Manage Account

Today is February 29—that extra day in February that turns every fourth year into a leap year.
Why do we have a leap day? Well, that question comes back to why we have a year at all. The seasons, the day, and the year are the primordial units of time, mentioned as part of the structure of creation in Genesis 1:14.
The Genesis writer doesn’t reflect on how those units of time come about and recur. He takes their repetition as a divine gift.
But our faith is not blind, ignoring reason. Not only did man experience the recurrence of those fixed times, but he eventually also asked why they recurred.
That led to man looking at the heavens, “the work of [God’s] hands” (Ps. 8:3), “declaring the glory of God” (19:1-2) not only in their magnificence, but also in their workings and order. The day was not just the daily commute of Helios across the sky, nor the seasons just some eternal cycle . . . because the year saw those “cycles” repeat themselves through advancing time.
That idea of time’s advance, not just its eternal recycling, is necessary to any concept of history. Without it, “all the world’s a stage” on which all men and women are reincarnated players, or . . . well, “life is hard, and then you die.” The Christian (and Jewish) concept of time rules out re-incarnation (an eternal return). But it does make possible the Incarnation—not just of Christ, but of every man, given freedom and a gift of time, to create (or fail to create) a unique work of art called love.
Eventually, those Jews and Christians also got to the how of the days, seasons, and years. The day is the product of rotation. The year is the product of revolution of the earth around the sun, while the seasons are how a particular piece of geography stands in relation on its earthly axis to the sun. The earth’s revolution from point A back to point A was taken as 365 and one quarter days, so, voilà: a quarter of a day every year added up to an extra day every four.
Alas, the earth’s revolution is not quite 365.25 days—i.e., 365 days and 6 hours. It’s 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds—a little more than 11 minutes short of a quarter-day. That may not seem like much to man, whose life is “seventy years, or eighty for those who are strong” (Ps. 90:10), but over those seventy years, the calendar outruns the sun by about twelve hours—half a day.
Again, that might not seem like much. Julius Caesar started leap years in 45 B.C. By the time we get to Pope Gregory XIII, of Gregorian Calendar of 1582 fame, those 11 minutes per year had accumulated to 12.5 days. That meant the sun and the calendar were out of alignment by nearly two weeks, resulting in the sky saying “spring’ but the calendar “winter,” both facts relevant for <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-pope-vs-tradition">fixing Easter</a>. If you want proof of the problem, consider the dissonance between feasts like Easter and Christmas in the Catholic Church and those Orthodox churches (e.g., Russia’s) still clinging to the Julian Calendar, now about fifteen days out of solar alignment.
Pope Gregory XIII <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-day-the-church-altered-time">applied faith and reason</a> through a minor modification to the leap year rule. A leap year is any year evenly divisible by four. Gregory added a corollary: no centennial year can be a leap year unless it’s also divisible by 400. So 2000 was a leap year; 2100 will not be. That little trick will keep calendar and sun aligned for several thousand more years.
So faith, reason, and the calendar have a lot to do with leap year. But so does calendar “reform.”
As noted above, the day, seasons, and years are experienced as primordial units of time, connected to the sun, the “greater light to rule the day” (Gen. 1:16). The “week” is a bit less obvious. It more or less approximates half-phases of the moon, “the lesser light to govern the night.” But the week acquired its fixed dimensions in the Genesis 1 creation account as the unit of time marked by the recurrent “Lord’s Day” every seventh.
The year—365 or 366 days—is not evenly divisible by seven, one consequence of which is that dates are moveable in relation to days. February 28 was a Wednesday this year; it’ll be a Friday next year. That means calendars need to be changed annually. Afficionados of efficiency don’t like that.
There have been proposals to create something called a “perpetual calendar,” where particular dates would always fall on the same day. One version would start every quarter of the year (e.g., January, April, July, and October 1) on a Sunday, each quarter having ninety-one days. That gives 364 days. To keep day and date aligned, the 365th (and, every four years, 366th day) would be some sort of “universal” dates, days independent of the week. They would be dates, but they would not correspond to any week-days.
The “Appendix” to Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) declares a willingness to accept a perpetual calendar, provided two conditions are honored: retention of the seven-day week and no dates outside the seven-day week.
The history of the calendar has been marked by conscious attempts to eliminate the week, primarily out of animus toward its religious origins. That was the driving force in both the French Revolutionaries’ and Bolsheviks’ calendars. The question today is whether Christians, for whom the distinctiveness of the “Lord’s Day” has withered, can withstand any organized push against creating a more “efficient” calendar not arranged by “non-inclusive” vestiges of once-dominant religions. In that regard, the protection of the seven weekdays of a seven-day week is important. It’s why we should thank God it’s Thursday . . . February 29!

The Lowdown on Leap Years

<div>When did celibacy become a discipline of the church? My Syrian Orthodox friend says it was "invented in the Middle Ages" and not biblical.</div><div>Jesus Christ, the great high priest of heaven (see Heb. 8:1-3), lived celibacy as a man and recommended celibacy for those who would serve him in the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:10-12). In addition, St. Paul, one of the earliest apostles, also extolled the virtues of celibacy, both for those devoted to serving the kingdom like himself and for Christians in general (1 Cor. 7:6, 32-40). So far from being invented in the Middle Ages, Christ exhorted the practice of celibacy in serving the kingdom and the early Church accordingly preached and practiced it.
Celibacy has long been allowed as a tradition in the East, of which the Syrian Orthodox and other Orthodox Churches have their ecclesiastical roots, though with certain provisions (e.g., no marriage after ordination and no married bishops). However, the Church’s <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html">disciplinary actions at the ecumenical councils of Lateran I and Lateran II in the 1100s were reforming disciplines re: priestly celibacy, not innovative ones</a>.
For more on celibacy and the priesthood, see <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html">this historical overview posted on the Vatican website</a>, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/celibacy-and-the-priesthood">our Catholic Answers tract</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-argue-for-priestly-celibacy">this article by Jason Evert</a>.
</div>

Was Priestly Celibacy “Invented in the Middle Ages?”

<div>Can the Annunciation be moved to a permanent date out of the shadow of Divine Mercy Sunday?</div><div>The date of the Feast of the Annunciation is March 25. In 2018 March 25 was Palm Sunday and then Holy Week, and the Octave of Easter took precedence over the feast, and so it was moved to April 9.
You might also recall that the feast was moved in 2016 because Good Friday fell on March 25.
While this happens occasionally, the feast usually is able to remain on March 25. Over the next twelve years the feast will need to be moved only three times (in 2024, 2027, and 2029).
In the Latin Church, it has been almost always and universally celebrated on March 25, with evidence going back the seventh century.
</div>

On What Date Do We Celebrate the Annunciation?

Maybe you&#8217;ve heard the claims that Christmas is on December 25th because of some pagan festival: either Saturanlia, or Sol Invictus, or the birthday of Mithras, or some such. But is that really true? Joe unpacks the lies and falsehood spread by the &#8220;Living Church of God&#8221; in their video &#8220;Christmas Is Pagan—Here&#8217;s Why It Matters &amp; What You Should Do About It.&#8221;

Christmas Is Pagan Rebutted

In this thought-provoking clip, Cy Kellett engages with Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin as they tackle a challenging question about the morality of sacrificing a child to God, drawing parallels to the story of Abraham. Jimmy skillfully navigates the complexities of this inquiry, highlighting the horror of such an act while encouraging deeper reflection on the nature of faith and morality. Join them as they explore this sensitive topic with clarity and insight.
Transcript:
Cy: Should I kill my child as a sacrifice to God? If God will ask me to do that, like he asked Abraham. This is a question I once got from an atheist, and I never found a good answer.
Jimmy: So there are a number of ways we could approach this question, and it&#8217;s basically being used. It&#8217;s probably not a sincere question coming from the atheist. It&#8217;s probably being used as an attack on Christianity and Judaism.
And one way of dealing with it, which is not actually the answer I&#8217;m going to propose, but one way of dealing with it would be to turn the situation around on the atheist. This could be useful for purposes of helping the atheist think a little more broadly, because the idea of killing your child is utterly horrific to us.
And frankly, it would have been utterly horrific to Jewish people in the Old Testament too. So that&#8217;s really what&#8217;s given this objection its force: the intuition that we have today that killing a child, especially your own, is utterly horrific. And I&#8217;m not saying it&#8217;s not. It is.
But it could be useful to help the atheist think a little more broadly. By saying so, can you imagine any situations where you might undertake action that would lead to the death of your child?
Let&#8217;s suppose that your child has a horrible, incurable, lingering disease that is causing your child to have enormous pain. Well, there are various people today, and actually I oppose these people, but there are people today who would say if this child is in just enormous unending agony, then they should be put out of their misery.
And there would be people who would advocate euthanasia for such a child. Those people tend to be common, or at least more common among atheists. So I think it could be helpful to say to the atheist, you know, could you imagine euthanasia in that kind of situation?
Now, I believe euthanasia is immoral, but the atheist may not. And that may help open the atheist&#8217;s eyes. What would not be immoral in my view is palliative care, where you give pain-relieving drugs to the child, even knowing that taking those pain-relieving drugs may hasten their death.
But you&#8217;re not actively trying to kill them; you&#8217;re trying to relieve their pain. The same thing applies at the other end of life with older people. They can take pain-relieving drugs even though it may hasten their death, as long as they&#8217;re not directly causing the death. What you&#8217;re trying to do is just relieve the person&#8217;s pain.
So palliative care is different than euthanasia, but with euthanasia, there are many atheists who don&#8217;t have a problem with it. And so you can then say, well, okay, so what if it turns out that God is real and your child is in this circumstance, and God tells you, &#8220;Hey, your child is in enormous pain and is going to remain in enormous pain. You should just go ahead and use euthanasia.&#8221; Would you obey God then?
A lot of atheists at that point might say, yeah, if God really spoke to me and told me that this is the best thing for my child, I would do it. I&#8217;d be surprised to get a phone call from God like that. But, you know, if this were the circumstance, I could see doing this.
Okay, now that&#8217;s not how I would approach the situation, but this could help open the mind of the atheist to thinking about this a little more broadly instead of just leaping to condemn Judaism and Christianity.
So now let me step back and answer the question from a Jewish Christian perspective. There have been two general approaches to answering this type of question, and it doesn&#8217;t just apply to this; it applies to other things too.
But the two positions are divided based on the question: Is taking innocent human life an intrinsic evil, meaning it&#8217;s always wrong? One school of thought, represented for example by St. Thomas Aquinas, says no, taking innocent human life is not always wrong.
All life is a gift from God, so it&#8217;s up to God to determine how much of that gift we receive. It&#8217;s also up to him to determine the circumstances by which life ends. So if God tells us in a particular case to take life, it&#8217;s legitimate to do that.
He&#8217;s just saying, okay, this person&#8217;s got this much of the gift; now&#8217;s their time to die. I&#8217;ve chosen you to be the means through which they die. So go ahead and kill this innocent person.
That&#8217;s how Aquinas and various other thinkers in Christian history would look at the sacrifice of Isaac. They would say that God really did tell Abraham to do this. It wasn&#8217;t ultimately God&#8217;s will that he go through with it, but it was morally legitimate for Abraham to receive this instruction from God and act on the assumption that he is going to go through with it.
Now, the author of the Book of Hebrews notes that, because he didn&#8217;t say this explicitly, but he notes that in this event, he says Abraham considered God able to raise the dead. That&#8217;s presumably based on the inference that God had promised that Abraham&#8217;s seed would be reckoned through Isaac, and Isaac hadn&#8217;t had any kids yet.
So if God&#8217;s gonna fulfill his promise to Abraham and Abraham kills Isaac under God&#8217;s instruction, well, then God must be gonna raise Isaac from the dead, so he&#8217;s not gonna be permanently dead. He&#8217;ll be able to continue to go on and have descendants through which Abraham&#8217;s line will be reckoned.
So that also changes the moral complexity of the situation, if that&#8217;s the kind of thing that Abraham was envisioning.
So that&#8217;s school number one of how to approach this: that taking innocent life is not always wrong. If God really tells you that he&#8217;s determined that the person is to receive this much of the gift of life and so forth, the other school would say no, taking an innocent human life is always wrong.
Therefore, this passage is not to be taken in the straightforward historical way that the first school takes it. Instead, it&#8217;s teaching us a lesson.
So what lesson? One or more lessons? What lessons would this story be teaching us? Well, number one, it&#8217;s teaching us that God was willing. I&#8217;m sorry, that Abraham was willing to be very faithful to God, even at personal cost. Okay, that&#8217;s a good thing.
But what else is it teaching us? That God does not want child sacrifice? Because there were ancient Near Easterners who, like, burned their children to Moloch and so forth. They were even doing that in. Even though it would be horrifying to many Israelites, there were some that actually did it.
There was a place in the Valley of Hinnom, right next to the temple in Jerusalem called the Tophet. At the Tophet, they would do child sacrifice. Because there was this presence in Israel at the time of child sacrificers, a clear message needed to be sent that this is not what God wants.
So how can you convey that message? Well, one way would be taking the patriarch of all of us, Abraham, and showing him in a situation where God rejects this. That&#8217;s the actual interpretation that I would take of the passage. I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s meant as a straightforward historical account.
I think it&#8217;s meant to teach us that faithfulness is good, but don&#8217;t let that turn into child sacrifice. God will provide something else.
Cy: Marcin, thank you very much. I hope that that was a helpful answer to you. I do appreciate the question. Lots more questions to get to.

What If God Asked You to Kill Your Child?

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?

Is Sola Scriptura Self Refuting?

Why do Catholics believe they need the eucharist to be saved?

How are the gentiles in Romans 2 saved?

If the bible says drinking blood is a sin, then why is drinking the blood of Jesus not a sin?

&#8220;Is Sola Scriptura self-refuting?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the foundations of Scripture&#8217;s authority, while also addressing why Catholics believe the Eucharist is essential for salvation. Additional topics include the salvation of Gentiles in Romans 2 and the theological implications of drinking the blood of Jesus despite biblical prohibitions.
<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>

Is Sola Scriptura Self-Refuting? Eucharist and Salvation

In Matthew&#8217;s Gospel, Jesus seems to soften his usual crystal-clear teaching against divorce. But what is he saying? Is he saying that adultery is an exception that allows for divorce? Karlo Broussard tackles this tough question.

Did Jesus Allow Some Divorce?

Karlo Broussard discusses the ideas that theologians throughout history have proposed about whether Purgatory is a physical place.

Where Is Purgatory?

<div>Are Eastern Orthodox canonizations valid? Like the Romanov royal family, for example?</div><div>There are several saints in the offical Roman rite martyrology published under St. John Paul II who lived after the Great Schism of East and West—for example, Sts. Boris and Gleb and St. Sergius of Radonezh in Russia. Some of the Byzantine rite usages, for example, venerate St. Gregory Palamas, whose office is in an appendix in the office book published for Greek Catholics in Italy. So the simple answer is yes, the Catholic Church would generally accept the veneration of Orthodox saints in the case where there is a reconciliation of the communities. This seems to be the case with St. Seraphim of Sarov for Russian Catholics under St. Pius X.
A lot of this is just a question of local custom. This does not mean the Catholic Church would approve of all the actions or teaching of these saints, any more than it does for its own officially canonized saints. It is clear, however, that this attitude is not reciprocated by the Orthodox for Catholic saints. An example of this is the patriarch of Constantinople&#8217;s Orthodox canonization of St. Stephen of Hungary just a few years ago; St. Stephen was canonized already in the twelfth century!
</div>

Are Eastern Orthodox Canonizations Valid?

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

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

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

Should Christians avoid AI / ChatGPT?

Late last year, the <a href="https://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/mission/ambassadors-for-christ/">Archdiocese of Southwark</a> (pronounced SUTH-irk) in southern London announced the <a href="https://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/mission/ambassadors-for-christ/">Ambassadors for Christ</a> apologetics program for 2026. Delighted to find a fellow laborer in the apologetics vineyard, Catholic Answers reached out with some questions, which the archbishop graciously agreed to answer.
Apologetics—explaining and defending the Catholic faith—succeeds best when clergy and laity bring their respective strengths to the endeavor. With gratitude to His Excellency for his time and his thoughtful answers, we provide our interview with Archbishop John Wilson below.

This Diocese Cracked the Code on Conversions

<div>Does the church teach that someone who left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church can still go to heaven? </div><div>That depends on whether they die in a state of grace or not. Leaving the Catholic Church is certainly grave matter, but, to be subjectively guilty of mortal sin, a person needs to have committed grave wrongdoing with full knowledge and complete consent (CCC 1857-59).
And to not be saved, a person needs to persevere in that state of mortal sin until death, which may not be completely manifest when they die. Ultimately, God judges souls. And we pray for their reconciliation in the interim. See also CC 846-48.
</div>

Can Catholic Who Joined Orthodox Church Be Saved?

Is asking saints for prayers divination?

Who is Melchizedek, the mysterious figure mentioned in the Bible? In this excerpt from Catholic Answers Live, Joe Heschmeyer explores the significance of Melchizedek in both the Old and New Testaments. He discusses Melchizedek&#8217;s unique priesthood, his connection to Jesus Christ, and the symbolism surrounding his encounters with Abraham.
Transcript:
I came in this church about four years ago and in some passages in the Bible, for example, the 110 Psalm, there&#8217;s a phrase in there and I&#8217;ve seen it in a few other places in the Bible that says, &#8220;Was a priest like Macalzadek of old?&#8221;
And I&#8217;m wondering, who was Macalzadek and why is he being referenced in the Bible and scriptures?
Oh, thank you, Ken. I love that question, Ken. And first of all, welcome home. I get to call you a little brother in the faith because Evelyn, you&#8217;re a four-year-old. So it&#8217;s good to be here. Welcome home, little brother. Yeah.
Second, if you want a good&#8230; The first time&#8230;
Hey, let me start by saying this. Melchizedek is super mysterious and that&#8217;s one of the reasons the biblical authors are drawn to him. You&#8217;ve got Genesis 14. Abraham, then Abraham is doing his thing and he&#8217;s fighting rival kings and he wins a battle. And then we&#8217;re told that Melchizedek, the king of Salem, now Salem means peace, brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High. So he&#8217;s not a pagan priest. He&#8217;s a true priest of the God of Abraham.
He&#8217;s described as both a priest and a king. He&#8217;s the king of peace.
And then he blesses Abraham and says, &#8220;Blessed be Abraham by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.&#8221;
And so this is already pretty strange. What is he doing blessing Abraham or Abraham? And then Abraham ties to him a tenth of everything he has.
And so that&#8217;s the starting point. That&#8217;s how we&#8217;re introduced to Melchizedek.
And then in the Psalms, we&#8217;re promised that the Messiah is going to be a priest like Melchizedek of old. What does it mean to say a priest like Melchizedek of old? The Jewish priesthood hadn&#8217;t been inaugurated yet. The Jewish priesthood is of the line of Aaron and it was a blood lineage. If your father was a priest, you were a priest under the Levitical tribe, the sons of Aaron.
In the case of the Messiah, he&#8217;s not going to be like that. He&#8217;s going to be like Melchizedek where he is a priest, but he doesn&#8217;t have his priesthood from an earthly authority like this blood lineage from Aaron. He&#8217;ll be a priest like Melchizedek of old. And Jesus has this. He is not one of the sons of Levi in terms of the genealogy we&#8217;re presented in the Bible.
He is a priest like Melchizedek of old. And so it&#8217;s not an earthly priesthood. It&#8217;s a heavenly one. And so Hebrews 7 talks about this specifically and points out how weird these different features are. And that Levi is actually a descendant of Abraham. So the fact that Abraham, the ancestor and forerunner of Levi, the founders of the Levitical priesthood, or the Levites from which the Levitical priesthood comes, the fact that he is tithing to Melchizedek shows that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham.
The greater blesses the lesser. So the fact that Melchizedek is blessing Abraham shows he is Abraham superior in some sense. The fact that Abraham is tithing to him shows the same thing.
And so whoever this mysterious figure is without a genealogy, without a lineage, without, I mean, all we&#8217;re told is he&#8217;s king of peace. He has no lineage. There&#8217;s something extremely Christ-like in this presentation of Melchizedek. And this is something that, again, I would point you to Hebrews 5, 6, and 7, especially Hebrews 7, focuses on this a lot, that this is fulfilled in Christ, that all of this is ultimately pointing to Jesus, who is the true king of priests, the true king of peace and our high priest, and the one to whom Abraham himself worships as God.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

Who Was Melchizedek?

<div>What is the Church’s official stance on the reported Marian apparitions in Medjugorje?</div><div>In a <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240919_nota-esperienza-medjugorje_en.html">September 19, 2024 note</a>, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-primer-on-medjugorje">approved the &#8220;spiritual experience connected with Medjugorje&#8221;</a> as a place of pilgrimage, while declining to make a judgment about the supernatural character of the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/twelve-things-to-know-about-private-revelations">alleged private revelations</a> associated with the shrine:
<blockquote>The uniqueness of the place lies in the large number of such fruits: abundant conversions, a frequent return to the sacraments (particularly, the Eucharist and Reconciliation), many vocations to priestly, religious, and married life, a deepening of the life of faith, a more intense practice of prayer, many reconciliations between spouses, and the renewal of marriage and family life. It should be noted that such experiences occur above all in the context of pilgrimages to the places associated with the original events rather than in meetings with the “visionaries” to be present for the alleged apparitions (3, emphasis added). . . .
While this does not imply a declaration of the supernatural character of the phenomenon in question (cf. <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240517_norme-fenomeni-soprannaturali_en.html">Norms</a>, art. 22, §2)—and recalling that the faithful are not obliged to believe in it—the Nihil obstat indicates that the faithful can receive a positive encouragement for their Christian life through this spiritual proposal, and it authorizes public acts of devotion. Such a determination is possible insofar as many positive fruits have been noted in the midst of a spiritual experience, while negative and dangerous effects have not spread among the People of God (38). . . .
In any case, may the people who go to Medjugorje be strongly advised that pilgrimages are not made to meet with alleged visionaries but to have an encounter with Mary, the Queen of Peace, and—faithful to her love for her Son—to encounter Christ and listen to him through meditation on the Word, by participation in the Eucharist, and in Eucharistic Adoration, as happens in so many shrines spread all over the world in which the Virgin Mary is venerated with the most varied titles (41).</blockquote>
<div>The DDF has authorized the publication of the messages associated with the reported apparitions at Medjugorje, granting a nihil obstat—which means that nothing in them is contrary to Church doctrine on faith and morals (39). At the same time, in the same paragraph, the DDF adds, &#8220;The special Apostolic Visitor for the parish of Medjugorje, who will continue to carry out the functions entrusted to him, should verify that this Note is included as an Introduction in any publication that collects the messages (emphasis added). <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240919_nota-esperienza-medjugorje_en.html">In other words</a>, to reaffirm, &#8220;the positive fruits linked to this spiritual experience are evident&#8221; (5). &#8220;Moreover, the positive assessment that most of the messages of Medjugorje are edifying does not imply a declaration that they have a direct supernatural origin. Consequently, when referring to &#8216;messages&#8217; from Our Lady, one should always bear in mind that they are &#8216;alleged messages&#8217;” (38).</div>
Here is a chronology of the events.
In June 1981, the Blessed Mother reportedly began appearing regularly to several children in the town of Medjugorje, which is located in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, then part of Yugoslavia. (The diocese is now part of the nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.)
In 1985, Mostar-Duvno’s bishop Pavao Zanic determined that the apparitions <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/bishop-pavo-zanics-orders-3916">were not authentic</a>, i.e., not of supernatural origin.
In 1991, the bishops’ conference of Yugoslavia ruled that the supernatural character of the reported apparitions could not be affirmed. This is different than a definitive declaration that there is no supernatural character.
Bishop Zanic maintained his position until his retirement in July 1993, when <a href="https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bperic.html">Bishop Ratko Peric succeeded him</a>. Throughout his tenure in Mostar, which lasted until July 2020, Bishop Peric <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/35544/local-bishop-the-madonna-has-not-appeared-in-medjugorje">consistently reaffirmed</a> the decision of his predecessor.
Bishop <a href="https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpalicp.html">Petar Palic</a> is the current Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, and he has not overturned his predecessors’ decisions.
The Holy See, consistent with the rulings of the local bishops, has allowed pilgrimages to Medjugorje—and <a title="Original URL: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-05/pope-authorizes-pilgrimages-to-medjugorje.html. Click or tap if you trust this link." href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaticannews.va%2Fen%2Fpope%2Fnews%2F2019-05%2Fpope-authorizes-pilgrimages-to-medjugorje.html&amp;data=05%7C01%7Capologist%40catholic.com%7C39bf46e6fa2b44fa6fc308dbc90eaa2a%7Cdd9faf74765b495cac09cabd182c95a7%7C0%7C0%7C638324837042670895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=AoTh0CGQClr9KrWF0beZ%2BxFHjXeiUy5JOpX1mFO1xGs%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="Verified" data-linkindex="0">in May 2019 Pope Francis formally authorized them</a>—provided they don’t present the reported apparitions as approved by the Church. The Holy See has also forbidden the faithful from participating in events where the reported seers present their reported apparitions as of supernatural origin (see <a title="Original URL: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/14-things-to-know-and-share-about-the-new-letter-on-medjugorje. Click or tap if you trust this link." href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncregister.com%2Fblog%2Fjimmy-akin%2F14-things-to-know-and-share-about-the-new-letter-on-medjugorje&amp;data=05%7C01%7Capologist%40catholic.com%7C39bf46e6fa2b44fa6fc308dbc90eaa2a%7Cdd9faf74765b495cac09cabd182c95a7%7C0%7C0%7C638324837042670895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=E3a%2BfgwtSIFkKmkBloReBoB2g4XIL1icHUBr%2F195dfI%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="Verified" data-linkindex="1">this</a> for more information).
Finally, to reaffirm the <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240919_nota-esperienza-medjugorje_en.html">September 2024 decision</a> by the DDF, those who have experienced a conversion—or deepening of faith—associated with pilgrimage(s) to Medjugorje should know that the validity of their experiences does not hinge upon whether the reported apparitions are declared of supernatural origin. Indeed, the sacraments are valid at Medjugorje, and the Blessed Mother can—and does—fruitfully intercede for those who seek her sincerely, wherever that may be.
</div>

The Church’s Current Position on Medjugorje

How can we reconcile Jesus saying that the Sabbath was made for man and the punishment of death for not recognizing the sabbath in the Old Testament?

How can I defend the Church that was Instituted by Jesus Christ, especially on the topic of saints and Mary?

Is St. Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam Papal bull statement infallible? If not, is there any dispute?

How do we know that Mary’s motherhood expands to the rest of us in the wake of Mary being given over to John at the foot of the cross?

I’m Protestant. How do Catholics reconcile Mt 6:7-11 and the repetitious prayers specifically the Our Father?

How do we respond to Orthodox rejection of the Filioque?

Would it be scandalous for me to attend the ordination of a married couple as priests in the Episcopalian church?

What advice would you offer me as someone who is in a mixed faith marriage?

Protestants often point to Matthew 6:7-11 to argue against repeated prayers—so how can Catholics reconcile this with prayers like the Rosary or the Our Father? Jimmy Akin explores this concern along with Catholic teaching on saints, Mary’s spiritual motherhood, and mixed-faith marriages.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

How Do Catholics Justify Repetitious Prayer Like the Our Father?

In this episode, Trent examines a recent survey of over 800 atheists about why they lost their faith and gives some tips for how to have productive conversations with young people who have serious doubts.

Why Kids Become Atheists

When we receive the Eucharist, are we receiving the whole of Jesus or just part of his flesh?

What is the proper Catholic view of speaking in tongues, St. Paul and Augustine seem to differ in their teaching?

Why in Catholic devotional prayer is Mary petitioned as the one that will crush the head of the serpent?

How does the Church determine the time to canonize

How does the Thomistic position of the treaties of Faith relate to the Thomistic view of the Magisterium?

&#8220;When we receive the Eucharist, are we receiving the whole of Jesus or just part of his flesh?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the nature of the Eucharist, alongside inquiries about the Catholic perspective on speaking in tongues, the role of Mary in devotional prayer, and the process of canonization in the Church.
<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 We Receive the Eucharist, Are We Receiving Jesus Completely?

Do Catholics believe you have to earn Heaven? #indulgences

In this episode Trent talks about three mistakes apologists, or anyone who shares the faith, can make if they’re not careful.

The 3 “Apologetic Traps”

<div class="page" title="Page 371">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 361
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;Why shouldn’t people of the same sex be allowed to marry one another?&#8221;
DEFENSE
It’s not so much a question of what should be allowed as of what is possible. Marriage involves a reality that can only exist between a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman that is oriented toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring (CCC 1601). No other kind of union is a marriage.
Since before recorded history, men and women have united to care for each other and to bring up children. That happens in every culture, no matter where in the world. In fact, a culture would die without those unions of men and women. Marriage is thus a human universal, an institution that is built into human nature.
People of the same sex cannot marry one another because any union between them would not have the reality that marriage possesses.
This is particularly obvious when it comes to procreation. Two men or two women cannot procreate. For new children to be brought into the world, biology requires the union of a man and a woman.
But procreation is not the only issue. Men and women are different in ways that go beyond reproduction. Both physically and psychologically, they complement and complete one another in a manner that two people of the same sex do not.
These differences also play an important role in raising children. By setting examples of true fatherhood and motherhood, a husband and wife provide the kind of environment that helps children grow and develop properly.
Even apart from procreation and raising children—as in the case of marriages that do not result in children due to infertility—the physical and psychological differences between men and women enable them to unite and thrive in a way two people of the same sex cannot.
In all these cases, and especially in the case of procreation, it is clear from nature that men and women are designed to be united with each other in a way two men or two women are not. For this reason, same-sex unions do not possess the reality of marriage, and it is simply playing games with words to call them marriages when they lack that reality.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Homosexual Unions Not Marriages

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent reveals a new way to watch your old favorites.