Manage Account

How can I invite my college Newman Center to a seder dinner as part of an interfaith event?

Why was St. Philomena’s feast day removed from the Roman Calendar?

If a person could evangelize via sign language to a gorilla, could the gorilla be saved?

Does the Church have a stance on devotionals that seem to put words in God’s mouth?

How do I respond to the claim that situations like David and the bread of the temple or Jesus’ disciples eating on the sabbath should be applied to same-sex relationships?

Catechism 1658 talks about single persons — not by choice, but by life circumstance-; is God calling them to celibacy? If God is all-knowing, why would He call people to a vocation they can’t fulfill?

What is the threshold for the Church to make a public excommunication of an individual(s) spreading hatred explicitly or implicitly and claiming the Catholic faith informs their hateful worldview?

Where does St. Veronica come from? Why are there three times Christ falls in the Stations when the Bible says he fell once?

If a gorilla could understand the Gospel through sign language, could it be saved? We explore this unusual but fascinating question, plus why St. Philomena’s feast was removed, the Church’s view on devotionals, and how to approach celibacy in unexpected life situations.

Could a Gorilla Be Saved If Evangelized Through Sign Language?

Discover

I lost interest in the Olympics in 1988, the year after I graduated college, when the Olympic committee <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_sports#Olympics">abandoned all pretense of amateur athletics</a>. Last year, blissfully ignorant as I was, I had to be told after the fact that the Los Angeles Dodgers thumbed their nose at God, and, a mere fourteen months later, the Paris Olympics <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/gaslit-by-the-olympic-torch">doubled down</a> on a colossal production of public blasphemy.
In the wake of the Dodger desecration, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/stop-buying-blasphemy">I encouraged Catholics</a> to quit paying for the mockery of morality. In other words, stop attending, stop watching on TV, stop reading about, and stop talking about Major League Baseball. Start following your local Catholic high school on the diamond and the gridiron.
I get almost nowhere with these arguments. So, I wasn&#8217;t expecting much by urging my fellow Catholics to shut off the Olympics and avoid the sponsors, but you know, hope over experience and all that. I am surely expecting less with the following fantastical suggestion for the International Olympic Committee: make amends for the blasphemy of Paris by honoring and celebrating the undeniable and inescapable Catholic origins of Milan (Winter Olympics 2026) and Los Angeles (Summer Games 2028). The good news is that my consulting fee is way less than the overpriced Bud Light in the bleachers at America&#8217;s ballparks.
For Milan, I have a few thoughts, but let’s go with this: a living diorama of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/ambrose-saint">St. Ambrose</a> baptizing <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/augustine-of-hippo-saint">St. Augustine</a>. I’m not sure exactly how to work the greatest work of history, Augustine&#8217;s City of God, into the opening ceremonies, but, hey, let’s form a focus group.
Now, Los Angeles: the city’s name is an abbreviated form of El Río de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula. (Yes, readers from afar, Los Angeles does have a river. It’s not the Siene, but even Mayor Bass is smart enough not to take a dip in it.) We call Los Angeles the city of angels, but it’s actually the city of Our Lady Queen of Angels. What? The patroness of Los Angeles is the Blessed Virgin Mary? Yes.
So, let’s open the 2028 Summer Games with a Salve Regina and a Litany to the Blessed Virgin. Next let’s reenact Franciscan Friar Juan Crispí’s naming of the river and his confrere <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/junipero-serra">Junipero Serra’s</a> founding of the St. Gabriel Mission. I know Serra fell out of favor in the wake of a pestilence that caused mobs to <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/tearing-down-truths-and-statues">tear down statues</a> of, well, pretty much anyone, but the diminutive priest from Mallorca actually was a gentle fellow who loved the natives of California and did his best to baptize them. You can read about his good efforts <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/we-need-more-junipero-serra-not-less">here</a>. Or you can just look at a map of California and acknowledge that the Interstates 5 and 15 are the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Camino_Real_(California)">Camino Real</a> and that every great California city began as a Spanish Mission—the purpose of which was to protect the property of the natives and, above all, bring them to union with their Creator.
Sound good? I’ll wait by the phone.

Let’s Make the Next Olympics Catholic

In this episode, Trent reviews a priest who can no longer offer confession because he supports breaking the confessional seal and shows how priests are like another profession that is sworn to secrecy.

Answering a Priest who Opposes the Seal of Confession

Does beauty point to the existence of God? Or can we explain it away as a &#8220;spandrel,&#8221; an unintentional side effect of natural selection? And if beauty DOES point to God, what role should it play in Christian evangelization&#8230; and liturgy?

Beauty: Path to God or Monkey Brain?

Content creator highlight: The Religious Hippie

Why would we be able to receive communion in some circumstances at an Orthodox church but not at an Anglican Church?

If we are not allowed to choose between the life of the mother vs the baby in the pro-life debate, why do some Catholic circles say when you do have to decide, the life of the mother supersedes the life of the baby?

Hypothetical: If you were voting between 2 candidates, one was causing physical harm and the other spiritual harm, how should one vote?

How do we respond to the secular arguments against the New Testament?

What does the Church have to say if we sense a family member who has passed away is trying to reach out to us?

How do I help guide my Catholic aunt who goes to a Lutheran church and believes she’s receiving the real presence?

Orthodox vs. Anglican communion, pro-life ethics, voting dilemmas, spiritual encounters, and New Testament objections—Catholic answers to tough questions.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Help support the work we do by donating! <a href="https://give.catholic.com/campaign/689122/donate">Catholicanswersradio.com</a>
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<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>
</div></div></div></div>

Can Receive Communion at Orthodox Churches, but Not Anglican Ones?

Does the death of Joseph elevate Jesus as the king and Mary as the queen mother?

Regarding the story of the woman caught in adultery. Why is it included in the gospel of John in bibles but not others?

If Adam and Eve did not disobey, would Jesus have ever come?

I was asked: Were the 3 wisemen following the star of the devil? And Michael the Archangel isn’t what Catholics think he is. I didn’t know how to respond. How can I reply?

How can we avoid heresy especially if you’re not familiar with heresies and Church history?

I bought a crystal that might have been used in Chakra. I wanted to gift it to my dad since he’s a rock collector. Is it spiritually dangerous to possess this?

Did Adam know of the fruit he was eating? How did the world come to be populated if there were only 2 people?

Ask Me Anything

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)

<div>Is applauding for the choir during Mass considered sacrilegious?</div><div>I would not say it is sacriligeous, but it is in very bad taste. Liturgical singing is not performance. The faithful should show their appreciation by singing along or participating, not by applauding. Priests should teach the faithful that this is not appropriate. What ends up happening is that no matter how mediocre or downright inferior the music is, the remaining people in church (since most have already left by the end of the song: in itself proof that hardly anyone understands what the music is for) applaud the choir. How sad.
</div>

Don’t Applaud the Choir

Episode 61: Year B &#8211; 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode, we’re going to focus on three details that are relevant to apologetics. The first comes from the first reading, which is taken from Jonah 3:1-5, 10. The related apologetical topic is God’s immutability (the doctrine that God can’t change). The other two details are in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Mark 1:14-20. The related apologetical topics are Jesus’ divinity and Messiahship.
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/012124.cfm">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
&nbsp;
Hey everyone,
&nbsp;
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
&nbsp;
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
&nbsp;
In this episode, we’re going to focus on three details that are relevant to apologetics. The first comes from the first reading, which is taken from Jonah 3:1-5, 10. The related apologetical topic is God’s immutability (the doctrine that God can’t change). The other two details are in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Mark 1:14-20. The related apologetical topics are Jesus’ divinity and Messiahship.
&nbsp;
Let’s start with the detail from the first reading. After we’re told that the people of Nineveh repented of their evil ways, we’re told the following, “When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.”
&nbsp;
There are two questions that arise here: 1) Is the Bible affirming that God directly causes evil? 2) Is the Bible affirming that God changes?
&nbsp;
Concerning the question of whether the Bible is affirming that God directly causes evil, it depends on which kind of evil we’re talking about. If the question pertains to moral evil, or sin, then the answer is no. In no way can God cause moral evil; otherwise, he’d fail to love himself, which is metaphysically impossible. For further details on this, see my article, “God does not cause us to sin.”
&nbsp;
If the “evil” is natural evil, or suffering, then I would argue that God can and does directly cause such “evil.” The key, however, for reconciling this with God’s goodness is to see that such caused evil takes on the form of punishment and thus is taken up into the order of the good.
&nbsp;
Imposed suffering in and of itself is an evil. But when such suffering is imposed on account of a proportionate crime, then such suffering takes on the character of a good. Punishment is good because it rectifies that which is disordered. It puts things right by associating displeasure with bad behavior, which is the order that should have been present in the first place. Moreover, punishment manifests the truth of such an order.
&nbsp;
Now, in the case of the people of Nineveh, the Bible is revealing that their evil ways were meritorious of a proportionate imposed suffering, or punishment. This being the case, such imposed suffering, or evil, caused by God wouldn’t have been inconsistent with his goodness.
&nbsp;
What about the question of whether this passage affirms that God changes? This is an important question because philosophy tells us that God can’t change. Are we to believe that the God of the philosophers is incompatible with the God of the Bible?
&nbsp;
The answer is no. And the key is that the author is employing anthropomorphic speech, which is speech that attributes to God human characteristics to help humans relate to God but are not meant to be taken literally.
&nbsp;
Aquinas addresses the same sort of question when he deals with an objection that arises from the language of God repenting that he made wicked men during the days of Noah (Gen. 6:7). Here’s his response:
&nbsp;
These words of the Lord are to be understood metaphorically, and according to the likeness of our nature. For when we repent, we destroy what we have made; although we may even do so without change of will; as, when a man wills to make a thing, at the same time intending to destroy it later. Therefore, God is said to have repented, by way of comparison with our mode of acting, in so far as by the deluge He destroyed from the face of the earth man whom He had made.
&nbsp;
For Aquinas, describing God as repenting is simply a way of describing God’s actions according to our mode of acting, which is an anthropomorphism. The ascription is justified because there is a similarity. The similarity, as Aquinas explains, is that what was made is destroyed. Insofar as this is present in our mode of repenting and in God’s providential plan, the Bible describes God as repenting.
&nbsp;
But due to the greater dissimilarity, the ascription is metaphorical. The difference is that when we repent it involves a change of will whereas for God there is no change of will because the order of cause and effects is determined from eternity in a single act of will.
&nbsp;
Now, Aquinas is addressing God repenting in the case of destroying wicked men. In the passage from Jonah, there is no destruction of anything. Rather, such destruction is not brought about when, so it seems, God intended for it to be brought about. So, it seems a bit more difficult to explain.
&nbsp;
Again, the ascription can be described as an anthropomorphism. The similarity would be that no destruction would result on account of the Ninevites’ repentance. The dissimilarity, however, would be that our intention to destroy would change to an intention to not destroy whereas for God no such change of intention is involved. God simply wills from all eternity that the Ninevites do not experience destruction on account of their repentance and the biblical authors describe that reality according to our mode of changing intention.
&nbsp;
So, there’s no conflict between what we know about God’s immutability by way of philosophy and the Bible’s language of God repenting of destroying the Ninevites.
&nbsp;
Let’s now turn to the Gospel reading and the two details present there. Here’s the Gospel passage from Mark 1:14-20:
&nbsp;
After John had been arrested,
Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God: 
&#8220;This is the time of fulfillment. 
The kingdom of God is at hand. 
Repent, and believe in the gospel.&#8221;
As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, 
he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; 
they were fishermen. 
Jesus said to them, 
&#8220;Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.&#8221; 
Then they abandoned their nets and followed him. 
He walked along a little farther 
and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. 
They too were in a boat mending their nets. 
Then he called them. 
So they left their father Zebedee in the boat 
along with the hired men and followed him.
&nbsp;
There are two details that I want to focus on here. The first is the content of Jesus’ preaching: “the kingdom of God” and “the gospel.” Both can only be appreciated against the backdrop of the Jewish prophetical tradition.
&nbsp;
Consider, for example, “the gospel,” or euangelion. Isaiah 40:9-11 states, “
 
 “[9] Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings [Gk., euangelizomenos]; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not; say to the Cities of Judah, &#8220;Behold your God!&#8221;… the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules….[11] He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.”
&nbsp;
Jesus is proclaiming the fulfillment of this “good tidings”: God is in their midst, God is coming with might in judgment on the enemies of God’s people, and God is gathering his sheep.
&nbsp;
But more specifically, Jesus is proclaiming that he is God in their midst, he is bringing victory over the enemies of God’s people—sin and death, and he is gathering his sheep. Recall, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd . . . I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:14, 16).
&nbsp;
The “kingdom of God” signifies the fulfillment of God’s promise of his servant David to rule over the reunited Israel. Ezekiel 37:24-28 reads,
&nbsp;
24 &#8220;My servant David shall be king over them…25 They shall dwell in the land where your fathers dwelt that I gave to my servant Jacob…and David my servant shall be their prince for ever. 26* I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them… will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore&#8230; 27* My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people&#8230; when my sanctuary is in the midst of them for evermore.”
&nbsp;
Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom is a proclamation of his Messiahship.
&nbsp;
The last detail that I want to focus on is James and John’s immediate leaving of their father to follow Jesus. Recall, “Then [Jesus] called them. So they left their father Zebedee in the boat
along with the hired men and followed him.”
&nbsp;
Scripture scholar Mary Healy, in her book The Gospel of Mark, explains,
&nbsp;
[I]n response to Jesus’ call, there is a complete abandonment of both occupation and father. To part so suddenly with their father would have been shocking in the social context of the day, where family obligations were paramount (see Sir 3:16). It illustrates the absoluteness of Jesus’ claim, taking precedence over even the closest human bonds (Mark 10:29–30).
&nbsp;
In other words, Jesus’ call for them to leave their father and follow him hints to his self-understanding of being divine. How could Jesus make such a claim unless he believed himself to be God?
&nbsp;
So, the first reading and the Gospel for this upcoming 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, doesn’t disappoint when it comes to apologetical topics. We have opportunity to reflect on
&nbsp;
<ul>
<li>God’s causality in relation to evil,</li>
<li>God’s immutability,</li>
<li>Jesus’ Messiahship, and</li>
<li>Jesus’ divinity</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
&nbsp;
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
&nbsp;
I hope you have a blessed 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time. Peace!
&nbsp;

Does God Ever Change?

Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer joins Cy Kellett to tackle a thought-provoking question from a listener who grew up in Mormonism and is curious about why he should consider becoming Catholic.
Transcript:
Caller: I left the Mormon Church when I was 8. I left because I didn&#8217;t think it was true. I also left because I think my friend oversold it for me when I was baptized in the Mormon Church. When I was baptized, he said that I would feel the love of God. I came from a broken family, and I just wanted my family back together.
Joe: Oh, man, I&#8217;m so sorry. That&#8217;s tragic.
Cy: That&#8217;s awful.
Joe: And I want to apologize. I know we&#8217;re not Mormons, but I want to apologize on behalf of your friend, because that&#8217;s such a rough thing to do to a kid, to promise, like, hey, you know, this terrible tragedy you&#8217;re experiencing. Just undergo this ritual, and then you won&#8217;t feel that tragedy. You&#8217;ll feel the love of God instead. That&#8217;s a terrible thing to do to a person. I&#8217;m sure he meant well, but that&#8217;s awful. I&#8217;m so sorry about that. You know, you were right to not go where the truth wasn&#8217;t. In other words, not being Mormon because it isn&#8217;t true. That&#8217;s enough of a reason not to be Mormon.
And the flip side to that is, I think the best reason to be Catholic is that it&#8217;s true if you are someone who loves Jesus Christ, and if you take him seriously in Matthew 16, when he says he&#8217;s building the Church and that the gates of hell won&#8217;t overcome the Church.
And if you take&#8230; You know, I mentioned in Acts 5 earlier that Gamaliel the Pharisee lays out this challenge, that there&#8217;ve been all these failed messianic movements that splinter and fracture and all of that and kind of peter out when the leader of the movement dies. It&#8217;s one of the ways we know they&#8217;re not real, that the Catholic claim is that for 2,000 years, the Church has stood here, and it can make that historical claim.
Mormonism, of course, can&#8217;t. You know, it&#8217;s claiming, no, the Church actually failed and had to be rebooted by a prophet in the 19th century in America. Now, there are times when being Catholic feels totally amazing, and there are times where it really does not. So I don&#8217;t want to oversell it to you. Being Catholic is the beginning of a journey, and it&#8217;s by no means a completion of it, but the completion of it is that this hunger you have for truth and goodness and beauty will one day be satisfied by a God who loves you infinitely, who loves you more than anyone&#8217;s ever loved anyone. I think that&#8217;s the best reason to be Catholic.
Cy: What do you think, Adam?
Caller: Well, I definitely am curious. So that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m calling in because, yeah, I was hoping you can help me get directed towards the truth and clarification.
Joe: Yeah, let me give you a very brief 5,000-year sketch. I know I&#8217;m not going to do this justice. There is a longing in the human heart to see God. Even when God reveals himself just a little bit to Abraham and then a little bit more and a little bit more and a little bit more, he&#8217;s fulfilling something that&#8217;s always been in the human heart. We want to know, love, and serve God. We want to be known by God, and we want to be loved by God, and we want to spend eternity with God.
You read the writings of pagans like Aristotle and Plato when he&#8217;s recounting the Symposium of Socrates; this is baked into us. We want union with God. It&#8217;s why religion exists. We don&#8217;t feel that in the way that we all know we should, and we can&#8217;t do anything on our end to close that gap in any meaningful sense. Every religion in the world has tried and has failed, has come up short.
The radical difference between those religions and Judaism and Christianity is that the Judeo-Christian message is that God is going to close the gap. God comes to us because we can&#8217;t actually go to Him. Like the Tower of Babel is us trying to reach up to God. Pentecost is God coming down to us. The incarnation is God coming down to us. These things are&#8230; God&#8217;s search for man is what it&#8217;s sometimes called, because our search for God without his help is totally fruitless.
God ultimately enters history not just through revelation, not just by telling us things, but from the second person of the Holy Trinity taking on a human nature. That entrance into history isn&#8217;t just a one-and-done kind of thing, but that endures. In the Church, we see the manifestation of the incarnation lived out. That&#8217;s why the Church, which is, if you know anything about the Catholic Church, you know it&#8217;s very often incompetent and corrupt and can&#8217;t seem to get anything done, and yet it&#8217;s the oldest government in the world.
It has survived all of the odds; all of these much stronger, better human enterprises have failed and collapsed and crumbled. This strange little Church has continued to grow and endure. That&#8217;s all a sign that God is in control. That&#8217;s all a sign that in the midst of our ineptitude and our sin and our evil, God is still active and working among us for our good and out of love for each of us. So that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m Catholic, and that&#8217;s why I think you should be Catholic.
Caller: Well, I definitely am curious, and I&#8217;m definitely going to pay a visit to my local church.
Cy: God bless you, Adam.
Joe: Excellent. Why don&#8217;t we send you Trent Horn&#8217;s book?
Cy: Our colleague Trent Horn wrote a book called *Why We&#8217;re Catholic*, and it just goes through bit by bit why we&#8217;re, you know, various explanations of why we&#8217;re Catholic and why we believe the specific things we believe. I&#8217;d love it if you call back maybe when Joe&#8217;s on, and we can continue this conversation, because it&#8217;s about the most inspiring thing in the world that can happen to people like me and Joe. For someone to say, I&#8217;m seriously considering it, because it is. And by it, I mean the person of Jesus as given to us in the Catholic Church, is worth considering. It&#8217;s worth taking the time to consider. And we&#8217;re so grateful and moved by the fact that you are.
So you want to hang on the line, and we&#8217;ll send you a couple of books?
Caller: Okay.
Cy: Call us back when Joe&#8217;s on.
Caller: Okay.
Joe: All right. Can I ask something for everybody else listening just to offer up a prayer right now while we&#8217;re doing the boring part in between now and the next caller just for Adam&#8217;s journey?
Cy: Yes, please do that. It&#8217;s not the&#8230; When I&#8217;m talking, it&#8217;s not the boring part between callers.
Joe: That&#8217;s what everybody&#8230; That&#8217;s what we call it.
Cy: No.
Joe: Can you pick up the line with Adam and make sure he gets those books before Adam&#8217;s attitude turns him off to the whole Catholic thing?
Cy: This is not boring right now.
Joe: This is what people look forward to. You&#8217;re distracting people praying right now.
Cy: Oh, I&#8217;m sorry. Stop saying horrible things, Joe.
Joe: All right.

If God Never Made Me Happy, Why Be Catholic?

The entire Horn clan appears in this episode to share how they’re adjusting to life in Texas.

Family Free-for-all-Friday!

In this episode Trent catches up with Jon Steingard, the former front man for the Christian band Hawk Nelson who has since left the Christian faith and discusses his continuing investigation of Christianity.

Revisiting a Christian Rock Star’s Deconversion

When it comes to the Christian doctrine of hell, there is no lack of critics. One critique, espoused by David Bentley Hart, is that hell necessarily entails punishment without reform, which seemingly would be contrary to God’s goodness. In his book That All Shall Be Saved, he writes,
<blockquote>From the perspective of Christian belief, the very notion of a punishment that is not intended ultimately to be remedial is morally dubious (and, I submit, anyone who doubts this has never understood Christian teaching at all) (p. 44).</blockquote>
Is Hart right here? Does the Christian doctrine of hell entail a notion of punishment that’s not remedial?
It would seem Hart is correct, because the souls in hell aren’t able to reform themselves. Given the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-we-cant-change-our-soul-after-death">fixity</a> of their wills, they can’t repent.
St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with this very objection in his Summa Contra Gentiles (3.144). One response he gave was that the punishment of hell can be remedial for others, giving rise to a fear of eternal punishment that thereby inspires them to refrain from sin.
Such a notion is supported by the Bible. Consider, for example, Proverbs 19:25: “Strike a scoffer, and the simple will learn prudence.” Proverbs 22:10 is another: “Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out, and quarreling and abuse will cease.”
Now, Hart might counter here and say that remediation for others is not enough. Punishment, he might argue, needs to be ordered to the remediation of the sinner himself.
Well, I think Aquinas’s other response to the objection can be helpful.
Aquinas targets the reason behind the objection made by his contemporaries—namely, punishment without the aim of remediation entails punishment for its own sake, which in turn entails delight in punishment for its own sake, both of which are contrary to the divine goodness.
Aquinas argues that this doesn’t apply to God when he punishes the damned in hell because he punishes “on account of the order that must be imposed on creatures, in which order the good of the universe consists” (SCG 3.144). For Aquinas, such an order involves the proportion between a sin and its due punishment, just as “rewards correspond proportionally to acts of virtue.” And this “shows forth [God’s] wisdom.”
Aquinas elsewhere calls this order the “order of justice” (Summa Theologiae I:21:4). In particular, it’s an order of justice for human beings. It’s called an order (or plan) of justice because in it, God gives to rational creatures what is due to them insofar as they are rational creatures, and God stipulates what is due to himself from rational creatures insofar as he is their Creator.
So what is it about God’s order of justice for human beings that makes punishment for sin fitting?
<a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-god-damn-you.html">Consider</a> that God has ordained that there exists a natural relationship between pleasure and pain and good and bad be­havior. Feelings of delight and well-being are meant to nat­urally flow from good behavior, because good and virtuous behavior perfects us as human beings, which constitutes au­thentic human happiness. Feelings of shame and disgust are meant to naturally flow from bad behavior because such be­havior is not perfective of our human nature, which is the opposite of our human happiness. This is the natural way by which God directs us to him as our ultimate end.
The pleasures and pains associated with our good and bad behavior are not essential to good and bad behavior. Nevertheless, they flow from it. This is why some philosophers refer to them as “proper accidents” of good and bad behavior.
But proper accidents can be blocked. Take a dog, for ex­ample. A dog is supposed to have four legs, which is a proper accident for a dog. (The number of legs is not essential to what it means to be a dog, but flows from it.) But a dog may end up having only three legs due to injury or genetic defect.
Just as a proper ac­cident for a dog can be blocked, so too the proper accidents of good and bad behavior, the feelings of pleasure and pain, can be blocked. The pleasure that we normally experience when we do good can be blocked by circumstances or psychological harm. In some cases, unpleasantness is the actual result of the good behavior.
Like pleasure, the displeasure that’s naturally supposed to result from bad behavior can be blocked, too. For example, a person might try to rationalize his recreational sex in order to explain away the shame and guilt that naturally accompanies his sin. He might look to others who engage in it and say, “See? They do it. So it can’t be that bad.”
When a sinner doesn’t experience unpleasant feelings for bad behavior, but takes delight in it, or when a sinner expe­riences unpleasant feelings in doing good behavior, there is a real defect in nature, and things aren’t functioning the way they should. In the words of Pope St. Paul VI, there is “a per­turbation in the universal order established by God” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 2).
This breach of order can’t be left alone, since the things of divine providence can’t be left in disorder. The glory of the divine order ultimately can’t be diminished. So out of justice to himself as the universal governor of the divine order that he established, and for the sake of manifesting the true nature of sin, God wills to set things right and restore back to order what is disordered.
The way this is done is for the sinner to undergo what is contrary to the pleasure received in the immoral behavior—namely, pain. In other words, the sinner is punished, thereby mending the breach of order.
Through sin, the sinner puts himself outside the “order of justice” spoken of above. Punishment, and particularly the punishment of hell, puts the sinner back into the “order of justice,” the order that exists between sin and displeasure. The sinner is “put in his place,” so to speak. And as Aquinas states, this “shows forth the wisdom of God.”
Putting the sinner back into this “order of justice,” through the punishment of hell, is in fact a form of remediation. We can see this in a few ways.
First, prior to everlasting punishment, the sinner is under the willful illusion that he can be happy by committing mortal sin. With the punishment of hell, the damned sinner is disabused of that illusion, and his mind thereby conforms to the truth that such human behavior cannot provide the happiness that he naturally seeks. That’s remediation.
Secondly, as a corollary of the first, the punishment of hell forces the mind of the damned sinner to consider the true nature of the mortal sin committed. Prior to everlasting punishment, the evil of mortal sin is willfully neglected for whatever good is perceived in the behavior. But in the everlasting punishment of hell, the evil of the sin is perfectly manifest, such that the mind can’t help but behold it for the rest of time.
Thirdly, prior to everlasting punishment, the sinner voluntarily directs his mind to consider other things besides God’s wisdom manifest in the “order of justice.” With the punishment of hell, the damned sinner cannot help but have his mind set on God’s wisdom manifest in such order.
Unlike the blessed in heaven, however, for whom God’s order gives joy and happiness, the damned sinner experiences torment by having his mind fixed on the truth of this order. This rectification of the disordered mind, again, is remediation.
So the punishment of hell is not entirely without remediation. It’s not the kind of remediation we like to think about in this life, where a sinner discovers his sin, repents, and gains heaven by his change of heart. That is to say, it doesn’t bring reform in the will of the damned. But God gives us many, many opportunities in life to turn back to him! A belief in hell certainly doesn’t discount that; in fact, believing in an eternal hell can deepen our appreciation for the unlimited opportunities God in his mercy provides sinners to change their ways while they yet live.
But every train has to come to a stop sometime. And so, for the sinner so intent on savoring his sin that all the opportunities in the world won’t dissuade him in life, there is hell. That’s where  the mind can no longer deny what it ought to focus on—namely, the truth of God’s design for human behavior and happiness, or the “order of justice.” And the damned will forever be re-minded of this truth.

What Good Is Hell?

Read Church History, Cease To Be Protestant

Is February the month of the holy family, or the Passion of the Lord?

When did Jesus meet John the Baptist?

How did Jesus get the title Rabbi?

Was Jesus being disobedient when he stayed back to teach in the Temple?

How to reconcile differences in the Bible narratives regarding Jesus’ Birth?

Steve Ray answers key questions about Jesus, from His meeting with John the Baptist and being called Rabbi to His time in the Temple and the differences in the Nativity accounts. Plus, is February dedicated to the Holy Family or the Passion of the Lord? Find out in this deep dive into Scripture and tradition!
&nbsp;
<ul>
<li></li></ul>

The Holy Family and the Boyhood of Jesus

Toddler wants to dress up as a witch for Halloween, is it ok, would like more clarification on what the church teaches?

Sheol is hell not Purgatory, could clarify this statement?

I run into folks who argue that Jesus was Muslim, I attempt to tell them he was not, that Jesus was of Jewish descent. How can I more adequately speak to them?

Revelation 12, who is the woman, and passage regarding birth pangs and representing Mary? And is it ok to interpret the woman as representing the Church and not Mary?

Why in sacred images is God the Father sometimes depicted with a body when scripture says he has no body

Travels for work, attends Latin Mass and sees a lot of young people at Mass, would like Joe’s thoughts on why that is

How does purgatory relate to plenary indulgences?

My daughter passed away 3 years ago. She professed being a Christian on her deathbed. Was this enough?

Some claim Jesus was Muslim, but what does history—and Jesus&#8217; own words—actually show? We break down how to respond to this argument and also explore topics like Halloween costumes, the woman in Revelation 12, sacred art, and purgatory.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

How Do We Know Jesus Wasn’t Muslim? And More Questions

Does This New Archbishop Disprove Anglicanism?

Did Mary and Mary Magdalene also receive the gift to forgive sins since they were present when Jesus breathed on his disciples and commissioned them?

If I’ve fallen away from the Church what do I need to do to return?

Did Catholics chain up the bible and limit access to it? Is this true?

How does one fully trust God for everything?

What are your thoughts on the fracturing and divisions in the Catholic Church?

Can one fulfill their Sunday obligation at an SSPX church? Are they in schism?

I’m dating a girl who is staunchly protestant, and her mother is anti-Catholic. What’s the best way to share my faith with her?

What happened in Europe that made it very atheistic but the faith was fairly preserved in the US?

Is it ok to read books about the Nazi’s and the history of their rise without it leading me to sin?

What is the Catholic interpretation of Jesus healing the paralytic in Mt 9:5-6 and forgiving his sins?

AMA: Returning to the Church, Trusting God, Sharing Faith, and Catholic Teachings Explained

<div class="page" title="Page 317">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 307
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“God may permit the use of religious images (see Day 179), but we should not kneel before or kiss them. The Bible says, ‘you shall not bow down to them’ (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9), and it condemns those who have bent their knees to or kissed Ba’al (1 Kings 19:18).”
DEFENSE
These prohibitions apply to idols.
If there is an idol—a statue of a pagan god—then you absolutely should not kneel before or kiss it! However, not all kneeling and kissing falls under this ban. Scripture contains innocent examples of kneeling (Judg. 7:5–6), bowing (Gen. 23:7, 12), prostration (1 Sam. 25:24), and kissing (Gen. 27:6).
These are physical acts that take their meaning from context. They are outward expressions of an attitude of the heart, but they can convey different things. Kissing your father and kissing an idol of Ba’al are different. The outward act may be the same, but they convey different attitudes of heart—one indicating filial affection and the other divine worship.
Even using these acts in divine worship is not wrong. People devotionally knelt (1 Kings 8:54), bowed (2 Chron. 7:3), prostrated themselves in God’s presence (Deut. 9:18), and devotionally kissed Jesus (Luke 7:38).
What makes such acts wrong is using them to reverence a god that does not exist, like Ba’al, or using them to reverence something that is not a god, supposing that it is (e.g., worshipping one of the Roman emperors—like Caligula or Nero—as a god).
If one recognizes in one’s heart that the thing is not a god, these outward acts are not misdirected divine worship and don’t fall under condemnation. In the ancient world, these actions may have been so closely associated with idolatry that they were to be altogether avoided in the devotional use of images, but we don’t live in the ancient world.
Today, Catholics who use such devotional practices (which, it should be pointed out, are voluntary, not obligatory) are in no danger of thinking that a statue or icon is a deity. It’s universally recognized that statues and icons are mere symbols of Jesus and the saints, and kneeling before or kissing them is a symbolic way of expressing affection, like kissing the photograph of an absent loved one.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Devotional Use of Images

The Trinity isn’t in the New Testament

If God is one, how can He be three persons?

Doesn’t the Trinity contradict basic logic (3 ≠ 1)?

Is there a connection with the Trinity and the fact that only Christians say “God is Love”?

&#8220;How can we prove the Holy Trinity?&#8221; In this episode, we tackle common objections, including whether the Trinity is mentioned in the New Testament and how God can be both one and three persons. We also explore the relationship between the Trinity and the Christian understanding of God as Love, addressing logical concerns along the way.
<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>

PROVING The Holy Trinity – Answering Objections w/Tim Staples

Regarding Rev 12. How do I respond to a JW that the woman in Rev 12 is not Mary but the Kingdom God? How do we properly interpret it?

Can we view the papal authority the same as we would see a person who wrote a book of the bible? A sinner but with authority?

If a protestant asks us how we know that we are interpreting the teaching of our infallible Church, how do we respond?

How do we explain that Jesus gave authority to his apostles to forgive sins in John 20:22-23?

Is the teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the bible or is it just a tradition?

Is there any strategy we could use to implement the scripture when talking to atheists?

Scriptural Apologetics

Yesterday’s reading at Mass contained that most marvelously pithy saying of John the Baptist from John’s gospel: “I must decrease. He must increase.”
Today we see this play out in Luke’s account of the Lord’s baptism in the Jordan. This is, let’s remember, pretty incredible. People wanted John to be the Christ. If he had said he was the Christ, they would have had no trouble believing him. And John takes that potential power and influence and casually sets it aside.
His humility paves the way for the even greater humility of the true Christ, who himself enters the waters for John to baptize. Our Gospel selection for today doesn’t include some of the dialogue reported elsewhere between John and Jesus, but in a way, it’s predictable. John is confused. He has been talking all this time about the one who is greater than he, whose sandals he is not worthy to untie, who will baptize the world with fire, and this great anointed one approaches him and asks to be baptized like everybody else. Really, Lord, why? I mean, shouldn’t you be baptizing me?
This is part of a large pattern in the Gospels. Perhaps one reason this story appears to us in the immediate context of the Christmas season is that we are conscious of the Son of God’s human vulnerability and humility. This is all headed to the cross, but before that we find Jesus washing the feet of his disciples and declaring that he calls them not slaves, but friends.
At the baptism, Jesus is publicly identified as the Son of the Father, and this identity is witnessed by the Spirit in the form of a dove. Various heretics in the early centuries, grouped together under the loose label adoptionism, saw this as a moment when the human person Jesus was somehow elevated to divinity. Church councils repeatedly rejected this theory in the first several centuries, even as the formal articulation of Trinitarian and Christological doctrine developed. But the problem I have with this view of the baptism is that it seems to miss the way it fits in with the whole gospel trajectory. If the baptism necessitates some kind of progression or elevation of Christ, so does virtually every other incident of his life. If it is merely human to submit to baptism, what would it take to submit to crucifixion?
In fact, the Fathers’ reading of this story show how it is precisely Christ’s divinity, in his baptism, that makes the difference. Christ was not baptized so that he might be sanctified in the water and become somehow more divine. He was baptized so that he might sanctify the water.
What does it mean to sanctify or consecrate something? It means to set it apart, to mark it somehow. That is the most fundamental meaning of holiness—including, as a transcendent example, the holiness of God. God is utterly unique; he has no equal, no real comparison. When we are baptized, we are consecrated; we are set apart by what the Letter to Titus calls the “laver of regeneration” and the “renovation of the Holy Ghost.” And water has specifically been set apart for this purpose.
But think about this: when we are baptized, is this consecration something ultimately contrary to our nature? True, it is an elevation of our nature, yet it is an elevation that was always intended—our nature was, from the beginning, oriented toward supernatural fellowship with God. And so it is not so much that baptism changes us—though from the perspective of sin, it certainly does that—but that it restores and reanimates what we truly are.
We can apply that to other kinds of consecrations. When we bless water for baptism, we aren’t adding something to water; we are in a way reminding water of its true purpose, which is the life of God. When Jesus entered the waters of the Jordan, he wasn’t somehow invading nature with a foreign substance. He was meeting his own creation face to face and saying, “Remember me?”
There is a liturgical and sacramental shape to creation. When we celebrate the Mass, part of the miracle is not so much to realize that bread and wine can become body and blood, but to realize that so much of the time, they do not do so even though they could. Think of it as pulling back the curtain and showing the true purpose of all time and space—which is to say that it is the time and the place for fellowship with God. This is why we have—in the normal sense—sacred times and sacred places: to heighten our senses and our intellectual contemplation of the fact that God has entered all times and all places to the end of bringing all things into the light of his glory.
Today, as we remember the Lord’s baptism, remember also the hope that it contains—the hope that all things can and will be restored to God’s goodness. In our own baptisms, we were restored to who we are, but it is only in holding fast to our communion with Christ that we can remain who we are. We can say, with John the Baptist, I must decrease; he must increase.
Another way of putting it is this: if I am only myself alone, I am not even that. I can find who I am only in the voice of the one who calls me beloved, who knew me even before I knew myself, and who will call me again to himself in the last day. Amen.

Jesus Greets the Water

Ghoulish Pro-Abortion Responses to the Georgia “Miracle Baby”

Some Christians miss or explain away the amazing gift that Jesus gave his Church when he told the Apostles, &#8220;Whose sins you forgive are forgiven&#8230;&#8221; This unique moment is given to us in John 20:23. Karlo Broussard joins us to explain why the most obvious reading is the right one &#8212; Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins.

Forgiveness: Jesus Gave Amazing Power to Priests

Carbon dating has already proved the shroud as a fake.

Was there any evidence of the shroud before the 1300s?

Does Jesus’ long hair go against historical trends for Jewish men of the time?

Is the blood too red on the shroud?

Was a burst of light what imprinted the image on the shroud?

What should our methodology be?

The crown of thrones

The connection to Abraham and Isaac

Wounds on the wrists instead of the hands

Interview with Fr. Andrew Dalton debunking claims against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
<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>

Debunking Claims Against the Shroud of Turin

How can the Catholic Church teach that our justification is a process when the Letter to the Romans says that our justification is a one-time event? Karlo Broussard can&#8217;t help himself, he just has to keep meeting Protestant challenges to Catholic belief.

What Justifies a Christian?

Why Confess Your Sins to a Priest?

In this episode, Trent is joined by John DeRosa of the <a href="http://www.classicaltheism.com/episodes/">Classical Theism</a> podcast who interviews him about his recent debate with Alex O’Connor on Pints with Aquinas.

Debriefing the O’Connor Debate on God’s Existence

In this episode Trent discussed the death of George Floyd as well as the protests and violence that have broken out in several major cities as a result. He also talks about how we as Catholics should keep the Gospel at the center of our response to racism, police brutality, and other unjustifiable violence.

Racism, Riots, and a Catholic Response

For many people, it looks likely that the next few weeks will not offer a realistic opportunity to go to Mass. Our chaplain joins us for a conversation about the powerful option of “Spiritual Communion” during this time, and any time.
Did you miss Fr. Hugh and Cy on our episode of Focus last week? Check out <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/coronavirus-and-the-catholic-church">&#8220;Coronavirus and the Catholic Church&#8221;.</a>
You can find Fr. Hugh&#8217;s latest book, <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/20-answers-prayer/">20 Answers: Prayer, here</a>.

Spiritual Communion in a Time of Coronavirus

I’ve heard some folks claim that Hell is where God isn’t present, but isn’t that impossible if God is omnipresent?

Did Jesus’s guardian angel have the easiest job?

I have a question on resurrection and whether resurrection requires our bodies to be the same as our earthly bodies. I recently finished a fictional story (Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure: Steel Ball Run) where the characters receive powers from having some i...

My daughter wants to know: what would happen if you dropped a skyscraper-size piece of tungsten onto a nuclear armory (where they are stored), would all the bombs go off? How big a fallout would it be? And would it be a deterrent for nuclear weapons?

Assuming that Nephilim is literally the result of human women somehow mating with fallen angels, what sort of nature would they have? Could they be baptized?

Is there a scientific reason behind automatic writing? What might be happening outside of supernatural causes and assuming no mental health issues as well?

Where would the Pope go if Rome was nuked with a nuclear bomb designed for maximal radiation damage over an area? The Vatican is largely intact but is rendered unlivable for millennia due to fallout. Would the church make a new St. Peter’s Basilica? Wo...

With Jesus being perfect, did His guardian angel have an easy assignment, or was there more to it? Jimmy Akin explores this curious question and tackles more topics, including the nature of Hell, the resurrection of the body, and what would happen if Rome became uninhabitable.

Did Jesus’s Guardian Angel Have the Easiest Job Ever?

Two terms that often appear in Protestant discussions of faith and works are legalism and antinomianism. The first is giving law too much emphasis, and the second is giving law too little emphasis.
The law in question is God’s law, and in the Bible, the most famous expression of God’s law, was given through Moses. It contains the Ten Commandments, as well as all the other regulations that were part of the Mosaic covenant.
This expression of God’s law became so prominent in Jewish thinking that it is referred to as “the Law of Moses” (Josh. 8:31, Luke 2:22, 1 Cor. 9:9, etc.) or even simply as “the Law” (Matt. 22:36, Luke 5:17, Rom. 2:12, etc.). The latter term also came to be applied to the first five books of the Bible—the Torah or Pentateuch—which contain this law. It is thus spoken of as “the Law,” in contrast to “the prophets,” which are the other major part of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17, Luke 16:16, Rom. 3:21, etc.).
Traditionally, Jewish theologians have divided the commandments of the law into two classes: those that require an action (“thou shalt”) and those that forbid an action (“thou shalt not”). However, Christian theologians have distinguished three types of commandments, based on the nature of what they require or forbid.
The first are moral commandments, which convey ethical principles (e.g., “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery”; Exod. 20:12-13). The second are ceremonial precepts that governed the ritual life of Israel (e.g., killing the Passover lamb or the distinction between clean and unclean foods; cf. Exod. 12, Lev. 11). The third type are often called the judicial or civil commands. These regulated the civil life of Israel. They include things like building codes (Deut. 22:8), penalties when one has committed theft (Lev. 6:5), and the establishment of safe zones where a person who has committed accidental homicide may flee (Num. 35:9-15).
Since the Law was given to the Jewish people, a key question for Christian theologians has been which of these commandments remain binding. One of the first controversies that faced the Church was whether Gentile converts to the Faith needed to be circumcised. The Church quickly determined that the answer was no (Acts 15; cf. vv. 10-11; Gal. 2). It was also established that Christians did not need to keep Jewish dietary laws or observe Jewish feast days (Col. 2:16; cf. Mark 7:19).
However, Jesus indicated that other commandments found in the Mosaic Law were binding, saying, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments,” and going on to explain, “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:17-19).
It thus appeared that certain commandments were binding on Christians, but others were not. Since the commandments that Jesus cited were moral in nature, whereas the ones Christians were not bound to observe were ceremonial, the solution adopted in Catholic circles was that it is God’s moral commandments that apply to all peoples.
Thus, Paul can speak of Gentiles who do not have the Law of Moses but who nevertheless “do by nature what the Law requires,” for “what the Law requires is written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:14-15). Since these moral commands are part of human nature, they constitute a “natural law” that all, including Christians, are bound to observe.
Christians are not bound to observe the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law. These requirements pointed forward to the coming of Christ but have now been superseded (Col. 2:17). In their place, Christ has given us other ceremonies, such as baptism, which replaces circumcision and is thus “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11-12). Christians are thus bound not by the Law of Moses, but by “the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21, Gal. 6:2).
At the time of the Reformation, some Protestants did not like the concept of natural law, which they thought violated the principle of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-best-argument-for-sola-scriptura">sola scriptura</a> by encouraging us to look to human nature to figure out moral questions. However, other Protestants retained natural-law reasoning.
All Protestants have held that Christians are bound to observe God’s moral commandments, and most have agreed that Christians are not bound to observe the ceremonial and civil precepts of the Mosaic Law. But not all agree.
For example, Seventh-Day Adventists have held that Christians are obliged to observe certain laws traditionally considered ceremonial, such as the requirement to keep the Jewish Sabbath (i.e., Saturday).
Similarly, some Reformed (Calvinist) Protestants have advocated a view known as Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy, which holds that the civil law of modern societies should be informed by the civil commandments of the Mosaic Law. This includes the use of Mosaic penalties for various crimes, and some authors have advocated the use of the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, witchcraft, and belonging to a false religion.
In addition, there have been many disputes in Protestant circles about whether particular practices are compatible with God’s law—including ones mentioned in the Bible (e.g., drinking alcohol, dancing, gambling, wearing makeup) and others not mentioned (e.g., smoking).
When two groups of Protestants have different views of how God’s law should be applied, the group seen as requiring too much of Christians is likely to be accused of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/you-legalistic-romans">legalism</a>, whereas the group seen as requiring too little is likely to be accused of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/antinomianism">antinomianism</a> (from Greek roots meaning “against the law”).
In addition, these terms are applied to those who are seen as requiring too much or too little for salvation. Thus, those who think repentance from sin or baptism are required may be accused of teaching “works salvation” and legalism by those who do not, and the latter will be accused of antinomianism by those who do.

Protestants and the Law of Moses

If it was revealed to John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah, then why did he later send one of his disciples to ask Jesus?

Why do Catholics primarily receive the Body of Christ (the bread) vs. the Body and Blood (bread and wine)?

If a married protestant pastor converts, can he seek the priesthood?

What does Jesus mean by the Kingdom of God?

How biblical is Confirmation?

What authority does the magisterium have over changing the TLM and what’s the current rule?

Was Jesus in the Garden of Eden? When Genesis refers to “Our image”, is this referring to the Trinity?

Based on Genesis, is the world flat? Is there firmament in the sky keeping us from falling off?

Why do some people still blame the Jews for the death of Christ?

Why would God ask Moses to build a bronze serpent if the serpent is the symbol of Satan?

My coworker got arrested and I went around asking to know what happened. Did doing this cause me to commit the sin of detraction?

Why are baptisms outside the faith valid even though they don’t share the same beliefs?

I was raised non-denominational and I want to know what the difference is between the Jesus I know and what Catholics believe. &nbsp;

Is the sacrament of Confirmation really found in Scripture? In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, we tackle one of the most common questions about Catholic sacramental theology. Karlo Broussard explains the biblical roots of Confirmation, where it shows up in the New Testament, and how early Christians understood the laying on of hands and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If you’ve ever wondered how to explain Confirmation to your Protestant friends—or just want to understand it better yourself—don’t miss this segment!
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Help us reach our goal by donating! <a href="https://give.catholic.com/campaign/689122/donate">Catholicanswersradio.com</a>
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>
</div></div>

Is Confirmation Really in the Bible? And More

Could the Pope or Magisterium receive a revelation (e.g., about aliens having souls) and would that become dogma?

How to respond when Protestants cite the exorcist Jesus told the disciples not to stop?

Is it material cooperation with evil for a Catholic executive to enforce company abortion policies?

Does God know all possible futures (Many Worlds idea)?

How to tell if guidance is from the Holy Spirit vs. a Guardian Angel?

Is experimenting with manifestation sinful?

Do Daleks have souls?

&#8220;Can the Pope receive new revelations?&#8221; This episode explores the implications of potential papal revelations, including whether such insights could become dogma. Additionally, we tackle questions about responding to Protestant views on exorcism, the moral dilemmas faced by Catholics in corporate settings, and discerning spiritual guidance. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion!
<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 the Pope Receive New Revelations and Manifestation Questions

In this episode Trent answers common objections to the doctrine of Mary being theotokos, the Mother of God.
Transcription:
Trent:
Recently I was invited to debate a Protestant on Mary being the mother of God, but unfortunately the debate fell through. However, I thought you all might benefit from hearing a modified version of my opening statement that engages how some Protestants object to this doctrine. So here we go. Father John Hardin once said that bad maryology leads to bad Christology, and that&#8217;s definitely true among those who reject calling Mary the mother of God. This comes from the more ancient title Theotokos, which means God bearer. But first, let&#8217;s define our terms. By God, I mean a divine person. When St. Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord and my God, he was not saying my Lord and my Trinity Thomas was saying, Jesus is a divine person. Jesus is the infinite God made man. When we say God was born or God died on the cross, we are not saying the Trinity was born or that the Trinity died on the cross, we are saying a divine person was born and a divine person died.
Namely the second person of the Trinity. God, the Son who became the man Jesus of Nazareth. By mother, I mean a human who conceives, gestates and gives birth to another person. Being the mother of God does not mean Mary created Jesus&#8217;s divine nature or even his human soul. The catechism of the Catholic Church says every spiritual soul is created immediately by God. It is not produced by the parents. Instead, Mary gave the son his human nature and she cared for this divine person in her womb. Just as every other human mother gives a human nature to a person, her son or daughter who resides in her womb saying, Mary is the mother of God, simply means that Mary conceived a person within her womb and that person was the second divine person of the Trinity. God the Son, Mary also gestated that divine person in her womb as he grew and developed and then she gave birth to this divine person who had assumed a fully human nature saying, Mary is the mother of God, is another way of saying that Jesus was God throughout his entire human existence, and this shows why the dogma of Mary, mother of God is so important and why it was officially proclaimed in the early church at the Council of Ephesus.
Specifically, it is heretical to deny Mary is the mother of God because in doing that, you deny the divinity of Christ. In the early church adoption is heretics claimed. Jesus Christ was a human person who became divine later in life at his baptism or even his resurrection, but this theology denies the incarnation. It denies that God became man and replaces it with the heresy that a man became God. To safeguard against this heresy we call the blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, the God bearer or mother of God, unfortunately, some Protestants deny this important doctrine. Here&#8217;s Protestant John MacArthur.
CLIP:
In fact, Roman Catholics refer to her as the God bearer. They say she gave birth to God and thus is to be elevated and adored. She gave birth to God. That is a terrible misconception. She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born.
Trent:
A critic who denies this dogma is really in a pickle. If he says, Mary was only the mother of Jesus&#8217;s body or only the mother of his human nature, then I would ask, where was the second person of the Trinity? God the son, when Mary was pregnant with Jesus? If he says God, the son was identical to the fetus in Mary&#8217;s womb, then he has to admit Mary is the mother of God. If that fetus is God and being pregnant with a human fetus means you are a mother, then Mary is the mother of God. End of discussion, Francis swagger to the wife of televangelist, Jimmy Swaggert once wrote on Facebook, while Mary was essential to harbor his developing human form for nine months, she had nothing whatsoever to do with his godhood, but this is the heresy of Nestorianism. It divides Christ into a human form and some other person who is divine.
A Christian cannot say Mary was only pregnant with the human body of Jesus or the human nature of Jesus because women don&#8217;t gestate and give birth to nature&#8217;s or mere bodies. They gestate and give birth to persons. I would ask Evangelicals like the Swaggers, if they think all unborn children are persons with the right to life, if they do, then what person was in Mary&#8217;s pregnant womb? The divine person, God the Son that who in response, the Protestant apologist, Eric Swenson claims in his book Evangelical answers that the person of Jesus isn&#8217;t merely God any more than the person of Jesus&#8217; merely man. But another way, Mary gave birth to a person who is both God and man. She did not give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Lagos. It is proper to call Mary the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God and now you did a heresy.
Mary didn&#8217;t give birth to anything pre-incarnate because birth occurs after the incarnation, but Mary did give birth to the word to the logos. John one 14 literally says, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us to say Jesus is a human person and a divine person can be easily twisted to say the second person of the Trinity, a divine person changed in his very person at the incarnation to become a composite human divine person, but God is infinite being itself. God cannot change. God is immutable. That&#8217;s why St. Cyril of Alexandria told the heretic Nestorius, we do not say that his flesh was turned into the nature of the Godhead, nor that the unspeakable word of God was changed into the nature of the flesh. For he the word is unalterable and absolutely unchangeable and remains always the same as the scriptures say. Alright, so let&#8217;s take a look at a few objections. Number one, the term mother of God isn&#8217;t found in scripture,
CLIP:
Although Jesus Christ is God and although Mary was the mother of Jesus humanly speaking, that does not make Mary the mother of God. See, this is a faulty logic. They take these extra steps instead of just believing what the Bible tells us because you can&#8217;t find a verse that says, Mary&#8217;s the mother of God. Show me that verse in the Bible. That&#8217;s man&#8217;s logic. Man&#8217;s logic says, well, Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God. Ergo Mary is the mother of God, but that is not correct logic.
Trent:
Yes, it is. You also have to use man&#8217;s logic to show God as a trinity since the Bible never uses the word trinity. Also, where does the Bible say Everything we must believe has to be found explicitly in a specific Bible verse. It doesn&#8217;t. The Bible never says every theological term must be found in scripture because if it did, you couldn&#8217;t believe in the Bible. Besides in Luke 1 43, Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of my Lord, and if Elizabeth&#8217;s Lord was Yahweh, then she&#8217;s calling Mary the mother of Yahweh, the mother of God. Number two, the argument for Mary being mother of God commits a logical fallacy. Matt Slick says The argument for Mary being the mother of God is as bad as this argument, Jesus&#8217; God. God is a trinity. Jesus is the Trinity, but they&#8217;re not the same argument. This bad argument is like saying the Son is God, the Father is God, therefore the Son is the Father.
A Protestant could answer this heretical modalist argument by saying that the statement the Son is God, just means the Son is a divine person. It does not mean all statements about God apply to Jesus because God is a trinity. The Father is God because God is not an individual person. The Son and the Father can both be God without being identical to one another. The oneness argument only proves that the Father and the Son are divine persons. It does not prove they are the same person and this response rebuts arguments that claim the theotokos arguments absurd. That argument is as valid as this argument. Most Protestants would accept Jesus&#8217; God, Jesus was born in a manger, therefore God was born in a manger or this one. Jesus is a divine person. Mary is the mother of Jesus, therefore, Mary is the mother of a divine person. Number three, mother of God can mislead people so we shouldn&#8217;t use it
CLIP:
Because he&#8217;s the creator of Mary. If Mary is the mother of God, then she came before him. She gave birth to him. He was revealing his divinity as the divine. He cannot have a mother.
Trent:
I&#8217;ve heard Bishop Mari Ma who was featured in that clip that he&#8217;s not a torian heretic. He just may be uncomfortable with the term mother of God because it can be misunderstood, but just because something can be abused does not mean it should never be used when Christians say Jesus became incarnate through Mary. Some Muslims misunderstand this. They think Christians believe the Father had sexual relations with Mary. They say God cannot have a son in this way, but their misunderstanding about the incarnation does not justify denying the incarnation just as other misunderstandings do not justify rejecting Mary being the mother of God. Number four, we don&#8217;t say Herod was the king of God, so why say Mary is the mother of God? Other people&#8217;s relationships with Christ were extrinsic to his incarnation. Herod being the king of Judea only means the God man was under his political rule, but Herod played no act of role in Jesus becoming the God man. Other appropriate titles like Baptizer of God for someone like John the Baptist never arose in Christian devotion and they don&#8217;t emphasize Jesus&#8217;s unique divine nature. Mary, however, was the means by which the incarnation occurred and her declaration that all generations will call her blessed makes the title Theotokos a natural development for her. Number five, the term mother of God. Theotokos is not found in the earliest church fathers.
CLIP:
Now, what about the phrase mother of God? Some of you say, well, I don&#8217;t like that idea. Where did that phrase come from? Well, it came from the Council of Ephesus in 4 31 ad it was ratified again at the Council of Caldon in 4 51.
Trent:
The earliest unambiguous reference to Mary as Theotokos, the God bearer is an Alexander of Alexandria in the fourth century, a hundred years before the Council of Ephesus, although later writers in the early church claim origin used the term theotokos in the third century, but even if the term wasn&#8217;t used, the idea was clearly present in the earliest church. Fathers sad Ignatius of Antioch said in the year ad 1 0 7, for our God, Jesus Christ was according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary. A politics writes in benediction of the patriarchs, what was born in your virginal womb for it was the firstborn word of God. By the way, some apologists like James White claim the title Mother of God is Orthodox, but that it only refers to Christ and it says nothing about Mary,
CLIP:
The hypostatic union, balancing the divine truths we find in scripture calling Mary the guards. This, it&#8217;s not about Mary, it doesn&#8217;t exalt Mary. It doesn&#8217;t make Mary some intercessor. That all comes later that, and I fully understand why a former Roman Catholic now a believer in Jesus Christ and trusting in His grace doesn&#8217;t want to use that terminology,
Trent:
But that&#8217;s not how the term mother of God or Theotokos were traditionally used a prayer. Many scholars date to the third century says, we take refuge beneath the protection of your compassion. Theotokos, do not disregard our prayers in troubling times, but deliver us from danger. Oh, only pure and blessed one and serial Alexandria said in the fourth century, oh Mary, mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of virginity, scepter of orthodoxy, imperishable temple, container of him who cannot be contained. Finally, I want to point out that all historic branches of Christianity recognize that Mary is the mother of God. The Swiss Protestant reformer, orig Swingley said, I esteem immensely. The mother of God, the ever chased, immaculate Virgin Mary and Martin Luther said, men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the mother of God. Even modern Protestant apologists recognize Mary is the mother of God, the late norm Geisler wrote, there are many things Catholics and Protestants hold in common on the doctrine of Mary.
These include her being the most blessed among women, her virgin conception of Christ, the God man, and by virtue of that her being in this sense, the mother of God, Gavin Orland says, Protestants should not deny marries the mother of God. As has James White, who I referenced earlier. I would implore modern evangelicals who deny this doctrine to see just how far they&#8217;ve strayed from historical Christianity, even historical Protestant Christianity. They should follow the advice of the evangelical author Timothy George who writes the following. It is time for evangelicals to recover a fully biblical appreciation of the blessed Virgin Mary and her role in salvation history. Evangelicals can and should join the church Catholic in celebrating the Virgin Mary as the mother of God. The God bearer or as Yaroslav pelican suggests that we might better render Theotokos the one who gave birth to the one who is God. Thank you all so much for watching. Definitely like this video. Subscribe to our channel and I just hope that you have a very blessed day.

“Mary is NOT the Mother of God” REBUTTED

What are we supposed to confess at First Confession?

What is the standard to know if Catholic Doctrine has changed versus developed?

Why can’t I receive Communion unless I’m in a state of grace?

Why is it okay for Catholics to only receive the bread versus both species?

Could the Creation of Eve be considered the first miracle?

Why do we cling to certain Biblical teachings and stray from others?

What’s the difference between change and development in Catholic teaching? Karlo Broussard explains how the Church maintains continuity and answers more on First Confession, receiving Communion, and the first miracle of creation.
Want more free exclusive content? <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">JOIN THE CA LIVE CLUB NEWSLETTER </a>

How Do We Know If Catholic Doctrine Has Changed or Developed?

<div>What should our meditation be when praying, "O blood and water which gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus..."?</div><div>In praying those words, you can meditate on when a Roman soldier actually thrust a spear into Jesus’ side (John 19:34).
However, during these words and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy in general, you can also meditate on Jesus’ Passion in general, the redemptive impact of Paschal Mystery in general, and how it can impact your life and those of your loved ones in particular. The Chaplet could also involve meditating in gratitude on how Christ’s Paschal Mystery has impacted our lives and those of others.
</div>

What Meditation During the Chaplet?

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, join Cy Kellett, Chris Check, and Joe Heschmeyer for the always-entertaining “Flannel Panel,” where they dive into world events and moral issues through a Catholic lens. Topics include the ethics of war, the phrase “unconditional surrender,” nuclear weapons, and how Catholic just war teaching applies to modern conflicts. They also discuss the sonic boom from a recent SpaceX rocket launch, the moral challenges of technology, and reflections on recent Supreme Court decisions.

World War II, Modern Warfare, SpaceX, Transgender Issues, and more │ Flannel Panel

What is the difference between Adam before the fall and a current person who needs to be baptized?

How is baptism actually efficacious? How do I explain it to my Protestant friends?

Was Mary the same as Adam in being full of grace?

What are your thoughts on Baptism being used as an acronym? Best Actions Persons Take In Saving Mankind

What are your thoughts on the people coming to the Church who don’t want to embrace the changes just like the SSPX?

How are we to understand Eph. 2:8-9?

Does Ephesians 2:8–9 contradict Catholic teaching on the role of works in salvation? We unpack this key verse and how Catholics interpret it, along with insights on baptism’s power, Mary and Adam, and resistance to Church reforms like those from the SSPX.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

How Should We Understand Ephesians 2:8–9 on Faith and Works?

<div class="page" title="Page 82">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 72
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The deuterocanonical books aren’t Scripture because they aren’t prophetic. None of them claim to be written by a prophet, contain predictive prophecy, or contain messianic prophecy.”
DEFENSE
The criterion by which a book is to be evaluated for the canon is whether it is divinely inspired, not whether it is “prophetic” in those senses. Further, claims about the deuterocanonicals not containing any prophecy are inaccurate.
Books are Scripture if they are divinely inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). They do not have to have someone who functions as a prophet as their author (Luke, for example, was not known as a prophet, but he wrote at least two books of Scripture—his Gospel and Acts). Despite this, the book of Baruch is attributed to the same Baruch who served as the prophet Jeremiah’s scribe in writing the book of Jeremiah (Bar. 1:1; cf. Jer. 32:12, 36:17–18). Also, Baruch 6—also known as the Letter of Jeremiah—is attributed to Jeremiah himself (Bar. 6:1).
Books do not have to contain predictive prophecy to be Scripture. Many do not contain forecasts of specific, future events in the literal sense of the text (i.e., the sense intended by the human author, apart from additional, spiritual meanings intended by the Holy Spirit). Ruth, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes are examples of books that do not contain predictive prophecy.
However, the deuterocanonicals do contain predictive prophecy. This is true both of prophecies already fulfilled (see 2 Macc. 15:13–29) and prophecies still in the future (see Bar. 4:21–5:9; Tob. 14:5–7; 2 Macc. 7:23, 12:43). These reflect the same types of prophecy found in the protocanonical books of Scripture.
Messianic prophecy is usually found in the spiritual sense of Old Testament texts. For example, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hos. 11:1b) literally applies to the nation of Israel (see Hos. 11:1a), but in the spiritual sense it also contains a messianic prophecy (Matt. 2:15). The deuterocanonicals contain messianic prophecies of this sort that are just as clear as those found in the protocanonicals. For example, Wis- dom 2:12–23 contains a meditation on how the wicked plot against a righteous man who regards himself as God’s son. They condemn him to a shameful death, but they do not recognize the secret purposes of God, who created man for incorruption. This is a clearer messianic prophecy than most.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Deuterocanonicals and Prophecy

In this episode Trent discusses some unusual and ironic punishments found in Greek mythology.

FFAF: Ironic Punishments in Greek Mythology

In this episode Trent discussed violence committed by transgender advocates and how Christians should respond.
Michael Knowles vs. LGBTQ advocates on Jubilee: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBoFwaTWm70">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBoFwaTWm70</a>
Transcription:
Trent:
Recently a man pretending to be a woman threatened Catholic speaker Matt Frat for being unwilling to endorse transgender propaganda. Matt handled the situation graciously, but what happened to Matt is not unusual. There are many cases of people who identify as transgender threatening violence and even committing acts of violence against people who disagree with them, and so in today&#8217;s episode, I&#8217;m going to say enough is enough. We&#8217;re not going to tolerate this behavior and Christian charity demands. We hold people who threaten violence responsible for their actions. First, let me show you the clip of what happened to Matt Fra when he was speaking.
CLIP:
I guess I&#8217;d want to ask what that has to do with the love of God then? Well, what does that mean to do with the love of God? If God loves you, wouldn&#8217;t he want you to live in accord with reality?
Trent:
Say that to me out in the car park. You want to say that to me?
CLIP:
Kind of
Trent:
Notice the threat here. Do you want say that to me outside? He&#8217;s implying that he&#8217;s willing to get in a physical fight over this, which is ironic because that&#8217;s something a man says. Even though this person claimed to be a woman and props to Matt Fra for not backing down when threatened, but this kind of response, it&#8217;s not uncommon among those who identify as transgender. Here&#8217;s Ben Shapiro. Several years ago debating Robert Tour, the guy who filmed the OJ Simpson Chase and who later pretended to be a woman named Zoe Tour. Here&#8217;s what he said to Shapiro when Shapiro rightly asked about his chromosomes,
CLIP:
But even so you have a thing like Kleinfelter syndrome, so you don&#8217;t know what you&#8217;re talking about. You&#8217;re not educated on genetics, supposed to discuss the genetics or no. Or your
Genetics, so I&#8217;d stay away from the genetics and back to the brain scans.
You cut that out now or you&#8217;ll go home in an ambulance. That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion.
No, I know, but wait to be fair, but to be fair, wait, to be fair, but be fair, you&#8217;re actually being kind. Rude. No, no, and that&#8217;s not fair.
I&#8217;m sorry. It&#8217;s not rude to say that someone who&#8217;s biologically a male is a male,
Someone
Who&#8217;s biologically male is a male,
But Mr. Shapiro, you knew very well that saying that Zoe would be egregiously.
Trent:
What really makes my blood boil in this clip is not Zoe Tur, Robert Tur, whatever name you want to use, acting mentally unwell. This guy&#8217;s mistaken about his own manhood, so he has a loose grip on reality despite his tight grip on Ben Shapiro&#8217;s shoulder. No. What makes my blood boil are the liberal allies who make excuses for transgender violence. They concoct a fantasy world where a so-called marginalized person can say any hateful thing he wants about whites, men, Christians, et cetera, and those people just have to shut up and respect his truth. But if an oppressor says an obvious fact about that person like their correct biological sex, then the person&#8217;s hurt feelings justify his feeling to hurt other people. This is pared well in a Babylon B article with headline, I&#8217;m a victim yells trans activist while punching woman in the face. In fact, it&#8217;s not hard to find on social media posts arguing that transphobes quote deserve to die as can be seen in memes that include guns and other acts of violence against those who reject transgender ideology. Sometimes the threats are subtle, like when Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan wore a shirt that said Protect trans kids that had a knife on it. Other times the threats are quite explicit
CLIP:
And why is JK rolling still alive? We should be focusing our efforts and our resources not on assassinating Trump, but instead on assassinating JK Rowling that wench needs to die. She needs to burn on the stake and die. I condone murder, I condone it. I think that we need to hold our politicians accountable by murdering them.
I dare you to try and stop me from going into a women&#8217;s bathroom. It will be the last mistake you ever make. I dare you to try and stop a transgender woman in my presence from using the bathroom. It will be the last mistake you ever make. Ma&#8217;am?
Trent:
Once again, ma&#8217;am?
CLIP:
I said both of you.
Trent:
No, you said sir. Once again, it&#8217;s ma&#8217;am,
CLIP:
I actually said both of you guys. It was a
Trent:
General right beforehand. You fucking said sir, sir. Okay, mother, take it outside. You want to call me sir again? I&#8217;ll show you sir. I apologize, mother, I apologize. Oh, and another creepy one are people who say that if you don&#8217;t agree with transgenderism, your pronouns will be was were IE, you&#8217;ll be reduced to the past tense via murder.
CLIP:
Hi there. You can either respect my trans homies or I can identify as a problem and if I catch your bitch as being disrespectful, your pronouns are going to be was were Thank you for coming and have a nice day.
Trent:
And then there are people who identify as transgender who openly commit violence against those they disagree with as can be seen in this clip as Christians. How should we respond to this? Well, on the one hand, we shouldn&#8217;t be cruel or vindictive or vengeful towards people who disagree with us or even want to hurt us. Our Lord suffered unjust violence, but he did not lash out at his persecutor. Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, and this includes people who hate our refusal to endorse transgender ideology. On the other hand, though, we should not be doormats that only care about appeasing violent transgender advocates. Some people will quote Jesus&#8217;s command to turn the other cheek and say we shouldn&#8217;t care what they do. But Christian charity actually demands that we hold violent people accountable for their actions for the good of those that they threaten and for the good of the violent person&#8217;s soul.
For example, one time when I was on a college campus engaged in pro-life outreach, a female professor came up to our exhibit and threatened to cut off one of the male volunteers testicles. She then shoved him and walked away. The police were called and the volunteer was asked if he wanted to press charges. He said no because he wanted to show Christian charity and be forgiving towards the professor, but the director of our outreach got him to change his mind and to press charges. He told this male volunteer that true Christian charity would care for the good of this woman&#8217;s soul and that if she got away with this crime, she would think that she could get away with other acts of threatening people or assaulting people or maybe doing even worse things to them. Christian charity demands that we hold. Anyone who threatens violence accountable for his or her actions, their threats should be made known to their employer, their schools, and to the authorities. This should be done not out of a cold desire for vengeance, but out of a loving desire to get that person help and to prevent him or her from committing an even worsen. For example, here&#8217;s a clip of a pro-choice protester Jordan Hunt assaulting a pro-life woman with an albeit hilarious roundhouse kick. You think you should keep it. It&#8217;s a baby. If someone is raped and she gave birth and she decided to kill her three-year-old
CLIP:
Child, take your phone, someone call the cops your phone. Do not touch me. Someone call the cops.
Trent:
I love the part where he says, I meant to kick your phone as if it&#8217;s okay to destroy someone&#8217;s property as long as you don&#8217;t hurt the person. A news article also said Hunt was involved in a similar incident in August while riding on a bicycle hunt allegedly approached a group of activists in Toronto and tried to take away one of their signs. When the protesters fought back, hunt pushed one of the women into a poll, he then fled the scene. Hunt was fired from his job and sentenced to eight months probation and this is a good thing for him. I think the sentence was kind of light, but he needed something to disabuse him of the diluted idea that you were justified in physically destroying the property of your ideological opponents. If people are allowed to think they can hurt others because they are transphobes, then this can lead to all sorts of horrible outcomes like transgender youth who kill their parents because of their parents&#8217; perceived transphobia or a transgender nurse in Austria who killed a patient that brought up her true gender identity.
Rejection of trans ideology may also have been a motive in a 2023 Nashville shooting at a Christian school by a woman claiming to be a man. One objection to what I&#8217;ve said so far though is that I should also mention the violence committed against people who identify as transgender, but we don&#8217;t apply that standard to other kinds of violence. Many liberals rightfully condemn racist acts of violence committed by white people, but they don&#8217;t feel the need to also condemn racist acts of violence committed against white people in that same condemnation. Moreover, as you saw in the clip of Ben Shapiro, liberal elites defend or downplay violence committed by transgender people, so this justifies making an extra emphasis encountering this kind of violence and threats. Another objection might be that I&#8217;m cherry picking. A critic will say, I&#8217;ve cited just a few bad apples, and most people who identify as transgender or support this ideology don&#8217;t openly threaten or commit violence.
That may be true, but so what? Most people who identify as white supremacists don&#8217;t openly threaten or commit violence either, but the critics who say I&#8217;m cherrypicking would&#8217;ve no problem with me calling out white supremacist terror and condemning instances of it on social media even if most white supremacists aren&#8217;t violent. If I can call out the evil of white supremacy in this way, then why can&#8217;t I call out transgender terror in the same way? Now, I&#8217;m sure these critics would say that white supremacy is evil, and so it should be called out even if many people who hold this view aren&#8217;t openly violent. I agree, but transgender ideology is also evil even when people who defend it aren&#8217;t endorsing violence. White supremacy is evil because it perpetuates a lie related to biology that some races are morally superior to other races. Likewise, transgender ideology is evil because it perpetuates a lie related to biology.
Pope Francis has even said today, the ugliest danger is gender ideology that cancels out differences, and I would say that many defenders of transgender ideology do defend violence against innocent people, so we are justified in firmly telling them that they are morally insane and we will not tolerate your calls for violence anymore. You are wrong. We are right. Deal with it. When you say a man with a penis should be allowed to fully undress in a female locker room where underage girls are present, you are advocating for sexual violence against women. When you say transgender therapy and surgery should be given to children, you are defending psychological and physical violence against children. When you say male rapists should be allowed to identify as women in prison so they can be housed with female inmates who they later rape, we are not going to coddle your feelings anymore.
We&#8217;re just going to say God loves you, but you need to get your head checked. We are going to condemn your disgusting defense of things like child mutilation and violence against women and not feel sorry about telling you the hard truth. You need to hear for the good of your soul and the good of those who may be harmed by your words or your votes on these issues, and while it usually isn&#8217;t violent, transgender advocates also harm women by competing in women&#8217;s sports using their male biological advantages to win awards that should have gone to women. Here&#8217;s Michael Knowles masterfully showing how to graciously yet firmly make this point in a conversation.
CLIP:
What does transgenderism in public look like to you?
It&#8217;s allowing men to be treated for the purposes of the law as women. It&#8217;s men taking 900 sports trophies from women in recent years. That doesn&#8217;t happen. They didn&#8217;t take 900, they took 900. There&#8217;s a report just came out from the United Nations, actually 890 trophies and medals across 600 women who were competing competitors across 29 different sports and 400 competitions that came out like yesterday
And they deserved them.
It didn&#8217;t happen and they deserve them. Okay, that is the logic I hear from the pro transcribe.
Trent:
Check out Knowles&#8217;s full encounter on Jubilee in the link below to see an excellent approach to speaking truth on LGBT issues. Now, some critics will say that my rhetoric is too harsh and that this kind of rhetoric could lead to violence even though I firmly condemn violence against all innocent people, but those same critics don&#8217;t care about calling Donald Trump or conservatives Nazis, even though that kind of rhetoric almost led to Trump&#8217;s assassination, so I don&#8217;t really care what they think. Instead of complaining about my rhetoric point out where I&#8217;m wrong, and if I&#8217;m not wrong, then why don&#8217;t you show me the right way to condemn transgender terrorism. For those of you who believe in the monstrous lies of the transgender movement, whether you are transgender or not, I will say this, God loves you and God doesn&#8217;t want you to be morally insane or psychologically unwell.
He wants to make you a whole and complete person. Just as Christian Love urges us to tell an alcoholic or an anorexic that he or she needs to get professional help for their delusion or disordered behavior, Christian Love urges us to say the same thing to men who think they&#8217;re women and women who think they&#8217;re men, especially when they want to impose this delusion on other people, and when people threaten violence in defense of their delusion, Christian charity urges us to hold them accountable and get them the help that they need. By doing this, we avoid the extreme of dehumanizing someone through vengeance and also avoiding the dehumanizing extreme on the liberal side, which says that it doesn&#8217;t matter what you do, you can hurt other people just because your feelings have been hurt. Instead, we should treat people who have gender dysphoria or of threatened violence as whole persons to treat them with compassion, but also hold them accountable so they can get the help that they need. I hope that today&#8217;s episode was helpful for you, and if you want to help us to share important messages in a culture that doesn&#8217;t always want to hear them, then please consider supporting us for as little as $5 a month@hornpodcast.com. Thank you all so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.
&nbsp;

How to Deal with Transgender Terrorists

DIALOGUE: Does Sola Scriptura Make Sense?

When did the practice of Eucharistic adoration start?

Is the Eucharist given on Holy Thursday the same as what we have at Mass now? Because on Holy Thursday he had not yet died and risen, so how could it be the same?

If John 6 uses two different words for eat, on of which indicates chewing or gnawing, why don’t we see that in the English translations?

The English word “this” in the words of institution seems vague to me. Why isn’t there a more specific word? Shouldn’t the words indicate exactly what “this” is?

Can you explain the importance of the Eucharist as a sacrifice?

Wouldn’t Jesus’ body have to be omnipresent to be able to be really present at Masses all around the world? I read this question in the book “Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics” and am wondering how to answer.

Why do some parishes not distribute the blood of Jesus at Communion?

&#8220;When did the practice of Eucharistic adoration start?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the historical roots of this cherished devotion, alongside inquiries about the nature of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, the nuances of language in John 6 regarding the act of eating, and the significance of the Eucharist as a sacrifice.
<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 Did Eucharistic Adoration Start? Importance of Sacrifice

Discussing the TOP CANDIDATES for POPE with Lila Rose

<div>Let’s say I’m being abused by my spouse. Since the Catholic Church doesn’t allow divorce, but a civil divorce is necessary for an annulment, what should I do?</div><div>The Church does not forbid a civil divorce when it is sadly necessary to protect one or both of the parties. However, the Church does not recognize a civil divorce as ending the bond of marriage. Thus there is the necessity of an annulment, which determines that there was never a true marriage in the first place. The marriage bond can never be broken by a civil decree, and the Church annulment does not break the bond, it simply declares that the bond never actually existed morally.
</div>

What Should I Do if My Spouse Is Abusive?

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

My “Devil’s Advocate Debate” on Abortion

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent highlights the most iconic sitcom families for the last sixty years.

The TV Families We Grew Up With

Episode 136: The Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul
In today’s episode, we look at some details from the second reading and Gospel reading for this upcoming Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul that are relevant for doing apologetics. The first detail, which is found in the second reading—taken from 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 17-18, relates to apologetical discussions on the topic of purgatory. The detail in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Matthew 16:18-19, relates to Peter’s role as the “rock” of the Church—the visible foundation of Jesus’ Church here on earth, and his infallibility.
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/062925-Mass.cfm">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>

Peter the Rock, Paul and “That Day”