Manage Account

Patrick Lencioni discusses a Catholic approach to dealing with conflict, emphasizing most of all the need for humility and the desire to learn the truth rather than to win the argument.
Transcript:
Host: John in Wilmington, North Carolina, listening on Wilmington Catholic Radio, you are on with Patrick Lencioni, what&#8217;s your question, please?
Caller: Yes, I wanted Patrick&#8217;s opinion about a strategy for dealing with conflict. And here&#8217;s what I would suggest. It&#8217;s kind of a general thought process, is that through the clash of differing opinions comes the spark of truth. And a way that I&#8217;ve dealt with, in consultation, with others when we have differences, it could be personal issues between two people, it could be, let&#8217;s say social issues in the Catholic Church where people differ in their opinions about things.
And one&#8211;the steps I would say, and I&#8217;d like your feedback on this and your thoughts and then I&#8217;ll hang up once I share these. Number one is: first identify what are the spiritual principles that various people feel are related to whatever this issue might be; number two, agree that those are relevant principles that could be taken from Scripture, they can be taken from the Magisterium, can be taken from a personal experience; and number three, consult about those after you&#8217;ve agreed on them, and then begin to deal with what the real truth is, whatever that matter might be.
And the reason I say this is that if you identify spiritual principles and can agree on them, it&#8217;s kind of taking the ego out of the picture and now you have the essence of what are the issues that relate. Maybe you&#8217;re talking about how to deal with the poor, and happen and how we deal with the poor in our community for example.
Host: Okay John, let&#8217;s let Pat take a shot at that.
Patrick: That was great, John, I mean I there&#8217;s a lot of wisdom in what you said. And so I&#8217;ll just add some things to that. I think that that&#8217;s&#8211;when we talk about building trust before we engage in conflict, it&#8217;s about getting people to be vulnerable enough, and if you&#8217;re a true Christian and a follower of Jesus you can&#8217;t be anything but. This is what humility is, it&#8217;s like &#8220;I am NOT God, and I just want to serve God,&#8221; and we have that in common.
So if you do that, and if you start with prayer, and like, when you&#8211;when a church goes to have a difficult conversation about something going on in their parish, or if two people, priests or otherwise, want to have a good theological conversation because they&#8217;re not on the same page, goodness gracious, if two bishops sat down and said &#8220;I think you might be off on this,&#8221; if they prayed hard and said, &#8220;God send us your spirit and your truth, and take away our egos, and let us do what you want,&#8221; and they&#8217;re both eagerly seeking that, well you&#8217;ve got to figure that most of the unhealthy conflict is gonna go away.
And I think two things that I would say to people is, one, think about St. Francis of Assisi, who said &#8220;Seek to understand more than to be understood,&#8221; and we&#8217;re called to do that. And if we go into these situations seeking to understand where the other person is coming from, rather than trying to win the argument, we&#8217;re much more likely to do that. And then one of my favorite prayers is the Litany of Humility, that was written by a pope years ago, I wish I can remember which one, but which is just asking God to give you the grace to let go of the desire to be considered and understood, and to overcome your fear of being&#8230;it&#8217;s just to be truly humble.
And if you&#8211;if two people can sit down and agree that they&#8217;re here to serve Jesus, they pray together, humility is at the center of this, and they want to understand one another, this is&#8211;conflict is only gonna become the pursuit of the best answer in truth. The problem is when we engage in that without trust, without humility, without prayer, and without seeking to understand.
So I think what I&#8217;m saying to you, John, is your thoughts are great, and I think it&#8217;s completely, completely about our faith, and that&#8217;s why churches should be better at making decisions than anybody because they should be calling on God to intervene for them every single time. So you&#8217;re right John, that&#8217;s my short long answer way of saying you&#8217;re right.

An Approach to Dealing with Conflict

Catholic Answers apologist Tim Staples addresses concerns about reading books by figures like Machiavelli, previously banned by the Church. While those bans are no longer binding, Tim emphasizes the importance of understanding the Church&#8217;s reasons and assessing your own spiritual maturity. He encourages informed reading for those strong in faith but advises caution for those susceptible to the presented ideas.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
Edward, thank you for the call. Go ahead with your question for Tim. Hi Tim. Yes, hello. Okay, so there was a recent book that I had been turned off of because I discovered that it included some work by Machiavelli and I understand that Machiavelli&#8217;s works were all banned by the church for quite a long time, even though it&#8217;s my understanding that that&#8217;s been discontinued. So I wanted to ask, would it be sinful to read literature by people like Machiavelli? No, it would not be sinful. But I appreciate your question, Edward, because I do think that we need to take seriously those, you know, documents from the church. The church is our mother. She loves us. And there&#8217;s a reason why the church banned those. And remember, we&#8217;re talking about a time when there was a lot of illiteracy. There was a lot of naivete, like we don&#8217;t have it today, right, Cyco? I think it&#8217;s with all the images, you know, from video and all that. I think we&#8217;re becoming less literate, not more literate. Yeah, it is true. And so we have to take those things seriously. But of course, from a canonical perspective, no, they do not have any binding force any longer. But yeah, I want to know what books were banned and what were not, but then I will read them.
And it&#8217;s okay to read them, understanding why did Holy Mother Church say no, because hey, there&#8217;s stuff in here that&#8217;s dangerous. But remember, even those, you know, lists of banned books, it didn&#8217;t mean that theologians and philosophers could not read them. That was a list, generally speaking, for the faithful. Hey, these things are bad. They can lead you astray. Don&#8217;t read them. But of course, the church had theologians and scholars and seminary professors and stuff that read them even back then in order to refute them, right? And so yeah, there&#8217;s nothing wrong with it, but we still have to take seriously. And I would add this, Cy, Kelly. Yes, Tim Staples. That if you&#8217;re weak in your faith, you shouldn&#8217;t. Now, I can&#8217;t tell you that, you know, this is a near occasion of sin for you and you can&#8217;t do it, but you need to be honest with yourself. I mean, it&#8217;s like porn. We all know, right?
You don&#8217;t look at porn because it can lead you and will lead you into sin. Well, in the area of the faith, if you read stuff that&#8217;s shaky, I know my son Luke, who&#8217;s listening probably right now, Luke loves to grab some of&#8211;he reads everything. My son reads every book in the house. My goodness, this kid is, he&#8217;s just a voracious reader, but he&#8217;ll pick up McCarthy&#8217;s book, you know, or some book like that. And I have to warn him, hey, you know, that&#8217;s not&#8211;that&#8217;s actually a guy teaching false teachings and whatnot. And so I warn him and then he can warn it. He can read it properly. And if he has questions, he can ask me. So that&#8217;s what we have to do is if we&#8217;re reading these things, we&#8217;re reading them in order to understand the world better so we can evangelize better.
Like, subscribe, and check out our livestreams 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.

Can Catholics Read Banned Books?

Typically, Protestants who believe in the “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/once-saved-always-saved">once saved always saved</a>” doctrine also believe we can “know” we have eternal life. And the knowledge here is taken to be knowledge with absolute certainty, i.e., having no possibility of error—as opposed to knowledge with moral certainty, which involves the possibility of error. They often <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-we-know-that-we-have-eternal-life">cite 1 John 5:13</a> for support.
There’s a corollary that goes with the above belief—namely, that if someone falls into grave sin, then he was never really saved in the first place. This often is posed as <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/meeting-the-protestant-response-how-to-answer-common-comebacks-to-catholic-arguments/">a counter</a> to a Catholic who, in trying to defend the idea that it’s possible to lose your salvation, cites a person whom most thought was truly a “born again” Christian and yet committed grave sin—e.g., adultery or apostasy.
It never occurred to me until recently that this corollary is incompatible with the belief that we can “know” we have eternal life.
Think about it: according to the above belief, committing a grave sin is a sign that a person was never saved in the first place. But here’s the question: do we have absolute assurance that, from this day forward, we will never commit a sin like apostasy that signifies we were never saved in the first place? The answer is no.
Now, if we don’t know whether we’re going to eventually commit such a sin, then we don’t really know with absolute assurance whether we’re really saved in the first place or not. We wouldn’t have such assurance until we die.
So, the belief that we can “know” with absolute assurance that we’re saved is logically incompatible with the belief that a grave sin committed by a “Christian” is evidence that he was never really saved in the first place.
Protestants who profess the above two beliefs must choose which belief they will keep. Which will it be? Our Protestants friends will have to decide.

“You Were Never REALLY Saved”

Is Halloween too obsessed with evil for Christians to participate? Is it <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-halloween-a-pagan-festival">descended from a pagan holiday</a>? Is it really contrary to faith or morals to decorate your house with spiders, dress up in a costume, and go trick-or-treating? Jimmy Akin gives the answers.

Can Catholics Celebrate Halloween?

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

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

Does Christmas fall apart without Santa?

FEMALE PASTOR calls Catholic show

Back in my Episcopalian days in the Deep South, I remember hearing a fascinating conversation between a mother and son on their arrival at church. The son was asking his mother about why they came. She began to tell him about how they come to learn about God, but he stopped her and says, “But mom, I already like God!”
There’s no special wisdom in this statement, just honesty. If you don’t believe in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, if you don’t believe in the Sunday obligation, if you think Christianity is just having a friendly attitude toward God and other people, it makes sense that, in the long list of priorities, it should fall somewhere below cleaning the house, helping the kids do homework, playing golf, and spending time with family. When all those other things are in order, and we happen to be well rested and not too busy, maybe we can make it to church. And what’s wrong with that? I mean, we already like God.
Is it our job to make people like God? That is, I suppose, one model of ministry, represented well by Amaziah in our reading from Amos. He is a court priest. His job is to fill the king’s ears with happy religious support. His job is to keep the peace in the name of God, or the gods, or whatever convenient powers happen to be at hand. And in today’s passage, that means rebuking the true prophet, Amos. Go back to Judah where you belong, he says. Maybe they’ll appreciate your prophecy there.
But for Amos, unlike Amaziah, this isn’t about personal gain; it’s about the truth. He is, by his own testimony, not a professional: he doesn’t come from one of the prophetic dynasties or the formal groups of prophets devoted to Scripture and prayer. He is not so different, maybe, from the disciples in today’s passage from Mark, where the Lord sends them out two by two. How are they prepared for this mission? By years of training and discipline, by mastering the latest evangelistic techniques and rhetorical styles? None of the above. Their preparation consists of simply watching and listening to Jesus. Their instructions do not include a complicated playbook or set of quotas—just a reminder to keep moving and not worry too much about it if they’re not welcome. Their goal, too, isn’t just to make people like God, but to lead people from shadows into truth, from knowledge to worship.
Let’s bring this back to the present. You already like God. Good. But our job, yours and mine, is not to like God, or even just to know God, but to worship God. Worship literally means to ascribe worth to something or someone. In our beautiful marriage rite, a man says to his wife, when putting on the ring, “With this ring, I thee wed; with my body, I thee worship.” To worship God is to live in such a way as to make it clear, to ourselves, and to others, that God is the source of all worth, all value, all goodness. Worship is a whole way of life. It flows from the altar, through the church, and out into the world. Worship is putting our loves in order; it is arranging our priorities and our lives—from our heads to our wallets to our loins to our feet—in a way that shows that God is the most important thing.
For Amos and the other prophets, worship is the end game. Modern people love quoting the prophets about justice, but injustice, for the prophets, is a problem precisely because it disrupts worship, because it suggests the finality of a world without God, a world without meaning or relationship. Justice is having everything in order—which is to say it is much more than punishment or prevention. The just world is a world ordered and oriented to worship. Worship is what we are for. It is why we were made. In the philosophical way of putting it, it is our final cause: our “meaning of life.”
There is probably no better way in this world to be prophetic than to act as if worship is the most important thing in the world. Prophecy involves both action and word—the ability to name, at times, behaviors that disrupt the Church’s worship. Amaziah shows that priests are sometimes incapable of doing this themselves. Amos the prophet, however, is “a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees.” He’s no cleric, that is. He’s a layman. But he is able to ask the right questions, the sorts of questions that laypeople today can and do still ask. What is the most important thing? Is it God, or is it not stepping on anyone’s toes? Is it God, or is it preserving capital? Is it God, or is it making life easier for ourselves? Is it God, or is it being safe?
You don’t need an advanced degree in theology to answer those questions. In fact, sometimes theologians (and I speak as one) can make things so complicated by nuance and distinction as to lose the point. God is the most important thing. Our lives find their ultimate meaning when they are shaped and ordered around the worship of God. So, despite the Amaziahs of this world telling us to stay in our own lane and not “force our religion” on people, we have to insist, like Amos, that actually all questions about justice and morality and human politics and economics come down to worship—in other words, to what we were created for. Those demanding that we keep “religion” out of the public square are declaring that, in order to talk about the journey, we have to forbid any discussion of the destination or why we are making the journey in the first place.
Whether we are called to the modern-day royal court, or to some other more ordinary place, Jesus sends us out on his business. The question isn’t whether we have all the right skills or the perfect techniques to win the day. The question is whether we are willing to go, or to be, where we are sent, trusting in our Lord—to reveal that the purpose of all things is only found in Christ.

The Meaning of Life

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

Do Catholics believe they must earn salvation?

Jeff Cavins and Father Mike Schmitz are now doing for the catechism what they did for the Bible. Cavins joins us to explain the value of the catechism in sharing the Faith.

Making Sense of the Catechism

Archbishop Alexander Sample discusses the role of listening in the mass and the various parts of the liturgy to which we can attentively listen.
Transcript:
Host: So we go to James in Dallas, Texas, listening online. James, your question for Archbishop Alexander Sample.
Caller: Hi there, Archbishop Sample. Anyhow, basically I was just wondering if listening is the most important role of a congregant in the pews; especially what I mean by that, listening to the homily or sermon and hopefully the priest will touch on a current topic and then what I call grounded in in solid Gospel teaching instead of so many people in the pews &#8220;praying, paying, and exiting,&#8221; as I like to call it. What is your overall view on that?
Abp. Sample: Well thank you James, that&#8217;s a very good and important question, I&#8217;m glad you asked it because listening, being receptive at at the mass is very much a part of that full, active, conscious participation in the Sacred Liturgy. And I think that&#8217;s, you know, listening and being what some might call passive during the Sacred Liturgy is like&#8230;in the minds of many liturgical people it&#8217;s sort of like the mortal sin of Mass is that you ever be in a passive mode. And by &#8220;passive&#8221; I don&#8217;t mean&#8230;that&#8217;s probably very much the wrong word to use. To be in a receptive mode, a receptive mode, to be listening, as James said, to be listening to the Word of God. To be listening to the prayers of the Mass.
I mean, how many of us, five seconds after the opening prayer of the Mass, the Collect of the Mass, can remember what the priest just prayed? Are we even listening to what that prayer says? The other texts of the liturgy are very important, and many of them deeply rooted in a long tradition. But to be in that listening mode, to be listening to the Word of God, to be listening to the prayers of the Mass, to be listening to, hopefully, what is a meaningful and spiritually uplifting homily. Sometimes also to be listening to the sacred music that is being sung. Sometimes the choir, or the schola, will be singing something that isn&#8217;t meant for congregational singing but is meant for choir.
But listening, being in a receptive listening mode to the sacred song, also is a form of active participation. This is what I was trying to get at earlier too, is this idea that we&#8217;re participating interiorly, we&#8217;re participating with our mind and our heart, but that means having open ears, open mind, open heart to be receptive to the Grace that that Christ wishes to give us through our participation in the Sacred Liturgy, so I think that&#8217;s a very important question.

What Role Does Listening Play at the Mass?

Catholicism seems to be rules obsessed.

How do I explain to protestants that they have tradition also?

It seems like Catholics are inconsistent with their interpretation of the use of the word “until” in Scripture.

How do Catholics reconcile the idea of a Catholic view of Jesus and Protestant view of Jesus?

What exactly is tradition?

Dr. Karlo Broussard answers common objections and questions about Catholicism, including whether the Church is too focused on rules, how to explain to Protestants that they also rely on tradition, and whether Catholics interpret “until” inconsistently in Scripture. He also discusses reconciling Catholic and Protestant views of Jesus and clarifies what tradition means in the Catholic faith.

Is Catholicism Too Focused on Rules? A Catholic Response

If there’s one thing Catholics and Protestants can agree on, it&#8217;s that whatever we believe can’t contradict Scripture. But some Protestants think the Catholic belief in <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption">Mary’s bodily assumption</a> into heaven contradicts John 3:13.
There, Jesus says, “No one has ascended up to heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” If “no man” has ascended into heaven, so the argument goes, wouldn’t that include the Blessed Virgin Mary?
The answer is no; and the reason depends on how we interpret “ascend into heaven.” There are three possible meanings, as far as I can tell.
<ul>
<li>One meaning is simply entrance into heaven.</li>
<li>Another is the unique way in which Christ entered into heaven—by his own power.</li>
<li>Still another is Jesus’ possession of the Beatific Vision.</li>
</ul>
My claim is that none of these meanings excludes Mary’s bodily assumption.
Let’s take the entrance meaning first.
We know Christ can’t be excluding absolutely everyone else from entering heaven, since that would go against other things he’s revealed to us (cf. Rev. 5:8, 6:9, 7:4-10). Therefore, he must be referring to the timing of people entering heaven compared to himself.
Now, remember, Jesus is saying this long before Mary’s bodily assumption. So, at the time this statement was uttered, it was true that no one had “ascended” into heaven in the sense of entering heaven, including Mary, because her earthly life hadn’t come to an end yet and she hadn’t been bodily assumed.
So, on the view that “ascend” means entrance into heaven, Mary’s bodily assumption doesn’t conflict with John 3:13.
Well, what about the other meaning for “ascend”—namely, the unique way in which Christ enters heaven? Wouldn’t Mary’s bodily assumption rob Jesus of that privilege?
It would if we believed Mary went into heaven in the same way as Christ. But that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. We don’t believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. Rather, she was assumed, which is essentially different.
The difference is that Jesus ascended into heaven by his own power. He was the active cause of his bodily entrance into heaven. Mary, on the other hand, was entirely passive, being brought bodily to heaven by God, just as all Christians will be bodily assumed into heaven by God at the end of time.
Given this difference between ascension and assumption, we can conclude that the Church’s teaching on Mary’s bodily assumption doesn’t conflict with the second possible meaning of John 3:13.
There’s one more possible meaning for “ascend”—namely, the beatific vision. One might interpret “ascend” in this way because Jesus’ statement seems to imply that he already “ascended” into heaven, for he says, “No one has ascended up to heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” How can Jesus have already “ascended” into heaven before his ascension in Acts 1?
The answer is the beatific vision. It is part of Church teaching that Jesus had the beatific vision while here on earth. So, he was “in heaven,” or “ascended into heaven,” even before visibly ascending into heaven with his resurrected body.
Now, on this reading, Jesus’ statement is not falsified by the belief that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. When Jesus said this statement, which was long before Mary would enter “heaven,” it was true that no one had the beatific vision. This statement was even true given that no righteous soul from the Old Testament had yet entered the beatific vision.
So, no matter how we read the phrase “ascend into heaven,” Mary’s bodily assumption doesn’t conflict with John 3:13. Thus, John 3:13 fails to disprove Mary’s bodily assumption.

Did Mary Break the Rules of Heaven?

<blockquote>Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly (Matt. 1:18-19).</blockquote>
So writes the Holy Spirit through the Evangelist, St. Matthew, in describing the virginal conception in the womb of the Holy Mother of God, Mary, and the ensuing, though temporary, decision of St. Joseph, her husband, to “send her away” quietly.
“Why was Joseph going to separate himself from Mary?” The immediate response may well be that he suspected her of adultery, but did not want to make this publicly known lest she be shamed and, indeed, stoned to death. Surely, as St. Thomas Aquinas references in his famous Catena Aurea, this was the response of some of the great Fathers of the Church to this question—e.g., John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine (see Catena Aurea, Volume I, The Saint Austin Press, 1997). Given the scriptural data, as well as these corresponding interpretations from such great authorities, we might consider this question settled.
However, not so fast . . . for there are some other considerations to be made in order to more conscientiously answer this question. This theory—the “Suspicion Theory”—is not the only “game” in town!
Aquinas, in his masterful commentary on the Holy Gospel according to Matthew and the aforementioned Catena Aurea, points out that in addition to the Suspicion Theory, there are two other interpretations of Matthew 1:19’s reference to Joseph’s decision to dismiss Mary.
The first, which we will call the “Confusion Theory,” holds that Joseph was not suspicious of Our Lady, but rather was simply confused as to how she was with child.
The other of these alternative interpretations, the one upon which we will focus here and which we shall call the “Reverence Theory,” holds that Joseph knew exactly what was going on—i.e., that this child was the promised Messiah and that Mary, the Holy Virgin Mary, his betrothed, was none other than the promised Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear as son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Proponents of this theory include such great ones as Jerome and Origen, as Aquinas references both in the Catena Aurea and in his commentary on this Gospel:
<blockquote>According to Jerome and Origen, he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary’s chastity; he had read in the Scriptures that a virgin will conceive (Isa. 7:14) and, and there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root (11:1); he also knew that Mary was descended from David. Hence he more easily believed that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And therefore, considering himself unworthy to live with such great sanctity, he wished to hide her away, just as Peter said, depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord (Luke 5:8). Hence he did not wish to hand her over, i.e., to take her to himself, and receive her in marriage, considering himself unworthy (see chs. 1-12).</blockquote>
Some may be inclined to think that this interpretation is an “overly pious” stretching of the true meaning of the Scriptures on this matter, ignoring the obvious meaning of divine revelation on this question. But is this so?
Before we answer that directly, we must remember that in order to interpret the Scripture properly, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches (see 112-114), we must be attentive to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church, and be attentive to the “analogy of faith”—i.e., the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation. It is only by employing these three principles that we can interpret the Scriptures properly, especially difficult passages.
We can now say that the Reverence Theory given by Jerome and Origen (and seemingly gaining popularity in the Church as time goes on) is hardly “far-fetched.” For if we utilize the aforementioned three principles of scriptural interpretation given in the Catechism, with the aid of the development of dogma, we today can realize just how holy the Mother of God is—i.e., that she is the Immaculate Conception (as she herself told St. Bernadette at Lourdes and as the Church has infallibly defined).
Furthermore, as the centuries progress, the Church seems to be very much growing in her appreciation of the holiness of St. Joseph. “The opinion that St. Joseph is <a href="https://www.ecatholic2000.com/lagrange/saviour/mother.shtml">the greatest of the saints</a> after Our Lady is one which is becoming daily more commonly held in the Church” (p. 277). In recent centuries, numerous papal documents have been written about him, greater importance has been given by the Church to his feasts, he has been given greater titles (e.g., “Patron of the Universal Church”), his litany has been expanded, and his name was added both to the Roman Canon and to the other Eucharistic Prayers. Consider, too, this strong statement made by Pope Leo XIII concerning Joseph: “As Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures” (Quamquam Pluries 3).
Thus, as the centuries roll along, Holy Mother Church’s eyes are penetrating more keenly into the holiness of these two key figures, Mary and Joseph, so closely connected to the incarnation of Our Lord. With that penetration, the Church is gradually coming to see that their holiness surpasses—far surpasses— the holiness of other saints.
This is an important point to make for our question. For, as Aquinas teaches (see Summa Theologia IIa-IIae, q. 60), the nature of suspicion is such that the more pure one is, the less inclined he will be to be suspicious of others.
Given all of this—the employing of the previous principles of scriptural interpretation given by the Catechism, the development of doctrine that the Church has undergone over the centuries on the high level of holiness of both Mary and Joseph, and the nature of suspicion—we can now simply ask an alternative question: “Would Joseph, being as holy as he is, ever suspect Mary, being as holy as she is, of adultery?”
Even if one still holds to the Suspicion Theory, such a one should, at the very least, be able to see that it is hardly unreasonable to hold to the Reverence Theory.
But if we in fact do hold to the Reverence Theory (as, in fact, the author of this article does!), we get a very different “picture”—one much “warmer”—of the great St. Joseph. We see a man who, contrary to being suspicious of the Immaculate One, is much more inclined to believe that she was, indeed, the promised Virgin of Isaiah 7:14 (a prophecy that Joseph himself helped fulfill—see Matt. 1:22-23). Further, it is his humility—not suspicion, but humility—that moves him to regard himself as unworthy of Mary (whom he would know to be the bride of the Holy Spirit) and her divine son! Further, if we hold to this theory, we can only imagine the joy that Joseph must have felt when he was told by the angel that he indeed was worthy to be the husband to the Mother of God and the virgin-father of her divine son: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife” (Matt. 1:20).
St. Joseph, worthy husband of the Holy Virgin Mary, pray for us!

Why Did Joseph Want to Put Mary Away?

<div>Did the Church change its teaching on whether non-Catholics can go to heaven?</div><div>No, the Church hasn&#8217;t. Problem is, that teaching has been misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented by various people over the centuries. For a good primer on the subject, see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/salvation-outside-the-church">our tract “Salvation Outside the Church.”</a>
</div>

The Salvation of Non-Catholics

Protestants believe the Bible is the only source for determining Christian truth. But as Karlo Broussard shows this belief is incoherent. If followed to its logical conclusion, Protestants would have to reject their knowledge of what Scripture is.
Transcript:
Protestants believe the Bible is the only source for determining Christian truth. This doctrine is called <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-protestant-achilles-heel">Sola Scriptura</a>, which is Latin for “Scripture Alone.”
But did you know that this fundamental doctrine of Protestantism is incoherent? Let me explain!
Notice the doctrine presupposes knowledge of what scriptura is—those books inspired by God that belong in the Bible. But if the Bible is the only source of Christian truth, then we couldn’t have such knowledge. Why? Because <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/proving-inspiration">the Bible never tells us which books are inspired</a>.
If Sola Scriptura were true, then we couldn&#8217;t know what scripture is. Do you see how it’s self-refuting?
Even if the Bible did give us a list of inspired books, and we believed the Bible was inspired, we couldn’t accept that list lest we be guilty of circular reasoning—“Why do you believe the biblical books are inspired?” “Because they say they’re inspired.” “Well, why do you believe them when they say that?” “Because they’re inspired.”
The only way to acknowledge the inspiration of Scripture and avoid circular reasoning is to appeal to an infallible Church established by Christ that tells us which books are inspired. But Protestants reject this idea, which gives rise to another conundrum.
If no infallible Church exists, and Protestants believe our knowledge that the biblical books are inspired is infallible, then we would have an infallible effect produced by a fallible cause, which is absurd.
The bottom line is Sola Scriptura is an unreasonable doctrine. So, of my Protestant friends I ask, “Why believe in a doctrine that can’t stand up to the scrutiny of reason?”
If you want to learn more about this topic and others like it, visit our website at catholic.com.
For Catholic Answers, I’m Karlo Broussard. Thanks for watching.

Why Is Sola Scriptura Unreasonable?

What happens if someone commits a mortal sin under baptism of desire?

When Pope Pius XII issued liturgical forms to include vernacular, what was the purpose of that?

Can Latin Mass societies begin the Easter Vigil Mass at a different time than is standard today?

Is it okay for me to use the New Oxford Bible translation for a Catholic Bible study?

How can we be so sure that Jesus wasn’t just using symbolic language during the last supper?

What is your advice on what I can do since I can’t participate in the sacraments as a non-Catholic?

Would a person that has to go to RCIA classes have to pay for the classes?

The World Health Organization says that no amount of alcohol is good for a person. How does this square with the Catholic religion and their use of alcohol?

Questions From Non-Catholics

<div>Does having a Mass said for dead person save them from hell at their judgment?</div><div>Having a Mass said for someone after death cannot save them from hell. The reason for this is that grace does not override our choices.
When we have a Mass said for a deceased person we are presuming he is at least in purgatory and that the Mass will help lessen or ease the temporal punishment due to his sins. In this case, we are assuming or hoping that the individual has repented of sin.
Someone who ends up in hell is someone who died unrepentant in a state of mortal sin.  Such a person has refused the grace and mercy of God and therefore has refused any benefit from the sacrifice of the Mass. A worldly and imperfect example would be if I gave you a coupon for a reduced admission to an event. In order to make use of the coupon, you&#8217;d have to actually be going to the event. The coupon is of no use otherwise.
</div>

Can Mass Save Someone from Hell?

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

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

Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer joins Thomas Graf to help a caller navigate tough conversations with Calvinists about salvation. Do Catholics believe in predestination? Can you lose your salvation?
Transcript:
Caller: I&#8217;d like to ask what would be the best scriptures to go to and church fathers to reference. Whenever I&#8217;m getting in discussions with some Calvinist denominations, typically with non-denominational people that I have discussions with, they&#8217;re more easier to come to understanding. But some of my Calvinist friends are pretty hard-headed, pretty similar to me.
Joe: Yes. So when you talk about this, are you looking specifically at predestination? I mean, there&#8217;s technically a lot of things that you might be in a debate about, but usually when people talk about Calvinism specifically, it&#8217;s typically the two.
Caller: The biggest things I think that I find myself discussing are predestination, eternal security, and baptism. Those are like the things that I&#8217;m always trying to navigate through.
Joe: Sure. So the first thing to know is that there is a sense in which we want to affirm predestination, that when anyone is saved, they&#8217;re saved because God has taken the initiative in their salvation. It isn&#8217;t just that he&#8217;s left the door open and waited to see who comes in; he&#8217;s gone out and he&#8217;s pulled people in. And so we want to affirm some common ground there.
And I think that&#8217;s worth saying partly because sometimes Calvinists think that we take the polar opposite view, something more like Pelagianism, and that&#8217;s not correct. So we want to say anyone who&#8217;s saved is saved because God has saved them. But nevertheless, anyone who isn&#8217;t saved is not saved because they have rejected God.
And so I think one of the points to stress here is this theme of what&#8217;s called limited atonement. And so the question would be, for whom did God die? Did he die just for us, or did he die for our sins only, but for the whole world?
And so First John chapter two would be one of the places I would go. In First John 2, John writes, &#8220;My little children, I&#8217;m writing this to you that you may not sin, but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.&#8221; And here&#8217;s a critical line: &#8220;And he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.&#8221;
He goes out of his way to make sure that you&#8217;re not going to think that Jesus only died for us. Now, there are plenty of places where it emphasizes that Jesus died for us. That doesn&#8217;t mean he only died for us. Paul says that Jesus died for him. That doesn&#8217;t mean Jesus only died for him, thank God.
And so anyone who is ultimately unsaved is not unsaved because Jesus didn&#8217;t die for them. They&#8217;re not unsaved because Jesus didn&#8217;t want them to go to heaven. And so you can look at all the other passages that talk about that, about how God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, about Jesus mourning over Jerusalem, not repenting. None of that makes any sense if he doesn&#8217;t want them to repent and has given them no means to repent and has actually closed the door to make it impossible for them to repent.
So I would stress those passages that you want to affirm, on the one hand, that everyone who&#8217;s saved is saved because God has taken the initiative, and on the other hand, that there really is this ability to resist and reject these tremendous gifts that God has given us. You know, if you&#8217;ve got a lifeguard, maybe you push yourself away from the lifeguard and you drown. That doesn&#8217;t mean that if you don&#8217;t do that, you&#8217;ve saved yourself. Of course not. The lifeguard saves you, or you kill yourself. And that&#8217;s how salvation works.
So that&#8217;s how I would kind of focus on that. There&#8217;s much, much more, obviously, that could be said on this, on the notion of eternal security, that if you&#8217;re saved, you&#8217;re never going to lose your salvation. That&#8217;s a really fun idea, but it&#8217;s just so obviously against Scripture.
I&#8217;ll give you a few passages. Second Peter 2. The entire chapter is about those who&#8217;ve been ransomed by Christ and then have denied him, and have brought upon themselves swift destruction. The chapter goes on to compare them to the angels who were saved and then lost their salvation. You may remember that.
And then, Second Peter 2, verse 20 says, &#8220;If after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first, for it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.&#8221;
&#8220;It has happened to them according to the true proverb: the dog returns to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.&#8221;
Now, you can try to explain that away with whatever backflips you want, but that passage is quite clearly about people who come to know Christ, are ransomed by him, are washed, and are brought into knowledge of the truth. They are, in other words, saved. And then they end up worse than before they ever got saved because they&#8217;ve rejected salvation.
And that&#8217;s not alone. Acts 8 gives you the example we can point to specifically: Simon in Samaria, Simon the magician. He believes and is baptized. That is the formula for salvation in Mark 16:16. And then afterwards, he tries to buy the spiritual gifts. He commits a sin that&#8217;s now named after him, the sin of simony. And he&#8217;s told that his money will perish with him. And he begs Peter to pray that he might be forgiven.
So he is saved and then is now in a place where he knows his salvation is imperiled. And Peter says he has at that point no company with them. We don&#8217;t know what ultimately happens to him, but it&#8217;s very clear that he enters right relationship with God and then exits it very quickly.
Hebrews 6 talks about how it&#8217;s impossible to restore to repentance. This is verse four: &#8220;Those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.&#8221;
This is again dealing with those people who&#8217;ve come to know Christ, they&#8217;ve been saved, and then they reject their salvation. Now, to be clear, Hebrews 6 is insane. It&#8217;s literally impossible for them to be saved. With God, all things are possible, but it&#8217;s talking about how they are, as Second Peter 2 says, they&#8217;re now in a worse spot than if they just never heard of the Gospel because now they&#8217;ve heard of it and chosen to reject it after having experienced it.
So all of those passages speak to this, I think quite clearly.
The last thing, because you asked for early Christian evidence as well. The passage that I would give you is from St. Justin Martyr in his work *The First Apology*, beginning in chapter 43.
At the time, pagans believed similar things to what Calvinists believe. They believed that there was fate and everyone was just fated. And so you have these famous works like *Oedipus*, where the more you try to resist the Fates, the more you just fall into their snares.
In response to that, the Christian response is that, no, we actually have free will and thus accountability. And in Justin&#8217;s words, he says, &#8220;We have learned from the prophets and we hold it to be true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man&#8217;s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our power.&#8221;
Excuse me, if it&#8230; yeah. Since if it be not so, in other words, it would be unjust for God to reward or punish anyone&#8217;s works, anyone&#8217;s behavior, if it weren&#8217;t for such a thing as free will. And so you can&#8217;t just chalk everything up to fate or predestination or some force that gets rid of man&#8217;s will completely.
And so it&#8217;s important to note he&#8217;s saying this in the mid-1100s; the earliest, say, 300 years of Christians are very clear on the fact that they don&#8217;t believe anything like a Calvinist idea of predestination. In fact, Calvinists who&#8217;ve gone looking for this have come up short with this.
I could give some examples on that as well. I&#8217;ll just give one. Sean Wright of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he wrote a piece called *Calvinist Before Calvin*, and he couldn&#8217;t find anyone amongst the earliest Christians. He points out Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, figures like this. They write about these themes and clearly don&#8217;t agree with Calvin on predestination.
So either the earliest Christians didn&#8217;t understand this important doctrine of grace, as they call it, or Calvin&#8217;s just misinterpreting this stuff a millennium and a half later.
Thomas: Prentice, thank you so much for that question. That takes us to our third break now.

Responding to Protestants on Predestination

Jimmy Akin explains the difference between actively causing suffering and merely allowing suffering, why God might do either, and how He always brings a greater good out of it.
Transcript:
Host: Courtney in Temecula, California listening on the Immaculate Heart Radio app, you are on with Jimmy Akin, What&#8217;s your question?
Caller: Hi my question is: Did God create physical illness? The reason why I&#8217;m asking this question is because I have a degenerative eye disease, and it has always been my assumption that it was the Christian God, and that he gave it to me for a reason because I&#8217;m a better Catholic because of it and I can do so many things because I have this disease.
Jimmy: Okay. Well, there&#8217;s not a single up or down answer to this question. In the Bible, we do see language that talks about diseases, like say, a plague, as if it was sent by God, as if He were actively causing it. But we also know that not all of the language that the Bible uses regarding God is literal. One of the things that we observe, when we make a careful study of how the Bible uses language, is that, particularly when talking about God, the Biblical authors, and ancient people in general, would speak as if God were actively causing things that we also have reason to believe he actually only allowed.
And an example of that actually concerns a plague. There&#8217;s a famous incident that&#8217;s recorded in the historical books of the Old Testament where David took a census of the people of Israel, which is construed as kind of a lack of trust in God. Like, he&#8217;s trying to raise an army and he&#8217;s going to trust in his army instead of in God, and so as a result of that there&#8217;s a plague that comes upon Israel. And David then makes atonement, he actually buys the plot of land that then becomes the site of the future temple, and so it&#8217;s a very important moment in Israel&#8217;s history, but what&#8217;s interesting is that this event is interpreted different ways in different historical books.
According to one passage, God Himself stirred up David to take this census; but according to another passage, the devil stirred up David&#8217;s heart to take this census. And both of them agree that it was a bad thing to do, because David then gets punished for doing it, but one attributes it to God and one attributes to the devil, so how do we square that? Well, the logical way, to my mind and to a lot of interpreters&#8217; minds, is to say that the ancients had a habit, because they wanted to depict God as strong and active, of speaking of God as if He were actively causing things when really He was only allowing them. And so the way to harmonize those two would be to say that, okay, actually, this was an evil thing and the devil stirred up David to do it, and God allowed the devil to do that. But because of the way they tended to talk about God, and kings in general as being very active and as causing everything in their kingdoms, it got framed in a different way.
And so that means when we encounter language about God causing illnesses, that we have to&#8211;we have this question: &#8220;Is this literal, or is it just a way of talking about God based on how people spoke back then, but really God&#8217;s only allowing the illness?&#8221; And there&#8217;s no definitive answer to that question. Moral theologians and philosophers have drawn a distinction between what&#8217;s called &#8220;moral evil,&#8221; which is sin, and &#8220;physical evil,&#8221; which is suffering, in essence. And God can&#8217;t cause moral evil because that would be morally evil for God to do. God himself would be sinning if he caused someone to sin.
But some&#8211;many Catholic theologians in history have said God could cause suffering because it&#8217;s not a moral evil. Suffering can bring benefits, I mean that&#8217;s why we have pain receptors in our skin, so that it can play a positive role in keeping us from hurting ourselves. You know, there are people who have a different condition called congenital insensitivity to pain, and they don&#8217;t feel pain. They can cut themselves, they can burn themselves, they can really injure themselves, because they don&#8217;t have functioning pain receptors. So because suffering can play a positive role, many theologians historically have said, &#8220;Well, God can cause that,&#8221; and so God could, without sinning, send suffering into someone&#8217;s life actively, as long as he&#8217;s bringing some good out of it. And so, Courtney, the interpretation that you&#8217;ve offered of your own condition fits with that. It fits with that interpretation. That&#8217;s a legitimate theological interpretation.
On the other hand, many theologians today have been hesitant to say God actively causes suffering even when there&#8217;s going to be a good that comes out of it. Many people have said maybe we want to look at look at it through the other lens, and say, really, God is allowing this suffering in order to bring a good out of it, but he&#8217;s not actively causing the suffering. And so on that view, God wouldn&#8217;t actively cause anybody&#8217;s illness or anybody&#8217;s death&#8211;and passages that talk as if He did would be, you know, according to the ancient mode of language but not literal&#8211;but he does allow those things in order to bring good out of them. Either way, there wouldn&#8217;t be any suffering or illness without God bringing some good out of it, but there is an open question theologically about whether God would actively cause such things or merely allow them.
Does that help you out, Courtney?
Caller: Yes it does quite a bit, thank you so much.
Jimmy: My pleasure, and God bless you, and we&#8217;ll ask the audience to keep you and everybody in similar conditions in prayer.
Caller: Thank you!
Host: Thank you for giving us that call, Courtney.

Did God Create Physical Illness?

How do you know you’ve committed the unforgivable sin against the spirit?

I’m in a bit of a crisis. I was set on being Catholic. Then I learned about the Immaculate Conception. How can we verify a tradition if it wasn’t a common teaching in the early church? I’ve heard there were seven popes that denied that teaching.

Do any NT manuscripts possess the 4 gospels in a different order?

My friend wishes she could have used assistant suicide with her parents. How could I explain to her that this is not a good option?

How do I counter my SDA friend’s argument saying since Paul was an acceptable prophet, Ellen White is also a valid argument?

My 11 YO wants to know, at what moment did God decide when to create humans or the universe in general?

&#8220;How do you know you&#8217;ve committed the unforgivable sin?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the nature of sin and forgiveness, while also addressing varied topics such as the validity of the Immaculate Conception, the order of the New Testament gospels, and the moral implications of assisted suicide. Each question reflects the complexities of faith and understanding within the Catholic tradition.
<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>

How Do You Know You’ve Committed the Unforgivable Sin?

It’s a forensic “free-for-all-Friday” as we learn about major breakthroughs in crime-solving that occurred in famous cases like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, the “brides in the bath” murders, and the “Howard Hughes hoax.”

Fascinating Breakthroughs in Crime Solving

EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD CELEBRATE ASH WEDNESDAY! #lent #ashwednesday2026

"Anyone who utters this kind of stupidity should be rightfully shamed and refuted..."

Featured Guests: Karlo Broussard, Gary Michuta, Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin
DONATE: give.catholic.com/castudios 
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.com/user/catholiccom 
WEBSITE: www.catholic.com 
Follow us on SOCIAL MEDIA 
Facebook: www.facebook.com/catholicanswers 
Twitter: twitter.com/catholiccom 
Instagram: www.instagram.com/catholicanswers
<ul>
<li>00:35 &#8211; Answering the claim that there is no scientific evidence for God– Karlo Broussard</li>
<li>07:46 &#8211; Exploring Early Christin History Through a Pagan Lens – Gary Michuta</li>
<li>15:15 &#8211; How to React to the Sex Abuse Scandal – Trent Horn</li>
<li>24:30 &#8211; Answering the Objection to the difference between “Petra” and “Petros” – Jimmy Akin</li>
</ul>

Catholic Answers | Season 4 | Episode 10

Signs of the Demonic

An early Lutheran theologian quotes Martin Luther as saying that “justification is the article by which the Church stands or falls.” The closest we find <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/luthers-saying/">in Luther’s own writings</a> is a slight variation: that “if this article [of justification] stands, the church stands; if this article collapses, the church collapses.” Luther’s fellow Reformer John Calvin agreed, <a href="https://www.monergism.com/john-calvins-letter-cardinal-sadoleto-1539">telling Cardinal Sadoleto</a> that it was “the first and keenest subject of controversy” between Catholics and Protestants, and that “wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown.”
So according to the first Protestants, the doctrine of sola fide, that justification is by faith alone, isn’t just an important doctrine, it’s the make-or-break doctrine for Christianity (both in terms of individual salvation, and the survival of the Church). Given this, it’s surprising that the Protestant theologian and Church historian <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.xviii.html">Philip Schaff</a> should concede that anyone trying to find “the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone” being taught in the early Church “will be greatly disappointed.”
But if the early Christians weren’t the ones claiming that sola fide was “<a href="https://www.crossway.org/articles/why-every-generation-must-contend-for-justification-sola-fide/">the heart of the Gospel</a>,” where did this idea come from? The history is fascinating, and perhaps not what you might expect. For instance, did you know Martin Luther didn’t originally believe this doctrine, even in his first years as a Protestant? As <a href="https://journal.rts.edu/article/luther-in-1520-justification-by-faith-alone/">Howard Griffith</a> of Reformed Theological Seminary points out, “Luther’s doctrine of sola fide in 1520 is closer to ‘union with Christ by faith alone’ than to ‘justification by faith alone.’” So even when Luther used the expression “sola fide” (“faith alone”), he didn’t mean by it what later Protestants (including Luther himself) would mean.
<a href="https://journal.rts.edu/article/luther-in-1520-justification-by-faith-alone/">Zondervan Academic</a> (the Protestant publisher) explains that “in the early years of the Reformation (that is, before 1535), Luther did not make a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification,” believing (as Catholics do) that justification is “both an event and a process.” Further, Luther originally “did not necessarily characterize justification in forensic categories. His metaphors for justification tended to be of the marriage relationship or the medical process of healing.” In other words, Luther was initially very “Catholic” on the question of justification…even as a Protestant.
Only in the latter part of the 16th century do Protestants rally around sola fide in the sense that it is understood today. But even here, it wasn’t because this doctrine originally inspired the Reformers. In the words of Zondervan Academic, it’s because “this was the one thing all Protestants held in common and the thing that distinguished them from Rome.” That is, the reason sola fide became “the gospel” for Protestants wasn&#8217;t because the earliest Christians (including those who actually knew the Apostles) understood the gospel to mean that. They clearly didn’t. Instead, it was simply the only non-Catholic belief that Protestants could all agree on. It gave the Reformers something that both (a) rallied all Protestants together, and (b) allowed them to distinguish themselves from (and condemn) Catholics…even if it meant turning a novel doctrine into the “heart” of the gospel.

The Heart of the Protestant Gospel

Should I go to confession if I don’t have any mortal sins, since my venial sins are forgiven at Mass?

How can priests keep all these confessions confidential? They see their parishioners all the time, how do they not slip?

Do you need to go to confession every time before taking communion?

When I confess my sins I don’t say how many times. But I heard I should be saying the number of times.

What are the mortal sins?

Regarding priests keeping the seal of confession — how would it even benefit a priest to talk about a confession, even if they don’t reveal who the person is?

I’m in OCIA and my wife isn’t. I’m trying to help her understand why we don’t just confess to our hearts directly to God.

I was baptized presbyterian and became Catholic last year. Sometimes I remember a sin from my pre-Catholic life that I didn’t mention in my first confession. Do I need to confess those?

If you have committed a mortal sin and die before going to confession, I understand you’re good if you have perfect confession. But what exactly is perfect contrition?

Is the withdrawal method a mortal sin?

&#8220;What does the Bible say about Confession?&#8221; This episode addresses the significance of confession in the Catholic faith, alongside questions about whether one should confess venial sins, how priests maintain confidentiality, and the necessity of confession before receiving communion. The discussion also touches on the nature of mortal sins and the concept of perfect contrition.
<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>

What Does the Bible Say About Confession and Mortal Sins

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent gives a sneak peek of the next six, that’s right SIX, books he plans to publish.

FFAF: My next six books

Does the church teach that Purgatory is a process or a place?

How can I reconcile purgatory and the final judgment?

What is the difference between OCI and RCIA?

What is the treasure referenced in Luke 18:25?

How do I defend purgatory with a Baptist who don’t have the book a Maccabees?

How many Saints pray for us?

How do you find out the name of your guardian angel?

Can you explain Hallowtide as we prepare for All Saints solemnity?

How to Talk to Protestants About Saints and Purgatory

The 8 Best “Conversation Moves” to Win Converts (YOU can do this…)

During my time as a pro-life evangelist, the organization I worked with was equally composed of Catholics and Protestants. At one of our December events, I asked a Protestant co-worker what she planned to do for Christmas.
“I don’t celebrate Christmas,” she answered.
“Oh? Why is that?”
She continued in a simple, matter-of-fact tone: “Because celebrating Christmas is not in the Bible.” Every other Protestant on our team still celebrated Christmas, but this young woman’s opposition to Christmas reminded me of the very first Protestants.
Throughout most of Church history, Christians did not exchange gifts on December 25. Instead, they celebrated the Mass dedicated to Christ’s birth (or “Christ-mass”). Gifts would be given on December 6, the feast day of the fourth-century bishop St. Nicholas, who was known for his extraordinary generosity. (This did not include leaving toys in poor children’s shoes—European parents celebrated that tradition much later on “St. Nicholas Day.”)
<a href="https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/vita-per-Michaelem.pdf" data-cke-saved-href="https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/vita-per-Michaelem.pdf">The earliest biographer of St. Nicholas</a> tells us that the plotting and envy of the devil had driven the saint’s God-loving neighbor into poverty. This man was now so poor that he could not afford a dowry for his daughters to be married. As a last resort, the man decided to send them to a brothel so at least they wouldn’t starve in the absence of a husband to provide for them after his passing.
Fortunately, Nicholas took pity on him and remembered, among other Old Testament scriptures, Proverbs 24:11: “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.” He then hurled three bags of gold through an open window of the man’s home, and the girls were married shortly thereafter. For the next few centuries, Nicholas was celebrated as a model of Christian care for the poor and became one of the most popular patron saints of the medieval period.
The Protestant Reformers, however, rejected veneration of saints like Nicholas and abolished the use of the traditional liturgical calendar. Philip Melancthon went so far as <a href="http://bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php?setSidebar=min" data-cke-saved-href="http://bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php?setSidebar=min">to say</a>, “The bishops, theologians, and monks applaud these monstrous and wicked stories [about the saints] . . . because they aid them to their daily bread.”
Some of the Reformers didn’t even celebrate solemnities about Christ. For example, when John Calvin saw that an unusually large crowd had gathered to hear his sermon on Christmas day, <a href="https://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=114228" data-cke-saved-href="https://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=114228">he told them</a>:
<blockquote>If you think that Jesus Christ was born today, you are as crazed as wild beasts. For when you elevate one day alone for the purpose of worshiping God, you have just turned it into an idol. . . . No day is superior to another. It matters not whether we recall our Lord’s nativity on a Wednesday, Thursday, or some other day. But when we insist on establishing a service of worship based on our whim, we blaspheme God, and create an idol, though we have done it all in the name of God.</blockquote>
Martin Luther was not as antagonistic toward Catholic rituals as Calvin or Zwingli, and he sought to keep ones that lacked overly “popish” influences. When it came to the tradition of giving gifts on St. Nicholas Day (December 6), he suggested that Christians celebrate the gift of Christ himself and exchange gifts on Christmas instead.
Luther’s suggestion did not include any representation of St. Nicholas, who remained a popular part of the Christmas tradition, especially in the Netherlands, where he was known as Sinterklaas.
To explain how St. Nick “stuck around” in the English-speaking world, we must look to late medieval England and its celebration of “Father Christmas.” He was originally a metaphor, like “Lady Luck,” and had no culturally recognizable appearance. But after a while, Father Christmas came to be depicted as a jolly, bearded man in a green robe who brought good cheer and merriment to adults (rather than children) during the Christmas season.
In the seventeenth century, after the English Civil War, Puritans who objected to “high church” practices in the Church of England rose to power. They sought to abolish all aspects of Christmas, which <a href="https://www.historytoday.com/chris-durston/puritan-war-christmas">they described</a> as having “trappings of popery and rags of the beast.” In order to appease them, the popular imagination slowly merged the figure of St. Nicholas with England’s Father Christmas until the celebration of Christmas became focused on a jolly, bearded man in a robe who brought good cheer, merriment, and gifts on December 25.
In early nineteenth-century America, every December, the Dutch continued to celebrate the arrival of Sinterklaas, whom Washington Irving described in 1809 with the English equivalent of “Santa Claus” (though he looked like an overweight sailor dressed in green). The rest of what we associate with Santa Claus comes from a variety of sources, including the 1823 poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” (or, as you probably know it, “The Night Before Christmas”), Harpers Weekly cartoonist Thomas Nast, and Coca-Cola advertisements—which ingrained into the American consciousness the image of a red- and white-robed, jolly bearded man with the goal of getting people, especially children, to drink soda during the winter months, when it wasn’t very popular.
And that, Virginia, is where “Santa Claus” began. However, the legacy of St. Nicholas doesn’t have to end there. Christmas can be a joyful time for Catholics to witness to our Protestant brethren, who would be shocked by Reformers who preferred “Bah, humbug” over “merry Christmas.” We can, for example:
<ul>
<li>Show them that “graven images” are not sinful, but help us remember the heroes of our faith so we can imitate them. After all, the same Protestants who object to statues in Catholic churches usually have no objection to mangers that depict the Holy Family.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Introduce them to saints like Nicholas, who help keep “Christ in Christmas” because, unlike Santa, they actually exist, and venerating them brings us closer to Christ. In the biography I cited earlier, the author says of Nicholas, “O the beneficial and beautiful purpose of all-blessed Nicholas! The care of his good-natured soul revealed in visible form a model of our savior Christ’s compassion toward us.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Help them overcome the idea that rituals are harmful to a faith that should be about a “relationship with God” by showing how their most important relationships are celebrated through rituals: Christmas services they get dressed up to attend, tree-lighting, gift-giving, and the singing of Christmas carols (<a href="http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141219-when-christmas-carols-were-banned" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141219-when-christmas-carols-were-banned">which the Puritans once outlawed</a>).</li>
<li>Show that Tradition is not opposed to Scripture. No Christian follows a strict form of sola scriptura, because everyone comes to Scripture with at least some non-biblical traditions attached to it (the least of which is the tradition of which books belong in the Bible in the first place). Traditions that contradict the word of God are wrong, but not sacred and pious traditions the faithful have handed on to us through the centuries, even if they aren’t explicitly found in Scripture. This includes the pious tradition of joyfully exclaiming, “Merry Christmas”—not just for one day, but for <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/catholics-keep-your-trees-up">an entire season</a> that celebrates the birth of our savior, Jesus Christ.</li>
</ul>

The Weird History of Santa Claus

It turns out that Catholic Answers Apologist Joe Heschmeyer is also a lawyer, so we asked him about the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed a Catholic social service agency to continue refusing to place foster children in the custody of gay couples. Is this discrimination? And what does this ruling suggest about the future of religious freedom?

Did the Supreme Court Allow Catholics to Discriminate?

What are the Odds that the Catholic Church will Reverse any of its Teachings?

How would Christ be able to atone for the sins of aliens if he is not able to incarnate as an alien?

Is it necessary for salvation to receive the Eucharist?

How would I respond to a protestant who claims the deuterocanonical books should not be in the bible?

Since all Catholics are of a royal priesthood, can a lay person in an extreme situation consecrate the Eucharist?

I’m an ex-Mormon. How do I discern divine revelation among Catholicism compared to Mormonism?

What do you know about the Jewish legend of the Golem?

What does CCC 677 mean?

Ask Me Anything

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?

In the late 1260s, when St. Thomas Aquinas presented the strongest arguments against the existence of God in the first part of the Summa Theologiae, the first objection he offered was that if “God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.” This is what’s known as the “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-horrible-suffering-does-not-disprove-gods-existence">problem of evil</a>,” and variations of it date back to at least Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.). In 2023, it remains one of the most common arguments against the existence of God. Some versions of the argument are stronger than others, though. Consider this meme:

At first glance, the argument might appear convincing: God sounds like the maniac from Philippa Foot’s famous “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem">trolley problem</a>,” who ties people to trolley tracks. But upon closer inspection, the argument is far from compelling—or even coherent.
Consider the second line: that as God, “you create some people, place them on a track and make a trolley hurtle towards them.” What does this represent, specifically?
On the one hand, you could interpret it to mean that God is evil for creating people in a world in which there’s physical pain and suffering (what’s sometimes called “natural evil”). But if that makes God “evil,”1 wouldn’t we also have to condemn all parents as evil, for bringing children into a world in which there’s pain and suffering? Even if you’re willing to take the argument <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/unless-youre-judas-anti-natalism-fails">to such an extreme</a>, the rest of the argument still makes no sense: it’s simply not true (at least in this life) that believing in God spares you from <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/job">pain and suffering</a>.
So perhaps we should understand it to mean spiritual evils: that God is evil for creating a world in which there’s sin and the possibility of hell. But if this is the interpretation, it’s simply untrue that we’re “tied to the track.” The whole point of sin and damnation is that <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/isnt-hell-incompatible-with-a-loving-god">we choose it</a>. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “to die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God&#8217;s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (CCC 1033). So a better analogy would be that we have placed ourselves on the track, the trolley is coming, and God is offering to move us off of the track. So will we trust him?

Does the Trolley Problem Work Against God?

Is Baptism Necessary?

Mark’s Gospel for today gives us a line that can easily become, in some circles, a cliché: he that is not against us is for us. Every generation has its figures who make this into some version of what we might call why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along-ism. Taken to an extreme, it suggests that the sacraments, and Jesus himself, are not of ultimate importance—they are simply one way to some other reality that can be affirmed or approached in other ways.
Of course, if we take Scripture seriously, we have to think about this in light of the seemingly contradictory statements we hear from Jesus in Matthew and Luke: he that is not with me is against me. And every generation has its figures who make this into some version of sectarianism. In their voyage to the new world, the Puritans apparently referred to themselves as “saints” and to the other people on board as “strangers”—because, you know, he that is not with me is against me.
As with all problems of scriptural interpretation, this is hardly a new discovery. One of the better-known commentators, the eleventh-century Byzantine writer Theophylact, insists that the contrast is in fact between the way Jesus treats humans and angels. This is appealing in a way, because the Matthew-Luke version adds, “He who does not gather with me scatters.” So this could refer to angels and demons, whose loyalties are definitely black and white, unlike human beings.
Bible scholars don’t tend to appreciate that interpretation much. And I think the mainstream Latin interpretation probably follows St. Augustine, whose reading makes sense to me. For Augustine, if someone does something in the name of Christ, insofar as he does something good in the name of Christ, he is for Christ. But if someone does something in the name of Christ while out of fellowship with Christ—that is, out of fellowship with his Church—insofar as he is not with us, he is against us. “Thus,” Augustine says, “the Church Catholic does not disapprove in heretics the sacraments, which are common, but she blames their division, or some opinion of theirs adverse to peace and to truth; for in this they are against us.” Augustine, you may remember, spent a lot of time dealing with schism and heresy in his day, and certain key parts of the Church’s understanding of the sacraments are indebted to him, like the Church’s willingness to recognize the sacraments of baptism and matrimony outside the visible bounds of the Church.
The fact is that the Catholic tradition both is very black and white and isn’t. Good is good, and evil is evil. But there are degrees of good, and degrees of evil, and human beings are mixed all the way down. We can do good things for bad motives; we can do bad things for good motives; we can do good things for good motives in bad circumstances; we can do good things with good intentions in good circumstances but be so weighted down by sickness due to past sin that these actions leave us no better off.
What’s left, I think, in light of our Lord’s teaching, is a certain flexibility and lightness of touch—not when it comes to the nature of reality, but when it comes to how it applies in the moment. You can try to treat the Bible, or the Catechism, as a rule book—which is kind of how I grew up seeing it as a Protestant—but there can’t be a rule for everything. The scriptures aren’t going to tell you when to set your alarm clock or what to eat for breakfast. Nor are they going to provide any concrete judgment on your own actions or another’s. The ways that some Christians try to do that—think of the whole “I’m going to randomly flip open the Bible and that will be God’s word for me today” approach—are fundamentally pagan and fatalistic. Christianity isn’t just a set of rules; it’s discipleship—which means following our Master and shaping our lives after him. I don’t mean to say that there aren’t rules, because any relationship has definite boundaries and expectations to it. But those aren’t the center; they’re the boundaries.
We could take this teaching on being “for” or “against” in several different directions. But here’s what I want to suggest today for how we might hear these statements: (1) When it comes to other people, remember Jesus’ words “whoever is not against us is for us.” (2) When it comes to ourselves, remember Jesus’ words “whoever is not with me is against me.”
In a way, this is just applying the hermeneutic principles of hypocrisy—take the log out of your own eye before removing the speck from your neighbor’s—to these questions of group identity and loyalty. But I do think it’s more than that. You see, the other kernel of these two teachings is that they both hang on Jesus himself. The point isn’t so much that we need to be in the business of going around labeling people as with or against us; the point us that all of us should be in the business of growing closer to Jesus and drawing others closer to Jesus. If we aren’t in that business, we are against it.
There really are two eternal directions: toward heaven or toward hell; toward God or toward the nothingness that we make for ourselves without God. But if this is really what we believe, there’s no time to spend a lot of effort worrying about who our enemies are. Our enemies are God’s enemies, and God can handle them, whoever they are. But there are so many people who aren’t against us who are desperate for God’s love, for the fellowship in his Church, and for the mysteries of salvation known only in the Catholic Church. We are not some fortress for the elect; we are a hospital for travelers and sinners, a refuge for the hungry and the lost.
O Sacred Heart of Jesus, mayest thou be known, loved, and adored throughout the whole world.
Heart of Jesus, burning with love of us, inflame our hearts with love of thee.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, thy kingdom come!

If You’re Not with Me, You’re Against Me

<div>What did the Council of Trent say about Mark 16:9-20?</div><div>In modern times, some scholars have considered Mark 16:9-20 to be a later addition to the Gospel of Mark.
The <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-history-of-the-council-of-trent">Council of Trent</a> indirectly addresses this passage in two sections.
In its fourth session, the Council mentioned that Jesus commanded his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature. This is a command of Jesus contained in Mark 16:15.
The same session also declared the entirety of all books found in the Latin Vulgate to be canonical Scripture.  Mark 16:9-20 is contained in the Latin Vulgate&#8217;s Gospel of Mark.
</div>

What Did the Council of Trent Say About Mark 16:9-20?

What is the Islamic Dilemma?

What are the theological differences in calling Jesus Yeshua and Eisaa apart from the linguistic differences?

Why does our leadership try to find so much common ground with Islam instead of highlighting the controversial side of it?

My sister converted to Islam. She sent us a video saying that sharia law is actually a scare tactic made up by Christians. What are your thoughts on this?

Do Muslims believe all Christians need to convert or be killed?

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? What about Christians and Jews?

What is the best way to evangelize Muslims?

&#8220;What is the Islamic Dilemma?&#8221; addresses the complexities surrounding Sharia law and its implications for evangelization. The discussion also touches on the theological differences in naming Jesus, the reasons behind seeking common ground with Islam, and the misconceptions surrounding sharia law as a scare tactic. Additionally, the episode examines whether Muslims believe all Christians must convert or face dire consequences.
<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>

What Is the Islamic Dilemma? Sharia Law and Evangelization

Why do Catholics not do full submersion baptism?

How does the Church defend the Pope from Orthodox objects, specifically Vatican 1?

The Filioque was a change, not a development and I think it was just wrong.

How do you refute the accusations of cannibalism?

Are the statements on the papacy from the Early Church simply honorific?

I still struggle with disagreeing with the pope without getting excommunicated.

Joe Heschmeyer answers key Catholic questions, including why Catholics don’t baptize by full submersion, how to defend the Pope against Orthodox objections, and whether the Filioque was a corruption or development. He also refutes accusations of cannibalism, explains early Church views on the papacy, and discusses if Catholics can disagree with the pope without being excommunicated.

How to Refute the Accusations of Catholic Cannibalism and More

I need help believing in the Trinity.

I was raised Protestant and my parents are anti-Catholic. Would it be dishonoring my parents to convert?

I’m not Catholic because of how Catholicism is practiced and not necessarily about dogma.

My one hang up to convert is adoration.

Is there any connection between Matthew 7:24-27 and Matthew 16:18?

&#8220;How can I believe in the Trinity?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the complexities of faith, including concerns about conversion from Protestantism and the potential conflict with family beliefs. Other topics include the challenges of Catholic practices versus dogma and the significance of adoration in the conversion process.
<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>

How Can I Believe in the Trinity? Why Aren’t You Catholic?

We don’t take born lives over life challenges, so why unborn?

A caller on Catholic Answers Live claims that Catholicism is a cult that worships the Sun. Joe Heschmeyer, Catholic Answers Apologist, refutes this claim and explains why the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Transcript:
Caller: I really think that the Catholic Church is a pagan church that&#8217;s just looking like a Christian church. For instance, in the book of Ezekiel chapter 8:16, the prophet was sent to the temple and he saw all the priests there, their back towards the altar, but they were facing the sun in the east. So why is it that the Catholic priest takes the bread which is round, it looks like a disk representing the sun, and he faces the east with that? And also we see all the statues that have what you would think is a halo behind the head, it&#8217;s more a sunburst behind the head of those idols right there.
Joe Heschmeyer: Can I ask a clarifying question? Do you think that there was a—like, when do you think this happened, that, you know, the true church was replaced with this sun-worship cult?
Caller: Well, I think it has always been that way, because, you know, you took the Sabbath and you said, okay, Sunday, which is to be the day you worship the sun, and that&#8217;s now a day of obligation in the Catholic Church,<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/from-sabbath-to-sunday"> as opposed to the holy Sabbath day</a>, the seventh day of God.
Joe Heschmeyer: I wondered—okay, so it sounds like you&#8217;re maybe coming from an Adventist background. Really interesting. So you know Ellen Gould White, I&#8217;m going to assume you&#8217;re familiar with her kind of claims about this, right?
Caller: I am, but I&#8217;m talking strictly Bible.
Joe Heschmeyer: Okay, sure. So I mention the historical part just because the Christians are worshiping on Sunday in the first century. So if your claims were right, we would have to say that during the time of the apostles, Christianity was replaced with a sun-worshipping cult and nobody knew it, and like, the apostles didn&#8217;t stop it. And if that were true, I wouldn&#8217;t trust the apostles. Like, I wouldn&#8217;t become Adventist, I would just give up on Christianity and say &#8220;Well, how could we trust this?&#8221; So I just bring that up to say: what sounds like an argument against Catholicism specifically is really an argument against Christianity as a whole.
So to get into the particulars: in terms of Ezekiel 8, yeah, the problem with them was not that they were facing east, the problem was that they were worshiping the sun and turning their backs to the holy of holies. Now the holy of holies, the fulfillment of that is what? It&#8217;s Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the one who was already present in the form in the Shekinah glory, right? So Jesus is the one who was the proper center of temple worship. Do we agree on that part?
Caller: I agree on that, yeah.
Joe Heschmeyer: Okay. So in John chapter 6, Jesus promises that he will give his true flesh and true blood to eat and drink. Now he repeatedly reaffirms that he means this literally; he says in verse 55, &#8220;my flesh is food indeed&#8230;.my blood is drink indeed,&#8221; he says in verse 56, &#8220;He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.&#8221; In verse 57 he says, &#8220;As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the father, so he who eats me will live because of me.&#8221; In verse 58 he said, &#8220;This is the bread which came down from heaven. Not such as the fathers ate and died&#8230;he who eats this bread will live forever.&#8221; So repeatedly he&#8217;s driving home the centrality and the reality that the core of Christian worship is to be centered around his body and blood. The worship and even the consumption of his body and blood, the communion with his body and blood.
Now, go back to Malachi 1:11; there&#8217;s a prophecy that in the days of the new covenant, the pure sacrifice will be offered all around the world, that rather than just having the temple in Jerusalem where you have the holy of holies, that all around the world people will be able to offer this true sacrifice. Well, what is that true sacrifice? The true sacrifice is what we call <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-mass-a-sacrifice">the sacrifice of the Mass</a>: that we present the body and blood of Jesus to the Father and then we receive him as the sacrificial meal, just as the Jews of old ate the manna and ate the Passover, and in the Passover this was a sacrificial participation. All of that is being fulfilled.
So the reason the host looks like that is it&#8217;s calling our mind back to the manna, not to the sun. I mean, sure, it&#8217;s round, it looks vaguely like the sun. So do a lot of things. So does a frisbee. But that doesn&#8217;t mean that it&#8217;s sun-worship. Rather, it reminds us of the manna. Remember, he said that he is the living bread come down from heaven. That&#8217;s a reference to the manna in the Old Testament; so it looks like bread, it looks like manna, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6">it truly is, we believe, the body and blood of Jesus Christ</a> in the center of Christian worship.
And the last thing I&#8217;d say on this is, again, this is what Christians believed from the earliest days. Saint Ignatius, one of the students of the Apostle John, explained that we couldn&#8217;t be in communion with the Gnostics because they don&#8217;t confess the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Jesus. They weren&#8217;t considered Christians because they didn&#8217;t have this Eucharistic theology right. So the two possibilities, then, are either: Christianity had already become pagan by the time of the apostles, and the apostles just went along with this transition into paganism; or that this bit about the Real Presence, this Eucharistic realism, is true, and that therefore these attacks, you know, Ezekiel 8 is being taken wildly out of context, and was never meant to be attacking the Catholic Mass or anything like that.

Caller Claims Catholics Are Sun-Worshipers

In this engaging clip, Cy Kellett welcomes apologist Marcellino D’Ambrosio to discuss the controversial papacy of Pius XII during World War II. Marcellino addresses the complexities of the Pope&#8217;s neutrality and the misconceptions surrounding his actions, shedding light on the historical context and the significant support he received from the Jewish community after the war.
Transcript:
Caller: The position adopted by the papacy, specifically Pius XII during World War II. Why did the Pope immediately adopt a position of neutrality in light of the known terrible actions of the Nazis? It&#8217;s a loaded question. I&#8217;ve done a lot of reading on it, but it&#8217;s not a bad question. It&#8217;s a perfectly fair question.
It&#8217;s very disturbing that the Church wasn&#8217;t more strident in opposition.
Cy: Okay, Dr. D&#8217;Ambrosio.
Marcellino: You have to kind of understand, first of all, that Pius XII after the war was hailed as a hero by Jews and was hailed as a hero by a lot of people. And it really is kind of a black legend that came about later through a play in the 1960s that painted him as Hitler&#8217;s Pope. So there has actually been a very slanderous kind of revisionist history to paint him as a collaborator or as a fan of Hitler and not having done enough.
On the other hand, the Chief Rabbi of Rome not only converted to Catholicism after the war, but he took the Pope&#8217;s name. His baptismal name is Eugenio. That&#8217;s how much he thought the Pope did for the Jewish community in World War II.
Now, I just have to say that being vehement or taking a stand against Hitler publicly led to the imprisonment of a large number of the Catholic clergy. I don&#8217;t know if you know this, but Dachau was the place for Catholic clergy to be sent. Over 1,000 priests died there, and many more thousands were there. It&#8217;s kind of a fascinating story, honestly, the whole Dachau thing.
But Hitler knew that his greatest opponent, his greatest adversary, the greatest trouble he was going to have, was going to be from the Catholic Church. So the Pope had to walk a very fine line because actually, when his predecessor, Pius XI, sent an encyclical *Mit Brennender Sorge*, which was anti-Nazi, and he had it read in German pulpits, those who read it were thrown into Dachau or worse.
You know, in Holland, when the Catholic community spoke out against the rounding up of Jews, the Nazis responded by rounding up Catholic Jews, including Edith Stein, the very next day, and making them the first ones to be shipped off to Auschwitz. So, you know, speaking out against Hitler sounds great, but unfortunately, it actually can lead to very just the wrong kind of results for Catholics and non-Catholics, Jews and Gentiles alike.
So in order to preserve neutrality and preserve Vatican City, which was actually sheltering Jews and hiding not U.S. prisoners, but Allied prisoners, it was not done by the Pope directly. There were 4,000 people being hidden around Rome, stashed in houses and in convents. Assisi was full of Jews in convents.
One of the fascinating things about World War II and Italy is that the Nazis came into all the major cities in Italy and took over, and the Gestapo took over and they started rounding up Jews. But Italians, with the Church leading the Italians, were able to save 70 to 80% of the Jews of Italy.
Seventy to eighty percent of the Jews everywhere else the Nazis occupied were killed. But 70 to 80% were saved through an underground railroad that was operated largely by the Catholic Church. And so Pius couldn&#8217;t overtly say he was doing this and couldn&#8217;t overtly oppose Hitler, or Vatican City would have been overrun and Catholics would have been made worse examples of. You know, it would have been counterproductive.
So it had to be somewhat undercover in order to be successful and to minimize the loss, minimize the reprisals of Hitler against the Church.
So, anyway, that&#8217;s what I can tell you. I&#8217;m not an absolute expert on this, but I will just tell you that a Protestant historian has done a great job in writing a book. I don&#8217;t know if you let me see. I have the book right here, as a matter of fact, a historian named Rodney Stark. Rodney Stark, okay. He&#8217;s in Baylor. I think he may have passed on, and I&#8217;m not sure if he&#8217;s still alive.
But he is a Protestant, a Lutheran historian, and he wrote a book. He was so sick of this nonsense about Pius XII not, you know, being Hitler&#8217;s Pope that he debunked it in a book where he debunks other myths that are bad history about the Catholic Church. Now, he&#8217;s not Catholic, but he&#8217;s a historian.
So the name of the book is *Bearing False Witness*, and you can get it on Amazon. *Bearing False Witness* by Rodney Stark. Phenomenal book. Hits the Crusades, hits Pius XII and the Nazis, hits a lot of topics that we deal with all the time when we talk to people about the Catholic Church. And these objections are brought up time and time again. You know, the Spanish Inquisition.
So anyway, it&#8217;s a fascinating read, very well documented, and these questions are addressed, including your question.
It&#8217;s a pointed question, but not a bad question. These are good things to talk about. One of the things you do discover, though, is one of the things I get a kick out of the Second World War is the Italian general staff. They just ignored the Nazi orders to turn over the Jews. It wasn&#8217;t until the Italians had lost to the Allied invasion that the Jews were turned over under Nazi command.
But I love it that the Italian generals were just like, &#8220;I&#8217;m not turning over Jews.&#8221; And I know it&#8217;s a horrible story of fascism in Italy, but turning over the Jews was not an Italian proclivity. That was not something that they got involved in.
Absolutely not. And they certainly weren&#8217;t interested in cooperating a whole lot with Hitler, even when they were forced to be allies.
I feel like the Italian attitude was, &#8220;Why would we turn over the Jews? Leave us alone.&#8221;
Why would we turn them over? They just didn&#8217;t do it. And I know that in Croatia, where the Italian section in Croatia, the Jews tried to get to the Italians because the Italians just wouldn&#8217;t do it. They were like, &#8220;We&#8217;re not interested in turning over Jews to the Nazis.&#8221;

Why Did the Pope Stay Neutral in World War II?

Often times, the LGBT community criticizes the Catholic Church for ideologies the Church does not support. We sit down with Andrew and Marco from Desert Stream Ministries to discuss the falsehood of the emotionally charged reaction to &#8220;pray away the gay.&#8221;
For more information on the Catholic teaching about LGBT issues:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/god-made-me-gay 
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/homosexuality 
https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-can-we-be-more-accepting-of-gay-people
More about Andrew and Marco&#8217;s ministry: https://desertstream.org

Can Catholics “Pray Away the Gay?”

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

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