Manage Account

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

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

Our view of Heaven is too small... and that's a problem.

Was Jesus just speaking in parables during the bread of life discourse?

What graces are received when a Catholic receives communion and are they necessary for salvation?

How would I convince a protestant that the eucharist was not considered a symbol for the 1500 years before the reformation?

I can’t find a parish that will offer the precious blood, is it ok for me to bring a small bottle of wine and drink it during communion?

Every time I receive holy communion I always feel better after being ill for so long.

Does the Eucharist take away temporal sin?

How do I avoid not receiving the eucharist unworthily?

At what point does the presence of Christ leave the Eucharist and enter us?

Jesus in the Eucharist

Why do Catholics have Jesus on the cross instead of just a cross. Also, are tattoos immoral?

My wife and I were married in a Lutheran church. She is Catholic. She was told by her priest that she is not allowed to take the sacraments. Is this true?

Often I hear complicated ideas when explaining Catholic doctrines. I find it hard to follow, and imagine others do as well. Do you have to understand these things to be Catholic?

I’m considering Catholicism. I’m struggling with some Marian doctrines. Is it enough for me to become Catholic to assent to the Church’s doctrines, while not really being sure if I believe in them?

What is the Catholic view on dispensationalism?

Ask Me Anything

I’m close to coming to faith but hell doesn’t seem to fit with an all-loving God. Can you explain?

Can you give a summary on the Catholic Moral life?

If you start worshiping Buddha, Is that a big sin?

<div>Can you explain in more detail the scripture verse Mark 5:30 Specifically how and why power left Jesus? What actually happened? </div><div>The woman’s touching Jesus is significant. Her healing occurs because of her physical contact with Jesus, not in spite of it. Normally, according to Old Covenant prescriptions in force at the time, such a flow of blood would not only make the woman legally unclean, but anyone else she touches as well (see Lev.15:25-30). However, because he is the God-man, Jesus is not only not made unclean by the woman’s touching him, he manifests his divinity to heal her. Jesus calls attention to what takes place to illustrate he has the power to fulfill the Old Covenant law (Matt. 5:17-18).
Because of the woman’s faith, Jesus allows his divine power to go forth to heal her. And while he appears to not know who touched him by virtue of his human nature alone, he certainly knew by virtue of his being a divine person. In other words, what took place wasn’t a surprise for Jesus as a divine person.
</div>

Mark 5:30: Why and How Did Power Leave Jesus?

When Catholic Answers started in 1979, learning how to express the faith to your Protestant friends or family depended on what you could get your hands on: printed materials, radio/television programs, or local guidance from Catholics who already knew the sources. Today, the general ability to do apologetics research has expanded enormously. With search engines, web indexing, YouTube, social media, and now artificial intelligence, vast libraries—often freely accessible—are available to the general public. That means more Catholics can readily engage relevant apologetics resources, but it also means many more non-Catholic inquirers, opponents, and skeptics can do the same. And as reach expands, so do expectations: people expect immediate answers, citations, and rebuttals to keep the ball rolling.
The “old world” of apologetics was heavily print-based. Today, apologetics is feed-driven. Everyone technically has access to the relevant sources, but few have the theological formation to weigh and interpret them. The core disputes have not fundamentally changed, but the conditions for receiving the truth have.
<h2>Are things really so different?</h2>
The shift from tract-focused apologetics to an ever-expanding digital landscape produces information overload. Since access has exploded, there are almost too many resources, too many opportunities, and too much to read to “be in the know.” For some, apologetics becomes a contest over who knows more rather than what it should be: evangelization. Argumentation and information are treated as an end—entertainment, a feeling of superiority—rather than a means to an end: the transformation of the person and firm integration into the sheepfold of Christ, the Church.
These new media for interaction reward speed, spectacle, and confidence over careful research, because the algorithm is driven by what grabs attention and keeps it, not what is most accurate. Scandals and inflammatory rhetoric get more attention than calm, patient explanation. It’s “What is trending?” vs. “What is truth?”
Pope Francis was right to say, “The speed with which information is communicated exceeds our capacity for reflection and judgement” (48th World Communications Day). The immediate publicization of everything turns online communication into a race: whoever speaks first often sets the frame for reception. In practice, this can push Catholics into a reactive posture—answering clips and headlines produced by overzealous, careless, or click-minded social media personalities. With controversies always developing, dialogue is largely reduced to something political and tribalistic.
Many non-Catholics now encounter Catholicism through shallow clips: either highlighting positive aesthetics (beauty, tradition, “being based”) or a demonized caricature (scandal highlights, straw men, selective history). In a feed-driven world, what spreads fastest is often the most distorted. And because platforms rewards engagement, two temptations arise:
<ol>
<li>Reduce the Faith to what performs: softening doctrine so it feels more palatable (“if we can reach them by saying this, it’s better than not reaching them at all”).</li>
<li>Weaponize the Faith: use inflammatory rhetoric language that can technically be correct but, in popular usage, produces misunderstandings.</li>
</ol>
The Church cautions against both errors. Deep explanations—rooted in theology, philosophy, Scripture, and history—are certainly available, but they are usually found by those already wanting to go beyond surface-level portrayals. Yet evangelization isn&#8217;t only about supplying information to those who are actively searching; it&#8217;s about reaching those who are far off and meeting them where they are, without being absorbed by worldly incentives.
This doesn’t mean that modern communication is bad in itself. In fact, every year during World Communications Day, the reigning pontiff reflects on how new developments can serve the Church’s mission. Long before social media, Pope St. Paul VI already recognized that modern media would be indispensable for evangelization: the “first proclamation, catechesis, [and] the further deepening of faith” cannot do without these means, because they can “increase almost indefinitely the area in which the Word of God is heard,” such that the Church “would feel guilt before the Lord if she did not utilize these powerful means” (Evangelii Nuntiandi 45).
Speaking from experience—having gone through OCIA as a Protestant convert and now teaching OCIA at my local parish—the online apologetics culture has become almost a replacement for the pre-catechumenate. That’s encouraging insofar as learning the Catholic faith can happen so easily. But it’s also sobering: access to information doesn’t equal formation. Pope St. John Paul II warned that the Church’s “culture of wisdom” can save a media “culture of information” from becoming a “meaningless accumulation of facts” (Message for the 33rd World Communications Day, 1999).  The remedy is not retreat from information, but formation within the Church, so that knowledge becomes wisdom.
<h2>A Surprising Benefit</h2>
The same circumstances that create noise also create genuine opportunity. The Church Fathers and the acts of the ecumenical councils are no longer functionally restricted to specialized libraries; they are now available to everyone with an internet connection. Likewise, important Catholic-Protestant apologetical works, dogmatic handbooks, and doctrinal treatises are increasingly available in English, whereas only a few decades ago, access was often gated by language, cost, and access to academic libraries. This retrieval means we can learn from the best of our tradition instead of reinventing arguments from scratch.
At its best, this revolution enables popular-level retrieval of the most important works of Catholic theology and nudges apologetics toward serious engagement rather than isolated quotations. Clarity like this is the soil in which authentic ecumenicism grows.
<h2>Ecumenical Principles to Guide Us</h2>
The Church gives us two guardrails for engaging separated brethren:
<ol>
<li>we must present the Catholic faith in its entirety without reductionism or compromise, and</li>
<li>we must present it in a way that can be truly understood—so that the accidental features of articulating the truth don’t become an obstacle to unity.</li>
</ol>
Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, delineates both guardrails. It insists that doctrine must be presented “clearly . . . in its entirety,” warning against “false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrines suffer loss, and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.” At the same time, it commands that the Faith be explained “more profoundly and precisely . . . in such terms as our separated brethren can really understand” (11). This is not a call to dilute the Faith; it’s a call to translate it faithfully.
John Paul II reiterates that the “unity willed by God” requires adherence to revealed truth “in its entirety” (Ut Unum Sint 18), yet we can explain this truth in a way that is attentive to the other party’s “way of thinking” and “historical experience” (36). It isn’t enough to make the Catholic faith seem appealing to those who don’t wish to assent to the Church’s claims. Rather, the uncompromising presentation of the whole Faith must be made intelligible to those who speak with different terms and categories.
Paul VI summarizes this with particular relevance for modern communication. Evangelization loses force if it doesn’t consider “the actual people to whom it is addressed,” but evangelization also “risks losing its power . . . if one empties or adulterates its content under the pretext of translating it” (Evangelli Nuntiandi 63). The Church calls us to adapt without adulterating—to speak so people can understand without surrendering what must be believed.
This is the spirit of authentic evangelization: not demanding that others first learn the way we speak so that we might evangelize them, but translating the Church’s living faith into accessible speech without distorting its substance—an approach modeled, for example, by the missionary efforts of Ss. Cyril and Methodius. The goal isn’t victory in vocabulary, but unity in the truth.
<h2>Living in the New Landscape</h2>
So how do we live faithfully and evangelize effectively within this new landscape?
1. Pair information with formation and connection. 
Pure information cannot replace real-life formation. Research performed in solitude cannot bring about the full effect of evangelization, because God gathers his people into a living communion. The Faith is much more than a collection of propositions to prove.
2. Don’t renounce online social connection.
The tools that we have at our disposal for learning about the Faith can be used for good: growing in knowledge and love for the truth to prepare ourselves to “always be ready to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that it is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15).
3. Keep the end goal in mind.
The purpose of online communication and study is not to exalt ourselves as more knowledgeable than others, nor to resort to reductionism or distortion to “win.” Unity in the truth involves a fervent desire for others to share in all of the blessings found in the Church’s embrace, which is why we must adapt our language for effective (and empathetic) translation of the Faith.
It’s with these principles in mind that we can avoid tribalism and personality cults—emphasizing our common identity in Christ. By the Church’s motherly care, we can refuse to be driven by algorithm and scandal. In a world that can deliver an endless stream of information but can’t replace formation, our evangelistic approach must reunite true doctrine with worship, discipleship, and the living communion of the Catholic Church.

How to Bring Gen Z to Christ

Did Peter know he was the first Pope?

What is the morality of using VPNs to bypass geo-restrictions on content?

Would my mother-in-law who passed prior have met my recently born daughter in heaven?

Anything that cannot be backed up book, chapter, and verse in the New Testament did not come from God, it came from the men trying to instruct God”

Wouldn’t it have been better for God the Father to lay down his own life rather than his son’s?

What is the Catholic church’s teaching on being a Soldier?

How can I explain the Cherubim and Seraphim hierarchy to a Jehovah witness?

Luke 9:49-50 there is someone other than Apostles exorcizing demons, does this mean that people other than priests can drive out demons?

Did the altars in the Old Testament become unsanitary with the amount of blood from sacrifice?  &nbsp;

The first baby I lost was unceremoniously flushed down the toilet at the doctor’s office by a well-meaning nurse. At the time,I was still Protestant, and I remember the jarring feeling that my body was giving a sacrifice against my will. It all seemed so earthy, so literally bloody, and I didn’t know how to reconcile it with a materialist worldview.
I recently miscarried the baby who would have been my fifth on earth. This time, I bled everything out at home, saved the dismantled tissue, and buried it in the garden under a statue of St. Francis. I was open to life, and my body became a house of death, but at least the life I had borne wasn’t flushed down a toilet.
I’m not alone in my feeling that the experiences of womanhood seem sometimes to line up with ancient pre-Christian beliefs. A glance at social media trends such as WitchTok and #modernwitch reveal many women with a shockingly active belief in Wicca, worship of the “old gods,” and a variety of other occult practices that are <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/where-to-go-to-explore-pagan-culture#:~:text=After%20centuries%20of%20persecution,%20Paganism,interest%20in%20the%20spiritual%20movement.">on the rise</a>. To have a body that is intimately connected with the rhythms of life makes you naturally long to understand their true meaning. In the words of Karl Stern, from his work The Flight from Woman, “the four-week cycle of ovulation, the rhythmically altering tides of fertility and barrenness, the nine months of gestation which can be neither prolonged nor hurried—all this ties women deeply to the life of nature, to the pulse beat of the cosmos.”
Since the spawning of the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s, women in <a href="https://pluralism.org/sacred-bodies">increasing numbers</a> have craved the control promised by pagan or quasi-pagan rituals. The movement has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/mar/20/making-dreams-come-true-inside-the-new-age-world-of-manifesting">rapidly increased in Gen Z</a> since the 2020 lockdowns. For generations, we tried to take control by making ourselves into men, and now, exhausted, we manifest like earth goddesses and hand-crush herbs to brew grounding teas.
Like many lies of the devil, pagan practices draw a following because they reflect the truths of our historic faith. Paganism is, in many ways, a childish attempt at discovering a sacramental worldview. Women are naturally more drawn to this than men. Men pierce, plant, attack, and enforce change. Women open, receive, nurture, and bring forth, almost entirely out of their own control. Experiences of the female make it virtually impossible to ignore the spiritual, in a particular way that men can’t help but have difficulty understanding.
We, as Catholics, can delight in our gilded churches, but we should not forget our faith’s strong ties to the garden. We can tell those women lost in paganism about the woman who was the bridge between human and divine and how she gave birth to God in a stable. We can tell them about living the rhythms of the Church year and embracing the cycles of feasting and fasting. We can explain that participation in the Mass is a re-presentation of the only eternal sacrifice to the one true God and how, in the Eucharist, he tears his own body and gives it to us. We can tell them they aren’t crazy for wanting to be pagan, because the truth is really much closer to those ancient practices than it is to our postmodern world, which spends more time online than with feet on the bare earth.
In the months following my recent miscarriage, I regressed to my own version of materialism. I wept, bought new clothes, drank too much alcohol, ran a half-marathon, got Botox, and firmly closed myself off to the risk of fertility. I did everything possible to live autonomously in my body and ignore my own femininity. But one can’t linger on that state, so here I am again, extending myself to the possibility of life and desperately praying that I won’t house another death.
That’s what it is to be a woman. Mary’s fiat caused her to bear a sword in her own soul. As her daughters we open ourselves to bear sorrow after sorrow even as we bear joy after joy. The sun rises and sets, the moon cycles around the earth, and women give themselves again and again to receive the future generations. It is the greatest privilege and the heaviest burden.

When Womanhood Feels Pagan

<div>Did the Catholic Church ever persecute Jews?</div><div>It depends on what you mean by persecute. There is no doubt that in the high Middle Ages until the eighteenth century, Church authorities, both local and in Rome, backed the segregation and limitation of action of the Jewish population of the cities. This was a legal situation that came out of the legislation of the Roman Empire, even before Christianity, so aspects of it were not directly related to the Christian but rather to the Roman character of political life in Europe.
Like most people, the ancient Christians tended to conform to the legal system to which they were accustomed unless it required them directly to deny their Faith. One can see in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of the New Testament how mild is the attitude of the first Christian writers to the Roman system, even as it was poised to persecute them. The Jews, however, were eager in the beginning to present the Christians to the Roman civil authorities as outlaw followers of a superstition, and so the first large persecutions of the Christians in certain local areas were instigated by the Jewish authorities. St. Paul is a clear example before his conversion, and if you read the acts of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John the beloved disciple, you can see how things went in those days.
Even so, it is very true that all rash judgment that leads to injustice solely on the basis of ethnic stereotypes is immoral because it is against the highest law of our religion, which is charity. History is sometimes a dismal affair!
</div>

Did the Church Persecute Jews?

<div class="page" title="Page 252">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 242
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“We shouldn’t believe anything that can’t be verified by science.”
DEFENSE
Authentic science does not maintain this.
Science involves the use of a particular method (i.e., “scientific method”), the principal steps of which are:
<ol>
<li>Observing some aspect of the world</li>
<li>Formulating hypotheses to explain the observed data</li>
<li>Making predictions about further observations based on the hypotheses</li>
<li>Performing experiments to test the predictions (particularly by trying to falsify them).</li>
</ol>
This general method has proved useful for investigating many subjects, but, as we cover elsewhere (see Day 333), there are limits to what can be investigated by science.
Sometimes the reason is practical, as when an experiment cannot be performed without affecting the behavior of the phenomenon to be observed. This situation is frequently encountered in studying the behavior of subatomic particles, leading to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (according to which we cannot measure both the position and the momentum of a particle).
Other times the limit is due to a matter of principle. Science—like every other field—cannot get off the ground without using truths of logic that are fundamental to all reasoning. Yet these principles cannot be verified by the scientific method. Instead, they are assumed.
Science also presupposes other principles that it cannot demonstrate, such as the lawlike behavior of natural phenomena and the extension of those laws into the past and future. It also must assume that the data that has been observed is representative of the way things are and not just a misleading set of fluke observations. Repeating experiments to gain more data is good, but the new experiments also could involve fluke observations, so there must remain an assumption that the observed data is representative of the way things really are.
Most fundamentally, the claim that we should not accept anything that cannot be verified by science does not meet its own test. In view of the limits of science we have covered, the hypothesis proposed in the challenge does not fit the observed data. It is a bad hypothesis and therefore something that authentic science does not support. Authentic science recognizes its own limits and does not claim to be the single tool needed to prove every type of proposition.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Nothing but Science?

<div>Would God for some reason rescind a person's salvation? </div><div>To be clear, if someone falls out of grace and ultimately goes to hell, it’s the person’s fault, not God’s. God will judge us accordingly for such unrepentant mortal sin, but we will have refused God’s gift of salvation:
<blockquote>We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: &#8220;He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.&#8221;612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613
<blockquote>To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God&#8217;s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called &#8220;hell&#8221; (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm">CCC 1033</a>, emphasis added).</blockquote>
&nbsp;</blockquote>
For more on this subject, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/search?q=salvation">please see our various online resources</a>.
</div>

Losing My Religion (and Salvation)

Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers has an apparently unpopular answer to the scourge of racism—imitating Jesus. Our society refuses this path, preferring a culture of constant critique and revolution. It is time that the revolutionaries heard the hard truth—their cure is no cure at all. Real healing requires us to take up the Gospel with courage and humility.

Catholicism and Race

Why isn’t there an instance in the bible where a child is adopted into faith?

What is the Catholic view of Matthew 16:28? Is it an unfulfilled prophecy?

Is it sinful to work on Sunday?

Today in class they were talking about schizophrenia and my teacher asked if anyone was religious, to make a comparison between the two. I didn’t raise my hand. Did I do something wrong by not speaking up?

I just found out that one of my friends is a Freemason. Am I still allowed to associate with him?

Would a land value tax be better than an income tax in light of Catholic Social teaching on just taxation?

What does the mark of the beast mean? Are we all born with it? What was Jesus doing after the Resurrection but before the Ascension?

Is killing an intrinsically evil act?

Can a Catholic date a divorced person that was not married in the Catholic Church?

I’m Catholic and was just married in a non-denominational church. Is my marriage valid? If not, how do I make it valid?

If a person discovered that their partner was homosexual, would it be an impediment to receiving an annulment?

How can the Church claim that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

I was asked by my pastor to no longer kneel for communion. What advice do you have for me?

Why did God appear so cruel, angry and petty in the Old Testament?

I had candles blessed during Candlemas. If the holy water didn’t touch my candle, is it still blessed?

How can I learn to love God when my fear for him is much bigger?

Is killing always intrinsically evil? Fr. Paul Keller, OP, explores the Catholic Church’s teaching on the morality of killing and when, if ever, it can be justified. He also answers pressing faith questions, including whether Catholics can date a divorced non-Catholic and many more.

Is Killing Always Intrinsically Evil? And More Questions

<div>Is the penitent bound by the seal of confession?</div><div>No, a penitent is not bound by the seal of confession. One should be prudent when discussing one&#8217;s sins, but it’s possible another person might benefit from the advice a penitent received in confession. A priest who celebrates the sacrament or anyone who deliberately or inadvertently hears a confession is bound to uphold the seal (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3G.HTM">Code of Canon Law, can. 983</a>).
In addition, while a priest may not break the seal, if a penitent brings up the same subject outside of confession, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-i-give-a-priest-permission-to-talk-about-my-confession">then the priest could prudently talk about that conversation</a>. But the seal remains even after a penitent&#8217;s death.
</div>

Is a Penitent Bound by the Seal of Confession?

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent examines strange disappearances and asks if it was a terrible mishap or if something more sinister happened.

Mishap or Murder?

I heard we’re supposed to receive both the bread and wine at Mass. Is that true?

What are the Origins of Baptism?

Day 20
CHALLENGE
“Baptism is not needed for salvation. It is a symbolic ritual that represents an inward change that has already taken place.”
DEFENSE 
The New Testament links baptism to salvation. Baptism is not just a ritual. It communicates God’s graces, such as the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus Peter told the crowd on the day of Pentecost: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Similarly, when he was converted to the Faith, Paul was told: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). In his letters, Peter explicitly connected baptism with salvation. Comparing baptism to how eight people were saved in Noah’s Ark, he writes: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism does not save because it makes us physically cleaner, he says. Rather it “now saves you” because it involves “an appeal to God for a clear conscience,” which is granted to us “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The New Testament also indicates that baptism is the means by which we are regenerated or “born again.” Jesus taught: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5). Paul agrees, saying that “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Baptism thus places us in the state of salvation.
TIP 
Baptism is a normative necessity but not an absolute one. To deliberately refuse baptism is to refuse salvation on the terms God offers it, but God can save those who are not baptized through no fault of their own (CCC 1257–61).

Baptism and Salvation

Episode 64: Year B &#8211; 6th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on several details found in all the readings for this upcoming 6th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B. Unlike what we’ve seen in all the previous episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word, these details aren’t as directly related to apologetical discussions as the details in previous readings. But given that they’re related in some ways, it’s worth mentioning. The relevant topics that we’ll be discussing is the Sacrament of Confession, the New Testament ministerial priesthood, respect for the Church’s disciplinary precepts, a healthy approach to disciplinary laws of the Church and their relationship to love, and the Gospel portrait of Jesus as an exorcist.
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/021124.cfm.">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
&nbsp;

Confession through a Ministerial Priest

How can Catholics ask Protestants to be in communion with the Pope, when there have been so many schisms?

I don’t understand the teaching of no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

How do I explain Papal Authority? When should we listen to the Pope?

What do Catholics believe are necessary beliefs to be Christian?

I struggle with the teaching of Mary’s Virginity based on Matthew 1:24-25?

Is Catholic doctrine found in the Bible?

I’m confused by the belief in Sacrament of the anointing of the sick? I’ve heard different perspectives on going to Heaven with last rites?

What Catholic Doctrine Troubles You?

With the 50-year anniversary of the original film, The Exorcist, and the upcoming release of a sequel, we figured this would be a great time to sit down and talk to contributing apologist Tom Nash to discuss the film that caused such a stir.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

(Bonus) “The Exorcist” 50 Years Later

CNN host Don Lemon took on the Vatican in a conversation with the women of The View. He explained that he doesn&#8217;t think God approves of the Catholic refusal to bless same-sex unions. We asked apologist Karlo Broussard to respond to Mr. Lemon&#8217;s take.

Is Vatican Blessing Decision Anti-Gay?

In this episode Trent shares a recent debate he took part in where he defending the pro-choice position and explains why he would take part in such a debate.

My “Devil’s Advocate Debate” on Abortion

I disagree with your statement that the apostles did not gain from spreading the gospel.

How can I defend my new Catholic faith to my Jewish family?

How do I defend the position that abortion should be illegal?

Why does our modern biblical text use the Masoretic text instead of the Septuagint which is more apologetic friendly?

I’m a revert living in the bible belt. How do I share my faith with my non-denominational Christians?

Why is baptism a prerequisite to confession?

How would you respond to the claim that euthanasia decreases suffering so it should be allowed

Tips for Defending the Faith

Why Are the Gospels Called “Gospels”?

Did Job commit blasphemy?

How much do the errors of people copying the bible affect the inerrancy of scripture?

John 6 What’s the proof that what he is saying is not just symbolic?

Rev refers to the mark of the beast. Is there a correlation to the mark of the beast and the upcoming digital dollar? Are we living in the age described in Revelation?

What is the Church’s position on God writing the law on the hearts of man? Was that just exclusive to the Old Testament?

Was creation a literal 6 days?

When did God reveal his name to mankind?

How did Mary know he could perform a miracle at the wedding at Cana if this was his first miracle?

Your Bible Questions

Refuting “A Manual for Creating Atheists”

Why is there only one incarnation? Why not the Father and Holy Spirit too?

If Satan had not fallen, would humans have fallen?

How do I respond to a 2nd grader who doesn’t understand why women can’t be priests? I gave the typical answer about the apostles but got pushback. What do I do now?

Where in the bible does it say that women can’t be priests?

In the martyrdom of Perpetua, it says that she had a vision of her brother suffering and then another where he no longer was. Is this an early account for purgatory? Are there other documented accounts of purgatory in the first 300 years of the Church?

How do you reconcile papal primacy and the necessity to submit to the Roman pontiff and salvation only coming from the Lord?

How do we know Jesus isn’t using a metaphor when he says that He is the Bread in John 6 since Jesus later says in John 10:9 and 15:5 that He is the door and a gate?

Ask Me Anything: Dropped Calls

<div>At Palm Sunday Mass, the congregation read the part of Jesus during Mark’s Passion account. Is that correct?</div><div>No, laypeople may not proclaim the words of Jesus in these liturgical settings. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops <a href="http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-word/proclamation-of-the-gospel-by-the-laity.cfm">addresses this very question on its website</a>:
<blockquote>May a lay reader take the part of the Christ in the reading of the Passion narrative during Lent and the Triduum, or is this role reserved to the priest?
The rubrics for Palm Sunday and Good Friday are quite clear on this question, as reflected in the 1988 Circular Letter Concerning the Preparation and Celebration of the Easter Feasts [Paschale Solemnitatis] from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments:
The Passion narrative occupies a special place. It should be sung or read in the traditional way, that is, by three persons who take the part of Christ, the narrator, and the people. The Passion is proclaimed by deacons or priests, or by lay readers; in the latter case, the part of the Christ should be reserved to the priest (no. 33).</blockquote>
Read more of Paschale Solemnitatis <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWEASTR.HTM">here</a>. For more information regarding the Church’s celebration of the Paschal Triduum, which begins with the evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday, <a href="http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/triduum/questions-and-answers.cfm">see this presentation by the USCCB</a>.
</div>

May a Layperson Proclaim Jesus’ Words During the Passion Reading?

In this episode, Trent shreds the low-hanging fruit of popular online atheist memes.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
<div>
<div>
I enjoy the challenge of engaging high-level defenses of atheism, but sometimes the low-hanging fruit just tastes too good to resist. Today, we are going to rebut some hilarious atheist memes, because of just how bad they are. So let&#8217;s get started. Here&#8217;s the first one. &#8220;How did Jesus find guys named Peter, John, James, Matthew, Andrew, Philip, Thomas and Simon in the Middle East?&#8221; And a comment under this meme says, &#8220;This is the one that gets me. When was the last time you met Jews named Mary or Joseph? Jesus is Spanish. Mary&#8217;s sister&#8217;s name is Elizabeth, a name that came into vogue in 1400s England, probably when half this stuff was written.&#8221;
First, there are lots of famous Jews named Joseph. The first one I can think of is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the actor who says he&#8217;s 100% Ashkenazi Jew. The name itself comes from the Hebrew Yosef. And Jesus, not Jesus, comes from the Hebrew name, Joshua or Yeshua. The simple explanation is that ancient names change over time when they&#8217;re copied into other languages, which brings me to the second point. Nobody tell these people about Alexander the Great or his father, Philip the Second who lived in the fourth century before Christ. Isn&#8217;t Alex from the 1990s for a name?
Of course, his Greek name was Alexandros. And his father was Philippos, from which we get the Latinized versions of their names. This happens when you transfer a name in one alphabet to a different alphabet or language. So the English word John comes from the Middle English Ion, which comes from the French Jean, the Medieval Latin Ioannes, the Greek Ioannis, and finally the Hebrew Yochanan, which means &#8220;God is gracious.&#8221; So there&#8217;s nothing mysterious about modern names being used to pronounce more unfamiliar ancient names. And here&#8217;s a similar meme. &#8220;Paul talks about going to Spain in Romans chapter 15.&#8221;
&#8220;Paul died around 70. A.D. Spain was established in 1479 A.D. Hashtag atheist.&#8221; Checkmate. You got us. The Bible was actually written in the 15th century. And all the evidence that existed beforehand must have been planted by lizard people, or some other conspirator. The Greek word Paul uses in Romans 15:28 is Spania, which refers to a region of the ancient Roman Empire called Hispania, where modern day Spain is located. The Latin Vulgate calls it Hispania. Also people from Spain don&#8217;t call it Spain, just as people from Germany don&#8217;t call that country Germany in their native language. In German, it&#8217;s Deutschland. And in Spanish, the nation of Spain is Espana. In fact, this is the word used in Spanish translations of Romans 15:28. Just as we use an English equivalent of Espana, the Bible uses the closest English equivalent of Paul&#8217;s reference to Roman Hispania.
Next, we have, &#8220;Humans waiting to be brainwashed,&#8221; with a bunch of babies all labeled &#8220;Atheists.&#8221; This is probably based on the idea that an atheist is just someone who lacks a belief in God. But if that&#8217;s all atheism is, then it&#8217;s a terribly uninteresting worldview. It&#8217;s boring. If the majority of people that hold your position are babies, maybe it&#8217;s not a useful position after all. Babies are also amoral, because they lack a moral code. Babies are anarchists, because they lack a belief in government. But that doesn&#8217;t prove belief in morality, or belief in government only comes from brainwashing, and there&#8217;s no good reasons to believe in those things. Here&#8217;s a similar one. &#8220;Atheism is not defined by what we believe. It is not a belief system. It has no religious doctrine. It&#8217;s just a rejection of a claim that has no supporting evidence.&#8221;
All right. Do you believe that the existence of God has no supporting evidence? Is that the reason you reject that claim? If atheism has nothing to do with beliefs, then who cares what it says? Atheism is only worth considering if it says something about the way the world actually is, if it informs our beliefs about the world. And classical atheists had the guts to not just say they lacked a belief in God, but that God does not exist. If you say you lack a belief in God, because you don&#8217;t know if God exists, that&#8217;s fine. You just don&#8217;t get to call yourself an atheist. You are actually an agnostic. And don&#8217;t give me the, &#8220;I&#8217;m an agnostic atheist.&#8221; Does God exist? You can say &#8220;Yes,&#8221; or, &#8220;Probably yes,&#8221; which makes you a theist. You can say, &#8220;No,&#8221; or, &#8220;Probably no,&#8221; which makes you an atheist. Or you can say, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know,&#8221; which makes you an agnostic. End of discussion.
Here&#8217;s another one. &#8220;Isn&#8217;t this the most wonderful irony? An anagram of religion is I leg iron?&#8221; Okay, well, an anagram of science is its incest. And you can make a naughty anagram of atheist if you start with the word ate. But yeah. This one is really stretching to find something. Also, did you know that an anagram of like and subscribe is, &#8220;Debunks irascible?&#8221; So if you want to help us debunk irascible, or easily angered non-Catholic critics, please like and subscribe to the channel. And definitely support us at trenthornpodcast.com. Next, &#8220;Bible, an ancient novel full of murder, corruption, homophobia, bestiality, incest and cruelty. It is often read to children on Sunday.&#8221; First, there&#8217;s no homophobia in the Bible, because homophobia isn&#8217;t a real thing. There are people who are cruel towards those experiencing same sex attraction. And that&#8217;s wrong. But usually homophobia is a slur that&#8217;s used against people who simply think that sex is only moral when it&#8217;s the expression of marital love between men and women.
Number two, there are four passages that condemn bestiality in the Bible, but no depictions of bestiality, which is a relief. It&#8217;s hilarious also to hear this complaint, because it reminds me of this meme of a guy throwing away a Bible saying, &#8220;Finally, a world of pure rationalism,&#8221; who then picks up a book defending bestiality called Can Animals Consent? In fact, I cover the modern defense of bestiality that some atheists make more in this previous episode that you can watch if you can stomach it. And speaking of unnatural things, here&#8217;s our next gem of a meme. &#8220;Homosexuality is not against nature. More than 500 species are known to practice same-sex coupling. Religion is against nature. No other animal practices it.&#8221; Replace homosexuality with infanticide, or rape, or murder and you see just how bad this argument is.
Saying, &#8220;Yeah, but lots of animals do it. So what&#8217;s unnatural about it,&#8221; is astoundingly dumb. When we say &#8220;against nature,&#8221; we don&#8217;t mean, &#8220;Has no parallel among non-human animals, or doesn&#8217;t exist in the natural world.&#8221; We mean against human nature, or the way humans ought to behave as humans. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s an insult to say to a person he is acting like an animal at the dinner table. Here&#8217;s another one. &#8220;Science, because reality is so much better than making stuff up.&#8221; And then we have The Last Supper that&#8217;s populated with a bunch of different scientists. At least the person who made this meme, tried to find scientists who at least identify as atheists, or agnostics, or do not believe in God, people like Stephen Hawking, or Richard Dawkins, or Neil deGrasse Tyson. But as I&#8217;ve shown in my previous research, most scientists do believe in God, or some higher power.
Also, there are some blunders here. This looks like Isaac Newton, who also wrote on theology, as well as science. So he definitely wasn&#8217;t an atheist. But even if I&#8217;m mistaken, and that&#8217;s somebody else besides Isaac Newton, that&#8217;s definitely the Greek Philosopher Aristotle, who believed there was one infinite God, or prime mover that kept the entire universe in existence. And front and center is Albert Einstein, who was not an atheist. He did not believe in a personal God. But as his colleague, Max Jammer writes in his book, Einstein and Religion, he notes how Einstein did believe in a God that created the universe. And he even denigrated atheists for their dogmatic opposition to religion. The next one says, &#8220;Atheist temples, more than one book available.&#8221; This is probably the silliest one, because this is a photo of the Long Room in the library of Trinity College in Dublin. The library was built when the college was founded in 1592 as a religious institution. And one of the first important works housed in the library was an eighth century illuminated manuscript of the Bible called The Book of Kells.
It was the Catholic Church that invented the concept of the university in the Middle Ages, and subsidized the study of astronomy in order to better understand the calendar, and worship God. For example, Catholic cathedrals were built with a knowledge of where the sun would be throughout the year as it shined through stained-glass windows. According to historian J.L. Heilbron, &#8220;The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages, into the Enlightenment than any other, and probably all other institutions.&#8221; So it&#8217;s my hope that the atheists who made these memes will go and check out a library, and learn more about the cultural advances that the Catholic Church has offered to the world, and how Christianity has improved the world, primarily by giving us a savior, and to also see the historical evidences for our faith.
Hey guys. Thank you so much for watching. If you want to help the Counsel of Trent grow and expand, be sure to like this video. And click subscribe. You can also check out my other videos. And definitely consider supporting us at trenthornpodcast.com.
</div>
</div>

Hilariously Bad Atheist Memes (REBUTTED)

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent shares spooky and disturbing short stories, some of which have haunted him since childhood.

FFAF: Short Stories That’ll Scare the Pants Off You!

Each summer, Crossroads sends young people on pro-life pilgrimages across the United States. Martha Nolan, vice president of Crossroads, joins us from the road to tell us how lives are being changed as the walkers make their way to Washington, D.C.

On the Road for a Culture of Life

In this episode Trent sits down with Pastor Brandan Robertson to discuss whether Bible-believing Christians should accept or reject homosexual behavior. In part one they discuss the “fruit” of this teaching and its impact on people who identify as LGBT.

“Is homosexual behavior sinful?” Part 1 (with Brandan Robertson)

<div class="page" title="Page 81">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 71
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The Bible has been translated over and over again in history. That’s like making a photocopy of a photocopy—eventually, the image becomes blurry. Why should we trust the Bible, considering how many times it has been translated?”
DEFENSE
Modern Bible translations are made directly from the original languages, not other translations.
There have been many translations of the Bible, but the major translations published today are not based on other translations.
The books of the Bible were originally written in three languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These are not mysterious, lost languages. Each is well understood. Knowledge of them has survived down through history. In fact, there are people today who speak dialects of these languages as their native tongues. Hebrew is commonly spoken in modern Israel, Aramaic in various Middle Eastern communities, and Greek in Greece.
Languages change over time, but scholars have access to extensive collections of ancient manuscripts—as well as modern reference works—that enable them to understand these languages and to trans- late the books of the Bible directly from them.
These languages are not particularly difficult, and there are many introductory textbooks and courses that let anyone who wants to learn them do so.
The fact that knowledge of these languages is so widely available means that the major translations serve as a check on one another. As long as no translation has a monopoly, readers can check other translations to see how they render a passage.
There will always be oddball, eccentric translations of the Bible (just as there can be for secular works written in other languages), but these are usually produced by single, eccentric individuals. By contrast, the major translations of the Bible are made by teams of scholars who develop a consensus about how to render a text. They thus do not reflect the views of any single translator.
Many Bible commentaries and other reference works discuss translation issues extensively, allowing individuals to see arguments for and against different ways of rendering a passage.
Finally, modern Bible software is designed to let even an individual who does not know these languages to examine the original language text, look up the meaning of words, understand the grammar, and make an informed assessment.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Translations of Translations?

In this episode, Trent examines the book &#8220;The Universal Christ&#8221; by Fr. Richard Rohr and how he distorts the true identity of Jesus Christ.

The False Christ of Fr. Richard Rohr

Mary Mother of God, Year A:
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on the second reading for the feast of Mary, Mother of God, which is Galatians 4:4-7, and show how it provides biblical evidence for the belief that Mary is the Mother of God. We also go outside the readings for this feast and look at the key biblical passage that the Church has looked to throughout history for biblical support of Mary’s divine motherhood: Luke 1:43.
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday

The Evidence for Mary as Mother of God

Does binding and loosing represent the Sensus Fidelium?

Why is the pill considered abortifacient?

Does God operate based on condition? I can’t wrap my head around the principle of double effect.

How do I explain to my daughter in law who’s going to OCIA the perpetual virginity? She learned in class that the Church has never clarified and that her perpetual virginity is optional to believe?

We tend to hear in TOB circles that men who are addicted to pornography should be avoided when considering marriage? Would you say the same start can be used for women?

How do you avoid making circular arguments for the papacy and magisterium?

A common misconception is that Mary’s perpetual virginity is optional to believe. We clarify Church teaching and how to explain it respectfully, along with insights on binding and loosing, the birth control pill, and how to talk about pornography and marriage.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

How Can I Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to Someone in OCIA?

The Sacrament of Marriage is filled with power for growth toward intimacy with God. Dan and Stephanie Burke, from the Avila Institute, explain how they are helping couples access that power and thrive.

The Power of Sacramental Marriage

What Is the Word of God?

In the first episode of 2021, Trent addresses a topic requested by many of his patrons and shows how it applies to recent events related to surges of Covid-19.

Catholic End-of-Life Ethics and Rationing “Covid-care”

<div class="page" title="Page 163">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 153
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Why should we reject the gods and goddesses that are worshipped by many cultures? Why should the Christian God be the only one?”
DEFENSE
Divine revelation makes clear there is a single God who created the world.
God is infinite and uncreated, but there are also finite, created spirits known as angels (CCC 328–29). They are God’s servants and messengers (the word “angel”—Hebrew, mal’akh, Greek, angelos—means “messenger”). Some serve God but others have fallen and oppose him (CCC 391–93).
The Christian faith thus envisions a heavenly hierarchy with the in-finite, uncreated God at the top and created, finite spirits under him— some of whom have become evil. The good angels may be venerated as such, but they are merely servants of God and so are not to be given the worship owed to God (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10, 22:8–9).
By contrast, many in the Greco-Roman world acknowledged the existence of a single, supreme God but did not worship him. Instead, they worshipped lesser, created beings, such as Zeus (Jupiter) and Apollo. They also acknowledged the existence of inferior spirits, which could be good or evil and which were not worshipped (Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, 12–13). In Greek, the term “god” (theos) applied to both the great God and the created ones, while the term “demon” (daimonion) applied to the inferior, potentially evil spirits.
Christians agreed there is a great God and that there are lesser spirits who could be called demons. The main issue was how to treat the middle category of finite “gods.”
Divine revelation made it clear only the true God is to be worshipped (Exod. 20:2–6; Deut. 5:6–10), and there are no other beings equal to him (Isa. 43:10, 44:6, 8). Therefore, Christians reasoned, the term “god” (theos) should not be applied to the pagan deities. To the extent they even exist, they would be inferior spirits or “demons” (daimoniōn; cf. 1 Cor. 10:20, MacMullen, 17–19).
The Christian critique of pagan deities thus is not that there aren’t finite, created spirits, but that they are fundamentally different from and inferior to God and not worthy of worship.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

God and “the Gods”

In this episode Trent examines the controversy surrounding recent converts from the p*rn industry and how some critics don&#8217;t want to welcome certain sinners into the Faith.

The Right (and Wrong) Ways to Treat OnlyFans Converts

Catholic therapist and author of “Beyond the Birds and the Bees,” Dr. Greg Popcak sits down with Trent to talk about how to raise sexually whole and holy kids.

The Catholic “Birds and the Bees” – Part 1 (with Dr. Popcak)

From snakes, to volcanoes, to angry indigenous people, in this free-for-all Friday Trent reveals five islands that you probably wouldn’t want to be your next vacation destination.

FFAF: 5 Islands You Don’t Want to Visit

What does “faith that moves mountains” vs. “conviction of things not seen” mean?

Were early heresies forms of Protestantism, and why date it only from 1525?

How can Catholics reconcile Church teaching with canon law penalties of enslavement?

If I live in one diocese but attend Mass in another, which is my official diocese?

Do vampires exist? Any plans for Mysterious World episode on them?

Is it ethical to host a symbiote (like Venom) to save a life or for benefits?

How to answer atheists who ask if God might demand child sacrifice like Abraham?

&#8220;What does &#8216;faith that moves mountains&#8217; mean?&#8221; This episode explores the depth of faith and its implications, while also addressing intriguing questions such as the nature of early heresies and their relation to Protestantism, and how Catholics can reconcile Church teachings with historical canon law penalties. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on these diverse topics.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

What Does Faith That Moves Mountains Mean and Early Heresies

In this episode Trent sits down with Pastor Brandan Robertson to discuss whether Bible-believing Christians should accept or reject homosexual behavior. In part two they discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality including passages in the Old Testament.

“Is homosexual behavior sinful?” Part 2 (with Brandan Robertson)

In this episode Trent explains why he doesn&#8217;t care if people call him homophobic or transphobic because of what this word really means.

Why I Don’t Care If I’m “Homophobic”

In this episode Trent reveals how to frame the debate over sex and gender in a way that reveals the incoherency of transgender ideology. He also explains chromosomal abnormalities and how they don’t disprove the sexual binary.

The One Question Transgender Advocates Can’t Answer

The Church in the News

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent shows how so many of us get common themes and quotes in history’s greatest literature completely wrong. With a special guest appearance from Matthew Horn!

The World’s Most Misunderstood Literature

Wildcat

Mad Max

Baseball movies

Chariots of Fire

Faith And Movies

Trent sits down with fellow Catholic Answers apologist and author of Pope Peter, Joe Heschmeyer, to discuss an argument for the papacy most people have never heard.

The Most Underrated Argument for the Papacy (with Joe Heschmeyer)

<div>What parts of the story Cain and Abel are literal, and which are figurative?</div><div>As with the story of original sin (CCC 390), the story of Cain and Abel affirms historical events (CCC 401), an event which the Church commemorates at Mass in Eucharistic Prayer I:
<blockquote>Be pleased to look upon these offerings with a serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.</blockquote>
So we know that Cain and Abel were brothers, the offspring of Adam and Eve, our first parents. We know that God found Abel’s gift worthy because he gave an offering of his first fruits, while Cain’s was not found worthy because he did not give of his first fruits. And that Cain subsequently killed Cain out of envy (CCC 2259). We can also safely infer that Abel was indeed a shepherd and Cain a farmer, as those were common professions back in the biblical day.
</div>

Historical Aspects of Story of Cain and Abel

In this episode Trent examines recent survey data to show the real reasons Catholics are leaving the Faith and five simple things families can do to strengthen their children’s faith.

New Survey Shows Why Catholics Leave the Church

In this episode Trent sits down with Eric Sammons of Crisis Magazine to discuss whether the Catholic church should have &#8220;youth ministry&#8221;.

FFAF: Do We Need Youth Ministry?

Sarah Swafford discusses the challenge of guarding children from adult content in a highly sexualized culture surrounded by technology and internet access.
Transcript:
Host: Sara, we go now to Katie in Santa Monica, California listening on Immaculate Heart Radio; Katie, you are on with Sara Swofford.
Caller: Hello Sara, I have a couple comments to what you&#8217;ve been saying. I&#8217;m really interested, because I have a 17 year old, and he&#8217;s been inundated ever since he was little with computers and cell phones; and I&#8217;m a single mom, and I wanted him to go to a Catholic school, especially when he was young, and usually Catholic schools&#8211;I hate to say it&#8211;aren&#8217;t in the best areas sometimes&#8211;sometimes, I should say.
So so my thing was, I have to give him a phone, and back then it was a flip phone, but as he grew older I couldn&#8217;t like take it away from him when the technology got, you know, data and all this internet access. And he actually, you know, through the years I tried as much as possible to control it, but it is one of the toughest things, especially when we moved&#8211;I, being a single mom I was laid off, I had, we had to move a lot&#8211;and he made new friends, and we moved to kind of a richer area, and even when I took the electronic devices away&#8211;like Xbox, because you can get on internet with Xbox and see bad things, and through the internet and watch so many things&#8211; his friends would give them just another Xbox because the other parents weren&#8217;t monitoring it.
So it&#8217;s like, you have to make your whole circle&#8211;unless you&#8217;re really in&#8211;which my brothers and sisters happen to do is keep their circle small, and keep, you know, kind of the people with the same belief systems all around them&#8211;it is that one of the toughest things, because your kid&#8217;s going to go to another friend, and they&#8217;re going to show him something that is inappropriate. So what I&#8217;ve tried to do immensely is guard him with knowledge, and even if he does look at these things, I had a chalkboard at one point, and I was&#8211;his friend came home and said &#8220;Oh, my aunt wants me to read &#8216;Fifty Shades of Grey,'&#8221; and I&#8217;m like &#8220;What are you talking about? You&#8217;re in high school, why would you even want to read that as a boy?&#8221; And so I wrote how &#8220;50 shades of Gray&#8221; is a misuse of God&#8217;s beautiful gift on the chalkboard at home, and his friend came and saw it, and I just&#8211;I probably embarrassed the heck out of my kid but he needs to be armed with knowledge, and I think that&#8217;s the main thing about our faith. My son struggles with his faith, and I know he&#8217;s a great kid and I know he believes in God, it&#8217;s just, who knows when it&#8217;s going to actually take root, you know?
Host: Sara, how do you respond to that? That idea of preparing children with&#8211;I mean, it really is&#8211;I think Katie&#8217;s exactly right, the proliferation of screens everywhere and access everywhere is very difficult for parents, so how do you respond to that?
Sara: Well, and that&#8217;s the hardest thing, like exactly what Katie&#8217;s saying is, you might have a really good grasp on everything that&#8217;s going on&#8211;or as many things as we can, as parents, with our own kids&#8211;but we just definitely don&#8217;t have any control over what other parents are doing for their kids. And, you know, especially like she said, you know, at friend groups at school, you know, you don&#8217;t get to pick your kid&#8217;s friends at school. That&#8217;s something that, you know, it&#8217;s just who they&#8217;re running with, you know.
And so I think that it&#8217;s&#8211;it&#8217;s really hard, because I always want people to hear, you know, especially people that are listening, you know: we live in a social media texting world, and Snapchat&#8211;look, I mean, like that&#8217;s a whole &#8216;nother show, right, like another show for Snapchat, by itself. I mean we&#8217;re living in this world that&#8211;I mean, our phones are a part of us. They are not going away. And even as adults, we know that social media&#8211;I mean a lot of my college students, they&#8217;re all on, you know, Instagram, Facebook, almost even for, like&#8211;like almost for professional reasons, that&#8217;s where they&#8217;re getting interviews for jobs and things like that.
So I think we have to be real in the fact that we know we need to prepare our&#8211;you know, our kids for &#8220;the real world,&#8221; and what does, you know, what does that mean? That is a huge question and a huge bubble, you know, for like, what we&#8217;re preparing them for. And so I think that, you know, a lot of parents will say &#8220;Well, I want to make sure that they have a phone in junior high or high school, because they&#8217;re gonna eventually go to college and they&#8217;re gonna have all this access to it,&#8221; you know?
And I think that, while that&#8217;s true, I think we have to just remember, when you sit down and talk to a 12 year old boy or a 13 year old girl, you have to really get a feel for their maturity level, and what they can handle, and what&#8211;because in the end, you know, I get a very interesting vantage point; because as a speaker, you know, I come into a high school of 1200 students, I give my talk, and for weeks I get emails from students that&#8211;they open up, they bare their heart to me, because I&#8217;m not their mom, I&#8217;m not their dad, I&#8217;m not their youth minister, and they never have to see me again. And there&#8217;s like a lot of freedom in that, right? Because they&#8217;re like, &#8220;Well she gets it, she understands, what I&#8217;m going through; because of her talk, she knows where I&#8217;m where I&#8217;m at, and I&#8217;m gonna tell her everything I&#8217;m struggling with because I trust her; but I don&#8217;t have to&#8211;I don&#8217;t have to live with her, I don&#8217;t have to see her at youth group every Sunday.&#8221; Does that make sense?
So I have this very interesting vantage point, and the thing that the Holy Spirit seemed to breathe into my heart and speak into my heart is, we have to set them up so that there&#8217;s accountability and so that they know that&#8211;give them what they can handle, and not&#8211;you know what I mean? Like, not set them up to fail. And I think that, you know, sometimes, you know, your students, your kid, might be old enough to be okay with it, to be responsible with it, and it might be fine; but I have to be honest with you, you know, my Bible study group of women, when us moms sit around and talk, you know, it&#8217;s like&#8211;you know, we talked about it during the break, like the constant assault of material that is just so&#8211;I mean, you can&#8217;t even, I mean honest to God, you can&#8217;t even check the news; if you scroll too far down you&#8217;re like &#8220;Oh my gosh, what did I get into?&#8221; you know, like in movies and music everything is so sexual and so sensual, and, you know. And so I just can&#8217;t imagine being a young adult right now.
I always tell people, you know, I went through junior high, high school, college before social media and texting, and I was a hot mess and I didn&#8217;t even have a phone, you know. Like I can&#8217;t even imagine what they&#8217;re going through. And so I think maybe, just because everyone&#8217;s doing it or everyone has one, maybe that&#8217;s a conversation that you could have, like the way Katie was having with her son, and saying like, &#8220;I want what&#8217;s best for your heart, I want what&#8217;s best for your head, I want you to know the true, the good, and the beautiful, and I, you know, I want you to be able to call out what might stand in the way of that.&#8221; Or in my language, you know, &#8220;I want to know when I&#8217;m being used and I want to know when I&#8217;m using someone,&#8221; either emotionally or physically, I need to be aware of that, and I need to call that out and call a spade a spade, and sometimes phones just get us in a lot of trouble, because there&#8217;s just so much on social media and texting and Snapchat, and there&#8217;s just, it&#8217;s so much coming at us all at one time. And it&#8217;s very difficult, and I just, I pray everyday for parents out there fighting the good fight.
Host: Yeah, and it sounds like you&#8217;re saying, &#8220;Protect them as long as you can,&#8221; because it really is an assault.

How to Guard Your Children from Inappropriate Content

<div>I received a gift from my brother of a lava-stone bracelet. The tag says, “Lava stone is a grounding stone that helps us connect to the energies of Mother Earth and the element of fire. It can help to dissipate anger and absorbs negative energy.” This sounds New Age to me. What should I do? If I take it apart and make jewelry with it, would that be wrong?</div><div>Although <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-new-age-movement">New Agers</a> may believe that lava stones are good for healing (chakras) and vitality, these stones do not contain any magical properties. They are lava rock deposits. If you don’t attach any mystical power to these stones, you can do what you want with them.
</div>

Jewelry with New Age Tags

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

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

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

Why Don't I Make MORE Videos On Orthodoxy?

Did Jesus receive his DNA from Mary?

In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Tim Staples to discuss the imperfections of the papacy. Tim continues with details about the historical context of popes, the presence of saints, and the role of free will in leadership within the Church.
Transcript:
CAller: I am not Catholic because of the papacy being less than perfect. Within the house of God. Yes. And in the house of God, wouldn&#8217;t everything that God touches be closer to being perfect?
Tim Staples: Right. Oh, such a good question. Yes. You know what, brother? This is a very important question. I really thank you for calling. And there&#8217;s a couple of things I would say to this. Number one, as a matter of historical fact, in the papacy, we have something like, and I could be wrong on this, 82, I believe, saints among the popes, we have about, what, 265. And we have 82 saints. Now, there were a lot more who were extraordinarily holy, but that&#8217;s just the number that are actually saints in the church. We have some great men, courageous men, who aren&#8217;t saints yet. Some are in process and whatnot. And so, Peter, while there were some, let&#8217;s just say, choice ones. Right. Who were the famous Alexander vi, who happened to have six kids, obviously out of wedlock, and many more like that. Now, when I say many, you know, you&#8217;re talking about in a particular period of time, roughly a little less than 10% of the popes over the 265 years. Now, that&#8217;s at the high end. 265 popes, not years. 265 popes. Yes. Did I say years? Oh, I meant popes. So, I mean, more likely you&#8217;ve probably got about 10 or so who were morally corrupt. That&#8217;s a very low number. In fact, that&#8217;s a lower percentage than what you had among the apostles, because you had one out of 12 that were bad. And if we&#8217;re talking about 10 at the most. Now, I know some argue a little higher number than that 10. You&#8217;re talking less than 10%, which would be a less percentage than what you had among the apostles. So I&#8217;m just tossing this out, my friend, that just because. And this becomes the most important thing Peter and I want to hear, and I love the fact that his name is Peter. Peter, that I want you to consider. When Jesus established the Church, he did not establish the papacy and the bishopric on the basis of the holiness of the persons that he chose. Jesus was too smart for that, Peter. And why is that? Because God has deigned to give us free will. Just because you are made pope does not mean God is going to override his will for you to have freedom. Look, Peter, God respects our freedom. He respects it so much, he will let us go to hell if we want to. And it doesn&#8217;t matter if you&#8217;re a pope. A nun, a priest, or if you&#8217;re the host of a radio show or the guest on a radio show, God will allow us to walk away from him if we so will it. But what he did do among. Now we&#8217;ll focus on the papacy. And we could talk about the bishop&#8217;s in union with the Pope. But your question is about the Pope, is he protected them whenever they function as Pope and declare a teaching to the universal church. And you&#8217;ll find this in Matthew 16, 18 and 19. Jesus says it. He says, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. In fact, the context is kind of cool here, Peter. The context was Jesus asking the apostles, who do men say that I am? And the apostles respond, well, some say, you&#8217;re Jeremiah, or you&#8217;re Elijah, you&#8217;re this prophet, that prophet. But who do you say I am? And it&#8217;s Peter who responds and says, thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And it&#8217;s then that Jesus says, I say to blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father is in heaven. And I say to you, you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. Notice Peter&#8217;s not going to build the church. Jesus is, through Peter, he says, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heave. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And we believe Peter because the church is a kingdom. This royal authority given to Peter did not die. With Peter, it continues as long as the kingdom continues on this earth. We have successors of St. Peter. Now, Peter, I&#8217;m talking to you, Peter, about Peter. We know Peter the apostle, our first pope, was not perfect. He denied Jesus three times. And even after the resurrection, he had to be rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:9 for not even living up to his own teaching. But when Peter declared something like he did at the Council of Jerusalem, In Acts chapter 15, especially there, verses 7 through 12, he declares the truth. Everybody shuts up because Peter has spoken. And we see that down through the centuries that the popes, when they exercise the keys of the kingdom, which means when they declare something bound on this earth, right, they declare, I say. And they have to use language to make that clear. They&#8217;re basically saying, thus saith God, it doesn&#8217;t matter where they are in their moral life at that time. Whoever the Pope is God uses him as his instrument to build his church, not based on the person of Peter and his successors, but based on the promise and power of Jesus Christ. That is so crucial for us to understand, because that&#8217;s the way God has deigned to preserve free will. He&#8217;s not going to force popes to be good, but he will preserve them from error when they declare truth, like I just said, for the protection of the entire body of Christ. That is the great gift of the papacy. So don&#8217;t allow. Here&#8217;s my advice. Don&#8217;t allow the corruption of an Alexander VI or a Julius II or Julius iii, who are also famously wayward in their moral lives. But understand that this great gift is for the preservation of the unity of the faith, so that all can know the truth. Because without it, my friend, what do you see in Protestantism? Without a magisterium, you end up now with tens of thousands of denominations. In fact, nobody even knows how many denominations there are anymore because there&#8217;s new ones started every year. In fact, multiple are started every year because they don&#8217;t have anyone that can say, thus saith God. You can have the Scriptures, but if there&#8217;s no one to say, thus saith God, this is what the Scriptures mean. You. You have utter and absolute chaos in the Catholic faith. We have one Lord, one faith, one baptism for 2,000 years because of this great gift of the papacy. Does that make sense, Peter?
Caller: Yeah.
Tim Staples: You see why Jesus was smart enough not to build his church upon some dude, but rather to use the dude and his successors as his instruments. That means everything. Otherwise, you&#8217;ve got no certainty. You&#8217;ve got nothing as a church. I&#8217;ll tell you what, if you&#8217;d like, Peter, we have a book called Pope Peter which reflects on this doctrine by our colleague Joe Heschmeyer. If you&#8217;d like. Hang on the line, we&#8217;ll send it to you. All right?

I’m Not Catholic Because of Corrupt Popes…

Is Christian teaching on Israel and Iran missing something? 👀

<div>Can a Muslim who has denied the truth of Christianity go to heaven?</div><div>Jesus says, “Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10: 32-33).
To deny Jesus (a grave matter) with full knowledge and deliberate consent is to incur the guilt of mortal sin (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1857-1859). And to die with such guilt is to merit eternal separation from God in hell:
<blockquote>To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God&#8217;s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called &#8220;hell” (CCC 1033).</blockquote>
This doesn’t mean, however, that every person who verbally denies the truth of Christianity, such as a Muslim, is going to hell. We don’t know if a person truly has full knowledge of what he is denying. He may have in his mind some idea of Jesus and Christianity that we would reject as well.
Moreover, we can’t ever know if a person has full deliberate consent. There may be mitigating factors that lessen his culpability, and thus reduce his verbal denial of Christ to venial guilt.
Whether a person has full knowledge or deliberate consent is something that only God can know. The only aspect of sin that we can make a judgment on is the objective act itself and its gravity.
For more information on mortal and venial sin, see paragraphs1854-1864 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
</div>

Can a Devout Muslim Go to Heaven?

Karlo Broussard the author of Prepare the Way: Overcoming Obstacles to God, the Gospel, and the Church joins us for part two of our conversation about the saints, this time answering the most common objections to the intercession of the saints.
<a href="https://www.catholicanswersspeakers.com/">Book Karlo</a> to speak at your parish or next event.
Did you miss Part 1? Click here: <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/helpers-on-high-part-1">Helpers on High (Part 1)</a>
Want to hear Part 3? Click here: <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/helpers-on-high-part-3">Helpers on High (Part 3)</a>
Want more from Karlo Broussard? 
<ul>
<li><a href="https://shop.catholic.com/prepare-the-way-overcoming-obstacles-to-god-the-gospel-and-the-church/">Prepare the Way: Overcoming Obstacles to God, the Gospel and the Church</a></li>
<li><a href="https://shop.catholic.com/meeting-the-protestant-challenge/">Meeting the Protestant Challenge</a></li>
<li><a href="https://shop.catholic.com/why-god-still-matters/">Why God Still Matters</a></li>
<li><a href="https://shop.catholic.com/the-bible-blueprint-for-the-priesthood/">The Bible Blueprint for the Priesthood</a></li>
<li><a href="https://shop.catholic.com/the-bible-blueprint-for-the-mass/">The Bible Blueprint for the Mass</a></li>
</ul>

Helpers on High (Part 2)

Martin Luther King Jr. is best known as a man of action. He didn’t merely write about injustice—he took to the streets, protesting racial “laws” that undermined the dignity of African-Americans. But unlike many current cultural protests we see today, King&#8217;s activism was grounded in something other than raw emotion or political impulse. He protested for a reason. In other words, he had a rational justification.
That justification was rooted in a moral principle he drew from St. Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all” (De Libero Arbitrio [On Free Choice of the Will], book 1, chapter 5, sec. 11).
Martin Luther King Jr. explicitly appeals to this principle in his famous 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail. Here’s the key passage:
<blockquote>One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”</blockquote>
Now, asserting a principle is easy. The harder—and more important—task is showing why it makes sense. So let’s do that here.
There’s a commonsense rule that guides almost every kind of human inquiry: you can’t spot a counterfeit unless you know the real thing. The same is true with laws. You can’t recognize a counterfeit “law” unless you first understand what a genuine law actually is.
To do that, it helps to turn to St. Thomas Aquinas, who explicitly affirms Augustine’s famous claim that “an unjust law is no law at all” (see Summa Theologiae I-II:96:4). Aquinas gives us a useful starting point with his definition of law.
He defines it as “a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community” (ST I-II:91:1). That may sound technical at first, but it’s easier to grasp once we break it down.
By “practical reason,” Aquinas means our intellect’s ability to know truth for the sake of action (ST I:79:11). This is different from what he calls speculative reason, which aims at knowing truth simply for its own sake, without reference to action.
A dictate of practical reason is simply the intellectual judgment that some behavior must be done—or avoided.
And when Aquinas speaks of “emanating from the ruler,” he just means that the person with authority must communicate those judgments to the community—essentially saying, “Do this, not that.”
Now, the binding nature of laws flow from two sources. The first is human nature. Our nature has an order of good built into it, shaped by our natural inclinations to acts and ends or goals that perfect us. Take the intellect, for example. It’s ordered toward knowing truth. When I know the truth, my intellect is perfected. And not just my intellect—I am perfected. Truth, then, is genuinely good for me, and my human nature is what makes it so.
This built-in order of good becomes the standard for evaluating human behavior. Behaviors that line up with what our nature identifies as good for us are morally good. Behaviors that clash with that order—actions that frustrate or undermine our flourishing—are morally bad.
Now, as Aquinas teaches, nature orders us to the good, such that we can’t choose anything unless we see it as good in some way (ST I-II:8:1). From this follows the most basic moral directive of all: do good, and avoid evil (ST I-II:94:1). This entire moral framework, rooted in the order of good inscribed in our nature, is what we call the natural moral law
The second source for the binding nature of law is proper authority. A ruler who truly has authority over a community can issue directives for the common good. For instance, as a father, I have real authority over my family and can require certain things for its well-being. Likewise, the president of the United States has legitimate authority to govern the nation and determine what should or should not be done for its good.
With all that in place, we’re now in a position to spot a counterfeit law.
Imagine that a ruler issues an edict that contravenes what is naturally good for us as human beings—something that directly violates the natural moral law. Suppose, for example, that a ruler declares that African-Americans may no longer participate in certain social activities because of their race, or are barred from pursuing an education. Such rules would run headlong into what human nature demands: perfection through the pursuit of truth and full participation in social life.
In cases like these, the edict loses its status as a genuine law. Why? Because the dictate of practical reason has broken away from what gives it binding force in the first place: human nature. Practical reason is ordered by nature toward discerning what leads to human flourishing. When it issues judgments that conflict with that end—judgments that oppose what is genuinely good for us—it forfeits its authority. Nature, after all, is prior to reason’s judgments. Reason is meant to conform to what nature requires for both individual and common good.
This gives us one clear way a “law” can cease to be a law: when it contradicts what is good for us as human beings—when it violates the natural moral law (ST I-II:96:1). In such cases, there is no obligation for the community to obey.
There’s another way a so-called law can lose its character. Suppose the ruler issuing the edict never legitimately acquired authority over the community in the first place. Lacking proper authority, he would have no right to command at all. And without that authority, his edicts simply wouldn’t qualify as laws. Remember, a law must emanate from a ruler who truly occupies a place of governance over the community. If that condition isn’t met, the supposed law lacks binding force, and the community is not obliged to follow it.
This brings us back to Martin Luther King Jr.’s claim that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws . . . [since] an unjust law is no law at all.” In light of what we’ve seen, King’s moral reason is sound. The remaining question, then, is whether he applied that reasoning correctly in his particular situation.
I think he did. The “law” that King “disobeyed” was a Birmingham court injunction designed to squash civil rights protests in order to preserve racial segregation. Because that injunction upheld practices contrary to the human good—and actively prevented actions ordered toward the human good—it lacked the binding force of true law.
Although King’s refusal to comply with the court order was an act of “disobedience” with respect to the court, it was, at the same time, an act of obedience to what nature demands for the genuine good of human beings. And because God is the author of our human nature, obedience to that moral order is ultimately obedience to God.
For that reason, King’s actions were morally justified. What nature demands for the human good stands on a deeper level of reality—ontologically prior—than whatever a state authority happens to label as “law.”
In short, Martin Luther King Jr. got the philosophy right. And just as importantly, he got the practical judgment right about what needed to be done.

Did Martin Luther King Jr. Get It Right?

Mary, DID You Know?

Are Catholics Saved by Works?

Wait... is this verse NOT ACTUALLY talking about homosexuality?

Intermediate Bible students often learn about something called the Documentary Hypothesis, or JEDP theory. This theory involves a skeptical approach to the Pentateuch, which is the first five books of the Bible, oftentimes called the Law of Moses.
The theory says that the five biblical books of Genesis (G), Exodus (E), Leviticus (L), Numbers (N), and Deuteronomy (D) were not each written as independent and coherent documents by a single author. Rather, these five books were combinations of the four sources J, E, D, and P, and each one of these sources has its own conflicting theology and intention. Think of it like a patchwork quilt. For example, Exodus was not written by one author, but might have elements of J, E, D, and P in it.
The reason that this JEDP theory was created is the odd features of the Pentateuch, such as the doublets of events and apparent contradictions. To give some doublet examples, see the multiple creation accounts (Gen. 1 and 2), the multiple genealogies of the same person, and the two accounts of Jacob’s name change. There are also apparent contradictions between the doublets. One example is where the man (Adam) and woman (Eve) are created last in Gen. 1’s chronological succession of created things, whereas the man is created first and then the woman last in Gen. 2. These things are explained by JEDP theorists by claiming that multiple sources were strung together.
To help comprehend this four-source approach, here are three analogies.
<ol>
<li>The dissecting analogy. JEDP theorists say that the Pentateuch is like a dead frog with multiple parts that need to be dissected. Each part belongs to J, E, D, or P.</li>
<li>The rock analogy. There are different layers of strata within a rock. JEDP theorists say that the Pentateuch is like that, having multiple layers, each of which possesses separate historical time periods. One paragraph in Genesis was invented by J in the tenth century, another by P in the sixth century, etc.</li>
<li>The evolutionary analogy. Simple stuff slowly morphs into complex stuff. JEDP theorists say that the Pentateuch evolved from the simple stories of J and gradually became complex as it combined with E, D, and P.</li>
</ol>
There are a ton of objections to the JEDP theory. Let’s look at just one for now.
The JEDP theory does not consider the literary unity of the Pentateuch. If there is literary unity, then that should make one question whether there need to be four (or more) separations into different sources.
Robert Alter, emeritus professor of Hebrew and comparative literature at Berkeley, said in his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Art-Biblical-Narrative-Robert-Alter/dp/0465022553/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+art+of+biblical+narrative+robert+alter&amp;qid=1652796986&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=the+art+of+bibl%2Cstripbooks%2C102&amp;sr=1-1">The Art of Biblical Narrative</a> that there are strong literary connections within the Pentateuch. One example is the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38, which JEDP theorists say was added in at a later date by a separate source, for it is unrelated to the main story.
But Alter rebuts this suggestion by pointing out that Genesis 38 has some fascinating contextual connections with the stories before and after it. In Genesis 38, the character Judah relates to the larger context of the Genesis narrative about Joseph, for both of them left their families, married Gentile women, had two sons who fought over primogeniture, and more. Joseph was sexually continent toward Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39), whereas Judah was sexually incontinent with Tamar (Gen. 38). JEDP theorists ignore these connections.
Scholars separate Genesis 38 into another source because they approach the text with a dissecting knife in their hands, rather than looking for the literary connections, as Alter does. Yet JEDP theorists may simply dismiss Alter, saying the unity within the Pentateuch comes from a redactor who combined their four sources (JEDP) in a masterful way. But this response begs the question—and not only that, but it ignores the unique vocabulary within the texts.
Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto points out the unique vocabulary organization within the books of Genesis and Exodus, suggesting that both documents were independent and coherent. This can be seen in his “Commentary on the Book of Genesis” and “Commentary on the Book of Exodus.” He says there are unique phrases spread throughout the texts, arranged in a total of seven, ten, or twelve occurrences. This suggests a single author, who organized his written work with certain vocabulary.
For example, the phrase “over the face of all the earth” occurs seven times throughout the book of Genesis and only the book of Genesis. The phrase “in all the land of Egypt” is spread twelve times over the book of Exodus. If the JEDP theory were correct, then shouldn’t there be a piecemeal number of phrases? The Jews were big on numbers, as any bible scholar will say, and this should be taken into consideration.
Finally, many JEDP theorists argue for their theory by pointing to the doublets of stories in the Pentateuch. A single author certainly would not repeat a story in his writing, right? However, this might be explained by the literary unity of the text as well.
The Pentateuch is united by chiastic structures, like one upside-down triangle on top of a rightside-up triangle, which may explain the doublets. A chiasm is a technique used to organize and arrange literature. For example, if I say, “Marcus is an excellent apologist; great apologists need to look to Marcus,” this sentence has an AB A’B’ structure. Marcus is mentioned in the beginning and the end, like bookends, and “apologist” is referenced twice in the middle.
Scholars Kikawada and Quinn explain how the Pentateuch uses chiasms in their book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Before-Abraham-Was-Unity-Genesis/dp/1532617690/ref=sr_1_1?crid=274ZET68NC3ZS&amp;keywords=before+abraham+was&amp;qid=1652797129&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=before+abraham+was%2Cstripbooks%2C81&amp;sr=1-1">Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11</a>. JEDP theorists say there are two sources that wrote out the doublet, yet they do not seem to recognize that the doublet was likely intentional by the author!
There are many more objections that could be raised about this theory, such as circular reasoning, eisegesis, overlooking other possibilities, radical skepticism, subjective instead of objective leanings, overlooking the central purpose, etc. The theory helps in some ways, just as any heresy leads to a fuller doctrinal explanation of the topic, but it does more harm than good. The Pentateuch is rich in lessons to teach us, not a frog to be dissected.