Manage Account

When can you fulfill your Easter duty?

How can we know that the Scriptures are divinely inspired?

Have you in your learnings come to understand what causes Same-Sex Attraction? Is there a theory you find convincing? Do you have a theory of your own?

Is monasticism selfish?  For example, how could have the apostles fulfilled the Great Commission if they were cloistered? And how would that apply today?  Can evangelization be accomplished from inside a monastic cell?

It seems to me that God’s ultimate goal is to get us back bodily in heaven with him. Would that be like the garden of Eden again and how does us eating the eucharist help with that? Or does it? It seems we need to eat our savior to be bodily with...

If somebody does something evil out of stupidity, how responsible is he for said action? Can he be at least partly excused?

This might sound silly, but I’ve wondered it a lot: If you are in mass and you’ve fasted the hour but find something in your teeth, does it break the fast to swallow it?

Would it be moral to shoot down a hijacked plane full of civilians over an unpopulated area, if it is believed the hijackers intend to crash it in a populated area? Would this be considered doing evil that good may come of it or double effect?

When exactly can Catholics fulfill their Easter duty, and why does the Church require it? In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Jimmy Akin answers thoughtful questions from listeners on a wide range of topics. He explains how we know the Scriptures are divinely inspired without falling into circular reasoning, discusses theories about the causes of same-sex attraction, and examines whether monastic life conflicts with the Church’s mission to evangelize. Jimmy also explores the relationship between the Eucharist and the resurrection of the body, moral responsibility for actions done in ignorance, whether swallowing something stuck in your teeth breaks the Eucharistic fast, and how Catholic moral theology evaluates difficult scenarios like stopping a hijacked plane. A wide-ranging discussion covering Scripture, moral theology, and practical questions about living the Catholic faith.
<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>

When Can You Fulfill Your Easter Duty? Jimmy Akin Answers Your Catholic Questions

Did Angels Really Smite the Enemies of Israel?

Gary Zimak, drawing from Fr. Robert Spitzer&#8217;s book &#8220;The Light Shines on in Darkness,&#8221; explains why it&#8217;s more accurate to understand God as a benevolent Father than as a strict authoritarian figure.
Transcript:
Host: Another questioner asks about our image of God. I wonder if you have something to say about that, that we might have an image of God that would generate anxiety and worry in us?
Gary: Yeah, you know what&#8211;and I should remember that&#8211;I&#8217;m reading a book right now about this, Fr. Spitzer has an excellent book out about suffering, and he talks about&#8211;he goes into this in detail, so funny that this came up&#8211;and he talks about every time Jesus talked about His Father. It&#8217;s always in a loving way. And yet there are different images of our Heavenly Father sometimes. People are afraid of Him; they think he&#8217;s a tyrant, they think he&#8217;s disinterested, but yet our Heavenly Father really loves us.
And if we really key in on the words of Jesus Christ and the way he described His Father and all of the merciful attributes of our Heavenly Father, you realize that He loves you; and if he loves you, then he&#8217;s not going to want anything to happen in your life that cannot help you in some way.
Host: Is it&#8211;you know, I have the book on my desk. It&#8217;s an excellent book. And I couldn&#8217;t remember the name of it, so I looked it up. It&#8217;s &#8220;The Light Shines on in Darkness.&#8221; That&#8217;s the one?
Gary: Yes. And he talks about several erroneous images of the Heavenly Father.

What If Our Understanding of God Generates Worry and Anxiety in Us?

Did the First Christians Have a Protestant Old Testament?

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

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

If the Assumption of Mary happened... why isn't it in the Bible? 🤔

The Anti-Life California Bomber

The Negative Impacts of Social Media regarding Extremism

San Diego Ranked 3rd Happiest City in the US&nbsp;

With Pope Leo XIV hailing from the United States of America, what global and internal shifts might follow? We explore how his nationality could impact the Church’s perception, diplomacy, and direction.
<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>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
Please help support our mission by donating! <a href="https://give.catholic.com/campaign/689122/donate">Catholicanswersradio.com</a>
</div></div>

What Are the Consequences of Having an American Pope? | Flannel Panel

Is Saying “Christ is King” Antisemitic?

A recent survey shows for the first time a drop in support for LGBT+ among 18- to 34-year-olds. Trent shows how our culture’s mandate to accept transgender ideology has created a backlash among young people who prefer facts to fantasy.

Transgender Totalitarianism

Trent sits down with prolific Youtuber Tom Jump to talk atheism and philosophy with some magic and unicorns thrown in for good measure.

Should We be Atheists? (with Tom Jump)

Limited atonement says Jesus didn’t die for everyone.That’s not just bad theology—it’s not biblical.

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent reflects on the consequences of Russia’s war with Ukraine and helps you prepare (or at least soberly face) a doomsday scenario.

FFAF: I’m a tad freaked out about nuclear war . . .

<div class="page" title="Page 263">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 253
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Matthew misunderstands Isaiah’s prophecy of Immanuel (Isa. 7:14). It doesn’t point to Jesus.”
DEFENSE
Matthew understands the prophecy better than you think.
The biblical authors recognized Scripture as operating on multiple levels. For example, Matthew interprets the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt as a fulfillment of the prophetic statement, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” In its original context, it is obvious the “son” of God being discussed is Israel: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt, I called my son” (Hos. 11:1).
Matthew understood this. He had read the first half of the verse and knew that, on the primary, literal level, the statement applied to the nation of Israel. But he recognized that on another level it applied to Christ as the divine Son who recapitulates and fulfills the aspirations of Israel.
In the same way, it is obvious in Isaiah that on the primary, literal level the prophecy of Immanuel applied to the time of King Ahaz (732–716 B.C.). At this point, Syria had forged a military alliance with the northern kingdom of Israel that threatened to conquer Jerusalem (Isa. 7:1–2). God sent Isaiah to reassure Ahaz the alliance would not succeed (Isa. 7:3–9) and told him to name a sign that God would give him as proof (Isa. 7:10–11).
Ahaz balked and refused to name a sign (Isa. 7:12), so God declared one: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. . . . For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted” (Isa. 7:14–16).
For this sign to be meaningful to Ahaz, it would have to be fully fulfilled in his own day—indeed, very quickly. It therefore points, on the primary, literal level, to a child conceived at that time (perhaps Ahaz’s son, the future King Hezekiah).
This was as obvious to Matthew as it is to us, but—like the other New Testament authors—he recognized the biblical text as having multiple dimensions, so the prophecy was not only fulfilled in Ahaz’s day but also pointed to Christ as “Immanuel” (Hebrew, “God with us”).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Prophecy of Immanuel

Drawing on his book, Light From Darkness: Nine Times the Catholic Church Was in Turmoil and Came Out Stronger Than Before, historian Steve Weidenkopf answers our questions about the current Vatican deal with China. Is the agreement to let the Chinese government have a say about bishop appointments a return to the days of the Investiture Controversy?

Is China Policy a New Investiture Controversy?

Who Are the “Cloud of Witnesses” in Hebrews 12:1?

In this episode Matt Fradd asks Trent how to engage atheists and also how Trent’s own arguments have changed over the time he&#8217;s studied atheism.

Atheism “Ask me anything” (with Matt Fradd)

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

Has our culture developed a distorted sense of empathy?

In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Trent Horn to discuss the complexities of the pro-choice argument. Trent continues with details about the implications of illegal abortions and the importance of considering all parties involved in unintended pregnancies.
Transcript:
Caller: I&#8217;m pro choice because I believe that if we don&#8217;t have legal abortions, then there&#8217;s going to be women that are exposed to illegal abortionist quacks, as you would say, and we&#8217;re going to have women that are dying. So, Judy, you think the answer that some women may choose to go have unsafe abortions. You think that you know this. I know this from experience. You think that the best. My personal experience, but I. My father was a law enforcement officer, and in the the 60s, he had a man that operated an independent motel on the north side of Waco and came to him concerned because there had been people renting a room weeks, weekends and weekends and weekends, leaving lots of bloody sheets and bloody towels. And he was concerned that there was something. Something going on. And they staked it out. And sure enough, there was a man performing illegal abortions. Wow. And when they. They caught the person, the person that he was performing the illegal abortion on actually nearly bled to death. And she wasn&#8217;t able to have children. Her father was actually a very important person in Waco and she was afraid to tell her parents.
Trent Horn: Right. No, that&#8217;s. That&#8217;s very sad to hear about, Judy, and to hear these details about what happens when people try to take violent solutions to difficult life problems and go and see people like this, like illegal abortion providers. I agree with you that it&#8217;s very disturbing. So I think the question we have to ask is, what do we do with these people involved? What is the best solution that we should come up with? And when it comes to an unintended pregnancy, would you agree we have primarily. Well, I guess really we have three people involved. There&#8217;s a third person here nobody ever talks about. We probably should talk about them more. In an unintended pregnancy, we have the woman who is pregnant, the man who impregnated her, and the child who now exists. So we&#8217;ve got those three people, right?
Caller: Well, you&#8217;ve got the people that prey on these women, too, right? Well, these are the secondary elements, like the people who will offer abortion services offer illegal services. And there are people who will offer not legal abortion because they don&#8217;t have acts. At the time, the state of Texas did not offer legal abortion services.
Trent Horn: Judy, let me ask you a question. For anything that is illegal, is there also a black market for that thing? For example, murder is illegal, but there&#8217;s still a black market. In hitmen, drugs are illegal, but you can find a black market for illegal drugs. For anything that&#8217;s illegal there, there will be a dangerous black Market. Right.
Caller: You&#8217;re, you&#8217;re, you&#8217;re mixing. You&#8217;re changing the subject. We&#8217;re talking about why. I am pro life. We&#8217;re not talking about murder. Do you mean pro choice? Pro choice. Excuse me. You&#8217;re changing the subject on me. Well, here&#8217;s what I&#8217;m trying to understand. You&#8217;re saying you think abortion should be legal so that it&#8217;s safer for the mother to end the life of her child. Yes. So she has the right to counseling and she can make the choice. Under safe. Under safe, she has access to counseling. And if she makes that choice, she gets to go into a clinic that safe. Judy, why should we care. And medical experts, Judy, why. Why should we make it safer for big people to hurt little people? Why? I&#8217;m talking about a person that is emotionally charged, that they don&#8217;t know where to turn. Maybe the father of the child has stepped away from the picture. I&#8217;m talking about being able to have access to medical and psychological counseling. Judy. Let me ask you another question, Judy. Can we offer medical and psychological counseling, medical treatment, psychological counseling, support. Can we offer those things in a way that. So that both the mother and the child live? We can. Then why don&#8217;t we. Then why don&#8217;t we only do. Why don&#8217;t we only do that then? Because a woman has the right to choose. Okay, Judy, if someone. To choose. If someone makes a choice, should they have to face the consequences of their choice? That&#8217;s, That&#8217;s a moral issue. And I&#8217;m not going to pass judgment on anybody. You&#8217;re not going to pass judgment on anybody? Do you think. Not going to pass judgment. Do you think it&#8217;s wrong to make abortion illegal? Yes, I do. Aren&#8217;t you passing. Well, I think. Judy, here&#8217;s how I feel. I think. I didn&#8217;t ask how you feel. You interrupted me before I got to finish speaking. Go right ahead. Didn&#8217;t you? You interrupted me. Go ahead. So let me finish my sentence. I believe that impoverished and very young women will not have the opportunity to get access to things like Planned Parenthood, other agencies that will offer them the counseling, the guidance, and the opportunity to say, yes, you can have your child. I mean, a lot of young, impoverished women may not even know how they got pregnant.
Trent Horn: All right, well, let me. Let me. Okay, well, let me jump in here, Judy, because I think we have to get back to the main point with our disagreement. I know you said, well, you&#8217;re not passing judgment and morality, but at the same time, I believe that we should make it illegal for human beings to kill other human beings. And you said that it&#8217;s wrong to make abortion illegal in that regard. So my question. Is this your argument? This is the logic you&#8217;re arguing from. And the logic does not make sense to me. When some people commit crimes, they might get hurt when they commit crimes, including the crime of ending a child&#8217;s life. So my question for you is, among born people, do we ever say, let&#8217;s make it safer for this born person to kill another born person? Do we ever do that among born people?
Caller: I&#8217;m sorry, repeat it. Repeat your. Do we ever make it legal so it&#8217;s safer for one born person to kill another born person? Do we ever do that? No, that&#8217;s illegal. Well, why. You are talking about the state of Texas, right? I&#8217;m just talking about society in general. So you agree we shouldn&#8217;t make it be more specific. You can&#8217;t kill another human person. That&#8217;s. That&#8217;s homicide. Absolutely. Is the human being in the womb what a woman is pregnant with? Is that a person? The state of Texas does not consider a child in a womb a person. Could the state be wrong? That&#8217;s just that. That&#8217;s the way the law is. So let&#8217;s say you and I 100 times that they have. You&#8217;re going to have to go to your legislatures and get the law changed. Okay, so the law could be wrong. Right. You know, if, you know, the baby can&#8217;t live outside the womb. That&#8217;s why we have neonatal units. So if they&#8217;re born prematurely, you know, a baby can live at a pound and a half if it has the right, you know, medical care, but it can also live. Again, you&#8217;re changing the subject. How am I changing this? I&#8217;m just trying to probe. We&#8217;re talking about premature babies and babies, us killing babies, instead of talking about pro choice, which is why I called in. Okay. I&#8217;m actually not changing the subject because pro choice involves the choice to have an abortion. Right. Talk about your opinion when I called in to express my choice.
Trent Horn: Cool. Yeah. And you. You have your opinion, but I think that what&#8217;s important here is we are talking about a very, very important issue that has two big stakes involved. That if those who identify as pro choice are right, then people who are pro life are imposing morality on women and hurting women. But if pro life people are right, then those who identify as pro choice are imposing their morality on unborn children. And. And children are being violently killed, over a million of them every year. So it&#8217;s big stakes here. That are involved. And so those of us who disagree, we have to get to the root of our disagreement. And I think the root of our disagreement, what you and I have gotten to is not so much about abortion being legal or illegal or the safety involved. What we&#8217;re talking about now is, does abortion kill a person or a human being? Because we don&#8217;t. We don&#8217;t make it legal. So it&#8217;s safer to kill human beings. We agreed with that with born people. Now we gotta talk about whether the unborn are human beings. And so to me, that is the, the center that we need to focus on. And the two issues you brought up, I&#8217;m happy to discuss. You know, the state of Texas or whoever. The law says a baby isn&#8217;t a human being. Well, the law could be wrong. I say we change it. The law did. The, the law used to be wrong about black people when it said that they were only 3/5 of a person or that they could be slaves. Laws can be wrong. Second, my other point, and I&#8217;m fine to go back and forth with you on why does it matter if a child can only survive outside of the womb at a certain point, like viability, the child is growing and living and they&#8217;re healthy in the womb. And if that&#8217;s the case, what right do we have to take them from the only safe place they can live and kill them? That just doesn&#8217;t make sense to me.
Cy Kellett: Judy. Judy. A fascinating conversation, Trent and Judy. I will say this, since it does appear that Judy is not currently there, but thank you for that call, Judy. But it struck me just as the listener, Trent, pro choice means in favor of the choice to abort babies. And I felt like we weren&#8217;t closing that circle with Judy.
Trent Horn: Well, and that&#8217;s why I think language is so important in this debate. What we&#8217;re talking about here, people have accused me of. Well, you&#8217;re changing the subject. When we talk about a disputed moral issue, like whether abortion is right or wrong, we have to compare it to an issue where we know what&#8217;s right or wrong. To me, abortion is very simple. Abortion is an action that expels or removes an unborn child from the womb with the intention of ending their life. So abortion is about ending the life of a human being who&#8217;s in the embryonic or fetal stages of life. So I mean, every, I mean, if you just describe it dispassionately enough, that is what abortion is. You cannot get around that. So I&#8217;d say, well, do we ever end born human beings for these reasons and back alley abortions came up a lot in these two hours. And my main argument is clear. We&#8217;d never make it legal. So it&#8217;s safer for big born people to kill little born people. We never do that with born people.
Caller: No.
Trent Horn: So why should we make it legal? So. So it&#8217;s safer for big born people to kill little unborn people? The moral logic just makes no sense to me.

Why “Unsafe Abortions” Can’t Justify Legal Abortion…

Are Christians going to be taken up and out of the world before the big trouble with the anti-Christ begins? Catholics say no, that is a false view of God&#8217;s revelation regarding the end times. Our guest, Karlo Broussard takes up a popular Protestant challenge: How can the Catholic Church teach that faithful Christians will experience the final trial when the Bible teaches that Christians will be raptured before such a time?

Meeting the Rapture Challenge

<div>What is the reason that the real presence of Christ is so pivotal to the catholic faith that we cannot accept a symbolic view of the Eucharist?</div><div>The Catholic Church describes the Eucharist, i.e., the Sacrifice of the Mass, as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm">CCC 1324</a>). It’s the source, because the Eucharist enables us to make present and offer anew Jesus Christ’s one redemptive Sacrifice of Calvary, which began with his Passion (CCC 1362-68; 1341). It’s the summit, because the Eucharist is truly a foretaste of heaven, in which we partake of Jesus’ body and blood as heaven and earth become most profoundly one.
The Eucharist is a communion sacrifice, which means we partake of Jesus in a way similar to how the ancient Israelites ate the flesh of the Old Covenant Passover lambs. But the New Covenant Passover is much more profound, for there is only one Lamb—the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29, 35-36)—and eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood provides eternal life, not simply emancipation from a mere human and earthly oppressor, i.e., Egypt (John 6:52-59; see 1 Cor. 13:23-34).
Forty days after his Resurrection from the dead, Jesus ascends in triumph to heaven, taking his seat at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:6-11). In doing so, Jesus culminates his one Sacrifice of Calvary in everlasting glory, fulfilling also the Old Covenant Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur sacrifices (see Lev. 16). That’s because Jesus takes not the blood of goats and calves but his own, and he enters into the heavenly sanctuary, not one made by human hands (Heb. 9:11-14). So Jesus is the high priest of heaven (Heb. 8:1-3; CCC 662-64; 1137-39), and he always lives to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:23-25; 8:1-3; 9:23-24), which means the Eucharistic Sacrifice has continuing atoning power for the sins we commit daily (CCC 1366).
Jesus’ one Sacrifice is made sacramentally present and offered anew at every Mass according to the order of Melchizedek, i.e., under the forms of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 5:7-10; Matt. 26:26-29; Luke 22:19-20; see CCC 1333; 1355; 1544). Consequently, the words of the Lord’s Prayer—“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”—are nowhere more profoundly fulfilled than in the Mass, because heaven and earth are united in a most perfect way that further fosters the Redemption of mankind!
For more information on the intimate connection between the heavenly liturgy/work of Christ and the Sacrifice of the Mass, see Blessed Pope Paul VI, <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo.html">Credo of the People of God</a>, 24-26).
</div>

Why The Eucharist is “the Source and Summit” of Christianity

How do I keep myself from burning out from Exodus90?

How are the Exodus readings and reflections similar or different from previous years? I have the book; will it be the same as the app’s readings and reflections?

Training in Holiness

Raised in the Prosperity Gospel, Lisa Cooper ultimately found freedom and healing in the Catholic faith. She shares with us what it&#8217;s like growing up in the Word of Faith movement, and how that movement came to be what it is today.

Word of Broken Faith

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent sits down with fellow Catholic Answers apologist Joe Heschmeyer to discuss some big &#8220;no-no&#8217;s&#8221; when it comes to defending the Faith.

FFAF: Stop Doing This When Defending Catholicism (with Joe Heschmeyer)

<div class="page" title="Page 7">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Introduction
The history of Christianity is one of debate. As the Gospels reveal, Jesus was challenged right from the start. Rival schools like the Pharisees and Sadducees posed pointed questions to him, trying to trap him in his words and even to get him in trouble with the authorities. Some of Jesus’ most famous statements were responses to challenges from his critics:
<ul>
<li>“What God has joined together, let man not put asunder.”</li>
<li>“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”</li>
<li>“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.”
Our world is very different from the one in which Jesus lived. But the more things change, the more they stay the same. If people posed challenges to Jesus, they will do so to us as well.
A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher (Luke 6:40).
In our religiously fragmented but highly interconnected world, people from countless perspectives pose challenges to the Faith every day—in conversations, through the mass media, and on the Internet. There is no escaping this daily onslaught.
The solution is to mount a daily defense—to respond to the many challenges that we, as believers, are presented with. Hence this book: It takes up a different challenge every day of the year (plus a bonus challenge for leap year), and shows how you can defend the Faith and give answers to those skeptical of it.
Each page is devoted to a single challenge, which is posed at the top of the page in the challenge section. The defense section that follows contains a brief summary of what you can say in response. Obviously, there is much more that can be said on each subject, but here we will cover the highlights—the key talking points. In some cases there will also be a tip, which will frequently be a recommendation for a book where you can learn more.
Challenges to the Faith are often unexpected, and the ones in this book are arranged in a way that reflects that. Each day presents you with something new, often dealing with a very different subject, so there is constantly something fresh to learn and think about.
The book is designed so that no matter when in the year you first pick it up, you can start on Day 1 and read straight through for a whole year. It’s also designed so that you can quickly find responses to challenges that people put to you. Just check the alphabetical index in the back to find specific responses.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
If the Faith is faced with many challenges today, the good news is that there are solid answers, so we should not be surprised or intimi- dated by them. Instead, we should be prepared. As St. Peter said:
Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence (1 Pet. 3:14–15).
May God bless you and your efforts as you learn and defend his holy Faith.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Need for a Defense

<div class="page" title="Page 106">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 96
CHALLENGE
</div>

</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
How could the Virgin Mary be sinless? She’s human like everyone else.
DEFENSE
Despite our state in the present life, being human does not mean being a sinner.
If being human did entail sin, then God would have built sin into human nature, which would make him the author of evil. Instead, human nature was damaged because of the misuse of free will—which is itself a good, as it enables people to freely choose love.
Because human nature does not entail sin, it is possible for humans to be free of sin. Thus Adam and Eve were sinless before the fall of man.
There was a time in all of our lives when, in spite of our fallen nature, none of us had commited personal sin. Paul notes that in the womb Jacob and Esau “were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
And there will be a time in the future when, if we die in God’s friendship, we will all be sinless, for we will not continue to sin in heaven, because “nothing unclean shall enter it” (Rev. 21:27). Instead, we will have “the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14), for “when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). All the saved will be given this gift of total holiness, and because of her special role in God’s plan of the ages, Mary was given it early.
Jesus Christ—the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)—was free of all sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). In the same way, Mary—the Second Eve (CCC 411, 494)—was also preserved from all sin. This gift was given to her because of what Christ did on the cross. It was applied to her early to make her holy in a special way and thus a more fitting mother for the Son of God.
Consequently, Mary’s holiness “from the first instant of her conception comes wholly from Christ: She is redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492).
Human nature thus does not entail sin—which can give us all hope of one day being free of it!
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Sin and Mary’s Humanity

What is the significance of the Immaculate Conception?

How can we explain the concept of purgatory to non-Catholics?

Why do Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

What is the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church?

How should Catholics approach the topic of abortion in discussions with others?

&#8220;What is the significance of the Immaculate Conception?&#8221; This episode delves into this controversial belief, while also addressing how to explain purgatory to non-Catholics and the Catholic understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Join us as we explore these essential topics and more in Catholic apologetics.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

What Is the Significance of the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and the Eucharist?

Refuting a Common (and Tragic) New Age Belief

A topic that tends to come around during Holy Week is the accuracy of the crucifixion, including when it occurred.  In this episode, Cy and Catholic Answers Senior Apologist, Jimmy Akin, discuss the question of when exactly Jesus was crucified.
&nbsp;

The Accurate Date of the Crucifixion

Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year A
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on two apologetical themes found in the Liturgy of the Word for the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year A. The first theme, the perpetual virginity of Mary, comes up in the Gospel reading, which is Matthew 1:18-24. The second theme is the nature of justification as intrinsic righteousness and is found in the second reading from Romans 1:1-7.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Tim Staples returns to Focus with a question taken from his School of Apologetics course &#8220;<a href="https://www.schoolofapologetics.com/courses/evidence-for-the-church">Evidence for the Church</a>&#8220;: Did Jesus really give his authority to a human institution?

Does the Church Act with the Authority of Jesus?

In this episode, Trent takes on wild anti-Catholic historical myths related to the Olympics, Columbus, and even an allegedly satanic telescope.

Refuting 5 Anti-Catholic Historical Myths

There are a lot of problems facing Catholicism today, but for the life of me, I can’t understand why some people think the epitome of those problems resides in evangelists like Bishop Barron or Scott Hahn. If you talk to more liberal Catholics, they will criticize Hahn for endorsing some of the writings of Bishop Joseph Strickland and say that, because of this friendly endorsement, Hahn has now aligned himself with the “anti-Francis” wing of the Church. Bishop Barron likewise is considered insensitive or even racist for his opposition to modern wokeism.
But on the other side of the spectrum, more traditionalist Catholics say these two “aren’t Catholic enough”. They might criticize Hahn for not taking a more strident position in “the liturgy wars” or Bishop Barron because of his view that it is reasonable to hope (even if incredibly unlikely) that all people will be saved.
My take? These men aren’t perfect, and I don’t agree with all of their views (<a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/what-is-hopeful-universalism">I’ve even addressed</a> Bishop Barron’s view on salvation). But they have done more than almost anybody at either end of the theological spectrum to preach the Gospel and encourage people to become Catholic. To overly criticize them and fail to acknowledge the good they’ve done makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
I’ve also noticed a double standard in criticism of these men—especially from among liberal Catholics.
They will say Bishop Barron or Scott Hahn aren’t worth promoting or emulating because of their support of controversial figures like Jordan Peterson or Bishop Strickland. They unleash a rigid <a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association">guilt by association</a> that says Barron and Hahn should be held accountable for the more controversial opinions of figures they support.
But when their favorite liberal Catholics affirm pro-abortion politicians and dissenters who reject Church teaching on sexuality, we are supposed to be charitable and find nuance. They are “building bridges” and aren’t culpable for things other people say who they are trying to “accompany.” For example, when <a href="https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/pope-francis-thanks-new-ways-ministry-recent-correspondence">Pope Francis sends letters of appreciation to New Ways Ministry</a> he is just affirming their love for people who identify as LGBT, not <a href="https://www.usccb.org/news/2010/usccb-president-clarifies-status-new-ways-ministry">the group’s dissent against Church teaching.</a>
Give me a break.
If you’re going to demand absolute purity and use guilt-by-association tactics to achieve that goal, then fairness demands you apply that standard to any Catholic—liberal or conservative. Of course, it’d be more fair to just evaluate honestly when someone is doing good, where they come up short, and whether their affiliation with someone who seems (at least to some people) to be at odds with Church teaching and practice is problematic or just a tempest in a teapot.
If we always find excuses to criticize or tear down popular evangelists because they aren’t perfect, we won’t have evangelists we can support until our Lord returns—and by then evangelism will be too late. We can respectfully point out flaws in their approaches while still affirming the good they generally accomplish.

Scott Hahn, Bishop Barron, and Guilt by Association

Why do Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition?

But those traditions aren’t some unwritten teachings that Christians are bound to believe. They’re simply the same stuff that Paul wrote down.

Why do Catholics say the peace be with you during the mass?

What is the Catechism of the Catholic Church and why do we follow it?

why do we have holy days of obligation and when did they start?

Why would God institute animal sacrifice in the old testament if it ultimately wouldn’t suffice?

Is there an exhaustive list of infallible teaching? Why isn’t it written into a creed?

&#8220;Why do Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition?&#8221; In this episode, we explore the significance of Sacred Tradition, along with questions about the meaning behind the peace greeting during Mass, the role of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the origins of holy days of obligation. Tune in for a thoughtful examination of these essential aspects of Catholic faith.
<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>

Why Do Catholics Believe in Sacred Tradition, the Mass, and Holy Days?

Was James the Blood-Brother of Jesus?

5 Books that Almost Made It into the Bible

<div class="page" title="Page 223">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 213
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Why can’t we explain the Resurrection appearances in purely spiritual terms? Paul says that at the general resurrection, people will have a &#8216;spiritual body&#8217; (1 Cor. 15:44). What if the disciples simply saw visions and concluded from them that Jesus had been spiritually resurrected?”
DEFENSE
The term “spiritual body” (Greek, sōma pneumatikon) does not mean an immaterial body but rather a supernaturally transformed body.
That’s why Paul compares the body to a seed that is sown in the ground and then becomes an adult plant (1 Cor. 15:35–44). The plant is the direct continuation of the seed, and the “spiritual body” of the resurrection is the direct continuation of the body we have in this life. Consequently, resurrection does not leave a body in the tomb, and all four of the Gospels stress that Jesus’ tomb was empty (Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5; John 20:1–6).
Further, the disciples believed consciousness continued beyond death in a disembodied state. When they saw Jesus walking on the water at night, they initially thought it was a ghost (Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49). Yet they did not regard disembodied existence as the resurrection—a re-embodiment they believed would occur on the last day (John 6:39–40, 11:24).
Jesus’ Resurrection was thus unexpected. When the tomb was discovered empty, the disciples’ initial interpretation was that someone had moved the body (John 20:2–13). Only with the Resurrection appearances did they realize something miraculous happened.
Even then, when Jesus appeared to them, they fell back on the next plausible hypothesis, given their worldview, that they were seeing a ghost (Luke 24:37). However, Jesus demonstrated that he was bodily alive, telling them: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39; cf. 24:41–43, John 20:24–27).
The disciples thus proclaimed Jesus was bodily resurrected. They did not believe in a “spiritual resurrection” that would leave his body in the tomb.
The spiritual resurrection hypothesis thus does not explain how the apostles could have innocently thought they saw Jesus alive after the Crucifixion.
TIP
For a sustained refutation of the idea of Jesus experiencing a merely spiritual resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Spiritual Resurrection Hypothesis

<div class="page" title="Page 372">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 362
CHALLENGE
“Why can’t there be a multiplicity of gods?”
DEFENSE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The answer depends on what you mean by “gods.”
In classical paganism, the gods people typically worshipped were not infinite, eternal beings. Instead, they were understood to be superhuman but finite beings who came into existence at some point. (Thus Osiris’s father was Geb, Zeus’s father was Chronos, Thor’s father was Odin.)
It is possible for there to be multiple superhuman beings. That could be the case even in the natural world. There might be creatures in the physical universe who are more intelligent, more powerful, and longer lived than man.
The same is true of the supernatural world. In fact, the Judeo-Christian view holds that there are superhuman, supernatural beings. Angels are immaterial beings who display miraculous abilities. It is therefore possible for there to be a multiplicity of finite, superhuman beings.
This does not provide evidence for the existence of any set of pagan deities. Much less does it provide reason to worship them. On the Judeo-Christian view, whatever respect may be due a finite being, it does not amount to the worship due the infinite Creator.
One might ask whether a more elevated polytheism is possible, whereby there is more than one ultimate, infinite God. It is not clear that any religion proposes this. Not even Zoroastrianism, which is often said to be dualistic, does so. It is ultimately monotheistic because it holds that its fundamental deity, Ahura Mazda, will eventually defeat his opponent, Angra Mainyu.
We have a strong intuition that, whatever the ultimate reality may be, it is one, and thus there could not be more than one ultimate, infinite God.
If one did propose the existence of two such beings, then they would need to exist within some kind of framework that contained them both. This framework would then be more fundamental than either. However, if there is something more fundamental than a being, then that being cannot be the ultimate, infinite God proposed on the Judeo-Christian view but must be a being of a lesser order.
According to Judaism and Christianity, God is the fundamental basis of all that is real, and, properly understood, there cannot be two or more fundamental bases of reality.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>