Manage Account

Tim Staples answers a caller who wonders whether it is more accurate to say we pray TO the Saints or THROUGH them, all while keeping God in mind as the final end.

How Does Intercessory Prayer Work?

<div>If I disable my implanted defibrillator and pacemaker and let nature take its course, would that be considered suicide?</div><div>If you are in the advanced stages of heart disease and the shocks of your defibrillator cause pain and anxiety, and there is the frightening prospect of your last moments being full of these shocks, it is permissible to disable it, even though you may die sooner. You will die more peacefully. Disabling the defibrillator is no different from not doing CPR on someone who is clearly about to die: it can be a humane and rational decision.
On the other hand, there does not appear to be a good reason to remove a pacemaker, since it does not cause any discomfort, and removing it, in the case of one who is dependent on it, means pretty much instant or very swift death. It would basically be turning off the switch on your heart. So, effectively, in most cases, this would be a kind of direct killing.
My considered answer is yes to disabling the defibrillator if it is becoming a source of great discomfort, but no to disabling the pacemaker, which involves no discomfort and the removal of which causes death quickly.
Of course, I do not have all the details of your situation, and I trust you are getting sound medical information about your case so as to decide tranquilly and rationally what you want to do. I will certainly pray for you at my Holy Mass here at Catholic Answers.
</div>

Disabling a Pacemaker Is Wrong

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

Is purgatory a catholic invention?

Protestants claim the Bible disproves the Catholic dogma of Mary’s Bodily Assumption in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23. But is this true? Karlo Broussard gives reasons why the answer is no.

Does the Bible Disprove the Assumption?

Protestant worship lacks this one thing… the Eucharist.

Jimmy Akin offers a few philosophical and theological counter-arguments to the concepts of karma and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/reincarnation">reincarnation</a>, and cites the letter to the Hebrews as the definitive Christian declaration that we die only once before judgement.
Transcript:
Host: Joshua on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/catholiccom">YouTube</a> Live poses the following question: &#8220;How do we disprove reincarnation through philosophy, if that&#8217;s the best method for resolution?&#8221;
Jimmy: Well, so, it&#8217;s an interesting challenge. There&#8230;reincarnation is something that you can critique on more than one ground. It is possible to mount a philosophical critique of reincarnation, and point out, for example, there are aspects of reincarnation that are potentially problematic.
Like the idea of karma, that whatever you do is going to bounce back on you, and there&#8217;s basically no mercy in the universe, that the universe is a merciless place. And that&#8217;s something that doesn&#8217;t fully appeal to the human heart. The human heart wants to find mercy in the world, and in fact some adherents of Eastern religions talk about mercy and place a value on mercy. But if the universe is fundamentally merciless, per the law of karma, then that would&#8230;then why should they even bother being merciful? Why should that be of value? Well, our hearts tell us that mercy is a value, and so that should tell us that mercy is available in the world, and should be&#8211;there should be some room for cosmic mercy in our worldview as well as cosmic justice.
Now, other forms of the idea of reincarnation may incorporate elements of mercy, so they may not respond to that argument. There are other potential arguments as well. For example, sometimes it&#8217;s proposed, in these religions that believe in reincarnation, that ultimately everybody is going to end up in an ideal spiritual condition, whether that&#8217;s conceived of as Nirvana, or Krishna consciousness, or whatever it may be. But how do you know? How do you know that&#8217;s gonna happen? That&#8217;s&#8211;if the universe is&#8211;it just operates kind of mechanically according to karma, people could descend spiritually as easily as they ascend, so what gives you faith that that people are going to ascend? That&#8217;s not something that falls right out of the concepts involved, and so you can ask for evidence.
Now ultimately, from a Christian point of view, it&#8217;s not a philosophical case against reincarnation that&#8217;s going to be the most convincing. From a Christian point of view, the fact that the idea of reincarnation is not compatible with the Christian revelation is what&#8217;s going to be most convincing. It&#8217;s directly stated in the book of Hebrews that it&#8217;s appointed for man once to die, and then the judgment. So we die once, and then we&#8217;re judged by God. We don&#8217;t die over and over again. That&#8217;s the specific idea that was out there in Greek culture that the author of Hebrews is responding to. He&#8217;s not just saying that out of the blue, he&#8217;s saying that in response to a cultural background where many people did believe in reincarnation. And you find the same theme echoed over and over again in the Church Fathers. You can check out my book &#8220;The Fathers Know Best&#8221; if you want examples of that.
But from a Christian point of view, I&#8217;d say it&#8217;s not the philosophical arguments that are ultimately decisive&#8211;although they can be helpful. I&#8217;d say it&#8217;s the Christian revelation, and so in talking with someone who believes in reincarnation, I would either, if they&#8217;re already a Christian of some sort, even if they&#8217;re at, say, a New Age-er who still has some kind of belief in Christ, I would try to build on that.
I would also say I understand&#8211;if they&#8217;re not, let&#8217;s say they&#8217;re Hindu&#8211;I would say &#8220;I understand and respect your position; here&#8217;s why I don&#8217;t believe in reincarnation, and let&#8217;s talk about the basis of the Christian faith, then. Because if the Christian faith has a good basis, that means you would want to take its teachings&#8211;like resurrection is our fate, not reincarnation&#8211;you&#8217;d want to take those seriously too, so let&#8217;s talk about the reasons why one should take the Christian faith seriously. And to your knowledge, was there ever a time where maybe a Christian group or something grasped on to&#8211;ignored, for example, that admonition from the letter to the Hebrews, and nonetheless believed&#8211;&#8221; You find scattered instances all the way down through history, because, you know, people get crazy ideas that are inconsistent with the teaching of the Church in every age.
And certainly that&#8217;s been true in recent in in recent times. In the last 150 years there has been a lot of interaction between East and West, and various groups have tried to hybridize eastern and western religious concepts, like the Theosophical Society and the New Age movement and things like that. So you do find people who are trying to kind of straddle that east-west divide these days.

How to Disprove Reincarnation

<div>Is there an archangel named Cassiel?</div><div>The Church rejects any attempt to name or identify angels that are not directly referred to in the canon of Scripture. Gabriel and Michael are mentioned in the New Testament and Raphael is mentioned in the book of Tobit.
</div>

Archangel Cassiel?

Responding to a caller who struggles picking one political party over another, Tim Staples explains that the Church is not definitively for or against any political party, but that voting Catholics should keep in mind non-negotiable issues like abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex &#8220;marriage&#8221; when deciding who to vote for.
Transcript:
Host: Patrick in Temecula, California, listening on 1000 AM. Patrick, you&#8217;re on with Tim Staples. What&#8217;s your question, Patrick?
Caller: Well, it seems to me that most people&#8211;most Catholics identify with the Republican party. The quandary that I have is, I see &#8220;Thou shalt not kill&#8221; as&#8230;I&#8217;m having a hard time articulating this, but I can see how people would identify the Democratic party with abortion, and the Republican party with repealing it. I see the Republican party as dragging us into war, and I&#8217;m having a hard time picking a side.
Tim: Right. That&#8217;s a great point, Patrick. First of all, you know, we have what we call at Catholic Answers the <a href="http://stbern-bv.org/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf">Voter&#8217;s Guide For Serious Catholics</a>, you might want to check that out. We put it out in 2004, and has, oh my goodness, it&#8217;s sold millions of copies. Which is, that&#8217;s quite a feat in Catholic circles. You know, in the world, ehhh, big deal, but Catholic circles, when you sell millions of anything, that&#8217;s amazing. But in our Voter&#8217;s Guide For Serious Catholics, one of the points that we make there is, really, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholicism-and-politics">the Catholic Church is not Republican or Democrat</a>. In fact, we call both Democrats and Republicans to repent.
And we challenge our people in our Voters Guide to vote in accordance with the issues, &#8217;cause imagine, Patrick, imagine if you have&#8211;if you have folks who are saying, &#8220;Okay, I&#8217;m gonna vote Republican because I&#8217;m Catholic,&#8221; well, what happens if you have a Republican candidate who is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, running against a Democrat who is pro-life and for traditional marriage? I mean, are you gonna vote Republican? Of course not. So that&#8217;s point number one.
But point number two: you make a very important point here. You know, what about war and such? Now, we could debate, you know, who has led us into more wars, you know, in fact I argued in this last election that we had a Democratic candidate who never saw a war she didn&#8217;t like. And we had quite a few Republican candidates as well who never saw a war they didn&#8217;t like. I find it somewhat refreshing that President Donald Trump has at least said, &#8220;Let&#8217;s not do this nation-building and, you know, going to war with everybody,&#8221; I mean, my goodness, we&#8217;ve got guys like John McCain who, I think if he had his way, we&#8217;d be fighting wars all over the place.
So, but, you know, we can debate those issues, right, who is really more the warmonger? But I think the most important thing, Patrick, to consider, is that there is an essential difference between war and abortion, in this sense. Now if we&#8217;re talking about an unjust war, alright, that&#8217;s&#8230;that&#8217;s a different animal. But war per se, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-a-just-war">wars can either be just or unjust</a>. And we can debate as Catholics&#8211;let&#8217;s take the Iraq war, for example. There were Catholics in good standing that were on both sides of the issue there; many who said, &#8220;That&#8217;s an unjust war,&#8221; and some who said, &#8220;It&#8217;s a just war.&#8221; You are not barred from Communion for holding either position. Catholics can legitimately disagree when it comes to that.
However, when it comes to abortion, my friend, we&#8217;re talking about something that is objectively, intrinsically immoral; there are no exceptions whatsoever. We&#8217;ve slaughtered, as I mentioned before, well over 50 million innocent babies. So I don&#8217;t believe you can put these two&#8211;these two are not on the same level. Abortion is the most grave evil of our time, and we need to consider it as such.
And this is why, Patrick, by the way, in our Voter&#8217;s Guide For Serious Catholics, we talk about abortion, euthanasia&#8211;which has spread all over this country in just the last 12 years. The amount of euthanasia in our country has been&#8211;it&#8217;s gone through the roof. Astonishing. And the line of demarcation, I believe, was the Terri Schiavo case, where we had, basically, this poor woman was euthanized basically on television. They took the cameras out for the last couple of weeks, because of course they don&#8217;t want to show the grim end to this woman&#8217;s life, but the bottom line is&#8230;whereas, 20, 30, let&#8217;s say 30 years ago, we were called extremists if we said, &#8220;Hey, abortion&#8217;s gonna lead to euthanasia.&#8221; My friends, it has, and now we have physician-assisted suicide, and we go down the list there in our Voter&#8217;s Guide, we talk about embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, which is now being experimented on all over&#8211;government doesn&#8217;t pay for it but it&#8217;s fully legal, it&#8217;s being experimented with all across the United States, and a lot of folks don&#8217;t even realize it.
And now, homosexual so-called &#8220;marriage.&#8221; We have these matters that are intrinsically evil that we as Catholics have a duty&#8211;in fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, I&#8217;m trying to remember the year, it put out a document on certain proposals to legalize same-sex unions. And notice, it didn&#8217;t use the word &#8220;marriage,&#8221; it said &#8220;union.&#8221; I believe that&#8217;s 2004, as I recall. And it said that we, as Catholics, have a duty to oppose the legalization of homosexual unions of any sort mimicking marriage. It doesn&#8217;t have to be marriage, but any sort mimicking. These are deal-breakers for Catholics, whereas when it comes to war, we can have a real debate as to what is just and what is unjust.
So we&#8217;re not trying to be overly simplistic in our Voter&#8217;s Guide, we recognize you can have particular situations, let&#8217;s say if you&#8217;re living in Nazi Germany and you&#8217;re living under a government that you know is slaughtering Jews, is starting unjust wars all across the country, where you have a situation where that is more grave than the abortions going on. Of course that&#8217;s a possibility. But we&#8217;re laying out objective truths here, Patrick. We have to look at our situation, look at the objective truth, and then we can apply the subjective situation.
But if we don&#8217;t understand that there&#8217;s a difference between, you know, killing an innocent human being and killing someone who unjustly is attacking our nation or&#8211;look, I&#8217;m a father of seven children. Somebody comes into my house and wants to kill my wife and children, guess what? They&#8217;re gonna have to come through me. And I&#8217;m packin&#8217;, my friends, just so you know. If you come in my house&#8211;in fact, I sleep with my 9mm right under my pillow every night. Normally I have my hand on it, so don&#8217;t come in my house. I&#8217;m gonna defend my family, even up to and including, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, delivering the lethal blow, if it is necessary.
But you can never, in any circumstance, slaughter innocent human beings. So Patrick, you can see why Catholics are so up in arms over abortion, whereas when it comes to something like the Iraq war, I know lots of Catholic friends who are strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Bishops, priests, and so forth. But there is not the same level there as there is when it comes to abortion, because we&#8217;re talking about something like abortion. I mean&#8211;just&#8211;Cy, I think sometimes, and Patrick, we miss this. We&#8217;re talking about over 50 million babies that have been slaughtered, and now we&#8217;re right at almost a million a year that continue to be killed.
And then we&#8217;re talking about the wars total in Iraq and Afghanistan for all the years we&#8217;ve been there, what, 12 years or whatever it is now&#8230;we&#8217;ve lost something like 2500, I believe, men and women who have fallen. I mean, that&#8217;s a huge number, but to put things in perspective: you know, we&#8217;re talking about fighting&#8211;these are combatants that are fighting, and so forth, and we&#8217;re talking 2500; we lost almost 500,000 in four years in World War II. We lost right about 50,000 in ten years in Vietnam. And here, in Iraq and Afghanistan&#8211;now, we&#8217;re talking about losses on our side, of course there are losses on the other side, but we have to put these things in perspective.
I think at times, as the great Bishop of Rockford, Illinois said years ago, Bishop Doran, I remember he said, &#8220;Anyone who can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when you have a viable pro-life candidate has lost a sense of what we&#8217;re talking about when we&#8217;re talking about abortion.&#8221; And now we can add the other non-negotiables, like homosexual &#8220;marriage&#8221; as well.
Forgive me for ranting a bit there, Patrick, but I think that you&#8217;ve asked a really, really important question, and I hope I&#8217;ve helped some.
Host: Thank you, Patrick.

Catholics and Political Parties

Gary Zimak gives some advice on staying close to God while trying to discern his will for our lives.
Transcript:
Host: We go now to Jennifer in Algonquin, Illinois, listening to <a href="https://www.ewtn.com">EWTN</a> on WSFI. Jennifer, your question for Gary Zimak.
Caller: Hi, thanks so much for your time.
Gary: Hey, Jennifer.
Caller: So my question is with anxiety and discernment. For me personally, I&#8217;m trying to discern a vocation, and every single person in my life is very much more on the secular side, or even anti-Catholic specifically, so every voice in my life is saying &#8220;No, don&#8217;t do that,&#8221; but there&#8217;s also part of me that&#8217;s like, &#8220;Well, what if?&#8221; So how do you move through the fear to actually determine what God really wants you to do?
Gary: Good question, and this is something that, even though I&#8217;m married, I have a family, I, five years ago, made the decision to go into full-time ministry. So this is a constant question for me: &#8220;Lord you really want me to keep doing this?&#8221; Because it gets challenging financially sometimes, so I&#8217;m very familiar with this whole idea of &#8220;Lord, what do you want me to do?&#8221;
One thing I would recommend&#8211;and I have a lot of details in my book &#8220;Faith, Hope and Clarity,&#8221; that really grew out of my own discernment&#8211;I would say stay close to the Lord, keep asking Him, &#8220;Lord, do you want me to do this? What do you want me to do?&#8221; You can always go through the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, there&#8217;s some books written that simplify the Spiritual Exercises, which were written in order to help people discern vocations.
And then oftentimes the Lord, after we&#8217;ve discerned, we think, &#8220;Well, this is what I should do,&#8221; He wants us to try things and then pay attention to circumstances. I thought I was called to be a permanent Deacon one time&#8211;nothing worked out at all for me in that regard, so now looking back I don&#8217;t think it was the Lord&#8217;s will for me. But I would say stay with Him, keep asking Him, and then if you get an inspiration, try it and see what happens. Mother Angelica was big on that. If she got an idea, she ran with it, and she said, &#8220;If it&#8217;s from the Lord it&#8217;ll work; if not, it&#8217;ll fall apart.&#8221; Hope that helps.

How Do I Tackle Anxiety When Discerning a Vocation?

<div>how does the church reconcile the immutablity of god with the incarnation?</div><div>How can we say that God is immutable or unchangeable, and yet say that God took on a human nature that is subject to change?
When we say God is immutable, we are speaking of his divine nature, which is incapable of any internal change. “Changeableness” would imply the capacity for an increase or decrease of perfection, which would necessarily imply limitation and imperfection. As God, Jesus is necessarily infinitely perfect and thus not subject to internal change. Otherwise, he necessarily wouldn’t be God. For more on God’s immutability, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IIC">see this article which discusses that and other divine attributes</a>.
At the same time, in taking on a human nature, which given its human limitations could be perfected (Heb. 2:10-11; 5:7-10), Jesus illustrates that he can experience changes relative to his humanity and yet not as a divine person. A mystery to be sure, but here we speak of “mystery” as a divine truth that we humanly cannot fully comprehend, nor will be able to fully comprehend, given God’s divine majesty.
</div>

God’s Immutability and the Incarnation: Irreconcilable Differences?

<div>My three-year-old nephew has an imaginary friend he calls "Mark." Are imaginary friends considered guardian angels or demons?</div><div>Imaginary friends are just that: imaginary. Young children often use their imagination to &#8220;bring alive&#8221; their toys and stuffed animals. Some children go a step further and create in their minds an invisible friend. There is nothing to worry about. What your nephew has created in his mind is perfectly normal and is a sign of creativity.
</div>

Are Imaginary Friends Bad?

Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer joins Cy Kellett to tackle a common misunderstanding about St. Paul&#8217;s teaching in 1 Timothy 3:2 regarding bishops and marriage. Joe clarifies that Paul’s call for bishops to be &#8220;the husband of one wife&#8221; is not a mandate for marriage but rather a guideline against polygamy and divorce, emphasizing that celibacy can indeed be a valid and even superior path for church leaders.
Transcript:
Caller: So my question I&#8217;m asking kind of on behalf of somebody else. So it&#8217;s about the passage in First Timothy, chapter three, verse two. It&#8217;s about pastors and needing to be married, essentially. They&#8217;re essentially opposed to priestly celibacy.
Joe: Yeah. So when St. Paul says that a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, for basically 2,000 years, everyone understood that he&#8217;s saying not to be remarried, not to be a bigamist, or divorced and remarried. It&#8217;s a one wife ceiling. And then Protestants come along and say, no, no, it&#8217;s actually a floor. You have to have at least one wife. And it&#8217;s like, no, that&#8217;s clearly not what he&#8217;s saying.
The reason we know it&#8217;s not what he&#8217;s saying is Paul himself is celibate. Like Paul doesn&#8217;t have a wife. So unless he&#8217;s saying, oh, I could never be a bishop, I could never govern a church, but I can govern the people governing churches, it doesn&#8217;t make any sense.
So, like read First Corinthians 7 where he talks about how celibacy is superior to marriage and how he wishes everyone would copy him in being celibate, even though they&#8217;re not required to by God. Now that should be a huge glaring red flag that he&#8217;s clearly not saying celibacy is bad or celibacy disqualifies you from church leadership.
We also have, you know, the example of the other apostles. The apostle there&#8217;s sometimes dispute about is about Peter. But stop and think about the fact you don&#8217;t know the names of any wives of any apostles or any bishops in the early church. Even people who are bishops of local churches like Timothy and Titus, not a word is ever said about them having a wife.
Now that doesn&#8217;t prove not one of them did, but it&#8217;d be remarkable if literally all of them did and somehow none of their wives got mentioned when there are plenty of husband and wife pairs that are mentioned who aren&#8217;t bishops. So there&#8217;s early widespread evidence for celibacy being the normal practice within the church. It wasn&#8217;t dictated early on, but it was normative early on because Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew talks about how some are called to be eunuchs for the kingdom of God.
So both Jesus in Matthew 19 and St. Paul in First Corinthians 7 talk about how celibacy is even higher than marriage. I would also add even in terms of requiring celibacy in First Timothy 5. So you mentioned First Timothy 3. Sometimes people will combine that with First Timothy 4, where he warns against the Gnostics and talks about their doctrines of demons like the forbidding of marriage.
And they&#8217;ll claim that he&#8217;s talking about, oh, clerical celibacy is bad, or mandatory celibacy in particular context is bad. And then you get into literally the next chapter, First Corinthians 5, and he talks about how widows, if they want to be part of what&#8217;s called the ordo of widows, have to take a pledge to remain celibate after their spouse has died.
And so he says in First Corinthians 5, verse 11, but refuse to enroll younger widows, for when they grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry. And so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge. So he&#8217;s clearly talking there about there being some widows who are enrolled. He&#8217;s not saying it&#8217;s wrong for all widows to remarry. That&#8217;s very clear.
But he is saying that widows who are part of this order where they were taken care of by the Church, if they desire to marry, that&#8217;s sinful against Christ. So even, like, obligatory mandatory celibacy is part of Paul&#8217;s scheme within the Church and in places like First Timothy.
So what would you say to all that?
Caller: : I think the response that, like, I was kind of trying to seal out, and one that I think some people would have, is if you look at the Greek there when he says they must be and then goes on with that list, that must there seems to be in the Greek. It seems to almost make it a mandatory thing.
Joe: Oh, yeah, no, I agree. Must be is mandatory. It is mandatory. Be above reproach. And if the husband of one wife means he literally can&#8217;t be a widower, or he literally&#8230; You know, if it would mean that, then sure, I would agree.
I think if you&#8217;re gonna make the argument from Greek, then the fact that the early Greek Christians didn&#8217;t read it that way should be a huge red flag. You know, like, if you were someone who didn&#8217;t speak English natively, or let&#8217;s say somebody else who doesn&#8217;t speak English natively is trying to say, oh, no, in English, this word actually means this other thing, you would say, like, you&#8217;re misreading the passage.
I speak English natively. There is an early work sometimes called the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. And we were talking before the break when St. Timothy&#8230; Excuse me. When St. Paul says to St. Timothy that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife, Timothy himself doesn&#8217;t appear to be married.
Paul explicitly is not. Is he saying that he and Timothy aren&#8217;t qualified to be bishops? Is he? And I suggested the early Christians clearly didn&#8217;t understand it that way. They understood it to mean you have to be monogamous, as in you don&#8217;t have more than one wife, you can&#8217;t be a bigamist, you can&#8217;t be a polygamist, you can&#8217;t be an adulterer.
And you can find plenty of early Christians talking about this in places like Athenagoras in 180. But in the so-called Constitution of the Twelve Apostles, or Constitution of the Holy Apostles, excuse me, says we have already said that a bishop, a presbyter, a deacon, when they are constituted, must be once married or whether their wives be alive or whether they&#8217;d be dead, and that it is not lawful for them if they&#8217;re unmarried when they&#8217;re ordained to be married afterwards.
So right there it&#8217;s taking First Timothy 3 and saying this means either that you are unmarried upon ordination and therefore you&#8217;re prohibited from ever getting married, or if you are married and your wife dies, you&#8217;re prohibited from getting remarried. That&#8217;s how the early Christians understood. They didn&#8217;t think that this meant you couldn&#8217;t be unmarried and get ordained.
So it&#8217;s fascinating to see how a lot of modern Protestants have taken the passage in 180 degrees opposed from the way that the early Christians understood what St. Paul meant.
Again, Tyler, thank you for the call.
Cy: Let&#8217;s go to Jim in Washington State listening on Sacred Heart Radio. Glad to have you here. Jim, why aren&#8217;t you capping?

I’m Not Catholic Because Your Priests Should Be Married…

<blockquote>As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. We must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day; night comes, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. (John 9:1-7).</blockquote>
Wow! If ever there were a reading that is right on target for our current days of bodily fears and dangers, this is it. Two marvelous truths are both implied and concretely shown in this delightful gospel lesson. (Note: Read the whole passage, not just the portion given above: how charming are the Lord and the Blind Man! They are like true, humble brothers, each made for the other for the glory of God.) There are of course many other truths found in this richly woven tapestry of spiritual power; we will speak of two of them here.
1. We are our bodies.
When you see or touch or hear my body, you see, touch, or hear me. Here, in contrast, is a surprising look into the religious beliefs of some Jews of our Lord’s time (and even among some sects of religious Jews now). Notice that the Savior’s disciples seem to think someone might be able to sin before he is born. They believed that the soul existed before it entered the body. This was a common error: it was hard to eliminate among the first Christians and even was considered by some of the early Church Fathers and writers.
Why do we reject this idea, common as it has been? Because, again, we are our bodies, living by the power of our spiritual souls. The very word soul means that it is a principle of life in a body, not a simple spirit. Our soul comes to be, is created by God, at its union with the body. A body is simply dead without a soul, and a soul is “out of place” without a body. My mother’s body lying in its grave is not my mother. My mother’s soul in the life to come did not give birth to me. She is both.
That is why death is a loss, and why we fear and mourn it. And that is why we are so afraid of epidemics and pestilence. We do not want ourselves or our loved ones to experience the separation of soul and body that is death. Angels do not fear disease; they do not need to take any precautions; they do not observe “social distancing.” Neither do the Risen Lord and His Holy Mother, likewise glorious, because they are immortal; they cannot die. Even the disembodied souls of the saints in heaven and the souls in purgatory, who will not die a second time, still are not “completely” immortal until their bodies are no longer dead, but alive!
Disease points to death, and death is the end of our complete, personal existence. This is a fearsome thought. We know that only a power infinitely greater than ours can heal all bodily disease and overcome death in the resurrection to endless life in body and soul.
2. The Body of God is God. Believe in, touch, receive, love, see, hear, desire, embrace the body of Christ, and you believe, touch, receive, love, see, hear, desire, and embrace God himself. This is because he was incarnate in a body, and he did not abandon it ever. His is always the body of God; he is not dead. He is ever your Jesus. This is why the Lord used his body to work miraculous cures.
St. Thomas Aquinas comments on the passage above and, speaking of the Lord’s miracles, says, “Frequently he uses his body in his miracles in order to demonstrate that his body, insofar as it is the instrument (literally “organ”) of his Godhead, has received a certain saving power&#8221; (Commentary on the Gospel of John).
We must stir up our faith and desire for the body of our God and the saving power it possesses to heal and even to raise up from the dead. It is a truth of the creed that we infallibly profess and declare that he will raise us up from bodily death on the last day by the power of his own incarnation, of his own body.
Let us confront sickness and death with this confidence, and all will be well! The same body that is the battleground of sin, passions, and sickness will be the place of victory, health and healing, and undying life. All glory to the glorious body of the Lord, born of the Virgin Mary, and dwelling in our tabernacles! All glory to the resurrection of his holy ones, unto which happy lot may he draw us by the power of that same body!
He is the one who said, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth [in his body on the cross], will draw all men to myself,” and elsewhere, &#8220;He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.&#8221; Let us feed on him by faith and love, and this will calm our fear of bodily death!

The Christian Confronts Death

<div>Is John the Baptist Elijah? </div><div>John the Baptist is believed to have the role of Elijah. He is not literally the person Elijah.
Elijah did not die but was taken up to heaven (2 Kings 2:1-11) and thus the Jewish people believe he will physically return to Earth from heaven before the coming of the Messiah (Sirach 48:4-11, Malachi 3:23-24). That is why John the Baptist denied he was the literal physical return of Elijah from heaven, but the Gospel affirmed he was a &#8220;typology&#8221; of Elijah (Luke 1:17).
</div>

Is John the Baptist Elijah?

Why would God make a massive universe and then care about one little speck in the middle of it all? Isn&#8217;t that a waste of a universe? Jimmy Akin addresses these questions, showing why the vastness of the universe isn&#8217;t incompatible with the idea of a loving creator.

Why Would God Make Such a Big Universe?

<div>Doesn’t the precious blood make the chalice pure? Why does it get "purified"?</div><div>“Purification” refers to making sure no eucharistic elements remain in the sacred vessels, whether under the appearances of bread or wine. This is done out of great reverence for Christ’s sacred body and precious blood.
After the Communion rite, a priest or deacon gathers and consumes any fragments remaining from the consecrated hosts. Then, using his hand, a priest or deacon transfers to the chalice any small particles of the hosts remaining in the ciborium or on a paten.
Water is then added to the remaining eucharistic elements in the chalice, typically with the assistance of an altar server, purifying in the process the priest or deacon’s fingers that have handled the consecrated hosts. A priest or deacon then consumes the remaining eucharistic elements in the chalice.
Then the priest or deacon uses a purificator to remove any eucharistic elements that remain in the chalice. The purificator is cleansed after Mass, often by a sacristan, and the diluted elements, which no longer contain the Real Presence, are poured down a sacrarium that takes the solution directly into the ground rather than the local sewage system, a further homage to the substantial Real Presence that once existed under the appearances of bread and wine. 
For more information on the purification of the sacred vessels, see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/purification-of-the-vessels-after-mass">this answer</a> by Fr. Charles Grondin.
</div>

Why ‘Purify’ the Chalice?

Put aside what exactly we mean by sight—physical, intellectual, etc. Whatever sight is, it is a form of direct knowledge. Intellectual sight is the direct apprehension of some reality. Physical, sensory sight is the direct sense apprehension of some reality. So to ask the question “Does God see us?” is really to ask, “Does God know us?”
We almost certainly want to say yes. But if we are Christians and thinking rationally, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that we do not often act as if this were true.
After all, we do not seem to be aware that God sees us and knows us when we are in the midst of sin. Or perhaps we are aware, but we think that God simply looks away for a moment, for which we feel guilty. I mean, such presence and perception seem overwhelming, and so the mind finds ways of tuning it out. As T.S. Eliot writes, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”
There are, furthermore, deep currents of Christian—especially Protestant—thinking that deepen this divide in vision. Often, when teaching the doctrine of justification, I’ve had occasion to discuss the Lutheran concept of imputed righteousness—the idea that Christ’s merit gets credited to our spiritual accounts in a kind of cosmic book-fixing, meaning that we get to go to heaven without actually having our sin-sick souls healed. Where this becomes especially strange is when the legal metaphor turns into a visual metaphor. I grew up hearing that when God the Father looks at us, he doesn’t see us at all; he sees Christ. There’s some truth there that a Catholic can and should accept. But instead of seeing how we grow into the full stature and likeness of Christ, what these preachers more often mean is that God really does not see us because he cannot see sin. Our existence is meaningless. We are but dust, onto which God slaps a picture of Jesus.
I have to confess that I never found that image comforting, because it makes God comfortable with the idea of falsehood; it makes God appear too weak to elevate and heal the creatures that he made in his image. It makes God blind.
But in the tradition, we are the ones who are blind. We are so blinded by the double-darkness of sin and ignorance that we do not even fully know ourselves. God, says St. Augustine in his Confessions, knows us more intimately than we know ourselves. We see in a mirror dimly. He sees face to face. Augustine adds, “And though in your sight I may despise myself and reckon myself dust and ashes, I know something about you which I do not know about myself.” By this I think the saint means, I know that you know more about me than I do, so there must in the end be more to my life than mere dust and ashes.
God sees us. He sees the dust that we were, the dust that we are, and the dust that we will become. And yet there is this wonderful fact, recounted in the Ash Wednesday collect—one of the best treasures in this missal unknown anywhere else in the Roman Rite: “Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou has made . . .”
We might rush through it, but what an extraordinary statement. Undeniably true, theologically speaking, and not just because it’s in part a quotation from the Book of Wisdom: God can hate sin, because sin isn’t something that is made, but rather the corruption of what was made. God’s hatred of sin, then, follows from the fact that he refuses to hate what he has made. Dust, in other words. Us.
Ash Wednesday is normally seen as a reminder of our mortality. And it is. But that statement that we make isn’t just about death; it is also about creation. It’s not just “unto dust shalt thou return,” but also “remember that thou art dust.” In other words, you aren’t an accident, you aren’t a necessity, you exist by the love who crafted you out of the dust and gave you his own breath.
And he sees you. He knows you. Even if you do not.
This theme of sight and blindness is a common one in Lent. It starts with the contrast—I find it interesting to think of it almost like a ritual insistence on our hypocrisy—between being seen by God and being seen by men. It reaches its experiential climax in Passiontide and the sacred Triduum, when the images in the church are veiled, then again unveiled, as on Good Friday, with a command to look: behold the wood of the cross, on which was hung the world’s salvation. You may not want to, but look. See what you have done. See what you have become.
Lent is certainly about self-examination and penance. But the point I want to make is that the perfection of these things is not simply in making a perfect act of penance and self-examination; we do not know ourselves well enough. To know ourselves well enough, we have to know God. We have to see him. Just as I often tell people in the confessional, it is not ultimately good enough to just stop sinning—we have to replace the bad habit with a good one. We have to see beyond what we are doing, what we ought not be doing, to the good that God wants for us.
So we have to clear up all the debris that clouds our sight. Sin, yes, but also the various good things that cloud our vision. I know it’s popular these days to de-emphasize giving up food and drink and such for Lent, but I don’t really know of anything that gets quite so viscerally at our human ability to be distracted by good things.
If we can turn from sin, and turn also from the good things that hold us back, God will “create and make in us new and contrite heats,” raising us from the dust once again—preparing us, this time in the glory of the Resurrection, to behold his face with clear eyes.

Does God See You?

<div>I’m in a Catholic Bible study at our local church. The book we’re using mentions the zodiac in biblical times. Can you give me more info?</div><div>The zodiac is simply the path of constellations visible from the Earth through which the sun appears to travel throughout the year. So the zodiac year begins with the time of the spring equinox when the sun is in Aries and continues on. Thus the zodiac has been used always in Christian symbolism to indicate the seasons and the passage of time.
The zodiac is also important for traditional, pre-modern views of the universe and of human anatomy as well as of agriculture, since the different zodiac signs were thought to have different effects on the human body: for example, Taurus rules the throat and Scorpio the genitals, by the mediation of the sun, and based on the different sun signs planting and harvesting, as well as fermentation projects, were taken up taking the position of the stars into account. Thus even today you can buy the Farmers&#8217; Almanac that carries information about when and where to plant based on the celestial bodies.
Yes, this is old-fashioned astrology, but it is not contrary to our Faith since it does not imply any denial of human free will or fated destiny. Astrology in its Christian use did not imply any denial of God&#8217;s providence or our freedom, but it declined really only because it was understood to be no longer scientifically valid. Even today not everyone is of this opinion. Thus Sacred Scripture written in ancient times assumed the science of the time of their writing to be the standard of expression for certain truths. The Savior even chose to be born under the sign of a miraculous star and to be found and adored by Eastern practitioners of astrology.
</div>

What’s Wrong with Astrology?

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

Is the Church hiding Scripture?

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

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

Should we not adore the Eucharist? ✝️

You can hardly tune into a Catholic podcast or read a Catholic publication these days without someone complaining about the lack of manliness. But is a lack of manliness the problem, or a lack of Christianity in men? We asked the world&#8217;s most manly man, Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, to help us get to the roots of the manliness panic.

Getting Manliness Wrong

<div>May I get a mole removed for aesthetic purposes?</div><div>Yes, skin blemishes may be removed for aesthetic purposes. If the mole is particularly prominent, it could also be argued that removing it also serves a preventive healthcare purpose, to guard against future risk of skin cancer.
</div>

Moles Can Go

<div>Is 1 Corinthians 4:6 a possible defense for sola scriptura?</div><div><blockquote>
I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another (1 Cor. 4:6).
</blockquote>
The problem with the community in Corinth is that they were constantly falling into the practice of combining Christian and pagan practices. Paul spends much of his letters to them correcting their abuses. The fact that he might demand they make no assumptions beyond what is written down for them should come as no surprise. 
In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul has no problem permitting that community to go from memory on what he has said rather than only what the has written, so his words to Corinth could very well be a clamping down on abuses.
It has been proposed by some scholars that &#8220;do not go beyond what is written&#8221; is an idiomatic expression which simply means &#8220;follow the rules.&#8221;
Another issue with seeing this as a sola scriptura reference is that the expression &#8220;what is written&#8221; is usually a reference to the Old Testament (1 Cor 1:19, 1:31, 3:19-20) and thus if taken literally would render the New Testament as non-Scripture.
</div>

Did St. Paul Support Sola Scriptura?

<div>Who said, "By grace man becomes what God is by nature"?</div><div>That quote is a paraphrase from On the Incarnation of the Word (54, 3) by St. Athanasius.
</div>

Who Said this?

Does the Rosary Take Marian Devotion Too Far?

Discussing euthanasia with Monica Doumit.

Discussing Euthanasia

For many believers in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the exchange between Gabriel and Mary in Luke 1:28-35 is positive evidence that at least lends credence to the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Most focus on Mary’s response to Gabriel’s announcement that she will conceive a child: “How can this be since I know not man?” It’s argued that this question makes sense only if she wasn’t intending to have sexual relations with Joseph.
But it’s not just her question that suggests this. Gabriel’s supernatural visit itself also supports it.
We’re told in verse 26 that the angel Gabriel “was sent from God” to visit Mary. And part and parcel of this supernatural visit was to announce to Mary that she would “conceive in [her] womb and bear a son,” and this would happen in a miraculous way: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (v. 35).
Now, think about it: if Mary had intended the normal course of events for a marriage, which would have involved sexual intercourse with Joseph, then why would there be a need for a supernatural visit from an angel, “sent from God,” to announce that Mary would conceive a child and that this conception would happen by the power of the Holy Spirit? The only reasonable answer is that Mary wasn’t expecting to conceive a child in her marriage with Joseph.
Consider the angel’s visit to Zachariah. The reason for such a supernatural visit and annunciation that Elizabeth would conceive John the Baptist was that there was no expectation that Elizabeth would conceive a child, given her age. If conceiving a child was in the cards, then there would have been no need for such an announcement.
Similarly, if conceiving a child was in the cards for Mary—that’s to say, if she planned on conceiving a child by having relations with Joseph—then there would have been no need for God to send an angel to her. But there was a need.
Therefore, like in the case of Elizabeth, there was no expectation for Mary to conceive a child. Hence the need for the annunciation.
And the only reasonable way to explain why Mary wasn’t expecting to conceive a child in her marriage with Joseph is that Mary wasn’t planning on having relations with Joseph. It’s not as if Mary was barren like Elizabeth.
We can summarize our argument as follows:
P1: If Mary intended to have children in her marriage with Joseph, then Gabriel’s supernatural visit and annunciation would have been futile.
P2: But Gabriel’s supernatural visit and annunciation can’t be futile.
C: Therefore, Mary did not intend to have children in her marriage with Joseph.
So the supernatural visit and annunciation that Mary would conceive Jesus itself supports the idea that Mary wasn’t planning on conceiving a child, which in turn suggests that Mary wasn’t planning on having sexual intercourse with Joseph.

Why Bother Sending Gabriel?

New Year’s Day promises two certainties: college football bowl games and Christmas trees on the curb. To Catholics, of course, January 1 is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. It&#8217;s a Holy Day of Obligation, and the final day of the Octave of Christmas.
The Church, however, is so generous with joy. She does not end our celebration of the Incarnation with the conclusion of the Octave of Christmas. She extends it to Epiphany. Twelfth Night, as our English brethren call it, is an event Catholics in America should celebrate with more enthusiasm (think: roaring bonfires, grilled meat, lots of singing, red wine, brown ale) and might very well do if it were observed here on the liturgical calendar on January 6, as it is in England, Australia, and Canada, to say nothing of Vatican City.
But the celebrating doesn’t stop there! After Epiphany, the revelry continues until the Baptism of the Lord, the first Sunday after January 6 (usually). And if you want to be really traditional, you can celebrate what the faithful called “Christmastide” before the liturgical reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. In the old rite, Christmastide lasted for forty days to correspond with the forty days of Lent, and the forty days from Easter to Ascension Thursday.
A forty-day party? Gloria in Excelsis! (And people say Trad Cats are a dour bunch.)
Christmastide ends on February 2, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, also called Candlemas Day. On this day, the faithful take candles that they will use throughout the year in their homes to Mass to have them blessed.
Here is how the brilliant Benedictine abbot Dom Prosper Guéranger helps us understand the totality of the mystery of Christmastide:
<blockquote>We apply the name of Christmas to the forty days, which begin with the Nativity of Our Lord, December 25, and end with the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, February 2. It is a period, which forms a distinct portion of the Liturgical Year, as distinct, by its own special spirit, from every other, as are Advent, Lent, Easter or Pentecost. One same mystery is celebrated and kept in view the whole forty days. Neither the feasts of the saints, which so abound during this season; nor the time of Septuagesima, with its mournful purple, which often begins before Christmastide is over, seem able to distract our Holy Mother the Church from the immense joy with which she received the glad tidings from the angels (Luke 2:10) on that glorious night for which the world had been longing for 4,000 years. The custom of celebrating the solemnity of our savior&#8217;s nativity by a feast of forty days&#8217; duration is founded on the holy gospel itself; for it tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary, after spending forty days in the contemplation of the divine fruit of her glorious maternity, went to the Temple, there to fulfill, in most perfect humility, the ceremonies which the law demanded of the daughters of Israel when they became mothers. The feast of Mary&#8217;s purification is, therefore, part of that of Jesus&#8217; birth; and the custom of keeping this holy and glorious period of forty days as one continued festival has every appearance of being a very ancient one, at least in the Roman Church.</blockquote>
The feast in the new rite is called the Presentation of the Lord—same joyful event, different emphasis—but if you really want to be a “sign of contradiction” (get it?), do as they did in ages past! Keep your tree and your decorations up until Candlemas!

Keep Your Christmas Tree Up!

Should everyone become a Catholic Content Creator?

Cy Kellett welcomes apologist Joe Heschmeyer to discuss the concerns of a former Baptist pastor who is contemplating joining the Catholic Church.
Transcript:
Caller: I have been a Baptist pastor for 24 years and resigned last month. And my wife and I have been moving toward the Catholic Church.
Joe: Glory to God. Glory to God.
Cy: And Paul. What a magnificent. That&#8217;s a big move. God bless you. I can&#8217;t imagine that there was anything easy about resigning after 24 years.
Caller: I mean, I obviously have a lot of questions, but one thing that gives me pause is, you know, so many seem to be since Vatican II, you know, all the people, you know, the Catholic Church is abandoning truth and tradition, and there&#8217;s so many of those voices. There&#8217;s just so much of that. And, you know, to be honest with you, it gives me pause. You know, I&#8217;ve actually heard people say that the goal is to rid, you know, Catholicism of the TLM and they&#8217;re moving away from what has been traditional doctrines and traditional practices. And how far does that go?
Joe: Those are great questions. I would step back and I would ask this. Throughout the ages, the Church has been beset by people preaching heresies and error and predicting the end of the Church and saying the Church&#8217;s days are up, they&#8217;re numbered, they&#8217;re over. And, you know, the Church isn&#8217;t going to survive the Roman Empire or, you know, they&#8217;re not going to survive the fall of the Roman Empire, or they&#8217;re not going to survive the Reformation, or they&#8217;re not going to survive the rise of Napoleon, or fill in the blank. Time after time after time after time. It looked like we were toast after Muslims conquered Istanbul. Well, you know, Constantinople and then turned it into Istanbul. They were very clear that Rome was next and Rome was not next. It never happened.
And so God has protected providentially, not through human agency, because if you look at the history of the Church, the human figures were fallible and broken and sinful and sometimes corrupt. And in spite of all of that, through all of that, God has continued to work through His Holy Spirit to keep the Church in the truth and to keep the Church in existence.
And if you look now, it is a matter of objective fact that the oldest government on Earth is the Vatican. Whether you agree with the Catholic Church or not, there&#8217;s just no getting around the fact that this small, relatively defenseless government that has been invaded numerous times by the Holy Roman Empire, by the Germans, by the Vandals, by the Goths, all of them seemingly coming from the same place. As I say that out loud, not a lot of invasions from the city. Napoleon. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough.
And so they&#8217;ve been conquered repeatedly and yet survived. And the Pope was never replaced, and the papacy visibly continued on. The idea that Christ does this for 1900 years, and then at Vatican II is just like, ah, peace out. The Holy Spirit&#8217;s not going to protect you anymore. I protected the first 22 ecumenical councils, but not this one. That goes against every fiber of everything we know about Catholic teaching now.
Were there and are there people who tried to make Catholicism more popular and accessible in ways that backfired horribly? Absolutely. Are there people who were bad shepherds and malicious shepherds, in some cases predators, in some cases wolves in shepherd&#8217;s clothing? Absolutely. That is the case in the recent past. That&#8217;s certainly the case at times now. That was the case throughout the whole history of the Church.
But none of that invalidates the core claims that Christ built this Church and has sent His Holy Spirit to protect the Church, so that amidst all of the chaos, the Church still stands. And there are times that are more placid and times that are more chaotic. There&#8217;s a beautiful passage by St. Basil the Great writing in the three hundreds in the aftermath of the First Council of Nicaea and just describing how chaotic the Church was. And he described it as like a naval battle where every ship was firing upon every other ship and even your friends start shooting at you.
And that circular firing squad is very much what Catholic YouTube can feel like or the Catholic Twitter world can feel like, of just Catholics attacking other Catholics and everybody tearing one another down. And that is, again, even though it&#8217;s new in one way with the media, it&#8217;s not new in another way, because the hearts of men are what they always were.
And as a result of that, I can say with confidence, whatever damage we may do to one another in the online space, however much we may be adjudicated guilty for having torn down our brothers rather than building up the body of Christ, the Church itself will remain, and it has remained in the face of similar controversies and conflicts in the past. So don&#8217;t fall for the lie that for 1900 years, God protected the visible Church. And then, you know, for the past 50 or 60 years, He just decided not to anymore.
Caller: My concern is not that I believe the Church will collapse and cease to exist. My concern is the, you know, the drift toward liberalism and the loss of reverence, which is one of the things that has so drawn me to Catholicism, you know, is when I walk into the sanctuary, there is just a sense of the holy, you know, that&#8217;s so absent. And, you know, so many Protestant churches are just so casual, you know, and I guess I&#8217;m just concerned about a drift toward liberalism and toward abandoning traditional, you know, doctrines and beliefs that have always been, you know, just standard, you know, Christianity.
And I guess that&#8217;s not so much that my concern is the Church will cease to exist. But gotcha is that, you know, there this drift toward, you know, I think you probably understand what I&#8217;m saying.
Joe: I do. I actually did an episode on Shameless Popery five months ago called &#8220;Why Liberal Catholicism Is Dying.&#8221; Just looking at the numbers, and you had a generation, really about two generations ago, that thought that the way forward for the Church was to become much more like mainline Protestantism. And then mainline Protestantism largely died, collapsed terribly. And similarly, people who followed that model of Catholicism died out. The people stopped going to church.
And you can see it in the numbers. So if you interview priests who were ordained back in the 60s, about 2/3 of them describe themselves as theologically and politically progressive. Today, that number for newly ordained priests is maybe 1%. So the future of the Church in terms of clergy, in terms of the governance and leadership of the Church, is very clearly not with, let&#8217;s water everything down and make everything super liberal.
Particularly here in the US you see that in such a marked and pronounced way that there is a real thirst for orthodoxy, reverence, and tradition. And so you still have some older clergy, including some older bishops, who would maybe like to see the Church go in a different direction, but they&#8217;re powerless to accomplish that. They can do a certain amount of, I would just say, frankly, a certain amount of damage, but they can&#8217;t change the direction that the Church is going in because they simply, they failed to raise up another generation of priests.
There were no young men who wanted to follow them into that model of Church. The young people who bought what they were selling simply ceased to call themselves Catholic. And so it led to an exodus from the Church. While those who stayed around, many of them, frankly, became priests or became devout Catholics in spite of weak and bad leadership, not because of it.
Now, those are perhaps harsh words, but I think those numbers are. That assessment is clearly borne out in the data, in the numbers. You see that in a pretty undeniable sort of way, whatever your own leanings might be. So I don&#8217;t think you have to worry that 20 years from now, 50 years from now, whatever, the Church is going to resemble liberal Protestantism. There might be some people who harbor that idea. There was certainly a whiff of that revolution in the air in the 60s and 70s and even into the 80s, and it just never materialized. It never happened.
And I think the reason it never happened has a lot to do with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Cy: I want to come back to you. What do you think about that, Paul?
Caller: Yeah, well, you know, the numbers he gives are encouraging, you know, and it&#8217;s like I say, for me, it&#8217;s. It&#8217;s not, you know, I&#8217;m not a skeptic by nature necessarily, but, you know, there&#8217;s a lot at stake here.
Caller: You know, because I&#8217;m in the Deep South and, you know, the modern thing, but Catholic, you know, so we&#8217;ve. Yeah. So for me. For me, you know, I mean, I&#8217;m going to lose all my friends and, you know, my family&#8217;s going to think I&#8217;m nuts and all of this, which is okay. But, you know, I don&#8217;t want to, you know, I want to make sure that I can have confidence, you know, that I&#8217;m, you know, I&#8217;m not stepping into something that&#8217;s.
Cy: Yeah, something that will support your weight once you get there.
Joe: Yeah. I think that&#8217;s a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. And I would just say take heart. Know that this sacrifice, you&#8217;re being willing to place all of your relationships at the altar and choose Jesus, no matter the cost, is something that Christ will richly reward. He&#8217;s promised that abundantly.
And additionally, there are good resources for you. I don&#8217;t know if you&#8217;re familiar yet with the Coming Home Network, but there&#8217;s some fantastic people over there that in many cases are themselves former Protestant clergy who have created a support network for people in very much your situation.
Cy: Are you familiar with them, Paul?
Caller: I am. I actually went to the clergy convert retreat back in May.
Cy: Oh, wonderful. But I also want to send you Steve Weidenkopf&#8217;s book. Steve Weidenkopf, a wonderful Catholic historian, wrote a book for us here at Catholic Answers Press called *Light from Darkness: Nine Times the Catholic Church Was in Turmoil and Came Out Stronger Than Before*. You know, of course, this is, at the root of this, is that the Catholic Church has been in crisis certainly since about the year 2002, but more likely you would say since the early 1970s, when the whole world went into a crisis following the utter stupidity of the 1960s.
So it&#8217;s a long, simmering crisis. But I do think that one of the things that I hope you take from Joe is that we&#8217;re getting on the other side of that crisis, it looks like. Not that we&#8217;re at the beginning of it. And I can tell you, as a child of the 60s, if you think we&#8217;re crazy now. You should have seen us in the 70s. You should have gone to the folk mass and seen what was going on.
Joe: Just be thankful you didn&#8217;t have to do that.
Cy: So I&#8217;ll tell you what, if you&#8217;ll hang on the line, we&#8217;ll send you those books. And I hope we&#8217;ll talk to you again. If you&#8217;re in touch with the Coming Home Network, you are in touch with the right people. They are good people. And God bless you, Brother Paul. Thank you so much.

Why This Pastor Hasn’t Become Catholic

Is ‘Smudging’ Compatible with Catholicism?

What Distinguishes Devotion From Idolatry?

As lax as our culture is when it comes to sex, it still sees consent as a necessary condition for appropriate sexual behavior. But is consent the only moral criterion for evaluating sexual behavior? In this Ready Reasons video, Karlo explains why it’s not.
Transcript:
As crazy as our culture is when it comes to sex, it still sees consent as a necessary condition for appropriate sexual behavior. And this is a good that we must rejoice in.
But is consent the only moral criterion for evaluating sexual behavior? Here are some reasons why it’s not.
First, we don’t buy this ethical principle when it comes to other behaviors. Take self-injury, for example. We don’t think a so-called transabled person is morally justified in having a doctor render her paraplegic just because she consents to it. That someone says “yes” to cannibalism, as in the case of Armin Meiwes, doesn’t make cannibalism morally permissible.
We’re repulsed at such behaviors because we recognize that they’re bad, and thus should be avoided. But notice that consent is not driving that moral evaluation. What’s in the driver seat is a more fundamental underlying moral theory that says these actions are bad and that we ought not do them.
For consent to have any moral legitimizing power, it requires a pre-existing moral standard that determines which behaviors we’re morally allowed to consent to. You might think of our consent’s moral power as being on loan. It’s currency is derived from a deeper moral standard.
Of course, what that moral standard is would need to be worked out (I claim it’s the natural moral law). But we must admit that there must be a moral framework that gives consent the power to make something morally permissible.
So, if consent has moral significance only on account of a more fundamental moral framework, then it’s futile to appeal to consent alone in establishing the moral permissibility of sexual acts. It’s seeking moral power where no moral power can be found.
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.

Is Consent Alone Sufficient for Evaluating Sexual Behavior?

What is a Cult?

All the modern papal rumors and diocesan scandals have suppressed a much deeper and more concerning aspect of the Catholic religion: cannibalism. The problem of Catholic Communion-goers. Just think of these modern vampires, drinking blood out of golden chalices weekly, or even daily. Somebody needs to bring this to light.
According to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of Catholics in America believe that a little piece of bread transforms into human flesh before they eat it. Before they eat it. Many Catholic theologians have written about the “alarming” 69 percent of Catholics who don’t agree, but I want to take a moment to focus on these maniacs masquerading as normal people. Why do they believe such antiquated lore? How can they stand by this practice, even in modern times? What should we do about these dangers to society, walking among us?
Let’s see.
The Biblical Approach
The average Catholic could probably recite the script: “Take my body and eat it; take my blood and drink it” (Matt. 26:26ff). But the well-studied Catholic could cite Jesus’ famous “Bread of Life” discourse in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, offering a more profound justification for the Catholic eucharistic experience.
The commands Jesus gives to take his body and drink his blood are clear enough, if we’re comfortable assuming that Jesus meant those words literally. On the other hand, if every utterance from Jesus were to be taken literally, then we would end up with some odd quotes elsewhere.
Therefore, no, the command alone does not validate the literal interpretation of the Catholic Holy Communion experience. It’s what happens afterward. In John’s Bread of Life discourse, Jesus tells his followers, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:54-55).
If someone spoke these words to you today, you might assume the person had a screw loose. The reaction in the first century was not so different: “After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (v. 66). It was not critics, but his followers who reversed their course at this disquieting command.
Challenged with this context, the average English-speaker may feel inclined to interject on Jesus’ behalf, supposing that Jesus did mean what he said but allowing for a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “body.” After all, “body” can refer to many things: a body of water, a body of people, a cadaver, a person, a collection of writings. Perhaps when Jesus says, “Take my body and eat it,” he means to take his teachings and live them out, or take his scriptures and consume the knowledge.
This is where the pesky problem of translation comes into play.
The Gospel of John was originally written in Greek. In Greek, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/if-you-eat-my-flesh-you-eat-my-body">there are two words</a> that can refer to the body. The Greek soma refers to “body” and is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to the body of believers or the Church community.  But in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the word sarx, which has a meaning closer to “flesh.” Whereas soma can refer to a literal or a figurative body, sarx specifically refers to meat or flesh. With that knowledge, it becomes clear that Jesus really is directing his followers to ingest his flesh, not just absorb his teachings.
The Philosophical Approach
The great philosopher Plato had a whole ideology about forms and matter. He believed that a thing’s “form” is its essence. “Matter” is merely the way in which we understand a thing’s form, or <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/god-is-that-he-is-but-what-does-that-mean">essence</a>. (A shape with three sides is the form or idea of a triangle; a drawing of a triangle is the visible representation, or matter, through which we understand the form.)
Aristotle explained ontology through substance and accidents. A thing’s substance is essential to its definition; a thing’s accidents contribute to the essence of a thing but aren’t inherently necessary to its existence. Flat sides are part of a box’s substance or definition (you can’t have a round box, or else it’s not a box, but a sphere), but the box’s material (cardboard, wood, metal) is accidental.
Applying those ideas to Holy Communion, there is an unusual occurrence in the Eucharist, where the accidents do not match the substance of the object. Usually, we think, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” In the case of the Eucharist, it looks like bread, feels like bread, and tastes like bread, but it’s actually the flesh of Jesus Christ. As the priest holds it up, everyone can see that it has the accidents of bread, but faith informs Catholics that its substance, or its essence, is God.
So Catholics are not hallucinating some mystical vision of fleshy tissue when they receive the Eucharist. Everyone understands that what he is consuming looks and tastes like bread and wine. Spiritually, however, Catholics believe that in the moment of the transubstantiation, the prayer when the priest asks God to come down and be present in the bread, the object transforms in its essence, from the ordinary to the divine, all the while remaining unchanged in its accidents, or physical properties.
The Logical Approach
Catholics, as do many other religions, believe that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Catholics also believe that God is a spiritual being, meaning that he doesn’t have a physical body and isn’t made of matter. This Catholic God took on properties of matter during the Incarnation, when God became man, but God had already been in existence prior to that moment in time, and he was all spirit, and without matter.
Humans, however, are both spiritual and physical beings. We have bodies—matter. Catholics believe we also have souls, which encompass our spiritual nature. When Catholics enter into prayer, the sacraments, or other religious acts, they believe they are connecting spiritually with God, sustaining a spiritual relationship. The problem is that in every other human relationship people have, they relate to others using their bodies. Facial expressions, body language, physical touch—all of these things help us communicate and make meaningful connections with others.
If God is all-loving, why wouldn’t he relate to his creations in the way he designed them to relate to others? It can’t be because he doesn’t realize that humans need physical touch, because he’s all-knowing. It can’t be because he doesn’t possess the capability to relate to us physically, because he’s all-powerful—he can do anything he wants.
This brings us back to the Eucharist. Catholics believe that in the Eucharist, God offers a supernatural experience where, defying logic, he takes on a physical form, in the simplicity and humility of regular bread and wine, so that his people can encounter him physically, as often as they choose to, in the Mass or even in Adoration.
The Jesus of history cannot be around forever in his bodily form, handing out hugs to emotional Christians. So Catholics can understand the Eucharist as a creative, mysterious, mystical solution, offering physical connection to God’s people.
The Miraculous Approach
<a href="https://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm">This one is wild.</a> There have been stories of Eucharistic miracles told for hundreds of years, with varying degrees of validity. Some have seen apparitions. Some have claimed that the Eucharist was the source of healing for a physical ailment or infirmary. Others have described the host as bleeding.
Skeptics know that people of earlier times used religion to explain things beyond their understanding, that modern science often holds the answer to. Stories of wonder can turn into legend over time, exaggerated and inaccurate. But four well-known Eucharistic miracles have been documented in just the last twenty-three years, and some are ongoing. Thus far, modern science has been unable to provide an explanation for these events, prompting Catholic bishops to describe these events as supernatural in origin.
<ol>
<li>In 2014, in Legnica, Poland, a consecrated host was revealed to contain heart muscle, including marks that indicated cardiac distress.</li>
<li>In 2008, in Sokólka, Poland, another host was dissolved in water and turned to blood. The molecular structure of human heart tissue was interwoven around the area of the blood stain in a way that scientists have been unable to reproduce.</li>
<li>In 2006, in Tixtla, Mexico, a host was tested three months after showing red markings. The tests confirmed the presence of live heart tissue.</li>
<li>In 2001, in Chirattakonam, India, a priest revealed the blessed host for Adoration. He and others in the room noticed three red dots. Over the next week, the red dots expanded into an image—one that looks suspiciously like a depiction of Christ.</li>
</ol>
All of these phenomena occurred more recently than Y2K, more recently than the advent of the camera phone, and more recently than “google” became a verb. They are not old wives’ tales or legends from long ago; they are well-documented situations with verifiable facts and physical evidence. These Eucharistic anomalies have been studied thoroughly, with advanced technology, and in blind studies (where the scientists analyzing the specimen have not been informed what the specimen is or where it came from).
In each of the aforementioned situations (and in others from earlier times that have also been investigated), scientists found that the specimens contained human DNA, human blood (AB blood type in every one), and tissue from the left ventricle of an inflamed, distressed human heart. It shouldn’t be possible. And yet . . . it is so.
After uncovering all of the explanations for these crazed Catholics, I’ll admit that this is not a lazy belief system. In fact, after exploring these different angles of understanding the Eucharist, I am tempted to say the alternative belief is lazy, conveniently wrapping an entire belief system with a neat metaphorical bow on top that also happens to be socially acceptable.
Cannibalism is certainly a striking allegation, but now it seems Catholics might be up to something far more incredible: physically encountering the divine.

Catholic Cannibals!

Justice is in some ways an overused word, a label attached to all sorts of things, some of which—like “reproductive justice,” arguably—have nothing to do with real justice. What is justice, really?
Justice is the second of the “cardinal virtues.” No, they’re not virtues for senior clergy. “Cardinal” comes from the Latin cardo, meaning “hinge.” The cardinal virtues are the main hinges on which the moral life swings. Beneath them are lots of individual connected virtues. Fortitude, for example, is another cardinal virtue, and beneath it is found the virtue of magnanimity. If fortitude is about doing good despite fear, magnanimity specifically refers to doing good when one has to risk big assets like money to achieve the good.
St. Thomas Aquinas arranges the whole of his discussion of morality around the cardinal virtues, later treating specific virtues as concrete exemplifications of a given overall cardinal virtue.
The classical definition of justice is to give everyone his “due.” Note what that says—and doesn’t. Our “due” is what we are owed, what we have a right to. What is “due” is not necessarily strict equality, because not everybody is necessarily owed the same thing. In justice, we must ascertain what we have a right to.
The traditional treatment of justice identifies three kinds of justice: commutative, distributive, and legal or social justice. Let’s explain each one.
Commutative justice is the most straightforward. It is a relationship, usually between two individuals. It is often, though not always, based on strict equality, and it is usually the simplest kind of justice: what does A owe B? If A buys something from B, did B receive fair compensation for what he sold?
Distributive justice regulates the community’s relationship with its members. It is about how to “distribute” the common wealth (hence the word “commonwealth”) to its members. That relationship is not one of mere equality. At some level, there is a basic equality involved but, beyond that, distributive justice must determine how the allotment of goods serves the common good. That may mean that A gets more than B because, ultimately, distributive justice involves proportionality, not strict equality. And, because it involves how all the members of a community fit into that community, the determination of how to distribute social goods properly is the decision of the sovereign, of him who has “care of the community,” because he should see and is responsible for the “big picture,” the lay of the land.
Social or legal justice regulates the member’s relationship with the community. Here again, beyond basic equality, a certain proportionality also enters the picture. A may owe the community more than B, either because A makes more use of social goods than B or A has the means to contribute more fully to the common good. Somebody who extensively uses a highway (a social good), for example, should contribute more than someone who doesn’t.
If these ideas sound strange to some American ears, it’s because there’s possibly a deeper problem. Catholic social thought, in contrast to some streams of American thinking, considers society something good. Yes, society can get too big and, therefore, too controlling, but at root, society is a good thing. “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18), so God puts man in society—even though it was God, not Adam, who recognized the need for the “suitable companion.”
As John Donne put it, “no man is an island.” No person is so utterly self-sufficient that he does not need the presence and help of other people to develop his own humanity. That’s why society is good: it promotes human flourishing. And that is what puts Catholic social thought at odds with most versions of “social contract” thought—the kind of thinking dominant since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and influential on the Founding Fathers—which takes people fundamentally as individuals, for whom social bonds are artificial and often deemed inimical to their humanity.
That’s why Catholic teaching on justice perhaps grates on some American ears, ears used to hearing about “rugged individualists” without necessary social ties.
But modern politics also deforms the classical approach to justice. The traditional approach to justice envisions the leader of a society as trying to be impartial, to making an honest assessment of what the common good demands here and now. If our politics worked that way, people would likely be much happier.
But it doesn’t. Instead, in the social contract theory of community, where the individual’s interface with others is often seen as adverse to him, real human needs and rights are often reduced simply to “interests.” The leader of the community, instead of trying to determine what serves the common good, focuses on how to coordinate those “interests” in such a way that the greatest number of people at least live with his decision and the least number are actively disaffected (and, therefore, likely to want to “throw the bum out” at the next election).
By the way, the cardinal virtue of justice also finds itself in particular virtues, one of which is “religion.” If justice is about what we owe others, then “religion” is part of justice, because we owe nobody more than God. It also means religion is not just some “optional extra,” but something in fairness—in justice—due to God from each one of us.
Catholic teaching about justice is rich and worth studying, but it presupposes a vision of society that’s even more important: that we need (and not just find useful) other people. For those who want to learn more, Josef Pieper’s oldie-but-goodie, his <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Four-Cardinal-Virtues-Josef-Pieper/dp/0268001030/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.dNd_eLa6yEOcWWY1Rz_MvbrTBUZPcuN1oVPb4RRfg5_GjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.L1IKb9Ni07VHRTW6jBTYcSSrv5U2xqZEb4t3PW0ooYI&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=pieper+cardinal+virtues&amp;qid=1751299543&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">Four Cardinal Virtues</a>, remains the evergreen classic.

What Is Justice?

Tom Nash provides a clear and insightful response to the question of whether Catholics worship saints. He explains the distinction between worship and veneration, emphasizing that only God is worthy of worship, while veneration is a form of respect and honor given to saints for their relationship with Jesus Christ.
Transcript:
Hello. Hello. So I was having a conversation with someone and the topic moves to Catholic&#8217;s so-called worship of the saints. Yes. So I tried explaining about how worship is explicitly a sacrifice before God and due only to God and we do not do that to the saints. And her response was that in Revelations when John frustrates himself before an angel, the angel stops him saying worship is only for God. So if the Bible shows that bowing reparetingly is seen as worship, how do you respond to that?
I would say that&#8217;s the distinction. He was looking and thinking that because he was treating him like God, that&#8217;s the problem. With someone who kneels at an altar at a church with an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary, they are not worshiping her. Why do we have respect for the Blessed Mother of any saints? Precisely because, I always emphasize, precisely because of their relationship with Jesus Christ. She is the Mother of God and that&#8217;s why we look to her and as an intercessor. And quite frankly, it&#8217;s very biblically speaking of the book of Revelation, which you cited a moment ago. Revelation 8, verse 3 talks about the elders who bring forth the bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the faithful, showing that they somehow are interceding. And if James chapter 5 can speak about how a person on earth, or the prayer of a righteous man, avails much, well, how much more a person in heaven? And this isn&#8217;t necromancy where we&#8217;re contacting the dead like a seance and seeking out dead relatives. These are people who we know are canonized because of the authority given by God to the church that affirms that they are in heaven. And in addition to that, when we think about these saints, look what it says in Hebrews 12. Hebrews 12 says, you know, you&#8217;ve come to the throne room of God, to the firstborn enrolled in heaven, to the spirits of just the souls, the spirits of the souls of just men made perfect. Well, if they&#8217;ve been made perfect, then they have something better than we have here on earth. And because of God&#8217;s blessing, not because of anything themselves, they can intercede for us in heaven, and they can handle people. So how can they do that? It&#8217;s not humanly possible. Well, it&#8217;s not humanly possible for somebody on earth to exercise a demon. It&#8217;s not humanly possible alone for that or for healing. And yet the apostles did those things precisely because of God&#8217;s grace. And so with regard to the saints in heaven, we are not praying to them. Excuse me. We pray to them. We are not worshiping them. And whereas when somebody falling down, that case, yeah, in that case, that person is worshiping and need to be corrected that he&#8217;s, this is an angel, this isn&#8217;t God. And for those also with regard to icons or images, we don&#8217;t pray to them. We pray through them. We look at them and they guide our prayer. They keep us focused on the saints who lead us to Jesus Christ.
The Blessed Mother says it so well, &#8220;To whom shall we go?&#8221; Excuse me. That&#8217;s going back to John and John 6, but with the Blessed Mother says, &#8220;Do whatever he tells you in John chapter 2 of the wedding of Canaan.&#8221; In other words, she&#8217;s always leading us to Jesus. And the church always leads us to Jesus with St. Peter and to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life. So I would tell people that just because you are kneeling in prayer doesn&#8217;t mean you are worshiping someone. And number two, just because you have an image of someone doesn&#8217;t mean you are idolizing that or we could convict God of that with regard to back in the Old Testament with Numbers, right? Where they brought out, look upon this serpent, the seraph serpent, which they mounted on a pole and they were able to be healed by that. Now, interestingly enough, a little later as we see in salvation history, King Hezekiah had to destroy it because they were looking at it as an idol. So no,
images help us focus our prayer. They are not. And just, but kneeling itself does not necessarily, I mean, people kneel before a king or a queen and it&#8217;s not necessarily a sign of respect to say that it necessarily is worship, is to fail to make proper distinctions.
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.

Do Catholics Worship Saints?

Some people say that St. Peter could not have been the bishop of Rome because he was never in Rome at all. Apologist Trent Horn gives reasons why we can believe that he not only spent time in Rome, but was martyred there as well.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
Some people say that St. Peter could not have been the bishop of Rome because he was never in Rome at all. But archaeologists have discovered St. Peter’s tomb right below St. Peter’s basilica in the city of Rome.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, “it is probable that the tomb is authentic. It is also significant that Rome is the only city that ever claimed to be Peter’s place of death” (353). The Lutheran scholar Oscar Cullman, in his monumental study of Peter, concludes, “The excavations speak in favor of the report that the execution of Peter took place in the Vatican district (152.)
In 1 Peter <a class="yt-simple-endpoint style-scope yt-formatted-string" spellcheck="false" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_E-RnmuKls&amp;t=313s">5:13</a> Peter says he was writing from the city of Babylon. This could not be the literal city of Babylon because the Jewish historian Josephus tells us that by the time of Emperor Claudius the Jews had left Babylon. In the second century emperor Trajan found Babylon to be nothing but a ghost town. Sean McDowell, an Evangelical scholar who has written the definitive treatment on the fate of the 12 apostles, says:
“The Old Testament city of Babylon was in ruins, so he could not have been referring to that city. Rather, it was a relatively common cryptic name for Rome, the enemy of God. Like the Hebrews exiled in the Babylon of the Old Testament, Christians in Rome felt themselves exiles in a foreign land, a sinful city that oppressed the people of God.”
Jewish literature, such as the Sibylline Oracles and 4 Baruch, as well as Christian literature like the book of Revelation, all used the name Babylon in reference to Rome. The evangelical scholar D.A. Carson likewise believes that Peter was in Rome about A.D. 63 or when 1 Peter was written and McDowell concludes, “it is historically very probable that Peter was in Rome for at least some period of time.” (60)
For more information about this topic and others like it, visit our website at catholic.com.
For Catholic Answers I’m Trent Horn, and thanks for watching.

Was Peter Ever In Rome?

There’s a popular <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/more-silly-atheist-memes-rebutted">atheist meme</a> that goes like this:

I agree that if I randomly believed in a god among 5,000 similar gods there would be little chance I was worshipping the true God.
But that’s not what Christians do when they worship God.
“God” is not just some super-powered being people happen to call a god. <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/defending-classical-theism">The true God</a> is the infinite act of being itself, unlimited in power, knowledge and goodness. God isn’t a being in the universe, God is the ground of being and so is infinite in all respects.
If God were just some limited, finite being, then atheists could rightfully ask, “Who created God?” But if God is the infinite foundation of all reality, then that explains why reality exists at all and shows God isn’t just one being among many. Asking “Who created God?” would be like asking what is pulling the locomotive on the train. The locomotive isn’t a train car and God isn’t one being among many.
The reason I don’t believe in Thor, Zeus, or Buddha (who isn’t a god in Buddhism, by the way), is that these are finite beings. I believe in “God” and these beings simply are not God no matter what anyone calls them. In their respective mythologies, these beings often come into existence, they change, they’re ignorant, they’re thwarted, and sometimes they do evil. Their existence in time shows they aren’t God because God made time. Finally, their potential to change (or be actualized) shows they are not God who is pure actuality itself.
I agree with ancient Greek and medieval Christian, Jewish and Muslim philosophers that there is one infinite God. We may disagree about how God revealed himself to humanity, but we can agree that one infinite God who is pure actuality exists.
Moreover, atheists can’t say I must reject the God of the Bible because he sounds just like the gods of mythology. I interpret the Bible in accord with what reason tells me about God. So, if I know from reason that God can’t have a physical body as part of his divine nature (since God created all matter from nothing), then that means the Bible’s descriptions of the Father having a body must be non-literal, or examples of God using earthly images to communicate to humans (which is called a theophany).
Finally, this meme backfires on atheists.
Imagine you’re at a party and ninety-five out of 100 people there say they heard a loud sound outside, but they disagree on the nature of the sound, like whether it was low- or high-pitched. Would you agree there was at least a sound of some kind, or would you think the ninety-five people are deluded and the five people who didn’t hear any noise are on to something? Now, large groups of people can be wrong about things, but they are usually correct, which counts in favor of the view, shared by most of humanity, that (at the bare minimum) rejects a strictly material, atheistic view of the universe.
So which “god” do I believe in? I agree with ninety-five percent (give or take) of all people, past and present, that the universe is not a purely material and easily explicable reality. There is instead an “ultimate explanation” that cannot be a lower-case “god” since those raise just as many questions as they allegedly answer. Instead, I <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/argument-from-motion-for-gods-existence">follow reason</a> to believe in the one, true infinite God who became man and dwelt among us.

‘But Which God?’

Jimmy Akin explains why we ask certain <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/patron-saints">patron saints</a> to pray for us based on our names, our hometowns, or our stations in life.

Why Have a Patron Saint?

Jimmy Akin explains to a caller why Jesus&#8217;s words in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,&#8221; do not contradict the doctrine of free will, and clarifies the sense in which it does limit the actions we are able to choose.
Transcript:
Host: Ryan in Michigan, listening on AM 990, you are on with Jimmy Akin. It&#8217;s open forum, what&#8217;s your question?
Caller: My question has to do with the doctrine of total depravity. So in the Fifth Canon of the Council of Trent it says, &#8220;If any man says that after the sin of Adam, man&#8217;s free will was extinguished, let him be anathema.&#8221; And also in the Council of Trent it affirms prevenient grace. John 6:44, &#8220;No man can come to the Son unless the Father who sent him draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.&#8221; And so I was a little confused, because if I can&#8217;t come to the son unless the father draws me, then it seems like my free will is extinguished, so it seems like the Council of Trent&#8217;s Fifth Canon is both contradicting itself and John 6:44, so I was wondering why that&#8217;s not a contradiction.
Jimmy: Okay, there are several ways of looking at this, and one of them is to recognize that when when Trent says that man&#8217;s free will was not extinguished by the fall, it doesn&#8217;t mean that it wasn&#8217;t damaged by the fall. Something can be damaged but not extinguished, and in the case of the Council of Trent, what they were dealing with were some viewpoints that were being entertained in various circles, particularly in the Protestant community, that either denied that man had ever had any kind of free will&#8211;that just everything we do is, we&#8217;re like robots, you know, we&#8217;re God&#8217;s windup toys and never had free will of any kind&#8211; and then there was a kind of mitigated form that said, &#8220;Well okay, maybe we had free will before the fall of man, but then when Adam sinned we completely lost it, and now our wills are wholly bound to sin, so that we don&#8217;t have any freedom, and the only way we can do anything good at all, if we can do anything good at all, is if God causes us to do it, so we don&#8217;t have free will.&#8221;
And that&#8217;s what Trent is reacting against. So it&#8217;s not reacting against the idea that our free will wasn&#8217;t damaged. Trent&#8217;s perfectly happy to say that our free will was damaged, but we still actually retain freedom. We don&#8217;t have a complete lack of freedom. So that&#8217;s one way of reconciling these two things. You could say, well, so maybe our free will was damaged in such a way that we couldn&#8217;t come to God unless he gives us prevenient grace, which is the grace that enables us to respond positively to God&#8217;s message, so we couldn&#8217;t come to him in that sense unless God gives us this grace to compensate for the damage that was done to our free will by the fall.
But there&#8217;s another way of looking at it too, which would be to say this: Man doesn&#8217;t automatically have what theologians call a supernatural vocation, that is, a vocation to be with God and in spiritual union with him. God could have created man in what theologians refer to as a state of pure nature. In a state of pure nature we wouldn&#8217;t have sin, but we also wouldn&#8217;t have the grace of being spiritually united with God. We might know certain things about God that we could tell by natural reason, like the fact that He exists, but we wouldn&#8217;t have the supernatural desire in our hearts to be in union with Him.
And so that&#8217;s another way of looking at this. You could say, well, in order for us to have that desire for spiritual union with God, it requires a gift from God. It requires that, just like He gave us free will in the beginning, He also needs to give us the gift, which is a kind of free will, to desire union with him spiritually, and that&#8217;s an elevated thing above simply natural freewill, it&#8217;s a kind of supernatural-ized freedom where we have the desire and the ability to pursue those desires to have union with God, which is something he didn&#8217;t have to offer us. It&#8217;s a grace. He could have created us in a paradisaical environment with no sin and no suffering, but He just didn&#8217;t bring us into full spiritual union with Himself. That&#8217;s a gift. And so that&#8217;s another way that you could look at how the the existence of freewill squares with the fact that we need God&#8217;s grace in order to come to Him.
Caller: Okay, I&#8217;m still wondering about that the specific ability to to come to the Father without Him drawing you. I mean, you don&#8217;t have the free will to do that, you know?
Jimmy: Correct, but there are a lot of things that I don&#8217;t have the ability&#8230;when we talk about free will, I think you may be thinking of some kind of unlimited freedom. And that&#8217;s not what&#8217;s meant by saying we have free will. There are lots of things I can&#8217;t choose. Not being Spider-Man, I can&#8217;t choose to crawl on the walls, you know? Not being Superman, I can&#8217;t choose to fly. But there are a lot of things that are within the scope of things that I can choose. And so I have freewill with respect to those things that I can choose, I&#8217;m not just a puppet. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s meant when we say someone has free will. We don&#8217;t mean there aren&#8217;t things that they&#8217;re incapable of choosing; we mean that they do have freedom within whatever scope of freedom they have. And so that&#8217;s one of the things that applies here in terms of the ability to choose God.
There&#8217;s also the fact that God ensures that everybody has the grace needed to come to him. This is something the Second Vatican Council teaches, that even if it&#8217;s in a mysterious way, in ways known to God, He can make it possible, and does make it possible, for everybody to come to Him. So it&#8217;s by His grace that that happens, but He ensures that that grace is given to everybody.

Does John 6:44 Contradict Free Will?

I was recently browsing an online Christian forum in which a poster asked, “Where does the Bible say marriage is only between one man and one woman?”
The answers were predictably depressing. As a bulk of Protestant denominations have accepted the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/watch-out-for-the-sin-bin">LGBT movement</a>, most of the respondents just flatly claimed that the Bible doesn’t restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
As Catholics, this might give us reason to be thankful for Sacred Tradition. Regardless of controversies on Biblical interpretation, we won’t face such drastic swings in sexual morality. Yet we should nonetheless be ready to face and refute such Protestant claims. Is it really the case that “biblical marriage”—between a man and a woman—isn’t actually all that biblical?
Indeed, there’s no single passage in the Bible that says, “Marriage is only between a man and a woman.” Of course, there is also no passage in the Bible that says, “Same-sex relationships are allowed and should be considered marriage.” Instead, these moral ideas are argued as conclusions from other, more explicit scriptural texts.
Even though the culturally relevant question is homosexuality, liberal Protestants often focus instead on another point of sexual ethics: polygamy, or having multiple wives at the same time. The Bible clearly records polygamous marriages—not just in Israel’s enemies, but even in the Patriarchs and revered kings of the chosen people. From this, some people will argue that biblical marriage is actually not between only one man and one woman, and if marriage can be between one man and multiple women, perhaps it can also be between two men or two women.
Even if the Bible endorses polygamy, this isn’t a valid argument for homosexuality. Polygamy is still a different kind of sexual union from same-sex relationships, and one doesn’t follow from the other. But does it?
Early parts of the Old Testament seem to. Many holy Israelites take multiple wives. Scripture records this historical fact without condemnation. Abraham, David, Solomon, Jacob—they are polygamous, and God and his prophets don’t speak out against their marital habits.
And not only are they silent, but at one point, Moses appears to command polygamy in the practice of Levirate marriage. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 outlines the practice: if two brothers live together and one dies without a son, the living brother should marry his brother’s widow and try to continue his family line. The living brother is not forced to do so, and the law does not specify whether he already has a wife of his own. But he’s strongly encouraged to marry the widow, and practically, the brother most often would’ve already been married—so, by implication, the law encourages polygamy.
Yet to conclude from this that Scripture endorses polygamy would be a flawed biblical interpretation. The Old Testament unfolded over thousands of years. Much changed over those millennia—in the secular structure of Israelite society, and also in its religious understanding and laws. God never contradicts himself, but he gradually revealed spiritual truth over many generations, culminating in his full self-revelation in his Son.
Jesus says as much in Matthew 19:8. God, through Moses, permitted Israelites to divorce in Deuteronomy 24; now Jesus, who is God, is banning divorce. But without contradiction—divorce was allowed as a concession to a people still spiritually immature, which permission now, in due time, is being revoked.
The Old Testament gives a similar principle. In Ezekiel 18:2-3, God forbids the proverb, “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” The proverb means that the children are being punished for the sins of their fathers. But such an idea comes from God’s earlier word—in Exodus 34:7, when God says the sins of the parents fall upon children down to three or four generations. God was forbidding something that he earlier seemed to imply.
Such things happen with all learning. We don’t teach kids fractions when they’re just learning to count. They’re not ready for it. When they are ready, we give them fractional math, and though it seems very different from the simple numbers we originally told them, we all know that this more advanced arithmetic doesn’t actually contradict our 123s and ABCs.
This takes us back to polygamy. Deuteronomy doesn’t explicitly endorse polygamy. It only implies it. And the later prophets show that such an implication is mistaken.
For one, though the Bible doesn’t say the Patriarchs’ polygamy is wrong, it shows it. Read about Abraham and Hagar, or David and Bathsheba, or Jacob and Leah. Again and again, kings and Patriarchs take multiple wives with disastrous consequences. We can read between the lines. Polygamy is shown to be a bad idea, even if it’s not said to be such.
Second, the prophets started using marital imagery to describe God and Israel. God is Israel’s husband. And he has only one chosen people. If God is not polygamous in such analogies, why should Israelites be?
Later Judaism thus started to have doubts about earlier polygamous allowances. By the return from their Babylonian exile, Jews had largely abandoned the practice. And by Rabbinical Judaism, polygamy was completely condemned.
We can go farther. Even if the Old Testament supports polygamy (as we’ve just shown, it doesn’t), the New Testament is what matters most for if its still allowable for us Christians. And plainly, the New Testament doesn’t allow it. Jesus says a man should be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Matt. 19:3-6). Jesus defines adultery as even looking at another woman lustfully (5:27-28). And Paul commands that “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).
A clear picture emerges. Marriage is between two people: one man, and one woman. Polygamy—whether tolerated or condemned in previous generations—is not part of God’s ultimate design.
This should be expected, because polygamy really works only in a culture of male dominion. It doesn’t work if a woman is supposed to be an equal and integral member of family and society, as the Bible clearly teaches. Whose in-laws do we see at Christmastime? Who gets priority when hubby is in the mood? How are the children raised with multiple, equal women acting as mom? How are decisions made? Things inevitably devolve into what actually happened in the Bible’s stories of polygamy: one wife playing second fiddle, one wife domineering, one set of children fading into the background, and one husband with a throbbing headache.
So we can confidently say that biblical marriage is between one man and one woman. Despite the controversy about the “man” and “woman” part of the definition, we need not question the word “one.” Polygamy was once tolerated in God’s plan, but it showed itself prone to domination and domestic strife. And so God’s people abandoned it, and Jesus condemned it. Frankly, I’m happy for that—and so is my wife.

Does the Bible Permit Polygamy?

When discussing the Catholic faith with Protestants, it’s not uncommon to face what I call the Bible blitzkrieg. This especially happens in email or social media exchanges where the other person will defend their position with a string of Bible verses. He might say, “Catholics are wrong about salvation because we are saved by grace alone” and then list a dozen Scripture passages after that statement that he claims proves his point.
Some Protestants are capable of reciting those verses (or at least citations of them) in conversations because they’ve spent their childhood memorizing various Bible passages. And that is a good thing! St. Jerome famously quipped that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Therefore, we should always commend a person’s intimate knowledge of Scripture.
On the other hand, it is one thing to know what the Bible says and another thing to know what it means. Jerome said of a heretical group called the Luciferians, “Let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning” (Dialogue with Luciferians).
You should point out to your Protestant friend that simply listing Bible passages isn’t the way to determine what theology is correct. The Protestant scholar D.A. Carson once said, “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” Making a statement and then defending it with only a dozen Bible citations is nothing more than grandstanding, or a mild form of intimidation. It’s like saying, “How can I be wrong when all these Bible verses say I’m right?”
As Jerome shows us, any heretic can string along biblical citations and say he is correct. You can find Jehovah’s Witness literature, for example, that cites dozens of passages that, according to the Witnesses, show that Jesus is not truly divine. Your Protestant friend would rightly tell them that when each of those verses is reviewed one at a time, you can see that none of them disproves the deity of Christ. He just needs to see that the same is true when we go through the dozens of Bible verses he has cited as evidence against Catholicism.
I find in many of these instances that the cited verses aren’t just incorrect interpretations; they are irrelevant interpretations. The verse has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. For example, when defending <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/sola-scriptura-is-not-so-easy-to-kill">sola scriptura</a>, Protestants often cite biblical passages that affirm the goodness and utility of Scripture. But sola scriptura isn’t the claim that Scripture is good. It’s the claim that Scripture is the only source that contains all Christian doctrine.
One gentleman I encountered included a string of citations that included Hebrews 4:12. I then said he should slowly read the passage: “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
I asked him where that verse says anything about Scripture being the only infallible rule of faith or containing all Christian doctrine. He admitted it didn’t. Then I asked him, “And where does this passage say anything about Scripture?” He said, “Well, it says ‘the word of God.’”
“Right,” I told him, “but the word of God and Scripture aren’t identical. First Thessalonians 2:13 says the preaching of the apostles was ‘the word of God,’ so ‘word of God’ doesn’t always mean Scripture. In some cases, it’s talking about Jesus, the Word made flesh, which is what Hebrews 4:12 is talking about. It’s talking about the living word, and we know that because the very next verse says, ‘And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.’”
At this point, the gentleman was so startled at having misunderstood the passage for so long that he was more receptive to my concern that he had made similar errors in the other passages he cited in defense of his arguments against Catholicism.
When you are faced with a Bible blitzkrieg, remember that this isn’t an actual war. You’re allowed to ask for a break so you can look up these verses and get back to your interlocutor with your thoughts. You can remind him that studying Bible verses is always better than <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-avoid-verse-slinging-with-protestants">slinging Bible verses</a>. Moreover, St. Peter reminds us that Scripture contains difficult passages that people can misunderstand to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16), so you want to consult authoritative sources to find out what these verses might mean and, at the least, what they absolutely cannot mean.
This can be helpful, because some Protestants operate under the mistaken assumption that Catholics are prohibited from reading or interpreting the Bible for themselves. They might cite the Second Vatican Council, which said, “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church” (Dei Verbum 10).
But the Church has infallibly defined the meaning of only a handful of biblical passages. The Church allows biblical scholars a wide degree of latitude in interpreting the literal and spiritual meaning of biblical texts, provided that they follow the council’s direction to be attentive to the “analogy of faith” and interpret the texts in light of all divine revelation (CCC 114). So, for example, a biblical interpreter could not conclude that a particular Bible passage teaches that Mary gave birth to other children or that Christ is not fully divine, since the Church has infallibly taught that those beliefs are in error, and Scripture is without error (Dei Verbum 11).
Finally, don’t get discouraged if your Protestant friend knows more biblical citations than you do.
<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/scott-hahn-bishop-barron-and-guilt-by-association">Scott Hahn</a>, a professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, once said that Protestants know the Bible the way a mailman knows the neighborhood. The mailman knows that the Johnsons live at 123 Maplewood Street, and so if he needs to get the mail to them, he knows which streets to follow to get there. In the same way, Protestants who have a deep passion for understanding the Bible can cite a biblical passage’s exact chapter and verse.
Catholics, on the other hand, know the Bible the way  kids know a neighborhood. They may not know that the Johnsons live at 123 Maplewood Street, but they do know that the Johnsons live on the top of the hill next to the house with the old green fence and the barking dog. They can get you to the same place, but in a less direct way.
Catholics know a lot of Scripture. Even if they don’t read the Bible, they hear the Bible at Mass, and they might read biblical passages in Catholic devotionals and prayer books. They may not be able to cite Scripture verses, but the chapters-and-verses convention we use to cite these passages came into existence only in the Middle Ages. It wasn’t an original part of the Bible.
When Jesus showed the Sadducees that the Old Testament does refer to a resurrection of the dead, he said, “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush [emphasis added], where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
So don’t feel as though you can’t talk about the Bible just because you may not remember the chapter and verse where a passage is located. Even our Lord didn’t cite the Bible in this way! You can survive the Bible blitzkrieg by humbling leading the person through different parts of Scripture with the light of the Church’s teaching as a helpful guide to interpreting it.

The Bible Blitzkrieg

Why did Christ choose Bread and Wine?

Throwing Out Scripture to Save Sola Scriptura

Whether fertility is good might seem a weird question—except, in our times, it seems that those who say it is, as J.D. Vance did during his campaign for vice president last year, are deemed “weird” by cultural movers and shakers. The reaction to Vance’s encouragement of people having babies demands we address this question.
Yes, Virginia, fertility is good. That is the classical perspective of Judaism and Christianity. God pronounces it good in the first words he speaks after creating human beings male and female. “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28).
St. John Paul II was wont to note that this is God’s first blessing to newly created man and woman, the “only creature God wanted for himself.” Everything else God creates, he subordinates to human dominion. Man is the only creature whom God directly wanted for himself (for man) and himself (for God)—as a person with whom he could enter into a personal relationship.
God created the human person “in our image and likeness”—not “my” image, but “ours.” Already we see that God is not alone, an isolated individualist, but a communion of persons. And God does not create the human person alone, but in a complementary two-some. (In Genesis 2, where the Yahwist writer does separate the creation of man from woman, God is anthropomorphically presented as recognizing that “it is not good that the man should be alone.”)
So, not only is God a communion of persons, who creates human beings as a communion of persons, but his first blessing on the human couple is fertility, enabling them to perpetuate and expand that communion: “Be fruitful and multiply.”
In traditional Jewish law, Genesis 1:28 is presented as both a blessing and a mitzvah, a commandment—indeed, the first command God gives human beings. It is God’s intent that the human person have babies. This is why celibacy was so radical a New Testament change: it was not a value in Old Testament Judaism.
As Catholics, we affirm that grace builds on nature. That’s why the Church would affirm that this “fertility is good” perspective is not some quirky Catholic doctrine relevant only to Friday fish-eaters. No—it’s grounded in and binding on every human being as part of natural law.
Genesis does not present God making Jews and Catholics in his image and likeness. It presents him as making “man”—i.e., all humankind—in his image and likeness. The fact that something has theological justifications does not mean that it only is justified theologically.
Take Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. Put most basically, they recognize that human development is a progressive getting out from one’s self toward other persons. A child passes critical developmental milestones when he realizes that Mommy is not just the food-and-comfort extension of me, but somebody else. (That’s another reason why fatherhood is more than just insemination and why fathers and mothers are not merely interchangeable, socially gendered “parents.”) He gradually advances from dealing with others to taking responsibility for another (marriage) to taking responsibility for someone who does not yet exist—i.e., children (“generativity”). This progressive going out of self toward another is prerequisite to every human being’s normal development, even if it also tallies with the biblical injunction about needing to lose one’s self to find it (Matt. 10:39, 16:25).
So fertility is good. But what kind of good?
In philosophy, there are two kinds of good: a bonum honestum, or something that is good in itself, and a bonum utile, or something that is good because it is useful. Catholic thought regards fertility as a bonum honestum.
Fertility is good because life is good. Period. Not because it is useful—nor does it cease to be good when it is not useful, when it is inconvenient or problematic.
Here is precisely where the nub of the modern problem lies.
The modern world would have you believe that fertility has no inherent significance, no intrinsic value. Fertility is “good” if it is “good for you,” if it is useful or convenient to your “life project” at this moment. If it’s not, then it’s bad, something to be suppressed, eliminated, destroyed. Fertility—and by extension, life—gets its value from how it fits or does not fit your life project.
That’s why fertility—a perfectly normal and natural dimension of a healthy, post-pubescent human being—is destroyed, temporarily (contraception) or permanently (sterilization). It’s why the current transgender mania defends permanently destroying the fertility of a minor child, even before that fertility has normally developed, as “health care” and “therapeutic.”
But consider this: if fertility has no inherent meaning or value except what a particular person assigns to it, that means that every normal human being is naturally developmentally deformed . . . because every normal person is fertile, a man from puberty onward and a woman intermittently from puberty until menopause. That would mean that the default method of function of only one of the nine systems of the human body—the generative (note what that word entails)—is congenitally defective.
Do you really believe that?
There is a reason why kids once upon a time played Mommy and Daddy. There is a reason why, once upon a time, people—in contrast to our era—married. There is a reason why people wanted to have babies (and why parents and in-laws sometimes obtrusively wanted to nudge that process along). These are natural and normal things of human life and development.
What is “weird” is the idea that human beings develop “normally” by being isolated individuals at odds with their biology, at odds with how human beings have developed for millennia, at odds with “what comes naturally” . . . in order to fulfill the expectations of a particular socio-cultural construct of our time.
The question ultimately comes down to this: is fertility good? And—pace the Planned Parenthood message—the answer of our Judaeo-Christian heritage has been unequivocally “yes.”