviors.
And so here&#8217;s the summary, Natalie. We judge the sin, not the sinner. And so hopefully that&#8217;s helpful. Any thoughts in response?
Caller: My response would be another thing with the Catholic Church. It has been in debate that typically people view Catholics as picking and choosing what they want, what they say is morally and divinely right. But, like, are we picking and choosing what we don&#8217;t want at that point?
Karlo: Okay, it&#8217;s a great question, Natalie. Now, with regard to picking and choosing, Natalie, we rely upon certain divinely established authorities that can tell us what God wants us to do at one period of time and what God doesn&#8217;t want us to do at other periods of time. And some things that we&#8217;re going to have to always do or always avoid.
So, for example, Natalie, the Israelites had Moses with divine, miraculous confirmation that they needed to offer sacrifices on the Sabbath every Saturday. Okay. Or they needed to offer sacrifices at their temple to worship God. All right, well, Jesus comes along and we have good historical evidence that he&#8217;s the representative of God. He&#8217;s actually God made flesh. He rose from the dead and performed all those miracles to provide us miraculous confirmation such that when he tells us, hey, Christians, you don&#8217;t have to offer sacrifices at the temple anymore. You can stop doing that and do other things like the Mass and stuff.
But here, Natalie, there are some things that are always binding on us, like taking the life of an innocent human being or same-sex romantic relationships. Those are things that we cannot pick and choose from. Those are things that will always be binding on us for us to reject those same-sex romantic relationships and reject taking the life of an innocent human being.
Caller: I understand. Taking the life of an innocent human being. Like, everyone, like, yeah, you should not take the life of anyone. It&#8217;s not your job.
Karlo: Exactly!
Caller: It&#8217;s also not the church&#8217;s job to tell someone, you know, you&#8217;re not going to go to heaven. You&#8217;re not going to have a good afterlife if you love the same sex. Because in reality, you know, God gave everyone free will for&#8230; No, actually, no, he didn&#8217;t. We took it. But what&#8230; It&#8217;s not like not hurting anyone. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m saying is like, why is there so angry? But Natalie, like, they&#8217;re not hurting anyone.
Karlo: Okay, yeah, but, Natalie, consider this. And we&#8217;re running out of time in our hour here, so I&#8217;m gonna have to say this, and we&#8217;re gonna probably have to call it a quits here. And I&#8217;m so grateful for you having a conversation with me, but notice you said it&#8217;s not harming anyone. Natalie, perhaps it&#8217;s not physically harming anyone, but if these choices are immoral and contrary to our good as human beings and contrary to what God wants for us within the arena of sexuality, well, then it would be harmful to our moral characters.
It would be harming our souls because we&#8217;d be choosing wrongly here. And so, yeah, sure, it might not cause physical harm, but it would cause moral harm to go against what God&#8217;s plan is for us within the arena of sexuality. So I would just say if our position is true that those lifestyle choices are immoral, then to engage in them and to celebrate them would indeed be harmful, at least morally speaking.
And we don&#8217;t want to avoid just physical harm. Natalie, you&#8217;ve already expressed that we want to avoid moral harm as well, like being hateful and being judgmental. Those are bad moral qualities, and you called in saying that we should avoid them. And so what we&#8217;re saying is, if same-sex romantic relationships are bad moral choices, well, then we shouldn&#8217;t want to indulge in them. We should want to avoid them as well. And that&#8217;s an expression of love rather than hate.
Cy: Natalie, I gotta say, first of all, I know that Dr. Broussard and I are both super grateful for this call. It feels like it&#8217;s just the beginning of a long conversation because your questions are just wonderful questions, and it&#8217;s helpful to us to think through these things with you. If you&#8217;d like it, I&#8217;d like to send you a book we have called *Why We&#8217;re Catholic*. It&#8217;s about why we&#8217;re Catholic. If you&#8217;re interested in it, just give us an address. But also, I would like to continue the conversation. Maybe you&#8217;d call back again on another day. Dr. Broussard&#8217;s usually on on Tuesdays, but I just couldn&#8217;t. I can&#8217;t encourage you enough to keep asking the questions because it&#8217;s good for us, and we hope it&#8217;s good for you as well, and we&#8217;d like to be helpful.

Are Catholics the Most HATEFUL Christians?!

Editor&#8217;s note: When Erika Kirk this week <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/09/21/erika-kirk-eulogy-charlie-kirk-memorial-forgive-shooting-suspect/86284619007/">forgave the murderer</a> of her husband, Charlie Kirk, her action prompted many questions about what Our Lord expects of us when it comes to forgiveness. We found this article from our print magazine helpful, and so we are republishing it today.