Manage Account

Can You Reject Infallibility and still be Catholic?

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Jimmy Akin joins Cy Kellett to explain why popes take new names after their election. Drawing from Church history and tradition, Jimmy explores how this practice developed, what these names signify, and why the choice often reflects a pope’s mission, inspiration, or theological emphasis.
Transcript:
Cy: The question is timely, so I wanted to throw it out to you. Where do popes get their names from?
Jimmy: Well, they pick them. This is actually the very first decision a pope makes after he becomes pope. The first decision is, do you accept your election? And if he says yes and he&#8217;s already a bishop, bam. That moment he&#8217;s the pope. So once he&#8217;s become pope, the very next thing that happens is they ask him, by what name do you wish to be called? So this is his first decision as pope. And then it gets announced, and then he comes out and so forth and greets the folks.
So that&#8217;s where the names come from, if you interpret the question in one sense. But there are a couple of other senses that you could ask it in. One of them is, well, what&#8217;s the source of the names? If the pope himself picks it, where is he getting it from? And the answer is, these days, popes get their name typically from previous popes. And so they look back on who were the previous popes, who&#8217;s someone that I would like to emulate, what message will be sent if I pick this pope&#8217;s name rather than that pope&#8217;s name. And they pick it from a previous pope, but not always.
Now, originally, popes didn&#8217;t have a papal name. You could argue Peter did, because Jesus changed his name. So he got his name from Jesus. His birth name was Simeon or Simon, but then Jesus called him Peter, and that&#8217;s what other people called him. But then after Peter, they just kept their birth name. So, like Pope Clement, he would have just been born Clement. And, you know, Pope Linus, he would have just been born Linus. And so they took their name from whatever their parents had given them.
Now, there were a few deviations from this in the first millennium. So that&#8217;s between, you know, that&#8217;s the first 10 centuries up to the year 1000, there were a few. The first guy to pick a different papal name was named Mercurius. That was his birth name. But he didn&#8217;t. It&#8217;s reported, at least. I haven&#8217;t seen a direct quote from him on this. But it&#8217;s reported that he didn&#8217;t feel it would be appropriate for the Christian world to be led by someone named Mercurius, because Mercury was the name of a Roman God. And so it&#8217;s like, why is your Christian leader named after a pagan God? So he thought there was a problem with that.
But not all popes have thought that, because there was a previous pope, Dionysius, and Dionysius was also a pagan god. So there have been popes with pagan god names, but Mercurius thought that was a bad idea. So he took the regnal name or papal name, John, and he was the second person to have the name John. So he became known as Pope John II. There were a handful of others in the first thousand years of church history that did the same thing.
But when the papal name custom really took hold was in the second millennium, just before the year 1000 in 996, we had a gentleman take a special name as pope. And thereafter, almost everybody did. I mean, basically, for a thousand years, you had people picking a new name when they became pope, with like three exceptions in the 1500s that kept their birth names.
And you might wonder, well, why would this happen at this point in time? You know, why would popes all of a sudden start this tradition of taking a different name? I have never seen a study done on that, a historical study done on that question. But my guess is it&#8217;s because of what royalty were doing. It&#8217;s been common with royalty throughout history to pick a different regnal name than their birth name.
And so by the Middle Ages, you know, when the year 1000 happened, kings and queens were a big deal in Europe. And the pope was also a monarch. He ruled the papal states. And so to make the. And it seemed more like a person was more authoritative if they had a new name in their new office as pope. And so it brought dignity to the office in that cultural context.
And so I suspect that the naming conventions among European monarchs had an influence on popes taking new names. If that hypothesis is true, then we might expect that sometime in the third millennium, that custom may fall away, because kings and queens are not a big deal now. The pope does not have the papal states anymore. And rather than trying to acquire more influence by imitating what secular rulers are doing, the popes are trying to come across as humble and as the servant of the servants of God.
So at some point in the third millennium, maybe 100 years from now, we may have popes just sticking with their baptismal names, unless their baptismal name is Peter or Jesus, because we&#8217;re not going to have a Pope Peter II. No one wants to. Someone who had a birth name of Peter, they would definitely pick something else, because otherwise it would be like, who are you to compare yourself to St. Peter, you know, so I don&#8217;t expect a Peter II.
Also, if someone&#8217;s named Jesus, what Pope Jesus? Really, that would be a bit of a shock to some people. And so I suspect anyone named Jesus or Peter will keep up the custom of changing names. But the custom may fade away.
And we even see signs that we&#8217;re living in an age right now where popes are reconsidering the pool of names they want to draw from. Because in 1978, we had John Paul I elected, and he had the first double papal name in history. He said he wanted to honor Pope John and Pope Paul, so he called himself John Paul.
Then we had Pope Francis, which was another unprecedented papal name after Saint Francis of Assisi. And even if we look at other popes like Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, they had reached back hundreds of years to find a papal name. And so that suggests that popes these days are feeling like maybe the current route, bunch of names is a little stale and they&#8217;re rethinking some things.
But I did a whole study of the subject of papal names back in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI retired. I turned it into an ebook just called *Pope Names*. It&#8217;s not currently on Amazon, but I&#8217;m hoping I can get it up again real quickly.
And I also talk about this in the upcoming Monday episode of the *Jimmy Akin Podcast*, where I look at how four popes, the four most recent popes, so that&#8217;s John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and Leo XIV, how they met the world. And I cover their choice of papal names because that&#8217;s their first decision about how they&#8217;re going to interact with the world.
And then we watch footage of them coming out on the balcony, the loggia at St. Peter&#8217;s, and we analyze their body language and see what that tells us about how they&#8217;re going to reign. So there are some very interesting lessons you can learn about them from just their opening interaction before they say anything in public. Just studying. Okay. What&#8217;s their name and what are they doing with their body? That tells us a bunch about their reigns, and I&#8217;m going to be covering that on the *Jimmy Akin Podcast* on Monday.
Cy: Very cool. David, I&#8217;m sorry you weren&#8217;t able to stay on the line, but I hope you were listening and that answer was helpful to you.

Why Do Popes Change Their Names?

What happens when the Church is without a pope? In this Flannel Panel episode, Cy Kellett, Joe Heschmeyer, and Chris Check discuss the real-world effects of the current sede vacante. With no Holy Father to appoint bishops or canonize saints, important moments—like the potential canonization of Blessed Carlo Acutis—are on hold. The panel explores the theological and practical consequences of not having a pope and why the papacy remains essential to the life of the Church.
Transcript:
Cy: Trent Horn posted a video today about Pope Francis. And underneath it, people, you know, they write their comments and I read through the comments and there were probably four or five, maybe six comments saying, &#8220;I just came into the church yesterday and today I don&#8217;t have a Pope.&#8221; It was, I felt sad about that. It felt&#8230; well, it&#8217;s just sad, I guess.
Joe: Yeah, even, you know, I remember in 2005, I was in college and I&#8217;d never been in a church without a Pope before because I was born in &#8217;85, so I was, what was I, I guess, 20 when Pope John Paul II died. And it was very startling as a cradle Catholic. I can only imagine people who have come in and then suddenly find themselves without a Pope. And, you know, I&#8217;m thinking in here in Kansas City, we&#8217;re in the process of getting a new bishop on the Kansas side. So that was already a great deal of change. And, yeah, so, you know, finding yourself without a bishop or a Pope all at once is a very strange spot to be at.
Chris: Joe. Yeah, Joe&#8217;s ahead of us in this regard. We&#8217;re not going to have a bishop named until there&#8217;s a new Pope.
Cy: I guess so. No, it can&#8217;t be right. Because by canon law, I don&#8217;t think even if the past Pope had already signed it or something, that will all be stopped until the new Pope comes. Right? None of that can happen.
Joe: Yeah, that&#8217;s right. Basically, everything in terms of church governance slows to a snail&#8217;s pace.
Cy: Wait, what is it usually at? What pace is the church governance usually at? If we&#8217;re going all the way down to snail&#8217;s pace.
Joe: I mean, if God wanted things to be done quickly, he would have put the Vatican somewhere else. But there is this&#8230;
Chris: French, the Italians, everybody.
Cy: We&#8217;ll go after the English next.
Joe: I mean, the Germans would have been fast. I don&#8217;t know if it would have gone well, but they would have been quick about it.
Cy: Yeah, right.
Chris: He put it in Rome. I mean, these were people who got stuff done.
Joe: Yeah, Romans.
Chris: That&#8217;s a good point.
Cy: So, past tense, what happened?
Chris: Go ahead, Joe, you were making a point.
Jow: Well, just that everything slows down right now because in terms of governing decisions, anything that can be put off will be put off. So there&#8217;s some day-to-day stuff just kind of keeping the lights on that will continue to happen for the next few weeks. And if there are any truly urgent matters, they can handle that. But anything that you can defer to the next Pope is supposed to be deferred. And so I think you can expect, you know, even, you know, Blessed Carlo Acutis. His canonization is now suspended.
Cy: I didn&#8217;t think of that. Oh, my goodness, Joe. Because lots of people were going to Rome for that.
Joe: Yes.
Cy: Oh, wow.
Joe: It puts our missed day off really in perspective when you think about all the people who are impacted in a much greater way. Just because all of these things that rely on the Pope&#8217;s presence and authority&#8230; yeah, we&#8217;re going to have to wait. And so please pray.
Cy: You know, on the one hand, it&#8217;s such a big deal, but the other side of being Catholic is we don&#8217;t have a bishop here in San Diego. We don&#8217;t have a Pope. Sunday Mass at the parish, weekday Mass, it&#8217;ll all just be the same. It&#8217;s odd to&#8230; it&#8217;s both hugely dramatic and also not dramatic at all.
Joe: Yeah, there is something to that. That part of the beauty of having tradition, part of the beauty of being part of something that is 2000 years old, is that you don&#8217;t have to worry, well, is this going to be a totally different religion with the next Pope?
Cy: Right, right.
Joe: You don&#8217;t want to say autopilot, because that&#8217;s not actually a spiritually healthy way to live, but there is a sense in which the fundamentals are baked in in such a way that there is some presence and peace, and thanks be to God.
Chris: And as Jimmy said in the previous hour, the likelihood of the seat being vacant for very long in modern times is very low. Unlikely.
Cy: What&#8217;s the longest? Do either of you know the longest? It&#8217;s been years.
Joe: The longest it was vacant was years, but that was many centuries ago. In the 20th century, most papal conclaves are just a few days long because, I mean, the current way it&#8217;s set up, you need a 2/3 majority. So if all of their&#8230; you actually, this is one of the small things I&#8217;ve heard secular media get wrong. They&#8217;ve been saying 138 voting age cardinals or cardinal electors. There&#8217;s actually 135 eligible cardinal electors. So 2/3 of that is, I believe, 90. So if 90 cardinals agree that someone would be a good Pope, then we&#8217;re good to go. And it, I believe it took four rounds of ballots for Pope Benedict XVI and five rounds for Pope Francis. But in both cases, we&#8217;re talking about two days. You have one day on day one, there&#8217;s only one round of voting, and then you have four rounds of voting on the subsequent days until, realistically, until you come up with the Pope.
Chris: This in the perspective of, for example, the Western Schism, where there are at 1.3 claimants to the throne of Peter. So it&#8217;s going to be a little bit of a wait, but it&#8217;s not going to be a long one.
Cy: Yeah, yeah, right. We&#8217;ve had&#8230; it&#8217;s funny, like, even in the time of the multiple claimants to the papacy, the day-to-day life of the church is pretty&#8230; I mean, Jesus gave us a very sturdy structure. The life of the church just goes on. We&#8217;re okay. You can&#8230;
Chris: Baptisms, marriages, it goes on in spite of us.
Cy: Right. I&#8217;m sure that&#8230;Yeah, yeah.
Well, I&#8217;m not claiming any responsibility for it. I&#8217;m just saying it keeps going.
Let&#8217;s get a little&#8230; go ahead, Joe, did you have something else to say?
Joe: Well, I mean, this is maybe the flip side to the thing we were talking about before. You know, it&#8217;s easy to lament, &#8220;Oh, everything is very slow moving.&#8221; The bureaucracy and, you know, people who want change are perennially disappointed. But this is actually a good thing, that you don&#8217;t want a church that is constantly trying to be cool, constantly trying to be, you know, trendy and relevant.
We&#8217;re not trying to be the world. We want to be appealing to the world, but not by becoming like the world.

Why Not Having a Pope Is a Serious Problem | Flannel Panel

Today&#8217;s culture says, &#8220;Don&#8217;t judge others.&#8221; Jesus said, &#8220;Judge not, lest you be judged.&#8221; Aren&#8217;t they saying the same thing? As it turns out, they&#8217;re not. Karlo Broussard explains how the judgment that our culture condemns is different from the judgment that Jesus condemns.
Transcript:
Host: You are on with Karlo, Anonymous from Davenport, Iowa.
Caller: I would like to ask you a question: yesterday I was having a great interesting car conversation with my eleven-year-old son; I just mentioned that I had to throw away a humorous magazine I had purchased because it turned out there was a bunch of inappropriate material in it. And he said, “Oh,” he said, “well, you know, other families don’t, you know, they use those words, they speak that way, and—you know—just because we’re Catholic and we do that, that’s—all families are different.” And I helped kind of create this relativism, I think, by, you know, as he was growing up, trying not to, you know, pass judgements upon things. So now I’m wondering if this is actually turning around to be bad religion, so to speak. So could I have your advice?
Karlo: Yeah, well, first of all, you know, Anonymous, just as the Church does, and just as Jesus teaches us in the Gospels, there’s nothing wrong with making a judgement about a particular action, that a particular behavior is inappropriate human behavior. I mean, you do it every day with your eleven-year-old son, right? I mean if your eleven-year-old son mouths off to you, momma, you’re gonna have some consequences, right? Okay? So the fact that we make judgements about a behavior and say, “Hey, that’s inappropriate human behavior,” there’s nothing wrong with that. We have to do that as human beings in order to, as we were mentioning earlier, Cy, function as human beings in society.
So you can communicate to your son that there’s a difference between a certain behavior being inappropriate, wrong, immoral—whatever word you wanna use—and one’s responsibility for that immoral behavior. And this is where upbringing comes in, right? So let’s say, for example, your eleven-year-old son heard his friend at school say a bad four-letter word, right? Okay. Now, okay, so you can say, “Okay son, well, that word, it has a certain meaning to it that’s really bad, it’s not good for us as human beings, it contradicts our human dignity and our value created in the image and likeness of God. Now, so that’s bad, and we judge that we ought not to say that word, given the conventions of our society and the meaning that’s attached to it. But whether your friend is responsible for that or not, only God can judge that.” Because it may very well be that your son’s friend was brought up in a home where his parents simply didn’t teach him that these words are so bad and violating of our human dignity and keeping us from loving God and loving each other.
So notice, Anonymous, there’s a distinction to be made between judging a particular action to be wrong, and then judging one’s responsibility—or culpability, as we would say in theology, like whether that person has full knowledge of what they’re doing and whether or not it’s wrong. Does that help, at least for starters?
Caller: It does indeed, thank you very much.
Karlo: Okay, fantastic.
Host: Well, don’t forget to give your address to the call-screener, because you’re gonna be getting a free copy of Karlo’s CD, “Your Truth, My Truth.”
Karlo: And Cy, if I may just follow up very quickly, very briefly: you know, in the Gospels, when Jesus talks about “Do not judge;” he’s not talking about not judging a particular action to be immoral. Jesus did that left and right throughout his whole ministry. He said to the woman caught in adultery, you know, “Go and sin no more;” that implies that what she was doing was wrong. But the judgement that Jesus says for us not to enact, “Do not judge,” has to do with one’s responsibility, one’s culpability; judging one’s knowledge or one’s consent. Only God has access to that subjective dimension, right? Only God has access to the inner workings of the heart and the soul and the mind, but we can judge external behaviors and say “That’s not good for human beings; that is good for human beings; we ought to pursue the good, avoid the evil, etc.”
Host: Thank you very much, Anonymous.

Can You Make Judgments About Human Behavior?

Catholic apologist Tim Staples joins Cy Kellett to tackle the misconception that Natural Family Planning is merely Catholic contraception. Tim passionately clarifies the Church&#8217;s teaching on responsible parenthood, emphasizing that being open to life doesn&#8217;t mean having to have as many children as possible.
Transcript:
Cy: I hate that. It&#8217;s among young people as well, who say this. Look, natural family planning is Catholic contraception. So is natural family planning just Catholic contraception?
Tim: Right. And the answer is a resounding no. And unfortunately, Cy Kellett, not only do we have folks outside of the church who say that, but you have some folks— not to pick on. You know, I like Trent Horn&#8217;s term &#8220;the Catholic fundamentalist&#8221; as a sort of nomenclature rather than, you know, radical traditionalist or whatever. But among the Catholic fundamentalists, like that fellow, the kicker for the Kansas City Chiefs.
Cy: I wasn&#8217;t gonna mention, but I didn&#8217;t. Harrison Butker. And I didn&#8217;t like that talk he gave.
Tim: Harrison Butker.
But, yeah, Harrison Butker. Yeah, it was. Oh, he&#8217;s one of those. And God bless him, he&#8217;s Catholic and&#8230;
Cy: He seems like a very good man.
Tim: He&#8217;s on the side of the angels.
Cy: And he can kick it a mile.
Tim: Oh, my goodness. And his accuracy is ridiculous. Right. But the bottom line is&#8230; Yeah. He has this misnomer that, you know, as a Catholic, when you get married, you gotta have as many babies as&#8230; And remember Pope Francis, he got kind of slapped around for saying what he said, &#8220;We&#8217;re not rabbits,&#8221; you know. And I know some folks got mad at Pope Francis for that, but I was actually going, you know, if you forget about the surface and look at what the Holy Father was saying, no, we are not. It is as *Gaudium et Spes* section 50 talks about responsible parenthood. That is a Catholic idea.
And so anyway, to get to the answer here, no, as a Catholic, you do not have to have as many. In fact, some go to such an extreme that they say you can&#8217;t even have conjugal relations with your wife unless she&#8217;s fertile. Because if you have sex when she can&#8217;t get pregnant, that&#8217;s contraception.
But here&#8217;s the point. The key is that the Catholic position is a natural law position that states&#8230; And we can set it up by saying, look, all of our natural faculties as human beings, we can talk about the communicative faculty. Section 2485 of the Catechism says when we deliberately deceive someone with regard to truth, we&#8217;re acting contrary to the very end of our communicative faculty, which is the communication of truth. So if you purposely deceive, and that&#8217;s called a lie, why? Because you&#8217;re acting contrary to that faculty gifted to us by Almighty God.
Well, we could talk about other faculties of human beings, but here we&#8217;re talking about the sexual faculty. The purpose of the sexual faculty is twofold. One, the union of one man, one woman. That&#8217;s right. Not one man, one man. Not three men, one man, or any other one woman.
I&#8217;m just explaining math to you.
Sorry, math, that&#8217;s a tricky concept. But one man, one woman, the union of one man and one woman, and two, the procreation of children. That&#8217;s the purpose of the conjugal act.
But here&#8217;s the key, Cy. If we purposely thwart either of those two essential ends, that act becomes gravely— and yes, I&#8217;m going to shout it— gravely disordered. *A la* Pius XI in *Casti Connubii*. Gravely disordered. Why? Because you are purposely distorting. You are contradicting one or the other. And often it ends up being both of the purposes of the sexual act. Therefore, you&#8217;re distorting that sexual faculty.
Now, in what we call natural family planning, we are doing the opposite of what would be a sin in thwarting. Remember, it&#8217;s purposely knowingly thwarting either one of those two essential ends. In natural family planning, we are honoring both of those. So much so that if we are in a situation— that has to be a reasonable situation— where we believe we ought not to pursue pregnancy at this point in our marriage, and that can be for financial reasons, it can be physical reasons, a bodily ailment, it can be psychological. There are many reasons, and that&#8217;s something that needs to be determined by the couple, in consultation with a spiritual director and so forth.
But if you determine that, rather than thwart either one of those acts— and here we&#8217;re focusing on the second that I mentioned, which traditionally is the primary end of the conjugal act, and that is the procreation of children— if you don&#8217;t feel like, or you don&#8217;t&#8230; I shouldn&#8217;t say feel like. If you do not believe it is God&#8217;s will for you to have children at that time, you abstain from sexual activity, which, by the way, St. Paul recommends in marriages.
For example, where is that? In 1 Corinthians 7, St. Paul talks about coming apart for a time of prayer. But be careful. Don&#8217;t do it for too long unless you get tempted. St. Paul said that that actually can be a blessing.
And I can tell you this. In my wife and my marriage, natural family planning has been a huge gift, not only in helping us to get pregnant. We&#8217;ve been pregnant nine times. We got pretty good at it. We have two in heaven and seven on Earth. It&#8217;s a great way to get pregnant, but it&#8217;s also in those times that are, you know, a serious situation that keeps you from wanting to have children at this particular point out of respect for the conjugal act and God&#8217;s law.
And that&#8217;s divine law. It&#8217;s not only natural law, but it&#8217;s also divine law because it&#8217;s revealed to us as well in Scripture, the sin of Onan in Genesis 38 as interpreted by Pius XI again in *Casti Connubii*. And the Church perennially has understood that to not only be a matter of natural law, but also divine law because of that revelation.
But here&#8217;s the key, all right? If you are using natural family planning, it is impossible for you to contracept. It&#8217;s impossible. Why? Because contraception is purposely acting contrary to one or more of those two essential ends. And if you are using natural family planning, you are respecting both by the nature of the act. You&#8217;re respecting both the love of one man, one woman. You&#8217;re renewing the covenant to strengthen your marriage, and you are respecting the procreative aspect by not engaging at that time.
It&#8217;s impossible for you then to contracept because the definition of contraception is to willfully thwart the procreation of children. Now, is it possible to sin by doing that? Yes, it is. For example, if you get married and you say, &#8220;Well, we&#8217;re just going to use natural family planning the whole time of our marriage to avoid pregnancy.&#8221; To avoid pregnancy.
Now, you would not be contracepting unless you contracept, that is purposely willfully thwart that procreative aspect of the conjugal act. But you can be guilty of sin because of your lack of generosity. And that can be grave in a marital context, depending upon, like I said, you have a healthy woman, healthy man. There&#8217;s no other reason for you not to have children other than, you know what? I gotta get that brand new car every two years. You know, I&#8217;ve gotta get the latest&#8230;
Cy: Then there&#8217;s&#8230; That&#8217;s in his selfishness. It&#8217;s not contraception.
Tim: It&#8217;s selfishness. It&#8217;s a lack of generosity. And yes, that can be sinful. But I think that the most important point, I would say to our friend from the Kansas City Chiefs, right, understand what contraception is. It&#8217;s that willful&#8230; You are imposing your will against what the natural law tells us, Revelation tells us is the purpose.
And I argue with Pius XI, the primary, which is the procreation of children, you willfully thwart that. You are standing against God. God&#8217;s will for your marriage and God&#8217;s will for the conjugal act. In my mind, it can&#8217;t get any more plain. This is not Catholic contraception. It&#8217;s not contraception at all.
Cy: And the fact is that if the Church says the parents have the right to decide on the spacing of children and the number of children, and with all the qualifiers that go with that, some people are going to get that wrong. And here&#8217;s the deal. The Church is comfortable with that. It&#8217;s not a busybody Church telling everybody what to do all the time.
Tim: That&#8217;s right. I encourage folks to talk with a spiritual director&#8230;

Is NFP Just “Catholic Birth Control”?

<div>Do the effects of a Mass said for the dead apply when the Mass is said or when the Mass is requested? In my parish, it can be months before the requested Mass is actually celebrated. That bothers me.</div><div>The fruits (graces) of a Mass offered <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/masses-of-requiem">for the repose of a particular soul</a> are applied when the Mass is offered. While you may find it unsettling that there’s often a long delay between when the Mass was requested and when it was offered, it helps to remember that every Mass includes a prayer for both the living and the dead. You can also offer your Holy Communion or obtain a plenary indulgence (CCC 1471-1473) for the holy souls in purgatory (or for a particular friend, relative, etc.).
<blockquote>The <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/prayers-for-the-dead">intercessions</a> [express the fact] that the Eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole Church, of both heaven and of earth, and that the oblation is made for her and for all her members, living and dead, who are called to participate in the redemption and salvation purchased by the Body and Blood of Christ (<a href="https://cathdal.org/news/ten-ways-to-pray-for-the-holy-souls-in-purgatory">“20 Ways to Pray for the Souls in Purgatory,” online at cathdal.org</a>).</blockquote>
</div>

Remember, God Is Atemporal

Were the Apostles Baptized?

Responding to a caller who posits that certain models of a cyclical universe could do away with the notion of a first cause of the universe, Tim Staples explains why modern physics points toward the necessity of a first cause as laid out by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Transcript:
Host: Colin in San Francisco, California, listening on Immaculate Heart Radio, Colin, you are on with Tim Staples.
Caller: Hey guys, I was excited to hear last week you talking about <a href="https://www.catholic.com/video/st-thomas-aquinass-five-ways-as-a-path-back-to-catholicism">the Five Ways by Thomas Aquinas</a>. Cy, you and Tim had suggested I read up on him, so I&#8217;ve been doing that. My argument would be that the natural universe itself could be self-existent and not need God as a first cause, which I think would divert from kind of where Tim was going last week.
First, I wanted to say that I agree that something has to be self-existent; it may have existed forever or it may have existed for all time, at least. But there&#8217;s two ways that the natural universe could do that: the first is a cyclical universe that continually gives rise to itself through a Big Bang, and there&#8217;s a number of models that are consistent with the Big Bang and with what we know about things like dark energy that would argue that the universe may be cyclical; the second thing is that time itself and space-time seem to arise in the Big Bang, so there may not be a time before the Big Bang for the universe to have been created if time itself is a property of the Big Bang.
Tim: Okay, sure. Well I, first of all I would say that in order to argue for that sort of the &#8220;Carl Sagan expanding and contracting universe,&#8221; the problem with that is science, you know, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/law-of-the-conservation-of-energy">the second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy</a> still is something you have to deal with. Because even if you did—now I have read physicists who have debunked the whole expanding and contracting universe, simply because there&#8217;s not—here, to use an analogy, if I lit a firecracker right here and it blew up, the paper would fly up into the air, and then it would stop and then it would come back down, and why is that? Because there&#8217;s this massive dense object called the Earth underneath it that generates an enormous gravitational pull that pulls it back down, right?
Well, when you look at the Big Bang, the universe is&#8211;and I think science is pretty much in agreement on this—the universe is expanding, and in fact, surprisingly, it&#8217;s actually still increasing in speed, which tells you we&#8217;re just getting started, and it&#8217;s 13.7 billion years ago, and we&#8217;re just, the Big Bang is so unbelievable that we&#8217;re still in the acceleration phase right now. But eventually it will slow down, and the problem is, even taking into account alleged dark matter and such, there&#8217;s simply not enough density for the universe to contract again. You know, at least this is the argument that physicists are making. It just can&#8217;t do it.
But even if it could, the second law of thermodynamics does not pass away. Still, you would have entropy, and that means, as you know, Colin, there is less—there&#8217;s—you know, there is a certain stated amount of usable energy at the beginning of the universe. And that amount is going down. Well, entropy is increasing, which means the amount of usable energy is not there anymore, it&#8217;s dissipating.
And that doesn&#8217;t go away because you have another Big Bang; it still is going away, and so ultimately that demonstrates, I think, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out in his book &#8220;In the Beginning,&#8221; that you have to trace it back to a beginning in time, and you cannot look to the material universe, then, as being eternal. It simply cannot be. That&#8217;s contrary to science.
So I do think the problem is, Colin, and I&#8217;d like to get your thought here, is that you can&#8217;t have a material thing being the first cause, because by nature material things have beginnings. Everything in the material universe that we know—in fact, Colin, this is a principle of science; whenever we look at a galaxy, a star, a planet, one of the first things scientists ask is, &#8220;Well, how old is it?&#8221; And &#8220;How can we demonstrate how old it is?&#8221; And scientists have lots of different ways of dating, and so we know that material things cannot be that first cause, because everything that we see in the universe has a cause, is caused by something else. Again, that&#8217;s a principle of science.
And so there must be, the argument goes, Colin, a first cause that itself was not caused. The universe is demonstrably caused. It cannot be eternal. And again, that&#8217;s scientific principles here. And so there must be a first cause that itself is not caused, and therefore would be the cause of all things and yet not caused. Now if it&#8217;s not caused, that means it is in fact eternal.
Now Colin, there are certain things we can know about that first cause, like namely: could never die; could never move from ignorance to knowledge. Why? Because in order to move from what Thomas Aquinas would call a potential to an actuality, or potency to act, you must be acted on by something else that already has that perfection. Well, the first cause could not have, by definition, any of those potencies. It must be—and I&#8217;m diverting here, Colin, into Thomas&#8217; first proof—it must be pure actuality, or else it&#8217;s not the first cause. Pure act; that means it can&#8217;t move from potency to act, can&#8217;t move from ignorance to knowledge, can&#8217;t even move from here to there, because it&#8217;s impossible. Why? Because it&#8217;s already there.
So at any rate, Colin, I don&#8217;t know if I got to your second point, but are you following me?
Caller: I&#8217;m worried that I might have a better understanding of this then you may. I suggest you look at the cyclical models of the universe that have come since our knowledge that the universe is currently expanding. Wikipedia is a good place to start for that. There&#8217;s models like the Baum-Frampton model that saves for a certain way of conceiving of dark energy; you could have a big rip, so the universe could expand outward, but get to the point where space-time itself rips, and because everything&#8217;s so spread out, you don&#8217;t actually have entropy, and you could have another big bang, because you need particles, you need matter to be close enough together to actually have an increased state of entropy. If they&#8217;re so spread apart that they can&#8217;t communicate with each other, because they&#8217;re over the event horizon, and that issue actually goes away, so there&#8217;s—
Tim: But Colin, I think you&#8217;re not answering a very important point, though. Because everything that you&#8217;re saying presupposes that you have particles and such that are in motion. And if in fact those particles are in motion they cannot be the first cause. Because that means they have potency, and in order for something to move, it has to, from potency to act, move from potency to act, it must be moved by something that already has that actuality. So there must of necessity be that first cause, that unmoved mover, that is in fact pure actuality.
So when you&#8217;re talking about a Big Bang, the motion of particles, that you&#8217;re talking about, a rip, etc., you&#8217;re talking about things that have to be caused, have to be placed in motion, by another. So again, this gets back to St. Thomas&#8217;s first proof, which demonstrates that in order for all of those things to exist that you&#8217;re talking about, there must be the first cause, the unmoved mover, that itself is pure actuality. Pure and infinite being. Absolutely one, absolutely simple.
Caller: I think we&#8217;re gonna have to part ways there, because with a cyclical universe that continually goes through the same cycle, that could conceivably have existed in and of itself without a starting point; in fact, the fact that it&#8217;s cyclical would infer that it could always have existed in cycles, even though everything and it&#8217;s moving. And if you want to look at something that&#8230;and if you look at something like the revolution of one planetary body around another, that&#8217;s something that&#8217;s so stable that it could continue infinitely. So I&#8217;m gonna have to disagree there, but—
Tim: Yeah that&#8217;s not—but I appreciate that Colin, but what you&#8217;re saying there is not science. That&#8217;s more science fiction. Because there there&#8217;s no such thing in science as perpetual motion. Everything that is—I mean, again, this is, this gets back to Newtonian physics, but everything that is in motion was placed in motion by another that is already in motion. And so again we get back to Thomas&#8217; first proof for the existence of God. I think actually you&#8217;re demonstrating our point, Colin.

Is the Universe Cyclical?

I wish I had a nickel for every time someone has said to me, “That was not very Christlike.” This response usually comes after someone is upset by my being firm and honest. The implication is that Jesus was a cuddly, soft-hearted nice guy who was always smiling, always accepting, always with kind words of affirmation. In short, he was nice.
In America, we are known to be relatively polite and courteous, except maybe if you live in New York City. In contrast to much of the world, we tend to be very polite, genteel, gracious, and nice. Tour guides in other countries will tell you that Americans are the nicest people and their favorite groups to guide. We transfer our niceness onto Jesus and assume that he was a lot like us.
When we study the New Testament, especially the Gospels, what do we find? First, let’s discuss what we don’t find. The word nice is never found in the Bible. It is a very popular word in conversation today, but it has not always been so. With its current meaning of giving pleasure, agreeable, good-natured, or kind, it has existed only since the eighteenth century. The origins of the word are fascinating. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “Middle English, foolish, wanton, from Anglo-French, silly, simple, from Latin nescius ignorant, from nescire not to know.” Its current meaning of socially acceptable, well bred, polite, or kind is only from recent years.
Nice is often used as a synonym for loving and kind, as in “That is nice of you to say. You are a very loving person.” But are “love” and “nice” interchangeable, especially in a biblical context?
The English word love in its various forms is found 578 times in the Bible. Jesus uses the word at least fifty times in the Gospels. Love is one of three theological virtues: “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). We know that God is love (1 John 4:8), and Jesus, being God in human form, was the most loving human to walk the earth.
Love can be consoling, forgiving, gentle, and warm. One who loves puts the other person first and often makes that person feel special and accepted. The love of a mother for her child is a perfect example of such love—both caring and nurturing. The love and affection of a newly married couple fill us with joy and warm feelings.
However, love does not always equate to nice. Though Jesus speaks of love fifty times, he never speaks of niceness in its modern sense.
We can ask the question, “Was Jesus nice?”
Jesus was always loving, but he was not always nice, as we Americans define niceness. There is such a thing as “tough love.” It is the kind of love that cares enough to be honest, to confront, to discipline, to cause temporary pain to bring about eternal glory. On the surface, “tough love” does not always appear to be nice. While being disciplined out of love, a badly-behaved child may blurt out, “You are not very nice!” Speaking firmly to a belligerent teenager may get the response, “Jesus would never be mean like you are!”
Jesus was not always cozy and cuddly. Here is just one example: Jesus spoke very harshly to his fellow Jews. People today might consider it rude, disturbing, unkind.
<blockquote>Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. . . . You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matt. 23:27, 28, 33).</blockquote>
Ouch! It doesn’t sound very kind and courteous—not very thoughtful or nice! Yet they deserved it, and he spoke justly—and ultimately out of love, with the goal of repentance and educating the general population on acceptable and unacceptable moral conduct. The Jewish leaders were offending God by their hypocrisy, and Jesus was loving enough to say it how it is.
There is a shocking story recorded in all four Gospels, and it may have actually happened on <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-many-times-did-jesus-flip-tables">two separate occasions</a>. Imagine arriving at the Temple in Jerusalem one day to pray. It is a typical day in the courtyard . . . when suddenly, a man bursts onto the scene with a whip and begins to disrupt everything. Shouting and tension fill the air. Shocked, you run over to see what this commotion is all about. The man is yelling as his whip whistles through the air. He is flipping over tables and tossing the merchants’ coins on the ground. Pigeons fill the air as he shouts, “Take these things away!”
Everyone is shocked at this rude and disruptive conduct. This was completely unacceptable social behavior. He was inconsiderate and bad-tempered to lash people with a whip. Folks ran in fear! Imagine if the legacy media had been there! The headlines would be shocking.
This wasn’t just some wild man. This was Jesus. He was red in the face and glaring at the crowd. It certainly didn’t appear very “Christlike.” He was not being nice at all!
So maybe there is more to “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do?) than we’ve been led to believe. Perhaps we shouldn’t worry so much about being nice, being liked, acting as genteel Americans. Maybe we ought to be more honest and forthright about the things that really matter. Perhaps we should be more willing to hurt feelings, step on some toes, and practice tough love toward those in sin. Maybe we should be more Christlike.
In C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, Jesus is represented by Aslan the lion. The children love Aslan, but they never consider him tame. The dialogue is instructive.
<blockquote>“Aslan is a lion—the Lion, the great Lion.”
“Ooh” said Susan. “I’d thought he was a man. Is he quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.” . . .
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. . . . “Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn&#8217;t safe. But he&#8217;s good. He&#8217;s the King, I tell you.”</blockquote>
Jesus is approachable and loving, but don’t ever consider him “tame” or too cuddly. He may not live up to our perception of nice. Jesus is God as well as man. He expressed the wrath and anger of God as well as the mercy and love of God. Even the “disciple whom Jesus loved” was afraid when he saw the glorified Christ: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last.” (Rev. 1:17).
Many of us have sung the old hymn, “What a friend we have in Jesus,” but we must remember that Jesus is not here just to be nice or simply our amiable friend. He is God, and his goal is to make us holy. Sometimes, that requires discipline. In Hebrews, we read, “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (12:5-6).
Love should permeate our relationships with others, not niceness. And sometimes love is tough. If we ever wonder just what qualities we should have as Christians, St. Paul gives us a good place to start. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” And we should always “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).
So was Jesus nice? Actually, that is the wrong question. The real question is, was Jesus loving? Did he love us enough to tell us the truth and require us to be holy?

Was Jesus Nice?

The site formerly known as Twitter brings us another gem of popular atheism:

Of course, there’s something deeply ironic here. The idea that “religion” teaches that if you read one book you “know everything” is a gross caricature. Perhaps this critique captures something true of some shallow forms of religion, but anyone who thinks that this represents all or even most religious people is being too intellectually incurious. Before painting with such a broad brush, they should cultivate an intellectual curiosity, and realize that they “don’t know enough” about what religious people actually believe.
For instance, did the Catholic Church really invent the university system (with the Universities of Bologna, Paris, and Oxford in the 11th century) because they only wanted people to know about one book? By that same reasoning, why does the Vatican run one of the oldest astrological research centers on Earth, the Vatican Observatory? And <a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/07/12/why-are-so-many-craters-moon-named-after-jesuits">speaking of astronomy</a>, “Jesuit contributions to astronomy are significant enough that 34 craters on the moon and several asteroids are named after them.” Nor is this scientific interest anything new, or confined to astronomy: the father of genetics was a monk, Gregor Mendel; the fallopian tube is named after the 16th-century anatomist Fr. Gabriele Falloppio; and the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists">Additional</a> examples <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists">abound</a>. The point is, all of this seems like an awful lot of unnecessary work for people who supposedly think one book is all you need.
Atheists who want to cultivate intellectual curiosity (instead of simply bragging about how curious they already are) might start with this question: why has the Catholic Church in particular been so interested in learning more about science? A good resource here would be Pope John Paul II’s encyclical <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html">Fides et Ratio</a>, on faith and reason, in which he declares that:
<blockquote>Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.</blockquote>

When Atheists “Don’t Know Enough” About Scientists

Is overpopulation a justification for abortion?

Why Faith?

Tim Staples explains the principles from both reason and Scripture that underlie just war theory, and shows why these principles not only allow but even obligate a nation under attack to protect its people with &#8220;the use of the sword.&#8221;

When and How Can War Be Just?

Catholic Answers LIVE is a daily, call-in radio program of Catholic apologetics and evangelization airing live from 6-8 pm ET.

Catholic Answers Live

Today’s instruction from the book of Sirach isn’t very interesting. It’s that same old message about humility that we see all over the wisdom literature, and not even just the wisdom literature, of the Bible. But the trouble is that we can hear the message over and over and still forget it—hence the need for Scripture and Tradition to remind us over and over again about the two most basic truths: God is not we, and we are not God.
Our Lord’s parable about higher and lower places at the wedding feast is another reminder about humility, another statement of the obvious that we all the same must hear. The Pharisees would not have gone around asserting that they were God. Far from it! Yet Jesus observed, it seems, a pattern of behavior suggesting that their actions revealed more of their true theology.
The scenario, and his comments, further complicates the dynamics of humility, for right there, front and center, is the possibility of acting humble in order to appear great. Choosing the lower seat, after all, could just be a clever trick to get the higher status that you really want. Surely, this is not what the Lord thinks we ought to do.
The second part of the parable, the command to invite all the poor and the lame to the feast, demonstrates a less self-serving kind of humility. But even this humble action could be done for the wrong reasons; we could be simply hedging our bets, avoiding status in this life only to achieve it in the next. This, again, is hardly the purest intention, even if it is a little better than using humility to acquire worldly fame or status.
The main point is neither just a simple “be humble” nor a crafty “be humble in order to be great,” but rather a reminder that ultimately, true status is judged only by God. Appearances never tell the whole story, which is why the Lord reminds us in Luke 13:30 that some of the last will be first and the first last. The statement isn’t just a contradiction of the visible norm, but rather an assertion that the real accounting is what God sees, not what we see or what we think we see. In fact, some of the first probably will be first, and some of the last last. So we dare not, for example, reduce true virtue to a kind of excessive show—the kind of false humility where, for example, a priest, bishop, or pope goes around refusing to act like a priest or a bishop or a pope because he lacks the humility to allow his office to be more important than his individual personality.
The call to discipleship means moving from falseness and vice to truth and virtue, but not necessarily all at once. It is in fact better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than it is to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason, or even the wrong thing for the right reason. The imitation of virtue isn’t true virtue, but it can form us for virtue. Performative humility can develop into real humility, and it is still usually better than unrepentant pride, because there is at least some higher degree of truth-recognition.
To put it another way, proper humility, which is to say a right recognition of who we are in relation to God and one another, can include its own proper ambition for great things—not ambition for power or worldly status for its own sake, but ambition for the things of God, ambition for virtue, ambition for the kingdom.
The Catholic moral tradition wouldn’t put it like that, exactly, though we can probably get away with it in modern English. For the Angelic Doctor, “ambition” is always a vice, a disordered desire for honor. But what we might today think of as a virtuous “ambition” is really what St. Thomas would call magnanimity: the desire for greatness. Literally, it means being “great-souled.” It’s not a desire for greatness in itself, but a desire for great good. Another term in the tradition, magnificence, further names the virtue of actually accomplishing great things. In both of these the great goods desired or accomplished are true goods, which is to say not merely the boosting of one’s own ego, but the increase of beauty, truth, and goodness in the world in witness and service to the kingdom of God.
I hope it goes without saying that it is good to desire heaven, to desire eternal life. Yes, it is possible to desire it for the wrong reasons—as we say so often in the act of contrition—such as merely avoiding pain or punishment. It is also possible to want the right thing but to fool ourselves into thinking we can acquire it by the wrong means. This too is a temptation: whereas a good act with defective motivation may be a middle step toward virtue, and toward God, an evil act, no matter the motivation, is always a step away.
Desiring eternity, though, has a particular form in the economy of salvation, and that form is our Lord Jesus Christ. The author of Hebrews, in today’s passage, distinguishes between the Old Covenant and the New, Sinai and the heavenly Zion, the old sacrifices and the new. “We have an altar,” he writes in the final chapter, just beyond today’s passage, “from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (Heb. 13:10).
In the old way, proximity to the holy of holies was proximity to God. There was, then, almost inevitably, the possibility of a competitive quest for honor, and understandably so: who would not want to be closer to God? But here at banquet with the Pharisees, the incarnate Son hints at this new reality: no matter where you are at the table, you receive the infinite gifts of the host.
The reason why we should not seek honor, some kind of superficial elevation, is that the only true and lasting honor is the honor available to us where we are now, no matter who we are—the honor that comes only from being united with Jesus. The great things that we should desire and do are the things that honor him, that glorify him, that bring us closer to him. The truest humility is not worrying about our place at all but only delighting in the fact that our place will always be, thanks to his love and generosity, in his sacred heart.

Humility . . . No, Really

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

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

What is Advent really about?

Joshua Charles, a Catholic convert, lays out one reason he left Protestantism. He discusses how the unity of the Catholic Church is what Jesus intended for his people.
This clip was taken from our live show, Catholic Answers Live: <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/tbd-146">https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/tbd-146</a>

His Biggest Issue with Protestantism

<div>What was the language of the original scriptures?</div><div>Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Some portions (e.g., sections of Daniel and Ezra) were written in Aramaic. Books that are contained in the Catholic canon but not the Protestant or Jewish canons were written in Hebrew and Greek.
The entire New Testament was written in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek">Koine Greek</a>. Some scholars have theorized that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but that claim is highly disputed.
</div>

Original Languages of Scripture?

Christianity CANNOT EXIST without the Eucharist!

In <a href="https://www.lalibre.be/belgique/societe/2023/09/28/joan-bonny-eveque-danvers-leuthanasie-nest-pas-necessairement-un-mal-en-tant-que-tel-GWDQU56HUFFYNO4SVZIAOIFMTI/">a recent interview</a> with Belgian newspaper La Libre, Bishop Johan Bonny of Antwerp, Belgium appeared to reject the Church’s teaching on the intrinsically evil nature of euthanasia. <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255608/belgian-bishop-euthanasia-is-not-necessarily-an-evil-as-such">He said such a teaching</a> provides “too simple an answer that leaves no room for discernment.” He continues:
<blockquote>Philosophy has taught me to never be satisfied with generic black-and-white answers. All questions deserve answers adapted to a situation: a moral judgment must always be pronounced according to the concrete situation, the culture, the circumstances, the context . . . We will always oppose the wish of some to end a life too prematurely, but we must recognize that a request for euthanasia from a young man of 40 is not equivalent to that of a person of 90 who faces an incurable illness.</blockquote>
If by “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-real-death-with-dignity">euthanasia</a>” Bishop Bonny means the direct killing of an innocent human being because they are suffering, then he is gravely in error. The Catechism calls euthanasia “murder” (CCC 2324) and the CDF called it an “intrinsically evil act” in its document Samaritanus Bonus.
This is also a teaching that is not subject to doctrinal development since it has been “definitely” taught, so any debate about the issue has been brought to an end (Latin: de fine).
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith said the wrongness of euthanasia must be held <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/doctrinal-commentary-on-concluding-formula-of-professio-fidei-2038">“definitively”</a> because it is taught in an infallible way by the Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium (Doctrinal Commentary, 11). Pope St. John Paul II declared in Evangelium Vitae that the wrongness of euthanasia is based upon the natural law and the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church&#8217;s Tradition, and is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (65).
As for the bishop’s disdain for “black and white” answers in philosophy, I wonder if he would say declaring racism or wage theft intrinsically evil also constituted faulty “black and white” thinking. Those who condemn absolute answers are always confident that their frameworks should be absolutely accepted!
Now, it is not wrong to discontinue <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-extraordinary-care">burdensome medical care</a> in some cases, including for very elderly patients. Murder is always wrong, but it isn’t murder to allow the natural course of life to progress and end. It&#8217;s irrational suicide for a healthy 40-year-old accident victim to reject a mildly burdensome treatment he needs to have a normal lifespan, but a 90-year-old dying from multiple organ failures might licitly reject the same treatment if it only provided him a few painful months to live.
But it’s always wrong to justify the intentional murder of a person (and not just withholding disproportionately difficult medical care) solely based on the person’s age.
This is a teaching all Catholics must accept. If Bishop Bonny ultimately can’t accept it, then he has no business being a bishop who is entrusted with the souls of his diocese, especially those who are at greatest risk of being murdered in this way.

A Prelate’s Picky Platitudes on Euthanasia

<div>Is it OK to attend daily Mass every day? </div><div>Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to attend Mass everyday. In fact, many people do just that.
<blockquote>The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily (CCC 1389).</blockquote>
Suggested reading: The Diocese of Salina&#8217;s <a href="http://salinadiocese.org/new-evangelization/2108-5-reasons-to-attend-daily-mass">5 Reasons to Attend Daily Mass</a>.
</div>

Mass Every Day?

In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul profoundly remarked, &#8220;Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.&#8221; Within these words lies a timeless truth: though universal by its nature, the Catholic Church is one, and we are called to pray for one another, support one another, and be missionaries, both at home and abroad.
In today&#8217;s digital age, with information at our fingertips, it&#8217;s easy to assume that everyone must know about Christ. In fact, some could even argue, how could someone not know about him? Yet, according to the Pew Research Center, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/">8 in 10 people</a> around the world have a religious affiliation, but only 2.5 billion of the world’s 8 billion people identify as Christians. Among those who do not follow Jesus, 8 in 10 people <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/non-christians-who-dont-know-christians.html">don’t know</a> a single Christian person.
The assertion of &#8220;many paths to heaven,&#8221; while ecumenically sensitive, doesn&#8217;t negate the Church&#8217;s belief in the unique and universal salvific role of Jesus Christ. Although the Church acknowledges that individuals outside the Christian fold can achieve salvation, it firmly believes in the transformative power of a relationship with Christ and his sacraments, a gift it yearns to share with all.
To answer this longing to make disciples of all nations, the Church since 1926 has observed World Mission Sunday, an annual celebration of the Church&#8217;s missionary activity. It takes place on the second-to-last Sunday of October (October 22 this year) and serves as a clarion call to mobilize faith, resources, and action in advancing the gospel to our brothers and sisters living in the farthest reaches of the world.
As the theme for this year’s World Mission Sunday, Pope Francis has chosen &#8220;Hearts on Fire, Feet on the Move.&#8221; It is based on the evocative narrative of the disciples’ encounter with Jesus on their way to Emmaus, as narrated in Luke 24:13-35. This Scripture passage vividly reminds us that when our hearts are set ablaze by the living Christ, our feet naturally move in mission, spreading the warmth of his love and the light of his word.
As an inspiration, let us look to the example of the woman whose love for the gospel, and for the children of God in far-flung places who had yet to hear it, has inspired millions over centuries to live more prayerfully and to propagate the Faith by word and deed. Bl. Pauline Jaricot was born in 1799 to a profoundly religious French aristocratic family. She was wealthy, carefree, and good-natured. As a young woman, she became the foundress of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, a confraternity dedicated to praying for and supporting the Missions. It began in a simple way: a friend asking her friends for prayers each day and a penny each week.
Funds from that society helped build many churches here in the United States, which was considered a mission territory until 1908 and benefited from the collections of these prayer groups, predecessors to what is today World Mission Sunday.
Today, the organization that she founded, the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, one of four Pontifical Mission Societies, served by thousands of missionaries in 1,100 dioceses worldwide, extends Christ’s healing and his entire ministry to people in desperate need of it. They are building churches; educating children; and treating physical and psychological wounds caused by war, cruelty, oppression, terror, and despair. They are bearing witness to the compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The funds raised through this collection are distributed through the Pontifical Mission Societies to territories where the Church is too poor or too young to be self-reliant, enabling them to grow and flourish in faith. The support from the faithful throughout the world—even small parishes in mission territories hold this collection—allows the Pontifical Mission Societies, through the Vatican’s Dicastery for Evangelization, to provide annual subsidies to missionary dioceses, and to directly support mission seminaries and religious formation houses, the education of children in mission schools, and the building of chapels and churches, as well as sustaining homes for orphaned children, the elderly and sick.
The Catholic Church is growing rapidly in Asia and Africa, but mostly among the poorest people in these continents. This means that the institutional Church needs support from regions of the world such as Europe and North America, where the faith is more established. For example, seminaries in Ghana and Nigeria are overflowing with hundreds of seminarians, and local bishops struggle not only to have sufficient infrastructure, but also to find good formators.
While numerous non-profit organizations worldwide work tirelessly to provide for physical, educational, and social needs, Catholic missionaries embark on their journey with a different primary focus. Rooted deeply in Christ&#8217;s Great Commission, their foremost goal is to bring Christ to those who have not known him and to deepen the faith of those who do.
At a superficial glance, the work of Catholic missionaries might seem indistinguishable from that of NGOs. They feed the hungry, heal the sick, and educate the marginalized. Yet the underlying purpose goes beyond temporal needs:
<ol>
<li> Sacramental Life. The sacraments are at the heart of the Church&#8217;s life. Missionaries often prioritize sacramental preparation and administration. Whether it&#8217;s celebrating the Eucharist in remote villages or baptizing eager catechumens, the sacraments are channels of grace that missionaries strive to make available to all.</li>
<li> Evangelization. True missionary work is about not just physical aid, but also spiritual nourishment. Missionaries catechize, foster prayer communities, and guide individuals in deepening their relationship with Christ.</li>
<li> Integral Human Development. The primary focus is spiritual nourishment, and after that, the Catholic Church recognizes the intrinsic link between spiritual and temporal well-being. Hence, missionaries also provide education, medical care, and other necessary services. These are seen not as ends in themselves, but as means to demonstrate Christ&#8217;s love and pave the way for deeper evangelization.</li>
</ol>
Catholic missionaries are driven by a sense of spiritual urgency.
They persevere amid violence and persecution, often serving in regions hostile to Christianity, finding strength in their faith to remain in conflict regions long after diplomats have called it quits. We saw this in Iraq and Syria during the rise and fall of ISIS; we see it in India, where Dalits who embrace Christianity support of the least of the last in the country’s caste system; we see it in Ukraine, where priests and missionaries are at the forefront, tending to those physically and spiritually wounded by war; and we see it in the Holy Land, with historically missionary orders keeping Christianity alive where it began.
Ad Gentes, the Second Vatican Council&#8217;s decree on missionary activity, is clear when <a href="https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html">it defines missions</a> as “those particular undertakings by which the heralds of the gospel, sent out by the Church and going forth into the whole world, carry out the task of preaching the gospel and planting the Church among peoples or groups who do not yet believe in Christ. . . . The proper purpose of this missionary activity is evangelization, and the planting of the Church among those peoples and groups where it has not yet taken root” (6).
“Christian charity truly extends to all,” Ad Gentes affirms, “without distinction of race, creed or social condition. It looks for neither gain nor gratitude. For as God loved us with an unselfish love, so also the faithful should in their charity care for the human person himself, loving him with the same affection with which God sought out man” (12).
Every Catholic, regardless of geographical location, plays a pivotal role in embracing the missionary spirit. We are called not only to pray for our missionaries, but also to become missionaries in our own right. Whether in our local communities or through international initiatives, we have the power to share Christ&#8217;s message and love with others.
In a world where connectivity can sometimes feel superficial, World Mission Sunday reminds us that the heart of our faith lies in bringing Christ&#8217;s love and message to every corner of the globe. Together, with hearts on fire and feet on the move, we can carry forward this mission and ensure that the transformative power of Christ&#8217;s love reaches every soul, near and far.

Why Bother with Missions?

Cy Ruined Everything

<div>A deacon said that being anointed with holy oil at a healing Mass absolves me of my sins. Can I use this as my last confession?</div><div>The sacrament of anointing of the sick forgives sins only if the recipient is unable to confess (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4P.HTM">CCC 1532</a>). If a person is able to get to a healing Mass, the odds seem pretty good that he&#8217;d also be able to go to confession.
</div>

Does Anointing Forgive Sins?

Karlo Broussard, Catholic Answers Apologist, answers why Tradition is crucial to a relationship with Jesus. He uses bible verses and cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain why we, as Christians, need to hold Tradition close to our hearts along with Scripture.

Are Catholics Obsessed with Tradition?

Dr. Edward Sri discusses how moral relativism may be gradually entering the minds of even devout Catholics in a hidden way.
Transcript:
Host: Let&#8217;s go to Amy now in Radford, Virginia watching us on Facebook Live. Thanks for watching on Facebook Live, Amy. You are on with Dr. Edward Sri.
Caller: Hey, gentlemen, thanks for taking my question. It&#8217;s actually a two-part question. So from what I&#8217;m understanding is that this book has seven tips to respond to relativism. However, with the two-part is that, with these seven tips is it possible, for people who may be struggling with some things in their own life, could they apply these seven tips to their own life? And the second part is, should they apply it to their own life before they use it in someone else&#8217;s life? With your book?
Dr. Sri: Ah, great. I think, you know, in our culture a lot of people—a lot of good people—have struggled with relativism. I mean people that are working in parishes, I mean even people that go to daily Mass, that sometimes are afraid—you know, &#8220;I&#8217;m afraid to actually say this is definitively right or wrong, I&#8217;ve got, like, my brother&#8217;s living a homosexual lifestyle and afraid to say it&#8217;s right or wrong.&#8221; And so there&#8217;s a bit of that relativism that&#8217;s kind of crept in.
Really, I mean, these are good people, they believe in God, they believe in the Church and all, but because of the pressures of our culture, they start to waffle a little bit. They start qualifying some of their moral statements. &#8220;Well for me, marriage is between a man and woman, but for other people&#8230;&#8221; You know. And I think the book is meant to—first and foremost, it&#8217;s meant to equip people to talk about relativism with their friends, to talk about moral truth.
But I can tell you, I&#8217;ve had people who have had some of that relativism in them. There was a guy I just met this last January who told me, you know, after hearing a presentation I gave where I walked through these seven keys and all, he said, &#8220;I never realized how much relativism had taken shape in my own heart and mind, and I didn&#8217;t realize the problem it was causing. And you&#8217;ve helped me to see there really is moral truth, and I want to I want to be better at standing up for that, and first in my own life and then sharing it with others.&#8221; And I&#8217;ve met other people—I just shared that one example—where it is having that kind of impact, it is doing something in their own hearts getting them to conform more moral truth in their own lives.

Personal Struggles with Relativism

Do Catholics Eat God?

<div>Should we confess﻿ not doing enough against abortion?</div><div>I do not think you should confess this unless there was a particular, individual instance at least when you did not do what you could. This should be concrete, not general. Otherwise, we could get ourselves into a state about all the evils that we are not doing enough to stop. All of us could do more for world peace or for the family or for the poor and so on, but there is not clearly a sin unless we refuse an opportunity where in justice we should have acted concretely in our own circumstances.
So, for example, if you hear some coworkers discussing whether one of them should have an abortion, and you do not say anything to encourage the protection of life, then you certainly should confess that; but if you have not volunteered for the local pro-life ministry when you could, it is not necessarily a sin if you have other good works you are doing.
</div>

Not Opposing Abortion Forcefully Enough

As a Catholic, it’s not hard to find Protestants who say my religion teaches a false gospel, and so it isn’t even Christian. But these Protestants shoot themselves in the foot, because they can’t even answer the question “What is the gospel?” in a way that doesn’t undermine their own argument.
The word “gospel” comes from the Greek word euaggelion, literally “good news.” But in almost every case, the word is used in Scripture without any explanation of what the good news is about.
Matthew refers to the good news of the kingdom or the good news being preached (4:23, 9:35). Mark describes Jesus speaking of the good news or the good news of God (1:14-15). Luke shows Jesus preaching good news for the poor (4:18). And these passages also point back to verses in Isaiah proclaiming the good news of God’s victory over his enemies (52:7, 61:1).
We know that the gospel was preached during Christ’s ministry, but what was initially preached was not a message about Christ’s death, his resurrection, or how he would redeem humanity from sin. At this time, the gospel was just the good news that God’s kingdom was entering the world and that things would finally be set right.
After Christ’s resurrection, we find some passages in Paul’s letters that are closer to a definition of the gospel as we know it today. Romans 1:16 says the gospel is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says, “I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel [or the good news], which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.
Paul then describes this good news through what many scholars identify as an early creed that was formulated just a few years after Christ’s crucifixion. It says Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose three days later, and appeared to numerous people, including Paul.
Notice there is no description of the gospel being about our individual salvation from damnable sin, even though that is how the gospel is often summarized. Instead, the gospel is the good news of God’s kingdom entering the world that saves God’s people through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But these verses about the gospel never say that it is about salvation through faith alone, or grace alone, or any other doctrinal formula. The gospel is just the salvation that comes through God’s power being implemented in his kingdom through his son.
Since Catholicism affirms this truth, that means the Catholic Church is not preaching a false gospel. The glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the gospel as “the ‘good news’ of God&#8217;s mercy and love revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is this gospel or good news that the apostles, and the Church following them, are to proclaim to the entire world.”
People who say Catholicism teaches a false gospel usually arrive at this conclusion through two mistaken lines of thought.
First, they assume that “the gospel” is identical to all essential doctrines of the Faith, but as we’ve seen, the Bible never defines “the gospel” in this way. The Trinity and Jesus’ messianic status are essential doctrines of Christianity, but Scripture never says these truths are part of “the gospel.”
Second, these critics assume that essential doctrines for their denomination must also be essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and so those doctrines must be part of the gospel.
For example, when many people are asked to summarize the gospel in one Bible verse, they will point to John 3:16, where John says, “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Even though many Protestants say the Gospel of John is sufficient to proclaim the gospel, the word “gospel” is not in John’s Gospel. At best, this verse serves as a loose summary of the plan of salvation that flows from what the gospel is. But this verse is at least the start of a much better answer to the question “What is the Gospel?” than what the late John MacArthur said when he was asked <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g51niEf25ko">to summarize the gospel</a> in a single verse:
<blockquote>The greatest gospel verse in the bible [is] second Corinthians. “He made him who knew no sin sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of god in him.” . . . God punished Jesus for my sin, turns right around and treats me as if I lived [Christ’s] life. That&#8217;s the great doctrine of substitution, and on that doctrine turned the whole reformation of the church. That is the heart of the gospel.</blockquote>
MacArthur said the “heart of the gospel” is his particular, Reformed interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21. This involves our sins being imputed to Christ so that God sees us on the cross, and so he consequently punishes “us” while punishing Christ. And now God sees only “Christ” when he looks at us, and so he rewards us with eternal life. But once again, the Bible doesn’t say this is “the gospel.” even though the Greek word for gospel, euaggellion, is used nine times in 2 Corinthians.
Even if the passage were teaching the doctrine MacArthur thinks it’s teaching, that wouldn’t make it part of “the gospel.” Protestants know that the gospel is not identical to “everything the New Testament teaches,” because all of the major Protestant denominations differ on what the New Testament teaches, but they don’t anathematize every other Protestant as preaching a “false gospel” just because he has mistaken theology.
If the “heart of the gospel” were a particular Reformed understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:21, then followers of John Wesley (i.e., many Methodists), who believe in an “imparted” righteousness rather than an imputed righteousness, would have a false gospel. The same is true for any Christian who denies the doctrine of “double imputation” and believes that 2 Corinthians 5:21 teaches something else.
This includes believing that the verse is a reference to the Incarnation, or Christ coming in the form of sinful flesh, as Romans 8:3 says. The verse could also mean Christ “became sin” in. the sense that Christ became a sacrificial “sin offering” on our behalf, since the Hebrew word for sin is the same word for “sin offering.”
The Christian faith, even just the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, involve much more than the message of the gospel. Even Protestants who believe that Catholicism preaches the gospel still must wrestle with a difficult question: which doctrines are essential to the Christian faith, and how do we know they are essential?
Many Protestants believe that Scripture is perspicuous, or that it clearly reveals the essential doctrines Christians must believe. The Westminster Confession says that those things that are
<blockquote>necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.</blockquote>
But isn’t it necessary for salvation to know if the largest Christian denomination in the world, Catholicism, preaches a true gospel or a false gospel? Even learned Protestants using ordinary means do not have agreement on this question, as can be seen in debates between Protestants on the question of whether Catholics are Christian or if they have a false gospel.
Ironically, this provides evidence that God’s authority structure for the Church is grounded not in something like sola scriptura, but in a living teaching office, or a magisterium capable of settling disputes definitively through authoritative, universal, and infallible teachings.
I hope that when Catholics are asked to explain “what the gospel is,” they will know both what the Bible teaches on this matter and how Christ’s Catholic Church brings us salvation and fulfills the “good news” of our salvation in Jesus Christ.

The Protestant Gospel Problem

If the pope wanted to, could he modify the declaration of an ecumenical council?

Did any early Jewish denomination accept the Deuterocanon?

Why did God make us how he did? Why did he give us eyes, arms, etc.?

Does the Church consider mortal sin to be objective or does it depend on the perspective of the individual?

Where do popes get their names from?

Why did God create hell?

Why is it important to learn Church History?

Is it sinful to lack a relationship with God and to lack knowledge of God?

My friends found out that the priest who baptized them killed someone and they were informed by the diocese that their baptism was invalid. How is this possible?

Is it possible for a pope to change or override the declarations of an ecumenical council? We explore the limits of papal authority, how councils and popes interact, and what Catholic tradition teaches about continuity and development in Church doctrine.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
</div></div>

Can a Pope Modify an Ecumenical Council? And More

<div class="page" title="Page 314">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 304
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The book of Leviticus condemns homosexuality (Lev. 18:22), but it also condemns eating shrimp since they don’t have fins and scales (cf. Lev. 11:9–12). If we aren’t obliged to follow it when it comes to the latter, why should we follow it when it comes to the former?”
DEFENSE
Homosexuality is contrary to human nature; shrimp-eating is not.
The Law of Moses (Gen.-Deut.) contains a variety of types of laws. Some, such as the prohibitions on murder, are based directly on human nature and apply to all cultures in all of history.
Other laws, such as the observance of the Sabbath, were related to human nature in a less direct way and applied specifically to the people of Israel. For example, although all humans have a need to devote adequate time to rest and worship, there is nothing about human nature that demands this be done on Saturday in particular. God therefore chose Saturday as the day of rest and worship for Israel, though the underlying principles could be fulfilled another way, as with the Christian observance of Sunday.
This is similar to the way some countries today have motorists drive on the left side of the road and others have them drive on the right side of the road. It doesn’t matter which choice a country makes as long as it makes a choice, so motorists don’t drive in an unsafe manner.
It is widely recognized that the dietary laws found in the Old Testament were of the second category. They were not based directly on human nature the way the prohibition on murder was. Instead, they were given specifically to regulate the common life of Israel.
They had a role in establishing and reinforcing Jewish culture and helping keep Israelites distinct from their pagan neighbors, but they did not apply to other nations nor do they apply to Christians today (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:9–16, Col. 2:16–17).
The prohibitions on homosexuality, however, are directly related to human nature. Even a consideration of the anatomy involved, as well as the ability to conceive new human beings, indicates that men and women are designed to go together. Consequently, the prohibition on homosexual behavior is a moral requirement applicable to all cultures, not just Israel (Rom. 1:26–27).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

God Hates Shrimp?

He was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
Our Gospel picks up the story just after the travelers to Emmaus return to tell their story to the apostles. Jesus appears to two people walking home from Jerusalem, but they do not recognize him, even though they were his followers. Their hearts are set afire as he speaks with them, opening up the scriptures. It is only when they get home, and they break bread together, that they recognize him, and then he vanishes.
. . . only to appear once again to his apostles as the two travelers tell their story. Here, like in some of the other resurrection accounts, there’s an emphasis on Jesus’ bodily reality: you can touch him; you can give him fish, and he’ll eat it; he’s definitely not a ghost, even if he’s somehow different from how he was before.
This opens up in a mysterious way the theme I want to address, which is the centrality of the body in recognizing Jesus.
So many of these post-Resurrection encounters, and the post-Resurrection speeches, like we hear from St. Peter in Acts, focus on the meaning of Scripture that has now been fully revealed. Indeed, that is what Jesus does here in Luke, opening up the scriptures, making them clear. And this is possible because they’re ultimately all about him. And he is their fulfilment, and he makes sense only in their light.
But we can add, as the Gospel writers do: the scriptures, and Jesus as the fulfilment of the scriptures, make sense only in his bodily presence. There’s a direct personal link that ties everything together. He was known to them not because he gave them the right password, but because he broke bread with them and ate.
St. Jerome famously says that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. We could also reverse this and say: ignorance of Christ is ignorance of Scripture. Yet in these stories from Luke, and the apostolic witness, it’s worth remembering the threefold nature of Christ’s body: (1) the historical body born of the Virgin Mary, dead, risen, and ascended into heaven; (2) the sacramental body truly present in the Eucharist; (3) the body of Christ, which is the Church. So if we tie all this together with Jerome’s principle, we might say: to know Christ, we must know the scriptures; to know the scriptures, we must know Christ in the sacraments; to know Christ in the sacraments, we must know Christ in his people. So in the end there’s no Jesus without the Church, no Church without Jesus, no Scripture without Jesus and the Church.
Even in the first century, it was tempting for Christians to separate these things, to go around claiming that they loved Jesus while hating his people or his word. As our epistle today says, “Those who say, ‘I know him,’ but do not keep his commandments are liars, and the truth is not in them.” It’s often thought that John, in his epistles, is dealing especially with an early form of Gnosticism, which is a religious movement founded on the absolute separation of body and soul. In a gnostic understanding, bodies are irrelevant to what is ultimately real; therefore, for some of them, all bodily disciplines and rules are irrelevant to what is ultimately real.
And here’s where the teaching of John, and of the New Testament as a whole, insists in a surprising way—surprising, at least, for those of us who had been tempted to think that Christianity was simply about spiritual things—they insist that the body of Christ, both in sacrament and assembly, is the privileged access point for interpreting the spiritual messages contained in the scriptures.
So we find, then, in Luke, that the single most important way of seeking out Christ isn’t just being clever, or learning a few extra languages, or memorizing the book of Deuteronomy—useful as all those things might be—it’s being in fellowship with the body, which is always a both/and—both the direct sacramental fellowship of the Eucharist, and the equally real fellowship of the Church. Catholics rightly emphasize the importance of the Blessed Sacrament, but we err if we think Christ’s presence in his body the Church is somehow less real. It is real in a different way. Yet they are related. For if we adore Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, should we not look for him and honor him among those who have been baptized into his life, and who have taken that sacrament into their own substance to be transformed by it?
Maybe you’ve noticed—I have—that in the last few years, with so many people spending more time isolated online, there have been so many new products being marketed to fix every possible ailment. We just want there to be a magic supplement for everything. So often, Catholics fall into this same trap spiritually. We think there’s some perfect spiritual or intellectual nugget that will finally cure our scrupulosity, or our covetousness, or our laziness. I don’t mean that there aren’t good things out there, whether consumer products or spiritual techniques. But there is no substitute for the basic discipline of sacramental life, which is life together. We have to show up, and listen to one another, and seek Christ with patience and perseverance. Then, in the course of the journey, like with those travelers to Emmaus, the Lord can open our eyes and reveal what he has been doing all along.

The Flesh-and-Blood Bible

Cy Kellett and Joe Heschmeyer engage with a listener exploring the journey toward joining the Catholic Church.
Transcript:
Caller: So question why I&#8217;m not Catholic? Well, because I haven&#8217;t started OCIA yet. I am inquiring.
Joe: That&#8217;s a good, that&#8217;s a good reason.
Caller: As I continue down this path, what are some, if you will, do&#8217;s and don&#8217;ts, as far as what activities I should be participating in, how I should be praying? My wife and I happen to attend the Protestant church. So curious to know about where I should be sending my tithes, things of that nature, and also just how to, you know, engage my wife. This is something that brought to her attention. She supports my relationship with God. I don&#8217;t believe, at least not now, that she would want to go through OCIA with me. So really I&#8217;m looking for, you know, prayers and guidance as far as what I should do, what I shouldn&#8217;t do.
Joe: Very, very good question. And I like the context you gave. You&#8217;re, you know, coming from a Protestant background and then even about the whole relational context with your wife. I think in terms of do&#8217;s and don&#8217;ts, I&#8217;m going to break this up mentally into a few different categories. One are going to be books. Then we&#8217;ve got prayers, then we&#8217;ve got overall practices, because it will be a spiritual journey and you will hit some obstacles along the way, almost guaranteed.
So in terms of books you can read, it can be helpful to have books that take a sort of overview level. And I would suggest a few in particular. Trent Horn&#8217;s *Why We&#8217;re Catholic* is an obvious one. If you stay on the line, we&#8217;d be happy to send it to you. Bishop Robert Barron&#8217;s book *Catholicism*, I think is a very nice overview of just like what it is to be Catholic.
Additionally, a book that I would recommend partly for you and partly for your wife would be Scott and Kimberly Hahn&#8217;s book *Rome Sweet Home*. And I mention that because he was ready to become Catholic before his wife was. Brilliant. I mean, he is, I like to say he stands alone. It&#8217;s really like Han Solo. I mean, he is one of a kind. His book I found very helpful for couples where one is ready to go before the other one is because one of the things he had to stop himself from doing was being really pushy about kind of the argumentative side.
And I&#8217;ve known a lot of, I&#8217;ll just say, a lot of theological nerd guys who were married to women who were not as nerdy about theology or as enthusiastic about upending their life to become Catholic or as enthusiastic about reading 20 books on being Catholic. I know that&#8217;s not everybody&#8217;s journey. But if you find that that resonates with you at all, that book I&#8217;ve found to be helpful on both parties&#8217; side of how they kind of live out that experience where one person may be ready and the other isn&#8217;t. In addition, it&#8217;s just a great resource for a lot of other reasons.
So that&#8217;s kind of the book list.
Second, in terms of prayers, entering into the life of the church and life of prayer in that way can be really rich. But I will give you a don&#8217;t right out the gate, which is don&#8217;t feel the need to do everything and don&#8217;t exhaust yourself. Like, if you get a gym membership on January 1st and your desire is, okay, I need to use every piece of equipment in here, you will by January 7th be like, I don&#8217;t ever want to go back to the gym because you&#8217;ll just worn yourself out.
There are a lot of good, beautiful, rich things that the church has to offer. There&#8217;s a storehouse, a real treasury when it comes to the spiritual gifts, including 2,000 years of really good prayers. And you can feel like you&#8217;re not doing enough by not doing all of them. And that&#8217;s actually not a good place to be. So you need to discern what are the things I can realistically say yes to and make sort of a part of my life.
And then the last thing doesn&#8217;t neatly fall into either the prayer or book category. But finding Catholics who you respect and can have, like, shared life with and like friendship with, it can be really huge. Because what happens to a lot of people is that they become intellectually convinced. And then, especially if you&#8217;re in a bigger, I don&#8217;t know where in St. Louis you&#8217;re at, but if you&#8217;re at one of the bigger parishes, sometimes they can feel kind of anonymous because there&#8217;s a lot of stuff going on.
And it&#8217;s like being a newcomer to a big city where if you&#8217;re not really intentional, you can sort of slip through the cracks. So that&#8217;s a lot. I know I kind of dumped a lot there. I&#8217;m curious about your thoughts or if there&#8217;s any part of that that went unanswered that you&#8217;d like me to maybe explain a little more about.
Caller: Again, practical was, you know, relationship with my wife. And she surprised me with a lot of questions that she&#8217;s asked. And I said, okay, we&#8217;re going to research this together. I&#8217;m going to research it. If you want a more thorough answer than I can provide off the top of my head. And I never want to be pushy. And that&#8217;s one thing I really feel called that I need to kind of slow my roll. But in terms of attending Mass and again, currently tied to the church that we attend. Oh, right, yeah, things like that. It happens to be a Pentecostal church. I am not a member of the church. That was my choice, theological points that I disagreed with. But, you know, do I continue to attend the church with my wife? Because I don&#8217;t want to drive a wedge between us.
So I guess it&#8217;s like, how much should I be doing with the Catholic Church right now? You know, what do I need to distance myself from with the current church I attend? So a lot of the practical, as I said earlier, the do&#8217;s and don&#8217;ts.
Joe: Yeah, okay, that&#8217;s very helpful. So first, I think you&#8217;re already doing the right thing when you&#8217;re moving at the speed of your wife&#8217;s interest and have questions and you&#8217;re validating those questions and then you&#8217;re looking for answers. That is helpful for both of you and I think can only enrich the relationship because you&#8217;re treating her spiritual journey with the seriousness that it deserves rather than just kind of expecting her to be a fellow traveler on yours.
Second, you should move at the speed of your own comfort in some ways, I would say, in terms of when you start going to Mass. And I&#8217;ve known of people who have done both, depending on the kind of Pentecostal church that might be a lot in a day, but I&#8217;ve known couples where, because they&#8217;re not on the same boat and because there was nothing heretical necessarily being taught at the Protestant service, they would do both.
You&#8217;re definitely going to want Mass to be a major part of your life before you finally become Catholic. But again, you don&#8217;t have to do everything all at once. And so at this point in your life, you&#8217;re not yet bound by, you know, the weekly obligation to go to Mass. That will be something you&#8217;re bound by once you become Catholic, God willing.
And so growing towards that becoming just part of your regular routine is really important. Now, again, it may be a situation where that means your wife goes alone to the Pentecostal Church or it may mean that you&#8217;re going to both. It might be something that you have to kind of work out with her. Maybe you go with her sometime and, you know, you have to sort of respect one another&#8217;s consciences.
In this, if she doesn&#8217;t feel comfortable going to the Catholic Church or if you don&#8217;t feel comfortable continuing to go to the Pentecostal Church, there&#8217;s a need for real mutual respect for one another in terms of that journey. And it seems like you&#8217;re off to a good start there. I would just continue to be mindful of not pressuring either of you to do something you can&#8217;t in good conscience do, kind of in the name of marital unity, that there&#8217;s a lot of stuff that you want to kind of hold on to there.
Pentecostals, it depends on a lot of situations. But one way to think about it is this. Every Pentecostal I&#8217;ve known has taken miracles very seriously. And so when you explain the Eucharist and explain that there is this real miracle that Jesus Christ is being made bodily present, I have found overwhelmingly Pentecostals don&#8217;t have a lot of the built-up opposition to the idea of a miracle that a lot of other Christians do.
They, you know, some Christians are, you know, they are not continuationists, they&#8217;re cessationists. They think miracles stopped in the first century. So the idea of any miracle on earth is weird to them. That burden is already overcome when you&#8217;re talking about Pentecostal-Catholic kind of questions.
And so I know you said you&#8217;re not a member of it, but if that&#8217;s kind of the basic worldview, presenting it in terms of here is this miracle and I want to be present for this miracle in which our Lord is at, and he&#8217;s here in a special and unique sort of way. Hopefully that framework will be helpful for her.
It&#8217;s kind of a practical thing in terms of tithing. Again, you will, once you&#8217;re Catholic, have an obligation to assist in the upkeep of the church. Technically, the Catholic Church doesn&#8217;t have a strict 10% rule. That&#8217;s all coming from the Old Testament. But that is a good model for what you&#8217;re giving. You do have a duty and justice to help build up the church. And what that looks like for every individual is something you have to spiritually discern.
So that&#8217;ll be something else that you know, as you&#8217;re moving forward. At some point you will want to be financially assisting the church. But it is not, you know, some Protestant schools of thought claim that there&#8217;s still like a strict 10% that is actually not something that historically has been taught by the Catholic Church because it&#8217;s not something we find explicitly in the New Testament, but it is nevertheless a good modeling guide.
I don&#8217;t know. Does that help?
Caller: It&#8217;s extremely helpful and good. I don&#8217;t want to take up too much of your time and other listeners, but as far as with the miracles, when my wife and I were discussing the Eucharist, a very good dear friend of mine, Father Gaurav Shroff, who is now at Korea, was explaining transubstantiation. It was like my wife was just totally blown away by it in a very good way. And so, you know, there are a lot of things that I think are, if you will, no pun intended, easier to swallow, so to speak. She has questions.
Joe: Yeah. So last thing I&#8217;ll say, because I know we&#8217;re actually going to go to a break here pretty quick. I know an old friend of mine, actually an ex-girlfriend from college who was Assemblies of God and became Catholic. And her description was that the Eucharist was like a magnet drawing her past all of her oppositions and inhibitions.
Wow. And it sounds like there might be a similar kind of phenomenon with your wife that it&#8217;s like, okay, once you realize, yes, if I become part of this, I get to receive Jesus in this radical way. There&#8217;s a strong spiritual draw for many people from more of a Pentecostal background.
And so I would just let that be kind of a guiding principle. Even when you inevitably hit a sort of I don&#8217;t know what to make of this moment along the journey, don&#8217;t let that stuff get in the way of saying yes to Jesus in the Eucharist.
Cy: Hey, hang on. We&#8217;re going to send you the book *Why We&#8217;re Catholic*. Right back with more Joe Heschmeyer. Why aren&#8217;t you Catholic?

My Wife’s Protestant — But I Want to Become Catholic…

Full disclosure: I’m a big football fan—grade school, high school, college, and the National Football League (NFL)—and I’d like to see the Buffalo Bills win a Super Bowl, although, truth be told, I’d prefer the same first for my hometown Detroit Lions. I was pulling for Scott Norwood and Buffalo when his kick went wide right at the end of Super Bowl XXV, and I cheered when <a href="https://www.nfl.com/100/originals/100-greatest/plays-46">Don Beebe</a>, two years later, didn’t let a 52-17 deficit prevent him from stopping another score in one of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqGNTUQSuPM">most memorable moments</a> in Super Bowl history.
I played football as a kid and for decades have used “<a href="https://www.ncregister.com/blog/faith-family-and-football">Faith, Family, and Football</a>” as a personal motto. Catholicism and American football have <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-pigskin-and-the-paschal-mystery">a long and rich history</a>, as the character-testing practices and games can help boys and men bond under a common purpose in our Lord Jesus Christ. Many U.S. Catholic high schools have great football traditions, and I personally benefited from playing in <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/blog/faith-family-and-football-a-reflection-on-when-the-game-stands-tall">the Detroit Catholic League</a>, including at St. Mary of Redford Grade School in Detroit and Fr. Gabriel Richard High School in Ann Arbor. I especially liked how we would participate in Sunday morning Mass as a team at St. Mary’s, and then head to the locker room and play our games at nearby fields.
In addition, the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qoh3YkxuwVo">University of Notre Dame</a> has a <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@go1rish/video/7501528430660357422">great gridiron tradition</a>, and the NFL Hall of Fame includes many faithful Catholics, including coaches like Vince Lombardi, George Halas, Don Shula, and Chuck Noll, and players like Roger Staubach, a longtime personal favorite of mine who, when he won the MVP in Super Bowl VI for the victorious Dallas Cowboys, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2704912/2021/07/19/nfl-100-no-78-why-roger-staubach-was-greatest-sports-hero-of-his-time/">declined a Dodge Charger</a> because the station wagon he asked for instead better suited the needs of his growing family.
<h2>Unsportsmanlike Conduct: A Blasphemous Parody of Baptism</h2>
Many NFL teams have a priest chaplain, who <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-do-i-explain-the-mass">offers the sacrifice of the Mass</a> for Catholic players on Sundays. Given this storied history, I’m disappointed not only that the Bills Mafia are promoting <a href="https://youtu.be/_cBNMPJREvI">a parody of the sacrament of baptism</a> to incorporate fans “into their fold,” but also that <a href="https://www.nfl.com/videos/baby-mafia-you-better-believe-it">the NFL has made a promotional spot</a> of the parody, which it’s been broadcasting to millions in recent weeks.
The Bills Mafia have a ritual in which they hurtle their bodies onto tables. Prudent fans use custom breakable tables, and they also make sure to land on a padded surface. In addition, they help infants break cardboard versions during their initiation into the Mafia. That’s harmless fun, in and of itself, for parents to do with their babies.
What’s not fun, though, is incorporating it into a blasphemous parody of infant baptism.
Catholics can laugh at themselves. Think, for example, of some of the best bits of “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=335255542861394">Fr. Guido Sarducci</a>” of Saturday Night Live fame. In marked contrast, this NFL parody crosses the line, including by mocking the baptism ritual, the associated invocation of the Holy Trinity, and the offices of both the ministerial priesthood and the papacy. As the NFL commercial provides,
<blockquote>We are gathered here today to witness the baptism of the newest member of the Bills Mafia. In the name of [Bills head coach Sean] McDermott, the holy Allen [Bill star quarterback Josh], and in [Bills coaching legend] Marv Levy’s name. Amen!</blockquote>
Multiple infants are seen during the fifteen-second promo, and as the “amen” is uttered, we see the caption, “Some football fans are born ready.” And then, as a father places his child on the cardboard table, the NFL commercial concludes with the message, “You better believe it.”
The Mafia is led by its own “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=815106314526176">pope</a>,” who dresses like a bishop in liturgical vestments  and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cBNMPJREvI">mocks priestly blessings</a>, including making the sign of the cross while bringing older folk into his football flock.
It’s all a backhanded compliment to the Church’s ongoing relevance, because if we didn’t matter, we wouldn’t be on their minds. Still, one should be wary of mocking God (see Gal. 6:7-9).
<h2>Baptism: Worthy of Belief—and Respect</h2>
The real sacrament of baptism provides <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism">new life to infants</a> and others, including through removing original sin, making them temples of the Holy Spirit, and incorporating them into the Catholic Church. Baptism is the gateway to the Christian life and something Jesus normatively requires for his disciples (Matt. 28:18-20, Acts 2:37-39) <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/baptism-saves-you">to attain heaven</a> (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Jesus also makes clear that his kingdom is for children (Matt. 18:1-4, 19:13-15). And so whereas male infants became a member of God’s Old Covenant people through circumcision on their eighth day (Gen. 17:9-14), baptism or “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/infant-baptism-and-the-new-testament">circumcision of the heart</a>” became its New Covenant analogue for little ones (Col. 2:8-15).
Some might say this article is counterproductive because it draws attention to the very thing it decries. I hope not. Rather, I’m appealing to members of the Bills Mafia, particularly faithful Catholic ones, that they end this charade of sacrilege. Instead, why not have real local priests (or deacons) offer real blessings at gatherings of the Bills Mafia, including special ones for infants? And you don’t need to be Catholic to receive a blessing from a Catholic priest or deacon, so everyone is truly welcome.
I also hope and pray that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sidelines this promo permanently. Perhaps hearing from deacons, priests, and bishops could help persuade him. Although Goodell didn’t start this ritual, the NFL under his leadership has certainly given it a global audience.
Ironically, the NFL has made special efforts to kowtow to certain groups that promote Marxism and other anti-nuclear family messages under the aegis of combatting racism, <a href="https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/10/19/imagining-malcolm-x-in-2020/">something Malcolm X would’ve countered</a> and which many black leaders today have opposed. The NFL also <a href="https://www.nfl.com/causes/pride/">partners with groups with like GLAAD</a>, who’ve applauded the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” for bringing “<a href="https://glaad.org/statement-of-support-for-the-la-dodgers-pride-night-and-for-all-organizations-elevating-the-pride-joy-and-visibility-of-lgbtq-people-and-groups/">flamboyant hilarity to serious causes</a>”— including mock liturgies in which a condom has been “reverenced” as their “holy savior” and “nuns” whose names even many secular publications wouldn’t hazard to print.
So why the double standard for the Catholic Church? Surely Goodell could have consulted his NYC neighbor Cardinal Timothy Dolan or canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray, who would have told him that the NFL is aiding and abetting disrespect for Christ and his Church. Where was the vetting process on this commercial? No one raised a red flag?
Here we’re reminded that the Church’s incontrovertible enemies are the devil and his demonic minions, not mere human beings (Eph. 6:12). Given the cultural slide of the last several decades, including because of the damage of the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/qa-understanding-the-priest-scandal">clerical sexual abuse scandal</a>, the percentage of practicing Catholics in America has plummeted since my own baptism in March 1962, as has the religiosity of Americans in general. As a result, I suspect some of these Bills Mafia members include non-practicing Catholics seeking solidarity amid the trappings of a faith they once held dear. May they soon seek edifying alternatives in cheering for their home team.

No to Sacrilegious Football ‘Baptisms’

Shrinking population (continued)

Catholic Answers Cruise

Louvre heist

Jud Apatow says he took ahawaska and saw Jesus

&#8220;Can non-Catholics be saved?&#8221; This episode explores this crucial question while also touching on the Catholic Answers Cruise and the implications of a shrinking population. Additionally, we delve into intriguing topics like the Louvre heist and Jud Apatow&#8217;s experience with ahawaska and his vision of Jesus, offering a diverse range of insights.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Shrinking Population and the Catholic Answers Cruise – Flannel Panel!

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

@ReasonableFaithOrg Defending the faith doesn’t stop at reason… it leads to conversion.

Is there a small document that describes the latest eucharistic miracles from a scientific perspective?

Is it ok to attend the reception of an invalid marriage of a confirmed Catholic who is not getting married in the Church?

Melchizedek in Genesis. Where did he come from and what happened to him?

If a laicized priest becomes an Anglican priest, is the host consecrated the body of Christ?

What is your view on AI and what is the intersection between the Church and AI?

<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
A listener asks whether it&#8217;s morally permissible to attend the wedding reception of a Catholic getting married outside the Church. In this episode, Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer explains the difference between supporting the person versus appearing to support an invalid union, and how to navigate these situations with charity, clarity, and fidelity to Church teaching.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
</div></div>

Can You Attend a Catholic’s Invalid Wedding? Moral Theology Explained

A shocking new law in Washington challenges one of the Church’s most sacred principles: the seal of confession. Can the state force priests to break it? On this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Cy Kellett is joined by Colin Donovan and Brenda Aikin to unpack the legal, theological, and pastoral fallout. What has the Church taught for centuries—and what happens next?
Transcript:
Brenda: The Washington governor on Friday signed a bill into law that requires by law that priests break the seal of confession to report incidents of child abuse. Now, the archbishop right away posted a comment on that and just real directly said, any priest who does that will be immediately excommunicated. So my question is, how can the state come in and do this when I believe that the seal of confession is already set law in the United States?
Colin: Well, not just in the United States, for almost 1,000 years now, since the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, I don&#8217;t know who, I forget who the Pope was, this question came up. And so it was at that time decided that no, the seal of confession, you could not break that. The priest could not break that. Now, that was also a period of turmoil when governments were trying to have the role of installing bishops and the popes were fighting against that. There was the whole investiture controversy around these years as well. So almost 1,000 years ago in Western civilization, this has been a settled question.
Now, at no time could a priest ever have revealed it. But as a matter of law in the West, this has been settled in England and on the continent and elsewhere. And of course, we inherited that common law and that relationship of church and state, which had its ups and downs, obviously, as the Reformation came along. So obviously this is new ground for the state of Washington.
And sadly, the state of Washington, I lived there in the late 70s and 80s in Seattle. And there has been a progressive, you know, throwing over of Western values in terms of, you know, things from whether it&#8217;s abortion, the life of the unborn, whether it&#8217;s the right of the parents to determine whether their minor child could have an abortion. I was in Seattle when that law was passed and parents, schools were taking kids to the abortion clinics against the will of their parents.
And we&#8217;ve marched down the road now to where this spiritual role has been, is being interfered with. And they really can&#8217;t do it. And it&#8217;s not in the interest of the state. They think it&#8217;s for the good of the state. But what is going to keep a person that abuses children, primarily is what they&#8217;re talking about, but it could be other kinds of abuse as well? What will keep them? I think conversion, for which the seal of confession is absolutely necessary, or prison. So they better build more prisons in Washington State, because that&#8217;s about the only way to stop abusers is to put them in prison.
The confessional is there to help them overcome their vice. But if they can&#8217;t go to confession in the state of Washington, they&#8217;re not seeking that path. Now, I don&#8217;t believe, and I think one of the bishops, it might have been Spokane, one of the bishops in Washington said, well, priests simply won&#8217;t do it. And I believe absolutely they won&#8217;t. And it will come to court. And I would hope that our Supreme Court of the United States would say that that violates the First Amendment. It so patently does that I don&#8217;t see how any court, much less why a Catholic governor would sign that bill, but yet he did.
So we&#8217;ll see what comes of this. But priests are going to protect the seal. So penitents go to confession believing that your sins will not be spoken of outside of that confessional to anybody but you. And even then priests generally don&#8217;t do that outside the confessional and keep going to confession. And it&#8217;ll come to a head either by the civil, quote, in quote, civil disobedience of protecting the seal or because one of the courts steps in and says this is blatantly unconstitutional as it is most definitely.
Cy: Is it popular up there, the bill?
Colin: Well, they have been working on this from as far as I can tell for about three years. And this is the year that they&#8217;ve been able to get that passed. It&#8217;s been held for a vote or two. It&#8217;s incredible.
Cy: It&#8217;s silly. They have to know there&#8217;s no Catholic priest that&#8217;s going to do it. Silly.
Colin: Yeah. When I posed the question to our auxiliary bishop, Frank Schuster, he said that, he said, we will go to jail. We will go to jail.
Cy: But you know, I wonder what you think about this, Colin. Maybe, you know, but I have heard in various jurisdictions around the world where there are such laws, the bishops simply instruct their priests they can no longer hear face-to-face confession and so they don&#8217;t know who is confessing to them.
Colin: Well, that, I mean, that might be a solution and that would be in the sense that the priest could always say, I don&#8217;t know who it is. You know, one of the things that anybody who keeps a professional secret can say to anybody who asks, who doesn&#8217;t have the right to know, is to say, I don&#8217;t know that. I can&#8217;t answer that. Because it&#8217;s implied in that that there is some reserved reason why he can&#8217;t say it. The lawyer who can&#8217;t speak to something his client has told, the doctor who can&#8217;t speak to something his patient has told, the priest who can&#8217;t speak to something and says I don&#8217;t know anything about that doesn&#8217;t mean he doesn&#8217;t know anything in the absolute sense.
But anybody with two brain cells to rub together would know that he&#8217;s not permitted to speak about that. Priest, lawyer, doctor, or whatever.
Yeah, but unfortunately, common sense is getting, you know, rarer and rarer.

Keeping The Seal of Confession Could Now Be Illegal — What Happens Next?

My Boyfriend’s Addictions are Pulling me Away From God. Should I Stay With Him?

Trent takes questions from the premium subscribers on tough objections to the pro-life argument, how to reduce the abortion rate and whether you can “accompany” a friend who is having an abortion.

Pro-Life Open Mailbag

What is the Gospel of Thomas? Is there just one such gospel? What can it teach us about Jesus? Tim Staples joins us.

The Gospel of Thomas

<div class="page" title="Page 363">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 353
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Okay, religion is a human universal—something that’s found in all cultures. That doesn’t mean that it’s true, and it certainly doesn’t mean that Christianity is true.”
DEFENSE
Nobody would argue that because religion is a human universal, Christianity must be true. That would be excessively simplistic.
Instead, the argument is that the fact that religion is a human universal points to there being a religious dimension to the world.
The starting point for this argument is recognizing the universality of religion in human cultures. There have been no cultures without religion, either now or in the past. Even cultures that have tried to stamp out religion have not been able to do so. Further, as we observe elsewhere, children are naturally predisposed to religious belief (see Day 313). Religion is therefore a basic impulse that is rooted in human nature.
Other, similarly basic impulses tell us something about the world. The human impulses to eat and breathe point to the existence of food and oxygen. The impulses to sex and language point to the possibilities of reproduction and of communicating information in symbolic form.
Any basic impulse representing a human universal is rooted in human nature. Therefore, the religious impulse also tells us something about the world—that it has a religious or supernatural dimension.
This does not tell us much about that dimension. It does not tell us, for example, which God or gods are real or what the afterlife is like. But, in the same way, the mere impulse to eat does not tell us much about what kinds of food exist, and the mere impulse toward language does not tell us much about what kinds of information are out there.
If you want to know about the latter subjects, much more detailed studies have to be done, but the existence of the basic impulses tell us that the subjects are real.
In the same way, if you want to find out the details of the supernatural world, more detailed studies must be made and the whole enterprise of apologetics comes into play to prove or disprove particular religious claims. However, the religious impulse does point to the reality of the supernatural realm.
TIP
For more, see C.S. Lewis’s essay “The Weight of Glory.”
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Religion as a Human Universal

Super Bowl Sunday is this weekend . . . so which comes first? Beer, chicken wings, and pigskin, or Mass and rest from servile work?
It&#8217;s possible that football is the perfect opportunity for Catholics to bring their families together and even bring Jesus to their friends and extended relatives. Or maybe our culture makes it impossible to carve out football time on Sunday without obsessing over the game, at the expense of what we owe our Creator and our loved ones on the Lord&#8217;s Day.
Today&#8217;s edition of Both Sides Now—call it Super Both V—explores a touchy subject for Catholics and sports fans, particularly in America. What are we supposed to be doing on Super Bowl Sunday? Does football fit?
<a href="#tom">Click here for YES!</a>
<a href="#jon">Click here for NO!</a>

Should Catholics Watch Football on Sundays?

Joe tackles bad Protestant theology on the Cross and Psalm 22, rebutting those claiming that God the Father abandoned Jesus on the Cross. Some go so far as to call the Cross &#8220;the most obscene thing in all of creation.&#8221; Let&#8217;s test that against the Bible and see what the truth is&#8230;
Transcript:
Joe:
Welcome back to Shameless Popery. I&#8217;m Joe Heschmeyer. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? The haunting words that echo from the cross as our Lord suffers on Good Friday, they&#8217;re a powerful meditation for Holy Week. And as I mentioned in an earlier episode, Jesus is quoting Psalm 22, which is an incredible Old Testament prophecy of the crucifixion. But what do his words mean? Many evangelical Protestants, particularly those from a reformed or Calvinist tradition, have been taught that this passage proves that God the father, has turned away from God, the Son abandoning him or even damning him. Those are extraordinary claims with some serious theological implications. And today I want to test those claims by scripture. But before I do that, I want to thank all of you who support us over@shamelessjoe.com. I hope you&#8217;ve been able to see how much the channel&#8217;s grown in the last few months and how much the production has improved.
And just know we wouldn&#8217;t be able to do all of this without your direct support. Shameless RI doesn&#8217;t take sponsors. YouTube ad revenue is very unpredictable. So this show depends upon its supporters to keep going and to keep growing. It would mean the world to me if you would consider going to shameless joe.com signing up for as little as $5 a month, and in exchange you&#8217;ll get access to ad free videos and exclusive q and a live streams. So thank you so much for your support and I hope to see you over there. Alright, let&#8217;s start with John Piper, one of the most popular preachers in the last several decades. He says, of Christ recounting of Psalm 22,
CLIP:
I don&#8217;t think we can begin to fathom all that this would mean between the Father and the son to be forsaken by God is the cry of the damned and he was damned for us. So he used these words because there was a real forsakenness.
Joe:
Now, piper is right about one thing. It is unfathomable that anyone with a proper understanding of the Trinity could believe that the Father dams the son. It&#8217;s unfathomable that somebody could believe that Jesus is both true God and damned by God. Those things are unfathomable because they&#8217;re logically incoherent. But there&#8217;s a good reason that the early Christians didn&#8217;t believe these things. And it&#8217;s not just that this view of the cross contradicts Trinitarian theology and sound christology by pitting the trinity against itself or even pitting Jesus&#8217;s two natures against themselves, is that this interpretation of Psalm 22 and the cross disagrees with both Psalm 22 itself and the biblical depiction of the cross. If you want to understand what Jesus meant by crying out, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? You have to read these words in the context of the whole of Psalm 22. After all
CLIP:
These words are the exact first words of Psalm 22. And that&#8217;s important because Jesus seems to have known that the whole Psalm in some way or other was about him because at least three other parts of this Psalm are quoted in the story of his death
Joe:
On this point, John Piper is right, and it&#8217;s worth pointing out that the earliest Christians made this point as well. So if you want to make sense of Jesus&#8217;s words, don&#8217;t run to a reformed manual on what John Calvin thinks, fora and requires turn instead to the Old Testament and read the full passage that Jesus is quoting from. In fact, better yet both the prayer of Psalm 22 and Jesus&#8217; prayer from the cross should also be read in the broader context of Jesus&#8217;s teachings about prayer, particularly in Luke 18. And will not God vindicate his elect who cry to him day and night, will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. What are the connections we see here? Well, first of all, Christ is the OSes, the chosen one. In fact, that&#8217;s what he&#8217;s being taunted about here on the cross.
He saved others, let him save himself. If he is a Christ of God, he&#8217;s chosen one. The same Greek word electo is used in both places. Jesus is showing us what it looks like to be the elect of God. And second, Jesus talks about the elect crying out night and day. And that&#8217;s exactly what Psalm 22 says that the psalmist is doing. This is where it&#8217;s important to remember that my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Isn&#8217;t the end of Psalm 22? It&#8217;s the beginning. And just as Jesus promises in Luke 18, God hears to cry of his elect and vindicates him speedily. That&#8217;s the whole point of good Friday and of Easter. And it&#8217;s also what happens in Psalm 22 in verse 24, the psalmist tells us to praise God for he has not despised or abhor the affliction of the afflicted and he has not hid his face from him, but has heard when he cried to him. So the man of Psalm 22 says that God has not hidden his face from him. That&#8217;s important because central to the evangelical reformed reading of Psalm 22 is that
CLIP:
There&#8217;s a very real sense, dear friends, that on the cross, if Jesus was to be forsaken, truly forsaken by God, God had to turn his back.
Joe:
Okay, so Psalm 22 says, God has not hidden his face from Christ and reformed theologians cite Jesus quoting Psalm 22 to claim that God has hidden his face from Christ, one of these two is wrong. Now you might ask why. Why would God the Father turn his back on his beloved son in the first place? That&#8217;s a great question. According to Sproul, God is too holy to look at sin. He could not bear to look at that concentrated, monumental condensation of evil. So he averted his eyes from his son. The light of his countenance was turned off, all blessedness was removed from his. This idea doesn&#8217;t really work if Jesus is God. You can&#8217;t simultaneously believe that Jesus is fully God and is on Calvary and God can&#8217;t even look at Calvary. But let&#8217;s not miss the fourth for the trees. Jesus is praying to the Father from the cross and moreover, he&#8217;s addressing him in terms of intimacy, calling him my God.
And his last words on the cross are going to be Father into thy hands. I commit my spirit and none of that makes sense If the father refuses to hear and listen to his son. In the gospel of John in particular, Jesus refers to the crucifixion as a kind of ascension or enthronement describing it as a moment in which he has lifted up. And every other time that this word appears the one that&#8217;s translated as lifted up, it means exalted. It&#8217;s the same word used to describe Christ&#8217;s exaltation to the right hand of the Father in Acts two and in Acts five. And that makes sense. Not only is Jesus physically being lifted up, this is also the first time that we find him publicly declared the king of the Jews. It&#8217;s emblazoned above the cross. This then is the throne of Christ. So in John three he says that just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
And in John eight, he connects his coming lifting up with the fact that the father never actually abandons him. He says, when you have lifted up the son of man, then you&#8217;ll know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak. Thus, as the Father taught me and he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone. For I always do what is pleasing to him. And just as Jesus&#8217;s heavenly exultation to the right hand of the Father is this moment of glory and divine intimacy. So Jesus&#8217;s earthly exultation on the cross is also a moment presented in the Bible is one of divine intimacy. None of the father turning his back on the son Jesus says in John 10. For this reason, the Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may take it again.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again, this charge I&#8217;ve received from my father. This is a good reminder that Jesus isn&#8217;t simply the victim on Good Friday. He&#8217;s also the priest laying down his own life willingly. And he says that the Father loves him for doing this. In Amos five, God speaks of the sacrificial offerings made by those who aren&#8217;t truly contrite and says that he will not look upon them. In other words, God is saying he&#8217;s rejecting those sacrifices. That&#8217;s what it means to say God turns his back on a sacrificial offering. So if the Father really did turn his face from Jesus&#8217; self offered on Good Friday, that would mean that the perfect sacrifice has been rejected and we would all still be dead in our sins.
Thanks be to God. Scripture says the opposite. The Father looks upon Christ perfect sacrifice with love for Jesus always does what is pleasing to him. And understanding the cross through the lens of Old Testament sacrifice helps to explain another passage that sometimes trips some Protestants up as well. In Isaiah 53, the suffering servant prophecy, Isaiah says that it was the will of the Lord to bruise him. He has put him to grief. When he makes him himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring. He shall prolong his days. Now, the image there isn&#8217;t of a passive recipient of the wrath of his father. It&#8217;s of someone holy willingly serving, doing the will of God, even when that will involves enduring the violence of evil men unto death. And here there&#8217;s an added wrinkle in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53, which says that he becomes a word which means both sin and sin offering or guilt offering.
Think of it like the English word dusting, which can mean adding dust like dusting for evidence or removing dust like dusting the furniture becoming a sha. Then you could literally translate that either as becoming sin or becoming the sin offering. But even if you translate it as becoming sin, that doesn&#8217;t mean that the suffering servant becomes murder or the embodiment of sin itself, nor does it mean that he&#8217;s regarded as sinful. In fact, Leviticus six describes the ASAM as a thing most holy. And so when St. Paul says that the father made Christ to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God, Paul&#8217;s not saying that the Father literally made Christ evil or under the personification of evil or even that he pretended that the good Christ was evil. He&#8217;s saying that Christ is the suffering servant, the sinless sin offering a sacrificed most holy and Christ is forsaken in the sins that God allows him to suffer horrendous evils, but he&#8217;s not forsaken in the sense of being an innocent victim of divine wrath or the Father turning his back upon him.
This reformed misinterpretation of Christ&#8217;s cry from the cross isn&#8217;t just bad biblical exegesis contradicting Psalm 22 contradicting Jesus&#8217;s teaching on prayer and contradicting Jesus&#8217;s teaching on the cross. It&#8217;s not just bad theology contradicting Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, it&#8217;s ungodly. In one Corinthians 12, St. Paul specifically warns that no one led by the Spirit will say that Jesus is in Greek, anathema, cursed, but in declaring that God damned Jesus. That&#8217;s precisely what these reformed teachers are doing. Wherever this theology is coming from, scripture warns that it&#8217;s not coming from God. Now, the human father of Calvinism, John Calvin, argued that Jesus&#8217; cry from the cross made sense in light of his condemnation on our behalf. Calvin even argued that Christ&#8217;s bodily death on the cross was actually inadequate to aone for our sins and he claimed that it was necessary as well that Christ be spiritually damned to hell. Now, according to St. Paul, God shows his love for us and that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. According to St. John, by this we know love that he, Jesus laid down his life for us and we ought to lay down our lives. For the brethren, the cross biblically is the image of divine love par excellence. But according to Calvin is like Cy Sproul
CLIP:
For that moment in history, at that instant that Jesus was hanging on the cross, he was the most obscene thing in all of creation because their concentrated was the corporate wickedness of us all.
Joe:
So Christ on the cross is either the perfect image of divine love or the most obscene thing in all of creation. But I would suggest to you that it can&#8217;t be both. And that one of these claims about the cross is not coming from God. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. But this points to the bigger issue. This isn&#8217;t just a question about what Jesus means in his prayer to the Father when he cries out from Psalm 22, it&#8217;s not just a question of whether or not the father turns his back upon the son. This is a question about the meaning of the cross itself. The Bible says that he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. The idea that God pours out his wrath upon his righteous son so that the wicked can be declared justified is abominable. So if this view of the cross is wrong, how should we view it? That&#8217;s what we need to figure out. And I do a deep dive on that question right here. For Shameless Popery, I&#8217;m Joe Heschmeyer. God bless you. I.
&nbsp;

Did God Abandon Jesus on the Cross?

Bart Ehrman & Why Joseph Went to Bethlehem

As the election season continues Trent reviews the principles Catholic politicians and voters need to follow when it comes to voting and the issue of abortion. He also addresses the question, “Can a Catholic ever licitly vote for a pro-choice candidate?”

Catholics, Voting, and Abortion

<div>What is the Church’s teaching’s on the prolonging of life when the body is at it’s natural end?</div><div>In short, the Church teaches that extraordinary measures need not be taken to keep someone alive, e.g., the use of a ventilator when a person’s breathing system is shutting down.
At the same, the Church teaches that ordinary medical care should never be forsaken, i.e., food and fluids—even when taken intravenously—unless receiving food or fluids yield more harm than good because a person’s body is shutting down.
In all cases, a person in the latter stages of life should be given good palliative care, including oxygen received nasally and also pain-management pharmaceuticals, both of which will aid the patient’s comfort in their last days as they prepare for death.
Unfortunately, many hospitals today practice a form of euthanasia by withholding food and fluids because doctors have judged a patient has reached a diminished “quality of life.” The person might well die in only weeks or months otherwise because of their physical condition, yet they end up dying from starvation and dehydration sooner. Such bioethical practices are not ethical, because they establish the precedent for ending the life others deemed to have a diminished quality of life, including because they are perceived as a burden on society, e.g., those with Down Syndrome.
For more on this issue, please see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-churchs-teaching-on-extraordinary-care-for-the-sick">our previous response on extraordinary care</a>. In addition, for more information, including obtaining an advance directive to ensure Catholic principles are followed in end-of-life care for you and your loved, we encourage you to contact <a href="https://www.hli.org/">Human Life International</a> and the <a href="https://www.ncbcenter.org/">National Catholic Bioethics Center</a>.
</div>

Church Teaching on End-of-Life Care

Can you prove the Bible from Jesus' words?

Should Christians remain anonymous online to avoid the risk of "cancel culture"?

In this episode, Trent responds to a scandalously weak argument against evolution based on claims of human dinosaur coexistence.
Transcription:
Recently Kennedy Hall and Taylor Marshall were discussing the legend of St. George the Dragon Slayer and at one point Hall claimed that medieval depictions of dragons were actually depictions of dinosaurs that survived Noah’s flood.
Other young earth creationists also claim to have evidence of dinosaurs living among human beings that disproves evolution. And today I’m going to talk about why that’s a bad argument Catholics shouldn’t use because of the harm it can cause.
First, I want  to address something Hall and Marshall said about Catholic Answers and evolution.
Now, if Marshall just said evolution is false, we wouldn’t be dogmatic about it. Some Catholic Answers staff might agree with him and others might disagree. But if he said, “*the Church* teaches theistic evolution is false”, then I will be very dogmatic because that’s not what the Church teaches.
I want to make it clear that the Catholic church does not have a teaching about the theory of evolution or the extinction of the dinosaurs. You can be a faithful Catholic and deny or accept evolution. You can be a faithful Catholic and believe the sun revolves around the earth. The Church doesn’t teach on these scientific questions. Now Hall says he does not want to dogmatize young earth creationism and I appreciate him saying that. He just asks that people like me not use evolution to evangelize others:
Evangelism means to share the good news of salvation in Christ, and part of that good news is that a loving God made the world. And we *can* use things the Church doesn’t teach to show that. The Church doesn’t teach that atomic theory is true, and the universe is composed of four fundamental forces that are finely tuned for our existence, but this can be really helpful in proving the Gospel truth that God made the world to an atheist.
Hall may be referring to this article by chemist Stacey Trasanco where she explains what she means by evangelizing through evolution. She writes “We should be evangelizing through science, showing others how the ubiquitous order and beauty in creation, from electron orbitals to human life to cosmic galaxies, enriches faith and points beyond the physical realm.”
Also, if Hall wants Catholics to not use evolution to try and prove Catholicism is true, I would just ask him to reciprocate, don’t use bad young earth creationist arguments to try and prove Catholicism is true. You don’t need those arguments to prove Catholicism to a Protestant or an Orthodox young earther because they already believe in a young earth. It’s other doctrines like the papacy that are the major stumbling blocks for them.
But in using these arguments with non-religious people, you create stumbling blocks for those who lack an encounter with Christ, people who truly need the Gospel. This is especially true if you try to convince someone to abandon atheism by saying evolution must be false because we know dinosaurs and human beings lived side by side a few hundred years ago.
One way young earth creationists argue for this is to point to ancient and medieval depictions of creatures that look like dinosaurs and say this shows the artist witnessed dinosaurs in real life. I once saw a Catholic young earth creationist appeal to the supposed dinosaur of Ta Prohm in Northwest Cambodia. One of the reliefs in this temple supposedly that depicts a Stegosaurus that lived among the Cambodians about a thousand years ago.
But the only part of the relief that makes this look like a Stegosaurus are the flaps on the back. But when you zoom out you see that these are decorative petals that can be found throughout the entire relief. If that’s what they are then the creature in question could be an iguana or a Rhino since it doesn’t have other traits unique to Stegosaurus like tail spikes and the head is far too small. Or it could be mythical since at the bottom of the relief there is a half-monkey half dog creature. This certainly doesn’t prove Stegosauruses lived among the Cambodians a thousand years ago, especially since no stegosaurus fossils have been found in Cambodia.
It being a mythical creature also explains images of dragons and other creatures found in ancient and medieval artwork, consider Kennedy Hall’s claim that a medieval Chinese dragon is actually a dinosaur.
People in the past also made descriptions of creatures like the Phoenix or the minotaur but that doesn’t mean those creatures actually existed. Why not think this is a mythical creature?
The source Hall used for the alleged Chinese dinosaur is an article at the Kolbe Center, entitled “Historical Evidence for Dinosaur and Human Co-existence”. They say it’s supposed to be a Coelophysis, but it barely resembles it. Medieval Chinese artists were able to accurately draw horses, deer, and bears why would they give this weird interpretation of dinosaurs unless they weren’t trying to draw a real animal. In ancient cultures most mythical creatures are combinations or exaggerations of existing creatures, and that’s what we see here. One of the other examples the article gives is Bishop Bell&#8217;s Behemoths. It says:
This brass engraving was made over 500 years ago, and decorates Bishop Bell&#8217;s tomb in England. The two animals depicted are very unambiguous sauropods, but were probably known to the locals of the time as dragons. The animal on the left has a tail that ends in a spiked club, just like the sauropod Shunosaurus. It&#8217;s fascinating to consider that these dinosaurs were probably roaming the hillsides of Medieval England!
First, this looks like two lions or cats fighting. But even if we don’t know what these creatures were supposed to be, since they could also be mythical, we can still know what they were not and they weren’t giant sauropods. Cetiosaurus, a sauropod whose fossil was found in England, was almost 50 feet long. If these creatures lived in England until the time of Martin Luther why did no one write about them?
For example, wolves went extinct in England in the 1700’s due to overhunting and before that they were frequently discussed in medieval literature. One 10th century Anglo Saxon king demanded tribute be paid to him in 300 wolf skins and a medieval text called the Anglo Saxon Chronicle describes how January was called “Wolf monath”, the official month of wolf hunting. And don’t be shocked, but absolutely none of these texts describe people hunting or seeing dinosaurs that were twice as big as a London double-decker bus.
However, Hugh Owen, the director or the Kolbe Center says these historical sources do describe dinosaurs in medieval England. He cites the creature Grendel in the 10th century English epic poem Beowulf as an example.
Okay. First, Grendel is a male not a female and Beowulf rips out his arm and kills him before killing Grendel’s mother with a sword. Second, it’s silly to say that this means Grendel was a T-rex with stubby arms and a human being really killed a T-rex in this way. The idea that Grendel was a T-rex attacking 7th century Danish people comes from Creationist Bill Cooper’s book After the Flood. The problem is that, contra Owen and Cooper, Grendel is not specifically described in Beowulf. Grendel is said to be a descendant of Cain and that he is to be larger than any other man and Grendel’s mother is said to be in the form of a woman. They were probably some kind of hominid or human life monster, they definitely weren’t a pair of T-rexes.
Other evidence young earth Catholics present for human dinosaur co-existence isn’t as obviously false as a medieval British brontosaurs or T-rex, but it’s still faulty. At this 2024 Kolbe center conference a speaker listed as Dr. Kevin Mark gives evidence for dinosaurs and humans co-existing by citing the Paluxy river tracks which claim to be fossilized footprints of a human and a dinosaur next to each other. 
Mark also presented this thesis to Hall on his show.
But scientists have now shown that the alleged human footprints only look that way because of erosion. This evidence for human dinosaur co-existence is so bad that even other young earth creationists have rejected it. Answers in Genesis lists it under “evidences to be avoided” and back in 1986 John Morris, the son of Henry Morris, one of the founders of modern young earth creationism, said “it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution”
So what does this all mean? If you want to believe that the earth is only thousands of years old and humans co-existed with dinosaurs even just a few hundred years ago, you’re free to believe that. If you are not Catholic and you are also firmly convinced of this, you can keep believing it if you become Catholic, which I hope you do. You could also believe a more defensible claim that dinosaurs didn’t go extinct hundreds of years ago but were wiped out right after they got off Noah’s ark. But I do strongly caution you to not make the claim that evolution is false because T-rexes lived in medieval Denmark or Brontosauruses lived in Reformation era England as an apologetic argument for the faith. At best, it will only reassure other young earth Christians who don’t need to be convinced God exists and alienate people who think religion is an uncritical fairy tale. St. Augustine dealt with a similar controversy in his own time when debating pagan philosophers and here is what he said:
“It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing. . . .The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?”
I hope this has been helpful for you all and if you’d like a traditional perspective on this issue I’d recommend Fr. Paul Robinson’s interview on the SSPX and his book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, both of which are listed in the description below.
Thank you all so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.

Embarrassing Young Earth Creationist Arguments

I am a Catholic school teacher and they use the sanctuary for plays immediately after mass. What are the rules for use of the sanctuary?

I see a lot of bumper stickers at church of an M with a line through it. Does that have any significance? How does one dispose of a damaged rosary?

In the Talmud it says that Jesus is burning in hell. What do I make of this?

Jn 11 and Jn 12 there’s a plot to kill Lazarus after being raised from the dead. Did they ever succeed in their plot?

Can you bless non-Catholic items like a buddha?

Are you familiar with the documentary, Hypothesis? When do they go from using the name YHWH to Elohim?

<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
From apostolic succession to secret ballots, the history of papal elections is rich and fascinating. We explore how popes have been chosen across the centuries, and also tackle questions on sanctuary use, offensive Talmudic texts, and disposing of a damaged rosary.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
</div></div>

How Were Popes Elected Throughout Church History?

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

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

Why CAN'T the Catholic Church ordain WOMEN?

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin joins host Cy Kellett to respond to a thoughtful caller’s question: Can someone really speak in the tongues of angels? And what does the Catholic Church actually teach about the gift of tongues? Jimmy explains the biblical context of speaking in tongues, clarifies the difference between real human languages and “angelic speech,” and affirms that Catholics are free to hold differing views.
Transcript:
Cy: What&#8217;s the Catholic position on the gift of tongues? Does it have to include unintelligible sounds, just real languages, or are Catholics free to have different opinions on this?
Jimmy: Catholics are free to have different opinions on this. There is no single Catholic teaching on this. And you will find Catholics who do have different opinions on this, if you&#8217;re interested.
For what it&#8217;s worth, my opinion is that the phenomena spoken of in the Bible that are regarded, that are called speaking in tongues, both in the Book of Acts and in Paul&#8217;s writings, especially First Corinthians, are languages that are not naturally known by the person who speaks them, and they are normal human languages.
There are other proposals that have been made, like these are maybe the tongues of angels, and Paul does in First Corinthians 13 refer to the tongues of angels. But I think that that&#8217;s not to be taken literally. He&#8217;s using that as kind of hyperbolic case. Like, even if I were to speak in the tongues of angels, he&#8217;s not. And so that&#8217;s not typical of what&#8217;s happening.
Furthermore, I don&#8217;t think angels have literal languages because they don&#8217;t have bodies. So they certainly don&#8217;t have the physical organ of a tongue. And they correspondingly would not have the concept of language the way we have it, which is where you take your thought, which is at the base level, expressed in what sometimes referred to as mentalese, and then you turn that.
For most people, it happens so naturally, you&#8217;re not even aware of the mentalese behind the linguistic expression. Like, if I have the thought, &#8220;Oh, it&#8217;s cold in here,&#8221; that comes to me as phenomenologically, or what it&#8217;s like to have that experience, it comes to me prepackaged in words. But really there is a mental articulation of it that is prior to words.
I have seen examples of that, typically in situations where I don&#8217;t have time to express something in words. Like I remember driving down a curvy hill, you know, with these switchbacks and stuff, some years ago, and the vehicle I was driving suddenly started to slide because of rocks on the road. I could see, you know, the next turn coming up and what I needed to do, and I didn&#8217;t have time to articulate it in words, but in mentalese, I knew exactly what I needed to do.
So there are situations where you can become aware of your own ment. But normally it&#8217;s so bound up in our language that when we think to ourselves, if we have an internal monologue, which most people do, then we don&#8217;t really distinguish them. But with angels, since they don&#8217;t have physical bodies, they&#8217;re gonna think in mentalese and they&#8217;re gonna be telepathic creatures that communicate in mentalese. So they&#8217;re not gonna need languages the way we have them.
So I think both because Paul is being hyperbolic and because angels don&#8217;t really have languages, certainly not ones that humans could pronounce, I don&#8217;t think that tongues of angels is a good explanation of what&#8217;s going on in the Bible.
Other people have tried to propose that this is a miracle of hearing because they&#8217;ll say in Acts, when the apostles start speaking in tongues, you have this multi-ethnic crowd. And they say, &#8220;Aren&#8217;t we hearing them all in our own languages?&#8221; And they think, &#8220;Oh, it&#8217;s a miracle of hearing.&#8221; You know, it&#8217;s like you, whatever language they&#8217;re speaking, you hear it in your own language.
But that doesn&#8217;t really fit the text. That&#8217;s bad exegesis, to use a term we defined a little bit earlier. The crowd is speaking in the mode of a Greek chorus, where Luke presents the crowd as having one unified voice, as if they&#8217;re one character and they&#8217;re all saying the same words together.
&#8220;Are we not Cretans and Libyans and visitors from Rome, both Jewish and Greek?&#8221; You know, this is not what they were literally saying. It was a crowd of people; they weren&#8217;t all saying the same thing. And Luke is just summarizing their experience. Their experience is they did hear these Galileans speaking in their own languages.
And that&#8217;s what this is. This is Galileans speaking in languages they did not naturally know. And that also fits the same. That&#8217;s the best fit for the data in the Bible. So I&#8217;m convinced that what is happening in biblical tongues is you&#8217;re speaking a language that you don&#8217;t naturally know and you don&#8217;t even know what you&#8217;re saying.
That&#8217;s why Paul says in First Corinthians that you may need to pray for the gift of interpretation to be able to understand what you&#8217;re saying.
Now there are a couple of terms that get used for this sometimes. The two terms are glossolalia and xenoglossy. In Greek, glossa means tongue. And so it can either be the tongue in your mouth or it can be the language you&#8217;re speaking. Glossolalia means speaking in tongues, where by its etymology, whereas xeno means foreign, and so xenoglossy is speaking a foreign language.
The way these two terms have evolved, sometimes any kind of speaking in tongues is called glossolalia, and it would include the kind of tongues I&#8217;ve been talking about. But other times, people distinguish these two and they&#8217;ll say, okay, glossolalia is what happens when someone is not speaking a real human language that they just don&#8217;t know, whereas xenoglossy is speaking a real human language that they don&#8217;t naturally know.
And so you may encounter those two terms, and sometimes they&#8217;re used in ways that distinguish them.
What about the kind of speaking in tongues that goes on today? Well, there are reports of people speaking in foreign languages, and some of these are well grounded. You know, where you have a native speaker of whatever language is being spoken, and they can identify the language and translate what was being said. So there are reliable reports of glossolalia occurring.
Most of the time, though, I don&#8217;t think that a lot of it is real human languages. It&#8217;s something else. And so the question could be, what else is it? I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s languages of angels, because I don&#8217;t think angels really have languages, certainly not ones we could pronounce.
So one possibility is that it is someone doing what they think is speaking another language as a kind of private prayer language. That&#8217;s a proposal that&#8217;s often made in some Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, that it&#8217;s not a real language that anybody uses, but it&#8217;s sort of a private prayer language for you, that the Holy Spirit is. You&#8217;re having a spiritual experience and this private prayer language comes out, and that&#8217;s what speaking in tongues is.
Well, I wouldn&#8217;t say that&#8217;s what tongues is in the Bible, of course.
Another possibility that a skeptic would propose is that you&#8217;re just babbling and it doesn&#8217;t really have any meaning at all. I tend not to take a hard position either way. A few years ago, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, as it&#8217;s now called, put out a document on charismatic gifts called *Juvenesque Ecclesia*.
In this document, it pointed out that none of the lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament are exhaustive and that God can give new spiritual gifts to people at different periods in church history. So it&#8217;s not like there&#8217;s a single list, and this is all God gives and all he&#8217;s ever going to give.
So I don&#8217;t preclude the possibility that God could have someone speaking in a private prayer language today. I would say that&#8217;s different than the biblical understanding of tongues. So it would be a different kind of tongues, but I don&#8217;t rule it out.
On the other hand, I also don&#8217;t rule out the skeptical position that in some cases nothing supernatural is going on here and the person is just generating speech content that sounds like what they&#8217;ve seen other people do when they are speaking in tongues, but that they&#8217;re not. Actually, nothing supernatural is happening here.
So I leave that question open. What I can say with confidence is that the best fit for the biblical understanding of speaking in tongues is it&#8217;s a real human language that you don&#8217;t naturally know. But I don&#8217;t rule out other understandings of tongues that could be active today. But that&#8217;s just my opinion.
Cy: Magic Carp, thank you very much. That&#8217;ll take us to the break. We&#8217;ll be right back with more Jimmy Akin Ask Me Anything Internet questions right after this on Catholic Answers Live!

Can Catholics Speak in “Tongues of Angels”?

Christianity played a major role in ending practices like child sacrifice

How do I approach discussing IVF with couples who are infertile?

How much weight does a Catholic politician like J.D. Vance have on topics like IVF?

Are we aware of CRISPR technology? What does the Church say about this?

Is it morally permissible for couples to adopt abandoned embryos?

How do we as individuals who’ve been through IVF deal with the damage and advise others?

Are there resources that help infertile couples understand the Church’s position on IVF?

Fr. Tad Pacholozcyk dives into complex ethical and moral questions surrounding IVF, infertility, and bioethics. He discusses how to approach conversations about IVF with struggling couples, the Church’s stance on embryo adoption, and the moral implications of CRISPR technology. Tim also examines the influence of Catholic politicians on these issues and guides those who have undergone IVF and are seeking healing. Plus, discover resources to help infertile couples understand the Church’s teachings. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion!

Is IVF an Option for Couples Struggling with Infertility?

How should I talk with my non-Catholic friends and family as I think about converting myself?

The Eucharist seems like magic to me.

Some people I know are not Catholic because of the very existence of Satan and the fact that God allowed man to fall.

I am a Protestant becoming Catholic, but I do not know how to rebut Sola Fide arguments.

I get hung up on intercessory prayers and praying to the saints in general

I am Catholic, but I disagree with a lot of orthodox teachings.

&#8220;How should I talk with my non-Catholic friends?&#8221; This episode explores effective communication strategies for those considering conversion, while also addressing intriguing questions like the nature of the Eucharist, the existence of Satan, and the challenges of Sola Fide arguments. Tune in for a thoughtful exploration of these important 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>

How Should I Talk With Non-Catholic Friends? – Why Aren’t You Catholic?

When a caller wonders why we must confess mortal sins before receiving the Eucharist, even though Jesus never shunned sinners, Tim Staples answers by discussing the importance of being in communion with Jesus even before we receive Him in the most intimate manner in the Sacrament.

Why You Must Be in a State of Grace to Receive Communion

<div class="page" title="Page 292">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 282
CHALLENGE
</div>
<div class="column">
“Peter can’t be the rock that Jesus refers to in Matthew 16:18. He uses the word petros (small stone) for ‘Peter’ but petra (large rock) for ‘rock.’ Why would he change the word if he was referring to Peter both times?”
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DEFENSE
This challenge has several problems and does not prove its case.
Protestant scholar D.A. Carson notes:
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “[small] stone” and “[large] rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kêphā’ was used in both clauses (“you are kêphā’ and on this kêphā’”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Matt. 16:18).
He further notes: “Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun—and that is just the point!” (ibid.).
Although Jesus’ words could have been translated into Greek using petros in both cases (“You are petros and on this petros”), petra may appear in the second instance simply to avoid using the same word too closely in quick succession. Avoiding repetition by using a synonym is often an important element of style (so much so that it is the reason pronouns exist).
Even if we were to grant that petros and petra referred to small and large stones respectively, this would not show Peter isn’t the rock. That interpretation assumes antithetic parallelism, where the two are contrasted (“You are a small stone, but on this other big rock . . . ”). However, it could just as well be synthetic parallelism, where the second idea builds on the first (“You may appear to be a small stone, but on the big rock you really are . . . ”).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Petros versus Petra

<div class="page" title="Page 69">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 59
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Catholics should not ask the saints for intercession. Why do that when you can pray directly to God?”
DEFENSE
If this proved anything, it would prove too much. It would wipe out much of Christian prayer.
We can and should pray directly to God—the source of all gifts (James 1:17). However, it does not follow that you should pray only to God. This is a “both/and” situation, not an “either/or” one.
We naturally sense that it is helpful to have others praying for us, and down through the ages Christians have asked one another for their prayers. But this would be impossible if God wanted us to make requests only of him. The objection thus would prove too much.
In truth, God desires that we pray for each other. This is illustrated by the Lord’s Prayer, in which we pray for ourselves and others (“Give us this day our daily bread,” “Forgive us our debts,” “Lead us not into temptation”; Matt. 6:11–13); by Jesus’ exhortation to pray even for our enemies (Matt. 5:44); and by Paul’s exhortation, “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1).
God also desires that we ask others for their intercession, as illustrated by Paul’s requests for his readers to pray for him (Rom. 15:30; 2 Cor. 1:11; Eph. 6:18–19; 1 Thess. 5:25; 2 Thess. 3:1–2)—a request also made by the author of Hebrews (13:18). Asking the saints for their intercession merely extends the principle. We may ask Christians in heaven for their intercession for the same reason we ask Christians on earth: It helps to have others praying for you, to not be alone in prayer. This is particularly the case when one’s prayer partners are righteous, for “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16b). None are more righteous than those with God in heaven.
TIP
Scripture nowhere prohibits asking the saints for their intercession.
Things that are not prohibited by Scripture and that have a rational basis are permitted under Christian liberty, and this practice qualifies on both counts. Opponents of the practice should ask whether they&#8217;re seeking to limit the “freedom which we have in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 2:4).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Praying Directly to God

A caller experiences many Protestant pastors speaking in tongues and wonders why it is so emphasized in Protestantism and in charismatic Catholic circles. Jim Blackburn explains what speaking in tongues is, how it got started, and why these groups of people use this gift of the Holy Spirit so often.
Transcript:
Host: Brian in North Augusta, South Carolina watching again&#8211;well we got a lot of YouTubers today&#8211;watching again on YouTube, you are on with Jim Blackburn, what&#8217;s your question Brian?
Caller: Hey guys, I absolutely love y&#8217;all&#8217;s show, I watch it every day on videos even if it&#8217;s not live. But anyway, I&#8217;m 23 years old and last year around this time actually went into rehab for drug addiction and I went into a Protestant-based rehab, I didn&#8217;t realize it was then I got in, and every Sunday, whenever we went to different denominational churches, I got to noticing the trend of pastors standing there talking in tongues. Now I understand the scripture of St. Paul and gifts of the Spirit but, like, why is it that they kind of really emphasize that, and what is the Catholic Church&#8217;s kind of outlook on the gifts of the Spirit, and talking in tongues, and why isn&#8217;t the charismatic Catholics emphasizing it more than we do?
Jim: Okay, well, first, the gift of speaking in tongues, or the way that that is presented in the New Testament, in Acts for example on the day of Pentecost, it is presented in such a way that God gave this special gift to Peter and the other Apostles so that they could speak in different languages. Tongues in this sense means languages. We still use tongue and in that, with that meaning today, you know, &#8220;What is your mother tongue?&#8221; &#8220;What is the primary tongue of a particular land?&#8221; It means language, and that&#8217;s how it&#8217;s always been understood that that&#8217;s what was happening in Acts of the Apostles, that this is something that the Holy Spirit enabled the Apostles to do so that they could share the Word of God with everyone. They could speak everyone&#8217;s language no matter what language it was. So that&#8217;s that&#8217;s how it was then.
In Pentecostal circles, this is something that a little over a hundred years ago became a kind of a big deal where&#8211;but but they saw it as something a little different. They saw this as kind of a new language, as the Holy Spirit speaking through them in a language that they don&#8217;t even understand, and that others might attempt to interpret, but it&#8217;s not a real human language, it&#8217;s not a real language that it can be understood. So from that regard, that&#8217;s something that as Catholics we don&#8217;t, typically, we don&#8217;t see that in Catholic teaching. Doesn&#8217;t mean that it&#8217;s not something that God could allow, so the Church to my knowledge hasn&#8217;t condemned that idea, but it&#8217;s not something we typically find in in Catholic circles.
There&#8217;s a charismatic movement in the Catholic Church, but in that movement itself I&#8217;m not sure that they are seeing it in quite the same way as the Pentecostals do. In addition to that, in the Catholic Church we see the gifts of the Holy Spirit as kind of a fullness, a special way of receiving strengths from the Holy Spirit to help perfect us in our Christian lives. In Baptism, we receive sanctifying grace, we receive certain gifts, but we receive a fuller sense of these gifts, and gifts that we as adults can use&#8211;and when I say adults, I mean people with the use of reason can use&#8211;and then those typically come to us through Confirmation. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1831 speaks of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit in this regard, so you might want to take a look at that.

Why Is Speaking in Tongues More Emphasized in Protestant Circles than in the Catholic Church?

Our reading from Nehemiah presents a strange scene from the history of Israel. The Jewish people had been exiled from the land for many years. Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Babylonians. And then, under the Persians, the Jews were allowed to return and rebuild the Temple and the city. So the scene we heard from Nehemiah is that moment when the people come together and listen to the book of law read—at least in this general, public way, as a whole people—for the first time in centuries.
They react in two ways. First, they mourn and weep—in sadness and grief over what was lost, and what was left undone and unpracticed for so many years. Then they turn to feasting and celebration.
And it’s that second reaction that I want to think about, because it’s a little strange.
Who has a party to celebrate the law?
We live in a world with a lot of rules. Most people follow them, even. But can you imagine having an assembly where someone reads all ordinances of the local borough or township, or a section of state law, or even just the student handbook of a school or university, and then everyone just starts cheering and applauding because they are so excited about hearing the rules? No, I can’t imagine that, either.
People don’t like law. We tolerate it. Maybe even we understand that it’s necessary. But we don’t think of it as something worth celebrating except maybe on those rare occasions where it obtains for us something that we already wanted, or some victory over our enemies. We think of law in purely negative terms: as rules about things we shouldn’t do, or as rules about things that we have to do—or that other people have to do—that we may not otherwise want to do.
A lot of Christians look at the Old Testament like this. They think of the law books of the Old Testament in that light. And so you get this kind of caricature of the Old Testament, and Judaism, as a whole lot of rules that are oppressive and hard to follow, and the New Testament and Jesus as being against rules and all about freedom and love.
But here’s the thing: no one in the Old Testament ever complains about the Law. When you read the Old Testament, you never see anyone talking about how the law is unjust or unfair or oppressive. You have prophets getting upset when people don’t keep the law, and the reason they’re upset is that the law is viewed as such an undeniably positive, life-giving thing. The longest psalm, Psalm 119, famously goes on and on for 200 verses about how fantastic the law is! Can you imagine someone composing a love song in honor of the tax code?
I’m not saying we need to do that. And obviously there’s a difference between the law given by God to the Jewish people and the law given by Congress to the American people and the particular law given by a bishop to his diocese. But I think it’s important to understand this positive attitude toward the law if we’re to understand what Jesus is doing. Because that picture, which so many of us have learned, of Jesus showing up, getting rid of the law that no one liked, and everyone breathing a sigh of relief isn’t what happened.
What did happen?
Despite the positive attitude that Judaism had toward the law, despite the beauty of the law itself, human beings are pretty messed up. Maybe the reason that we have such a negative attitude to law these days is that we know more decisively just how bad we are at following the law—any law. However wonderful a law may be, there will always be someone to break it. Law just reminds us of our imperfection. It reminds us that we aren’t good at being good without something making us be good.
This is a message that we get through the Old Testament as well. At one famous part of Jeremiah, God tells people that one day he will make a new covenant. No longer will his people have law written on tablets of stone or scrolls or books—the law will be written on their hearts. In other words, they will be good not because some rule makes them be good, but because they want to be.
Wonderful as it may be, the law, as a set of rules to follow, isn’t enough. We need something more.
And so when Jesus, as in our Gospel today, starts talking about his own life as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets, people listen. We should listen. Because what he offers is neither advice for perfectly following the law nor the permission to ignore it. He offers us something different. He offers us himself.
What he shows us is that real freedom isn’t freedom from the law—that would just leave us as slaves to our changing desires, which cannot ultimately make us happy. Nor is freedom found in the law itself. It’s found in the person who lived with all the perfect law of God in his heart. In a way, he is the law made flesh. And so from this point, following the law isn’t primarily a matter of following a list of rules, but a matter of following a person. And when we follow Jesus, he slowly changes our desires, he molds our abilities, so that we can be not just ourselves—and our own failed attempts to be the good—but him. We are members of his body, as St. Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians.
That is an important image to remember. You can tell your hand all you want not to be bad. You can slap your hand when it steals, or when it reaches to click on something online that it shouldn’t click on, or when it starts to tap out something mean or insensitive on your phone—you can do that all you want, but it’s not going to stop your hand from doing those things. Because the hand doesn’t do things on its own.
Christ is our head. You’re not going to live in the power and the joy of Christ if you keep yourself separate from the head; that’s like a toe going off and trying to do its own thing. We need the head and the heart. We need the life of Jesus in us. And there’s no easy shortcut to keeping connected with that life. It happens only in regular prayer, in receiving the body and blood, in friendship with the other members of Christ’s body. And the more deeply we take in Christ’s life as our own, the more we can greet God’s law, God’s order, God’s rules—not as an obstacle to getting what we want, but as the only path to true love and happiness.

A Love Song to the Law

<div class="page" title="Page 41">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 31
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“If you admit non-literal accounts into the Bible, how do you know that it isn’t all non-literal?”
DEFENSE
Just because the Bible contains one kind of material doesn’t mean it can’t contain other kinds, or that we can’t tell the difference.
It would be the fallacy of hasty generalization to conclude that just because some passages are non-literal, they all must be. We don’t make this kind of mistake with other literature. For example, if you walk into a library and notice that it has fiction shelves, you don’t thereby conclude that all the books in the library must be fiction. Typical libraries have both fiction and nonfiction.
This analogy is closer to the Bible than may at first be obvious. Although the Bible is printed in a single volume today, it is a library of books that were written over a period of more than a thousand years. Like a modern library, the Bible has books of different types. Some are historical, some poetic, some prophetic, and some fall into other categories.
The different types of books do not prevent us from being able to distinguish them. In a modern library, a biography does not read like a novel, and in the Bible a poetic book does not read like a historical one. It is even possible to identify which passages of a book belong to which genres, as when the Gospels switch between biographical material about Jesus and his parables or his prophecies.
Sometimes the genre of a biblical book is not immediately obvious because of cultural differences between then and today. We have a native faculty for identifying the genres of books written in our own culture because we are used to reading them and we understand their cultural references. We have less of a faculty for identifying the genres of biblical books because they were written in a different culture, do not always follow the same conventions, and contain unfamiliar references.
However, a close study of the books and the culture they were written in can compensate for this. That is a major function of biblical scholarship. It is thus possible to identify the clues in a text that told the original audience what kind of literature they were reading (see Days 181, 196).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Literal versus Non-literal Accounts

Dr. Craig Turczynski, the former director of in-vitro fertilization, andrology, and hormone assay laboratories at Louisiana State University Medical Center-Shreveport explains how IVF is done, and why it raises grave moral concerns.
CORRECTIONS:
1. The number of IVF procedures annually is about 250,000 not 250. 
2. Cytoplasmic transfer is taking cytoplasm from a young woman’s egg and injecting it into the infertile woman’s egg. It is not injected into the woman.

The Practice and Morality of In Vitro Fertilization

The main character syndrome of today can cause more harm than we think...

In this episode Trent examines Matt Walsh’s arguments against transgender ideology on a recent episode of the Dr. Phil show and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of his case.

Analyzing Matt Walsh’s “Transgender Debate” on Dr. Phil

Featured Guests: Trent Horn, Tim Staples, Karlo Broussard, Jimmy Akin, Fr. Hugh Barbour, Jim Papandrea
Featured Questions:
<ul>
<li>00:58 &#8211; Do our sins disappear when they are forgiven? – Karlo Broussard</li>
<li>06:00 &#8211; What’s the difference between blessings and graces? – Trent Horn</li>
<li>08:38 &#8211; Why did the angels hide their faces in Isaiah and the Book of Revelation? – Tim Staples</li>
<li>13:27 &#8211; Why do we see so much Christ imagery in superhero films? – Jim Papandrea</li>
<li>18:34 &#8211; How do we deal with distractions during prayer, and does the prayer count if I am distracted? – Fr. Hugh Barbour</li>
<li>21:15 &#8211; What’s wrong with in vitro fertilization? – Jimmy Akin</li>
<li>24:43 &#8211; What’s the point of praying if God already knows if I’m going to heaven or not? – Fr. Hugh Barbour</li>
</ul>

Catholic Answers Live TV | Season 2 | Episode 5

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent sits down with Nick Chamberlain to discuss how to produce an awesome podcast.

Secrets to a Successful Podcast

What the “Red Pill” Gets Wrong (with Jordan Cooper)

In this episode Trent examines the awful positions Destiny holds and how his desire to consistency leads him to extreme ends.
Transcription:
Trent:
Foolish Consistency is the hob goblin of little minds. This quote by 19th century philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson is important to remember because some people value consistency over common sense and it can lead them to holding absolutely insane views, and one of those people is the liberal streamer destiny. In today&#8217;s episode, I want to talk about how Destiny&#8217;s commitment to consistency reveals the fatal flaws in the positions he defends. So let&#8217;s start with the statements he made last week on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. On X Destiny wrote, having a firearm means absolutely nothing if you don&#8217;t spend time at the range Practicing with it implying that he wished the shooter had not missed Trump, which is a gross thing, a scary number of Trump critics were saying. But then Destiny doubled down on it by saying he wasn&#8217;t bothered by another innocent person at the rally who was shot, namely Cory Comparator and ex fire chief husband.
And Father Destiny writes a person in a crowd cheering for and supporting a traitor to this country caught a stray. I&#8217;m so sad, please. And he made other posts mocking the man. In fact, here&#8217;s a very interesting post. One user writes, you can&#8217;t say Trump is Hitler one day, then wish him well the next day. That&#8217;s not how it works unless you&#8217;re a lying corrupt POS to which Destiny responds. Agree with this, be morally consistent and don&#8217;t wish him well. And that&#8217;s Destiny&#8217;s biggest problem when common sense and basic decency tells us, wait, this is wrong. I shouldn&#8217;t say or do this like mocking a shooting victim at a rally. Destiny is comfortable not listening to what our basic human decency would tell us. Rather, he lets the consistency of his worldview carry him out to extreme ends. Part of this though may be rage baiting for attention, or it&#8217;s the brain rott that comes from spending the majority of your waking life on the internet as a streamer.
But the desire to be consistent above all else is really what concerns me and I want to talk about in this episode. So in this case, there are a lot of people who compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, the New Republic, even depicted Trump as Hitler in their June, 2024 issue saying, he&#8217;s damn close enough to fascism and we&#8217;d better fight. Trump was shot six days after this post. But Destiny would say, if it&#8217;s okay to celebrate the assassination of old Hitler, why wouldn&#8217;t it be okay to celebrate the assassination of New Hitler? Even if that act involved casualties among civilians who celebrated new Hitler,
Destiny:
Get the dude, the firefighter guy Trump people that support him. I just want you to know, okay, just in case you&#8217;re confused or it seems like I&#8217;m whatever, if one of you were in the crowd and you&#8217;re a conservative fan of mine and you end up getting blown away, or whatever the fuck, I&#8217;m making fun of you the next day on Twitter, I am 100%.
Trent:
First, I hate comparisons to Hitler. They don&#8217;t make the person more evil. They just make Hitler less evil. If everybody&#8217;s Hitler, then Hitler must not have been that bad of person. Second, this criticism goes beyond destiny. I see a lot of people who dig their heels in and hold repugnant views because they feel that as long as they&#8217;re consistent, then they aren&#8217;t wrong and other people even respect them simply because they&#8217;re willing to be consistent and stick to their guns. For example, I once attended a private lecture with the philosopher Peter Singer and a bunch of his fans at Arizona State University. Peter Singer writes in one article, we cannot coherently hold that. It is all right to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born, everything must be done to keep it alive. The solution, however, is not to accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the same moral status as yours or mine.
The solution is the very opposite to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal worth. So Peter singer defends infanticide, but he&#8217;s also an animal rights activist. So I asked him in that lecture if it was okay for my parents that they euthanize their incontinent dog singer said it was permissible if the dog was a significant burden. I then asked him if it would&#8217;ve been fine to euthanize my hypothetical mildly disabled newborn brother if he was just as much an inconvenience. Singer hemmed and he hawed, but eventually he admitted it would not be wrong to kill my hypothetical baby brother. That&#8217;s because according to him, privileging humans over non-humans is a kind of racism called speciesism. And so newborn human infants shouldn&#8217;t be treated better than other non-human animals that have higher cognitive functions in singer&#8217;s book Should the Baby Live. He flatly admits that quote, when we kill a newborn infant, there is no person whose life has begun.
Other attendees of the lecture we&#8217;re surprised, not at what singer said about infanticide, but at my criticism of it, several of them came up to me later and criticized me for my narrow-minded view that infants are worth more than non-human animals. These are people who&#8217;ve lost the plot and they smugly don&#8217;t care because they read a bunch of academic journals and makes &#8217;em feel smart. I&#8217;m reminded of what George Orwell said in his 1945 essay Notes on nationalism. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool. A person can be consistently wrong just as he can be inconsistently wrong. Just because all your beliefs fit together into a whole worldview doesn&#8217;t mean they&#8217;re true. If they also don&#8217;t correspond to reality, including moral realities like the moral law, then they&#8217;re false even if someone personally doesn&#8217;t see anything wrong with what they believe.
That&#8217;s why when I debated Destiny and my previous two encounters, my goal wasn&#8217;t to change his mind. My goal was to show other people the price they have to pay in order to buy into his worldview. And since nearly everyone isn&#8217;t willing to pay that price, that means they&#8217;re less likely to buy into his positions because they lead to such repugnant conclusions. For example, in our first encounter on abortion, destiny defended his view that a being cannot be harmed if it never becomes conscious. Therefore, it&#8217;s fine to abort a pre-conscious fetus. Then I asked him about whether it would be permissible to create human beings, infants, and toddlers who were never conscious for horrible purposes.
Trent:
So I have a few questions then. Would it be wrong to cause a healthy fetus to become permanently unconscious?
Destiny:
No. Okay.
Trent:
So would it be wrong to cause this permanent unconsciousness to use, let&#8217;s say you could keep growing the fetus into an older body to use it for organ harvesting, maybe as a kind of sex doll, even
Destiny:
As long as it never became conscious or didn&#8217;t have
Trent:
The five never became conscious. Correct. Okay. Related question, but we&#8217;ll circle back soon. What are your thoughts on fake child pornography using AI or virtual images?
Destiny:
Fake child pornography. I&#8217;m not going to have a strong opinion on the action itself. It&#8217;s going to be consequential in nature in terms of what are the impacts of doing it. So say you create a bunch and people stop actually abusing children. I&#8217;d probably be in favor of it. Say you create a bunch and it leads to an increased harm of children, I&#8217;d probably opposed
Trent:
To it. You have a practical objection, not an in principle objection.
Destiny:
No, that wouldn&#8217;t be like a no.
Trent:
Yeah. Okay. Then it circles back. Let&#8217;s say we had people who took fetuses, made them permanently unconscious and made them infant toddler or child sex dolls. So we have unconscious infants and toddlers. They were never conscious. They&#8217;re used as child sex dolls. Your only objection to that practice would be if it caused more pedophilia among other contra correction.
Destiny:
Yeah, because I would say there&#8217;s no person is being harmed there.
Trent:
Okay, so child sex stalls could be on the table.
Trent:
Okay. And in my second debate with destiny and pornographer, Jasmine Jafar on the subject of pornography, I showed their view of sexual ethics leads to the repugnant conclusion that bestiality isn&#8217;t wrong. For example, many people say sex is just about consent and animals can&#8217;t consent. So that&#8217;s why bestiality is wrong. But we eat animals without their consent. We even employ animals to work in the police department, like in canine units, something that normally requires consent among human beings. If we can do that to animals well, then why not engage in less harmful non-penetrating sexual acts with animals, for example. All of this normal people find to be disgusting, but once again, destiny has to bite the bullet in order to keep his sexual ethics consistent.
Trent:
You&#8217;re saying that sex with animals is not as bad as killing them? What do you mean as sexual? Did you just say that killing them is worse?
Jasmine:
I think killing animals is, it depends, right? It depends
Brian:
What you think. Wait, say that one more time. What do you want me to say? Just the way you
Trent:
Said it. Wait, what did you say? Killing animals is worse than sex. No, I&#8217;m saying sometimes the
Destiny:
Experience way you can bite the ball. Yes. I think probably generally, yeah. Why? What&#8217;s the next question? How could you possibly flip that? Do you disagree? Do you think that having sex with an animal is worse than killing? Yes,
Trent:
It is worse because for who? Because animals are non-rational beings that we can eat. There&#8217;s nothing immoral about that. Sex is for human beings. I sorry, you guys.
Destiny:
The So you think because we&#8217;re not religious, so you think that the religiou sex, no, you&#8217;re
Trent:
Not saying you&#8217;re an insane
Trent:
Person. If you want to learn more about how to engage academics and others who defend this perversion, check out the link in the description below. But also, several commenters noted that this is one of the few times I&#8217;ve lost my composure when debating someone and they said the response was well deserved. I agree there is a place for philosophical discourse, but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade because you&#8217;ve arrived at the metaphysical foundation of your worldview. You&#8217;ve arrived at a self-evident truth that the other person must simply be morally blind if they can&#8217;t accept it or see it. I&#8217;m reminded of what St. Paul said in Romans one. They became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened, claiming to be wise that became fools in exchange the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
The idea that our moral reasoning can be grounded in self-evident moral truths is also affirmed by many atheists. So this isn&#8217;t just a religious belief. The atheist philosopher Walter sin at Armstrong writes, we could never get started on everyday moral reasoning about any moral problem without relying on moral intuitions. Even philosophers and others who officially disdain moral intuitions often appeal to moral intuitions when refuting opponents or supporting their own views. The most sophisticated and complex arguments regularly come down to, but surely that is immoral. Hence, without some move like this, there would be no way to construct and justify any substantive moral theory. And here&#8217;s destiny with atheist Alex O&#8217;Connor explaining how his rejection of moral facts and really any form of objective morality means he can&#8217;t consider anything to be objectively wrong. He can&#8217;t even say one side in World War II was right and the other was wrong.
Cosmic Skeptic:
Do you think there&#8217;s a sense in which you can say either side is right in that conflict? I mean, imagining, for example, some version of World War II where the fighting was based on some fundamental value conflict about what you&#8217;re allowed to do to other human beings, violent conflict. Is there a sense in which we can say that one side is correct there, or do we just have to say that what we&#8217;re witnessing might makes? Right.
Destiny:
I feel like to say one side is correct, I feel like you would have to be able to ultimately resolve some moral statement down to some truth. Value. There would have to be some moral facts to speak of, and I, I&#8217;m kind of cocked. I don&#8217;t really believe in stuff like that. So I wouldn&#8217;t be able to say at the end of the day that it&#8217;s right to not want to enslave somebody or it&#8217;s right to not want to murder somebody. I don&#8217;t know if I believe that any of those moral statements reduced to some fact of the matter. So no, I don&#8217;t know if I could ever say there&#8217;s a right or wrong side in any given conflict like that. There&#8217;s just the values that I purport to have and hopefully other people around me have them. And if some people are so incompatible and we can&#8217;t find common grounds on it, then at some point it&#8217;s probably going to come to some sort of violent conflict to resolve the difference.
Trent:
But then destiny seems to contradict himself because he&#8217;s more than happy to affirm the evil of those involved in the October 7th attacks on Israel and offers moral criticism of Israel as well. You do
Unnamed:
Believe that, what do you call it, that Hamas are evil incarnate.
Destiny:
I believe it&#8217;s a pretty evil organization. A lot of the people that belong to it are horrible human beings. Yeah, of course. So I think when the IDF or when Israel kills people when it&#8217;s not justified, I think that&#8217;s a really bad thing. I don&#8217;t think that should ever happen.
Trent:
One reason Destiny is so popular is because he has a unique or more properly speaking, idiosyncratic worldview. It&#8217;s one that&#8217;s so unique, it brings him into conflict with conservatives and fellow liberals. So as a result, people see him as being more authentic rather than just being a stooge, a defender of one political side of the spectrum or the other. In some respects, destiny embodies what Emerson wrote about in his poem, Self-Reliance, where Emerson said a foolish consistency is the Hobb goblin of little minds. In that essay, Emerson criticizes people who just want to conform or be consistent to what others think or what&#8217;s a popular viewpoint. Be true to yourself was Emerson&#8217;s preferred motto. But while we shouldn&#8217;t blindly follow the crowd, Emerson put too much faith in just having a consistent individual worldview. Emerson rejected Christianity and he embraced a form of unitarianism and even quasi pantheism for him, God was suffused in everything and human nature was fundamentally good.
In his 1841 essay Spiritual Laws, Emerson wrote, our young people are diseased with the theological problems of original sin, origin of evil, predestination and the like. These never presented a practical difficulty to any man, never darkened across any man&#8217;s road who did not go out of his way to seek them. But sin is real and being true to oneself or being internally consistent isn&#8217;t the highest good for one who is enslaved to sin. You can end up being internally inconsistent, but being an awful human being who says awful things on the internet, unrepentant only God is the highest good because when it comes to human beings, the prophet Jeremiah said, the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt who can understand it? I also like how the 1930s crime fighter, the shadow would put it, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Consistency is important because truth can&#8217;t contradict truth. We should always strive for a consistent worldview, but we should be more concerned about the origin of our beliefs and their ultimate metaphysical foundation, IE, the divine foundation of reality that grounds and guides everything. We should be more concerned with that than with whether we can get all of our beliefs to fit together, common sense and basic human decency be damned. So I hope this episode was helpful for you all and if you want to watch clips from my other engagements with Destiny, be sure to check out the links below. Thank you all so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.

Destiny’s Evil Consistency

I Have More ASSURANCE Than Gavin Ortlund

Is my church the RIGHT CHURCH? @RuslanKD

On April 19, Taylor Swift unleashed her highly anticipated eleventh studio album, entitled The Tortured Poets Department. Within twelve hours, it was the first album in Spotify history to achieve 300M streams in a single day.
From a postmodern worldview, it would be difficult to find someone who more perfectly represents the culmination of the feminist movement than this self-made billionaire. She has masterminded a successful sound, and her increasingly loyal fan base has the potential to sway an upcoming presidential election.
Despite her accolades at the pinnacle of worldly success, Swift’s new album unveils a raw, angry woman grappling with her own emptiness. Swift’s power has always been in her willingness to tell her own story. In Tortured Poets, she is at her most vulnerable. Here we find her slightly unhinged, raging at the world that has placed her on this pedestal. Reflecting on her “Eras” tour, an international phenomenon so successful that it catapulted her to billionaire status, she sings, “You know you’re good when you can even do it with a broken heart . . . and I’m good ’cause I’m miserable! And nobody even knows!”
A consistent theme through all eleven of Swift’s critically acclaimed albums is the craving for marriage, family, and unconditional love. As time slips away and her success has intensified, that desire has grown from the fantasy of a twenty-two-year-old singing, “We could get married, have ten kids and teach them all how to dream” to a point of painful desperation twelve years later: “You swore you loved me, but where were the clues? I died on the altar waiting for proof.” In the emptiness of her own success, Swift seems to have discovered the truth that Pope Francis articulated in Evangelii Gaudium: “Our infinite sadness can be cured only by an infinite love” (265).
This core reality of human existence is hardly a new discovery among the rich and famous. The Beatles famously sang, “Don’t care too much for money, money can’t buy you love,” and Tom Brady, possibly the most successful quarterback of all time, expressed it in his <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=vK3gD9DZCiUKIMo1&amp;v=-TA4_fVkv3c&amp;feature=youtu.be">haunting 2005 interview with 60 Minutes</a>: “It’s gotta be more than this. This can’t be all it’s cracked up to be. I’ve done it. I’m twenty-seven, and what else is there for me?” In her own documentary, Ms. Americana and the Heartbreak Prince, Swift openly discusses her loneliness as she reflects that she has achieved everything she has ever wanted but has no one to call and celebrate with.
What makes Taylor Swift unique? Why, if so many instinctively understand this core truth, do thousands of people spend thousands of dollars in adoration of this particular celebrity?
I think there are a few reasons. One of them is that Swift has a brilliant mind for marketing herself, but beyond that, it’s that she has been sharing the intimate details of her journey with her fans for over fifteen years. As Taylor has experienced coming of age, love, freedom and heartbreak, so have we. As Taylor has achieved international recognition and subsequent disillusionment, we grapple with our own disillusionment. She is the voice of a generation (actually a few generations at this point) because her lyrics speak openly about the darkness and cravings that people face in their daily life.
I, a thirty-three-year-old woman (Swift is thirty-four), have followed her career for many years. However, as time has passed and our lives have gone in wildly different directions (no screaming fans here—just four screaming kids), my fascination with Swift’s music has taken a turn from relatability to feeling as though it’s a book that I can’t put down. Tortured Poets is not my favorite album and pretty obviously isn’t her best work, but it is striking in its rawness. At one point, Swift sings, “Is it a wonder I broke? . . . I was tame, I was gentle till the circus life made me mean,” and later in the same song, “I want to snarl and show you just how disturbed this has made me.” Among other things, Swift compares herself to an albatross, a deranged weirdo, a modern idiot, a doll on a string, a petulant teenager, the victim of a conman, and a wrecked Aston Martin. She talks about drinking alone with a ghost, needing a priest to exorcise her demons, and being raised in an asylum. Through all this pain and brokenness runs the consistent deep longing to be loved and live the simple life of marriage and motherhood: “Talking rings and talking cradles. I wish I could unrecall how we almost had it all.”
Taylor Swift is celebrated as the ultimate feminist, the It Girl whom every girl can look up to. Ironically, this woman, who could be seen as the antithesis of the Christian life, is desperately telling the world that all her success is empty, and what she wants is to be loved by a man and have his children.
In her previous album, Midnights, Swift sings, “It must be exhausting always rooting for the anti-hero.” I’m rooting for you, Taylor. In my quiet home with my happy children and loving husband and little flock of ducks, I’m rooting for you to become a different kind of anti-hero—the kind that’s just a happy wife and mother, whom the world rolls its eyes at, wondering why she threw her life away.

Taylor Swift and the Tortured Modern Woman

<div>Is it important for altar girls to cover their hair and. if so, why?</div><div>There is no ecclesiastical rule that requires altar girls—or women serving at the altar—to wear head coverings. What’s more fundamental is that they be modestly dressed, which should be accomplished if they’re properly vested to assist priests at the altar in the sanctuary.
For more on the Church’s historical discipline regarding the wearing of head coverings by women at Mass, please see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-women-came-to-be-bare-headed-in-church">our related answer</a>.
</div>

Should Altar Girls Wear Head Coverings?

Is the Greek the New Testament is written in of poor style? Is the style it is written in a testament to its authenticity?

At the point of my death, at my particular judgment, will my soul necessarily be aware of its ultimate fate as either Heaven or Hell bound? Do souls in purgatory know they are not in hell? What does the magisterium lend to address these questions?

What “exactly” makes someone subject to Catholic marriage law? Catholics recognize baptisms in other ecclesial communities, and baptism makes you Catholic at least in some sense, but it doesn’t subject you to Catholic marriage law.

What other “evidence” is out there that Catholics may be able to point to in order to defend Mary’s immaculate conception to non-Catholic Christians, since the dogma was declared by Pope Pius IX as opposed to being derived from Scripture or another sou...

If certain demons are in fact the spirits of Nephilim/giants as most Second Temple Jews and some early Christians held, were they able to be saved? If they were indeed biological offspring from angels and humans, they would still be partly human (havin...

&#8220;Can souls in purgatory know their fate?&#8221; This episode explores the awareness of souls at their particular judgment and whether those in purgatory know they are not in hell. Additionally, we delve into the authenticity of the Greek New Testament, the implications of Catholic marriage law, and the evidence for Mary&#8217;s immaculate conception.
<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>

Can Souls in Purgatory Know Their Fate?

My wife is Pentecostal and I attend early morning Mass and then Pentecostal service with wife and children I want to know if it is ok  to go up to altar call with my wife and children?

How to refute quantum mechanics disproving the Aristotelian proof of God and Causality

Perpetual Vigirnity of Mary. Is it reasonable to think that St. Joseph did not know that Mary had taken a vow of Virginity?

St. Paul, scripture, baptism for the dead, he has a theory of what it means, wants to get Joe’s take…He thinks baptism for those who are dead in their sin

Why does St. Paul go against the Council of Jerusalem when he says some Christians can eat meat sacrificed to idols?

Can I attend a Mass that is being celebrated by an excommunicated priest or bishop?

Mary’s role as intercessor in light of Lukes passages on sword piercing her soul, and the Magnificat.

Girlfriend died 3 years ago, he led her to Christ, wants to know if he can still pray to her, even though she may be in Purgatory, and can he ask her to pray for him

Calling back with follow-up question, his wife does not want the kids baptized in the Catholic Church. Should he still passively participate?

Is it valid or even permissible to attend a Mass led by an excommunicated priest or bishop? We explore this complex issue and also dive into questions on Mary’s perpetual virginity, altar calls at Pentecostal services, and the meaning behind “baptism for the dead.”
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

Can I Attend Mass Celebrated by an Excommunicated Priest?

<div>Did St. Paul contradict the Council of Jerusalem’s edict that forbade the eating of certain meats when he said, in 1 Cor. 8:8, “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do”?
</div><div>The Council of Florence in 1442 gave us the answer to this question in declaring the dietary decrees of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:24-28 to be temporary. Of course, the decree against “fornication” was permanent. But with regard to the dietary rules, the council was dealing with a compromise of placing some “Jewish” dietary rules on the Gentile converts so that there could be harmony in the family of God. There was no problem mentioned of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/gentiles">Gentiles</a> wanting to worship an idol or to participate in the worship of an idol through eating the sacrifices offered to it. This was a purely pastoral matter that was solved, at least when it came to the dietary rules, through a dietary, non-dogmatic solution.
St. Paul was writing about fifteen years after the council where pastoral matters had changed in the Gentile Christian world. The Council’s concern for unity between Jews and Gentiles was far past. Matters had become much worse. In I Cor. 10:14-18, St. Paul warns: “Shun the worship of idols.” The council had not had to deal with idolatry. The Gentiles were newly converted and “on-fire” as the saying is today. But by the time Paul is writing I Corinthians, he had to sternly warn the Gentiles not to go back to the pagan sacrifices, much like the inspired author of Hebrews had to warn Jewish Christians not to be tempted to go back to the Temple, Old Covenant priesthood, sacrifices, etc. (cf. Heb. 6:4-6; 7:11-12; 10:25ff, etc.).
Thus, Paul was compelled to teach these Gentile Christians anew that the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/abstain-from-food-offered-to-idols">idol is nothing</a> in and of itself along with its sacrifices (1 Cor. 8:4-8). Paul reminds them of the truth that there is only one true God and one Lord Jesus Christ (v. 6). One can eat or not eat, objectively speaking, and it matters not because in and of themselves they are nothing (v. 8). That in no way contradicts the council that was dealing with a different matter.
In the end, Paul used strong language in order to warn them that if they did choose to go back and offer sacrifices to their former gods, the sacrifices are nothing in and of themselves, and their gods do not exist. But he also warns them that they will be opening themselves up to demons in the process. Paul exhorts them to worship and receive Our Lord in the Eucharist, the only true worship of almighty God (cf. 1 Cor. 10:15-22). “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (v. 21).
</div>

Did St. Paul contradict the Council of Jerusalem?

<div>Is it a sin for a member of a married couple to have a secret bank account?</div><div>Generally, it would be morally wrong for one of a married couple to have a secret income, since marriage includes a common life. But in some difficult or extreme situation where it is necessary to protect one of the spouses&#8217; interests, or that of their children, it would be permissible. Say, one of the spouses is a drug addict and is spending the income needed for legitimate support; in this case, it would be permissible to hide funds from the troubled spouse. Or if one spouse was simply improvident and imprudent with investments or purchases to the point of risking the family&#8217;s well being, then one could have secret account, or another source of money from family or friends. Of course, this should not be done impulsively, but with some counsel from prudent persons, perhaps even legal counsel.
</div>

Is a Secret Bank Account in Marriage Sinful?

<div class="page" title="Page 182">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 172
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“I would love to believe. I see the benefits religious faith brings people, and I wish I could embrace it. Yet I find myself unable to do so.”
DEFENSE
This problem is common because it&#8217;s based on our psychological makeup, but it is not insurmountable.
The possibility of overcoming it is indicated by the fact that the vast majority of people have some form of religious faith. It is not contrary to human nature. Indeed, religion is a human universal found in all cultures, both historical and present.
Similarly, choosing one religion over another is not impossible. This is illustrated by the growth of Christianity. As the Christian message spread, evangelists urged people to believe it, and many did. Otherwise, no growth would have occurred. This shows that people are capable of choosing to adopt it, regardless of their prior belief.
Difficulties a particular person feels in this regard are due to circumstance rather than human nature itself. William James’s essay “The Will to Believe” (available online) contains a helpful discussion. He describes views as either “live” or “dead.” Live views are those that one feels it possible to accept, while dead ones are those that seem impossible to accept.
Which views are live depends on circumstances. Some today feel that being an agnostic is a live option, but being a Christian is not. They have a psychological impediment—which others do not have— against being a Christian. While this impediment remains, it will be hard for them to choose to embrace the Faith.
Having identified Christian faith as desirable (evidentially or otherwise), the solution is to work on the psychological impediment so that it becomes a live option. This can be accomplished more than one way.
One way is by studying Christian apologetics and seeing the evidences that support the Christian faith and answer opposing views. Another is by choosing to live as a Christian. This is discussed by Blaise Pascal: “Follow the way by which [believers] began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness” (Pensées 233).
Choosing to act on the premise that the Faith is true will gradually lead to it becoming psychologically acceptable and thus make it a live option.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Will to Believe

Jennifer Donelson, associate professor and the director of sacred music at St. Joseph’s Seminary (Dunwoodie) in New York, shares her insights on the interior life and the sacred music of the Catholic Church.