Manage Account

Trent Horn explains why it is important to come to the fullness of understanding on theological divisions between Catholics and Protestants, such as Marian and Eucharistic doctrines, and demonstrates why the mere fact that the two churches disagree does not mean that no definitive answer can be found.
Transcript

Host: We go now to Len in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, listening on Sirius satellite radio. Len, you are on with Trent Horn, what&#8217;s your question?
Caller: Good evening, guys. So I&#8217;m a lifelong Catholic, but I&#8217;ve studied Protestant theology probably at least as much as I&#8217;ve studied Catholicism. I have the same objection into both churches, and that is the extent to which both churches tend to divide over issues as to which there is no definitive answer on this side of Heaven. And the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/isnt-consubstantiation-more-incarnational-than-transubstantiation">transubstantiation/consubstantiation</a>, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin">whether Mary was born with Original Sin</a>, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/justified-by-faith-or-works-or-both">whether we&#8217;re saved by works</a>, whether works have any salvific value, and it just seems like there&#8217;s divisions over points that just simply cannot be definitively answered. And it causes me, you know, great heartache because theology tends to divide people, whereas mission work, for example, tends to unite people. I just wonder what your thoughts are about that.
Trent: Okay Len, I guess my first question would be: you&#8217;re saying that these issues such as the nature of the Eucharist or Marian dogmas or the nature of salvation can&#8217;t be resolved. Why do you think they can&#8217;t be resolved? Is the only reason you think they can&#8217;t be resolved is because people disagree over them?
Caller: Well, the problem&#8217;s the proof. I guess the question is, where do you look to find the answers to such questions as, for example, whether Mary was born with Original Sin, or whether the Holy Eucharist is actually Christ&#8217;s body or whether it&#8217;s a symbol. Protestants and Catholics look at the same Bible, essentially, and come to different conclusions, and yet they divide over issues like that.
Trent: Okay, sure. Well, I would say that where you would look would be the sources of divine revelation, which as Catholics we believe would be Sacred Scripture&#8211;so God&#8217;s Word in its written form in Sacred Scripture, God&#8217;s Word that has been passed on to the Church and sacred tradition&#8211;and the Church that Christ founded, what the Church teaches on these subjects, because God didn&#8217;t simply leave us with a Bible, He left us with a Church endowed with His authority that could be passed on to successors. So I would say that it can be resolved, these issues can be and have been resolved, the Church does definitively teach on these issues.
There are other issues, I agree with you, that the Church has not definitively taught about, that our&#8211;we are separated by the veil, if you will, and so the Church has not definitively taught, for example, what the exact nature of Purgatory is, for example. Or even issues related to Mary&#8217;s virginity, the Church has not definitively taught who the Brethren of the Lord are. Whether it&#8217;s definitive that they are cousins, or half siblings, whatever it may be; so there are issues where the Church has not definitively defined a subject, but then there&#8217;s issues where it has. And just because there&#8217;s disagreement, I don&#8217;t think that takes away from&#8211;you know, there&#8217;s disagreement, just some people are right and others are wrong.
Because, Len, look at it this way: you say, &#8220;Well, Catholics and Protestants look at the same thing, they disagree, so let&#8217;s not focus on that.&#8221; Would you agree that Christians and atheists can look at the same evidence in the natural world, and they disagree about whether God exists?
Caller: Sure.
Trent: Okay, but would that mean there&#8217;s no definitive answer to the question of whether God exists?
Caller: No, I would say not, no.
Trent: But why is that? Atheists look at the same evidence and they don&#8217;t come to that conclusion.
Caller: Well, we come from a different worldview. Atheists, for example, don&#8217;t accept the Bible as the Word. If you&#8217;re going to ask the question, I think part of the question has to be, where do you find the answer? And if you&#8217;re going to ask the question, for example, about how we were created, the atheist worldview is not Biblical, and obviously the Christian&#8217;s is. So where you stand is where you sit.
Trent: I think I see what you&#8217;re saying here about presuppositions a little bit. Do you think, though, that a person could use reason to show God exists? That you don&#8217;t have to assume the Bible is true, that you could just make an argument based on nature that shows God exists? Do you think that&#8217;s possible?
Caller: Well sure, I know about the ontological arguments and all the arguments that are positive, but, you know, even those have weaknesses as well. I mean, at some point we can reason through, but at some point we can&#8217;t understand and we have to apprehend what we don&#8217;t really comprehend.
Trent: Sure, and Len, I think that this example would show that on important issues, like the existence of God or the deity of Christ, Christians and non-Christians, whether they&#8217;re atheists or Jews or Muslims, will disagree over evidence they look at, but you and I would agree that Christians are correct on this even though there&#8217;s disagreement, and we would agree there are still definitive answers.
And your your point about &#8220;Well, it&#8217;s about ultimately your own worldview,&#8221; I agree with you, so that same logic would carry over to the Catholics and Protestants. We look at the same evidence, we&#8217;re gonna be approaching it in different ways, and we come to our foundations of our worldviews in different ways; but there are still definitive answers there even if people don&#8217;t agree.
There&#8217;s one last point I&#8217;d like to address before we move on: you say &#8220;Well, theology divides, but things like mission work unites.&#8221; But I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s necessarily bad if something divides. For example, you would&#8211;would you agree that Jesus, during His earthly ministry, what He taught, He divided people. Wouldn&#8217;t you say?
Caller: Oh absolutely, no doubt about that.
Trent: Yeah, but that&#8217;s okay, because truth is ultimately going to divide people between those who accept the truth and those who reject the truth. So it&#8217;s okay to cause division; in fact Jesus Himself said, &#8220;I&#8217;ve come to bring division, to set father against son, brother against brother,&#8221; because the truth does divide people. That in itself isn&#8217;t bad; it&#8217;s necessary, so that we can help people who are in error come to the truth to pass over that dividing line, if you will.
So that&#8217;s probably how I would take a look at all that, and I still think theology would be important, and what the Church has defined on dogmatic issues related to the nature of the Eucharist, or Mary, I think that we have very good evidence for that from Scripture, from tradition, and from the teaching office of the Church. And if you would like more information about those subjects and their foundations in the deposit of faith and divine revelation, I&#8217;d recommend visiting our website Catholic.com and looking up those points, and I think you&#8217;ll get a lot more from there. So thanks very much for calling in.

Are Theological Divisions Pointless?

Karlo Broussard discusses the sacred tradition concerning who the first souls were to enter into the Beatific Vision with Christ when he ascended into Heaven.

Who Was the First Saint?

A caller asks Tim Staples why he believes in the bible when the writers make claims that science has disproved. The caller uses the global flood as an example, and Tim responds citing biblical references, church history, and church councils.
Transcript:
So, I wanted to ask, why do you believe the Bible, when the Bible makes accessible claims, disproven by modern science?
And there&#8217;s not&#8230; Yeah, the only problem is Gabe, there&#8217;s no claims made by the Bible that are disproven by modern science.
The global flood?
Okay, well Gabe, I don&#8217;t believe there was a global flood.
So why does the Bible trust it does? The Bible doesn&#8217;t say it does. See, Gabe, understand that when the ancient people&#8230; Now, by the way, I should say, Gabe, that as Catholics, we are permitted because there&#8217;s never been an infallible pronouncement from the church that declared there was a worldwide
flood in a strict literal sense. The church has never taught that. You can go through all 21 ecumenical councils, teachings of&#8230; you know, definitive teachings of popes, and it simply is not there. The fact is, the church permits us to believe that there was no universal flood. Understand that, Gabe, when the inspired scriptures were written,
they are&#8230; You know, a lot of people have a wrong idea of what that means.
Inspired scripture does not mean that God dictated everything to the inspired authors so that it is God himself that is using perfect grammar, perfect language, perfect even science. No, we believe that the inspired authors use their intellect, their will, their understanding of culture and language. In fact, this is why some books of the Bible, even in the New Testament, have better Greek than others. Some of them&#8230; I remember my Greek professor saying, you know, some of them, you know, a few of them, the grammar is not very good at times. And others like&#8230; I mean, Book of Hebrews is a very&#8230;
It&#8217;s written by somebody who really knew Greek really, really well, and it was in St. Paul. But we&#8217;re not exactly sure who. It may have been Apollos, may have been&#8230; It was probably someone, Pauline, who had contact with Paul, but it certainly wasn&#8217;t. It&#8217;s pretty certain today that it was not Paul. But anyway, here&#8217;s the point. Is that they will use also categories that were well known at the time to communicate truth. Let me&#8230; Gabe, I&#8217;ll give you an example.
A weatherman today in San Diego may say, &#8220;Sunrise tomorrow is&#8230;&#8221; What? &#8220;6 o&#8217;clock or 5.45, whenever it is.&#8221;
Would we say that, oh boy, that weatherman, he must be a geocentrist because he believes the sun rises. Oh my gosh, how can he be so stupid? But no, he doesn&#8217;t believe the sun actually rises and the earth stays still, but we use what we call phenomenological language. In fact, all languages employ phenomenological language to express realities as they are perceived. Like in Daniel chapter 12, when Daniel talks about the resurrection and says, &#8220;Those who are asleep in the dust will rise.&#8221; Now, he doesn&#8217;t literally mean that people are sleeping in the dust and they&#8217;re going to rise. But phenomenologically, if you look at a dead body and it comes to life, it looks like it&#8217;s sleeping and it comes to life and rises. And so that&#8217;s the way language develops over thousands and thousands of years, is we speak of things in the way that they appear. So, no, the weatherman is not saying he&#8217;s a geocentrist, he&#8217;s simply using language the way the language is employed at the time in which he is speaking in the same way. When you talk about the flood, the flood can be understood as, yes, the whole world was flooded, but it can be understood as the whole world as perceived by the ancient writer. The ancient writer had no idea that there was a continent on the other side of the planet. He had no idea Columbus wouldn&#8217;t come along for a long, long time. So, his whole world flooded, absolutely. So, in that sense, yes. And by the way, there is a lot of evidence, yes, scientific evidence, not for the entire world being flooded,
but for a massive flood or perhaps a series of floods. Most likely, at least it may well have been one massive flood that various different cultures comment on that are from that area. I mean, that&#8217;s one explanation. There could have been multiple massive floods, but most likely there was this massive flood in antiquity that was devastating,
took away entire peoples in particularly populated areas and so forth, and that&#8217;s the way it gets communicated down through the centuries. And of course, God used that and Noah and so forth as a, you know,
to kind of further God&#8217;s covenantal relationship with his people. So, the thing is, Gabe, and I know you and I have talked about this before, there&#8217;s a fundamental flaw with folks who want to employ the Bible as a scientific book, and it is not. It is a book about salvation. It uses real history, absolutely, and I believe the flood was a real historical event in order to communicate essential teachings concerning salvation. But we don&#8217;t want to, and I&#8217;ll toss out another idea here, Gabe. The book of Genesis is not about talking snakes.
You know, we don&#8217;t have to believe as Catholics there was a literal talking snake. The inspired author uses a story that was a popular story in the culture in which he lived. And in fact, there are similar stories told, for example, the Anuma Elish among the Babylonians, and we have other cosmological sorts of stories of beginnings in other cultures. They&#8217;re very different from what we find in Genesis in many ways, but in some ways, there are parallels, which seem to indicate that there was somewhat of a common story that was told way back when, but with the divergences of cultures and so forth, we have divergences of religions as well. And so, there you go.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you liked this Catholic Answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our livestreams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 PM Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

Has Science Disproved Biblical Claims?

The belief that Mary is the mother of God is not unique to Catholicism. The vast majority of Christians (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans) accept this dogma, with only a minority in the Protestant community objecting.
One text appealed to in support of this belief is Luke 1:43. There, Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaims to Mary, who just arrived in her presence, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Since Elizabeth was a good Jew, and Jews normally used the word Lord in the place of the tetragrammaton (God’s name), YHWH, Elizabeth is calling Mary the mother of God. Therefore, we have a possible biblical foundation for the dogma of Mary, mother of God (see also CCC 448, 495, 2677).
There are many comebacks that Protestants have to the belief in Mary as the mother of God. But there’s really only one counterargument to Luke 1:43. It targets the assumption that “Lord” is intended by Elizabeth to refer to Almighty God.
Protestant Bible scholar Walter L. Liefeld argues that we shouldn’t interpret this as a reference to Mary, “mother of God.” His alternative interpretation is that Elizabeth was referring to Jesus as <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Luke.html?id=0S4aDgAAQBAJ">the Messiah</a>:
<blockquote>Nowhere in the [New Testament] is Mary called “mother of God.” Deity is not confined to the person of Jesus (we may say, “Jesus is God,” but not all of “God is Jesus”). She was, however, the mother of Jesus the Messiah and Lord (834).</blockquote>
The evidence he gives is the fact that Luke frequently uses “Lord” as a title—95 out of 166 occurrences in the synoptics—and not every one is charged with a divine meaning. Moreover, Liefeld argues, Jesus is called “Lord” elsewhere in the Lukan birth narrative in a non-divine way (“For to you is born this day in the city of David a savior, who is Christ the Lord”—Luke 2:11).
It’s not clear whether Luke uses “Lord,” in reference to Jesus, in 2:11 in a divine or non-divine way. There is nothing in the text that suggests either interpretation. Liefeld simply asserts its divine use without argumentation. Given such ambiguity, we can dismiss this text as evidence for Liefeld’s conclusion.
There’s no doubt, however, that the Greek word translated “Lord,” kurios, is used in a non-divine way in the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:5), and even by Luke (e.g., 12:36, 37, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47). However, it’s not the word by itself that indicates that Mary is the mother of God. It’s how Luke sees Elizabeth using it.
There are several details that indicate that Luke is drawing a parallel between Mary and the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. Take Elizabeth’s words themselves, for example. They almost perfectly mirror David’s in 2 Samuel 6:9, when he says in the presence of the ark, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Other parallels include John the Baptist leaping for joy in the presence of Mary in Luke 1:44 and David “making merry” before the ark in 2 Samuel 6:5. According to Luke 1:39, Mary remains with Elizabeth for three months, similar to how the ark remained in the house of Obededom for the same amount of time according to 2 Samuel 6:11.
Since Luke is paralleling Elizabeth’s “mother of my Lord” with David’s “ark of the Lord,” it stands to reason that Luke intends for us to take Elizabeth’s cry as a reference to almighty God. “Lord” in the phrase “ark of the Lord” wasn’t a reference to the Messiah. The ark was the ark of almighty God. Therefore, we have good reason to interpret Luke 1:43 as a reference to Mary being the mother of God, contrary to Liefeld’s claim.
Now, a Protestant at this juncture might argue that if we take some parallels with the ark, then we need to take all of them. Protestant apologist James White <a href="https://openlibrary.org/books/OL987171M/The_Roman_Catholic_controversy">poses this argument</a>:
<blockquote>Must Mary have been stolen by God’s enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing (2 Sam. 6:14-15)? Who was Mary&#8217;s Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:3-8)? [Catholic apologist Patrick] Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David’s action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Sam. 6:13) (205)?</blockquote>
White charges that the use of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant is violating rules of scriptural interpretation, since he perceives it as picking and choosing “those aspects of Mary’s life [a Catholic] wishes to parallel in the ark and those which he does not.”
In response, there’s a hidden principle on which White seems to base his argument—namely, that some parallels requires all parallels. But this is simply false. That’s not how prophetic foreshadowing or intertextuality works. The New Testament authors themselves, for example, don’t honor the principle contained in White’s argument. Consider the first two verses of Hosea 11:
<blockquote>When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals, and burning incense to idols.</blockquote>
Matthew takes the phrase “out of Egypt I called my son” in the first statement as a prefigurement of the baby Jesus’ return from the flight to Egypt (Matt. 2:15). Yet Matthew does not intend the latter part of the passage to refer to Jesus: Jesus did not go away from God, sacrifice to the Baals, and burn incense to their images.
There are numerous examples of this in the New Testament’s use of the Old. Whenever prophetic foreshadowing is in play, some elements foreshadow, and some don’t. There are continuities and discontinuities. If the New Testament authors employ this type of hermeneutic when relating the Old Testament to the New, it’s legitimate for Catholics to do the same.
So neither of the above counterarguments undermines a Christian’s appeal to Luke 1:43 as biblical evidence for Mary as mother of God. This being the case, we have confirmation by the Holy Spirit himself, who inspired Elizabeth to utter the words “mother of my Lord,” that Mary is indeed the Theotokos, the God-bearer.

Protestants Against Mom

Using Fictional Writing to Glorify God

<div class="page" title="Page 375">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 365
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Why should I pay attention to the Bible at all? It’s an ancient book written by people of limited understanding. Besides, other religions have their own scriptures, too. Why are they any less important?”
DEFENSE
The Christian scriptures are unique and valuable.
The mere fact that the books of the Bible were written a long time ago is no reason to look down on or dismiss them. To do so would be chrono-logical snobbery. Just because a person wrote before you doesn’t mean that person was wrong. If it did, we would have to dismiss all works written in the past, obliterating our knowledge of history and prevent- ing knowledge from being passed from one generation to another.
The question is not when a work was written but whether it contains truth. Because of the growth of various fields of knowledge, we may expect more recently written works to contain more of certain types of truth—e.g., truths about math or science—but the information that we seek from Scripture isn’t on those topics. Instead, we are seeking truth of a religious nature—e.g., about God and his dealings with man—and this is an area that is largely beyond the powers of natural reason to investigate for itself.
Consequently, for us to have this information, God must take the initiative: He must reveal himself to man. If God does so and when God does so is entirely up to him. For it to happen at all, it must take place at some point in human history, and—unless God were to make contact with man for the very first time at the end of the world—future ages would look back on that time and view it as ancient. That’s not an indication it is false or that he didn’t do it. The question, therefore, is what evidence we have that God made contact with man and that the Bible preserves what he revealed to us.
Here apologetics becomes relevant. In particular, the arguments supporting God’s existence and the occurrence of miracles, especially the Resurrection of Jesus, play an important role. The first set of arguments support the proposition that there is a God who might choose to contact mankind, and the second support the Bible as the record of the resulting revelation. Other religions do not have comparable evidence.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Ancient Scriptures

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Joe Heschmeyer joins Cy Kellett to tackle one of the most common questions about the life of faith: If God already knows everything, including our needs, what&#8217;s the point of prayer? Joe explains how prayer isn’t about informing God, but about drawing closer to Him—cooperating with His will, growing in trust, and participating in the divine plan.
Transcript:
Caller: I&#8217;ve been recently just like, looking into religion in general as well as Catholicism. So my question was that if God&#8217;s will is always going to be done, what is the purpose of prayer?
Joe: Ah, that&#8217;s a great question. There&#8217;s a great bit in Matthew chapter 6 about this. Jesus has this kind of funny line where he tells us not to pray like the Gentiles. This is Matthew 6, verse 8, because he says, your Father knows what you need before you ask him. But then he says, pray then like this. And he gives us the Lord&#8217;s Prayer, the Our Father.
And you want to stop and say, hold on a second. Didn&#8217;t you just say God knows what we actually need before we ask him? Like, I&#8217;m not giving God any new information when I pray. All he&#8217;s getting are my worst ideas about what should happen. This is not improving at the level of, like, divine knowledge of reality.
What&#8217;s going to happen? So the reason is the will of God isn&#8217;t just for some external thing to happen. The will of God is for me to share in divine life. And that means praying. That means cooperating with God.
So you go all the way back to Genesis, and after God chooses Abraham, one of the first things that he does is tell him about his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Why? So that Abraham will intercede before God. And even though Sodom and Gomorrah is so corrupt, they still are destroyed. Abraham&#8217;s intervention works in saving the righteous and saving Lot and his family.
And we&#8217;re told that in the next chapter that God remembered Abraham and saved Lot. So if you want to think about it like this, there&#8217;s a logical way. If I tell my kids, eat your vegetables if you want to have dessert. Now, my will is accomplished if they eat their vegetables and then have dessert. My will is technically also accomplished if they don&#8217;t eat their vegetables and don&#8217;t have dessert. They didn&#8217;t meet the condition, and so the result didn&#8217;t happen.
So your prayers actually can change things. Not for the worse, for the better. Does that distinction make sense?
In both cases, the will would be achieved if you said, eat your vegetables if you want to have dessert.
Caller: Could you give me an example that is like a positive? So let&#8217;s say I prayed for, like, I don&#8217;t know, like a good test grade or something. How would that apply to your principle?
Joe: Yeah. That God wants your success more though he wants your prayers, your growth, and like your spiritual success, if you will. And so he will often reward prayer in various ways because the good of you praying is something that is to be encouraged.
And so in James chapter five, we get some concrete cases of this. Beginning in verse 16, he says, the prayer of a righteous man has great power and its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain. And for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.
So prayer can actually change the outcome of things. And you say, why would God allow that? Because his plan is for our cooperation in divine life. And prayer is one of the ways we share in divine life. We are in union in relationship with God, and He rewards that relationship.
Caller:  So does that mean his will is not predetermined in that, like, my entire course of my life is not already seen by God because is he not omniscient?
Joe: So he already knows. He is omniscient. He knows what you&#8217;re going to do. But knowing what someone is going to do isn&#8217;t the same as forcing them to do it. You know, if you are up on a hill and you see like a train track and see that, like, the track is awry and two trains are going to collide with each other, you might see all of that happening. You&#8217;re not causing it to happen.
Now, divine foreknowledge doesn&#8217;t work just like that. I just give that as an example to say God knows how you will respond freely to the prompts that he gives you. And that&#8217;s another factor in this. When you&#8217;re praying, when you&#8217;re doing these things, and it&#8217;s having a result that&#8217;s not thwarting the divine will, that is the unfolding of the divine will.
Like, God&#8217;s plan involves your free cooperation, and he knew how you were going to freely cooperate, and he planned that into his plan from all eternity.
Caller: Okay, I think I understand what you&#8217;re getting at. Thank you so much for your help.
Joe: Absolutely. Please continue to call as you are on this exploration. It&#8217;s really beautiful, the thing you&#8217;re exploring, and you&#8217;re grappling with a very big question. And it&#8217;s okay if it&#8217;s daunting at first and if it seems kind of hard to put all the pieces together. That&#8217;s absolutely normal.
Cy: If you&#8217;d like, Laura, I would send you our big book of Catholic answers just for your interest in reading. As you have questions, there are 250 questions answered in there.

Why Pray If God Already Knows Everything?

When Did the Early Churches Recognize a Pope?

This has been <a href="https://www.usccb.org/topics/marriage-and-family-life-ministries/national-marriage-week">National Marriage Week</a>, and of course today is St. Valentine’s. A double reason, then, to honor one of the primordial forces of human nature: the inner drive of man and woman to seek out and cling to one another in a permanent, exclusive embrace, for their mutual aid and the bearing and raising of children.
This force, however, once as constant as gravity and as powerful as the sun, seems to be… slipping.
Not only have marriage rates been tumbling for a generation; now young adults in the West aren’t <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/02/14/gen-z-love-instagram-tiktok-dating/78336999007/">even coupling and fornicating like they used to</a>, either. Everyone has a theory as to why:
<ul>
<li>Effortless access to pornography is sating or dulling the desire for sex that used to motivate a young man to pair with a young woman (and ideally to marry her).</li>
<li>The nonstop entertainments and virtual relationships afforded by devices are disincentivizing both men and women to socialize in person.</li>
<li>Economic factors, real or perceived, are making those virtual relationships, and casual group hangouts, easier to fit into the budget than traditional dating (and certainly marriage and children).</li>
<li>Some ambient cultural or environmental pollutant is messing with young people’s minds and bodies: the sexual confusion wrought by pervasive gay and trans activism; stunting of social skills during the Covid years; residual hormones from sixty years of artificial contraception leeching into in our water supply; vaccines or seed oils or chemtrails or whatever your public-health soapbox is.</li>
</ul>
Whatever the reason or reasons, the West is <a href="https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform">staring smack at a crisis</a> unprecedented in history: a systemic loss of desire for one generation to court, mate, form families, and create another generation.
In this context, we might take a fresh look at recent discussion over the state of Catholic marriage preparation. (I spent several years as a diocesan marriage &amp; family minister, preparing thousands of couples for matrimony, and the subject is of special interest to me.) In recent years, Pope Francis and some bishops have advocated for much longer and more-stringent marriage-prep programs than most dioceses currently require.
This has <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/cna/should-the-church-require-a-year-of-marriage-prep-catholic-formators-weigh-in">divided Catholic opinion</a> along unpredictable lines: some of the usual papal critics like it and some of the usual papal defenders are opposed—and everything in between.
Me? I see arguments for both sides, but I think I come down firmly on one of them.
The pro side for making marriage preparation longer and more involved boils down to one principle: more knowledge is better. Marriage is a “great mystery,” as St. Paul said, and great mysteries require deep and careful attention. How else are we going to reduce Catholic divorce rates and promote marital happiness, if not by a thorough and even demanding pre-marriage boot camp that gets couples truly ready for what lies ahead?
The con side says, yes, marriage is a deep and ineffable mystery. But it’s a mystery we slowly come to understand through living it. The basics of marriage are easy enough to teach and make people understand; after that, it’s on-the-job training.
You might have guessed that, since I put it second, I side with the con folks—and you’d be right. And I think today’s poll data about cratering attitudes toward dating and marrying throw the con arguments into sharp relief. How the heck are we going to encourage marriage by making it seem more complicated and making it harder to do?
Men and women have been marrying naturally for many millennia. Christian men and women have been uniting themselves to each other sacramentally for nearly two. Most of them have been illiterate, minimally catechized, without specialized resources. They had no problem forming exclusive unions, bearing and raising children, and usually staying together until death.
Sure, every age has its troubles, and the Church in every age should respond to them. Today, for instance, the best marriage and family ministry includes joyful apologetics for Catholic teaching on the marital goods of fecundity and indissolubility, because these two goods have been under special attack since the Sexual Revolution.
But, the basics of marriage are the same in every age. It doesn’t take a master’s degree or hundreds of hours of special seminars for couples to know what they’re signing up for and consent to it. You used to be two; now you are one. You can’t have anyone else. It can’t be undone. Now go make babies if you can.
All the rest—“getting to know each other” and improving communication and setting goals and managing finances and changing diapers and learning to say sorry and everything else—this is the work of a lifetime. The theological and spiritual mysteries of the sacrament and its saving graces are likewise the stuff of lifelong growth and reflection. Let’s not overwhelm our already-anxious younger generations by making them think they need to work out all of it before they say, “I do.”
Or, indeed, before they say, “Will you?” Or even, “Want to grab some coffee?”
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Don’t Overcomplicate Marriage!

Christians have always considered the bodily remains of their heroic martyrs to be their greatest treasures. Many of them were killed in the sports arenas of the day. They were champions who fought and won—didn’t cave under the fear, the pressure, or the pain. Refusing to recant their faith in Christ, they willingly sacrificed their lives for him. They recalled that he had laid down his life for them on the cross. To be worthy, they needed to do the same for him—and they did it willingly.
<blockquote>Calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:34-35).
</blockquote>
St. Ignatius of Antioch boldly proclaimed his faith in Christ, and his willingness to be devoured by lions in the Colosseum in Rome, in the year 107. The holy bishop wrote, “Please let me be thrown to the wild beasts; through them I can reach God.” An eyewitness said,
<blockquote>Only the more solid parts of his holy relics [bones] were left, which were carried to Antioch and wrapped in linen—a priceless treasure bequeathed to the Holy Church.</blockquote>
In the year 155, eyewitnesses to the martyrdom of the aged bishop Polycarp of Smyrna recalled that
<blockquote>the centurion put [Polycarp’s] body in the middle . . . and burned it. And so, afterwards, we took up his bones, more valuable than precious stones and finer than gold, and put them in a proper place. There, as far as we were able, the Lord will permit us to meet together in gladness and joy and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who fought the fight and for the training and preparation of those who will fight.</blockquote>
The apostles suffered similar gruesome deaths for their Lord. Their memories are preserved in words, but even more so in their bones. St. Paul was beheaded outside the walls of Rome, and his bones were recently rediscovered wrapped in purple cloth, the sign of royalty.
Bones were also recently discovered under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. They were wrapped in purple-dyed cloth with golden thread. Testing concluded that they were the bones of an average-height, robust first-century man between 60 and 70 years of age. Based on reliable ancient writings and tradition, Peter, the chief of the apostles, was imprisoned in the dank and dark Mamertine Prison by Emperor Nero along with Paul. One misty morning, he and Paul were drawn up from the miserable cistern. Paul was beheaded outside the walls of Rome on the Via Ostia.
The Ager Vaticanus was a swampy area across the Tiber River from the city of Rome. The obelisk towering above St. Peter’s Square today was in the center of Nero’s Circus. In chains, Peter was marched over the bridge to the Ager Vaticanus as a spectacle for the jeering crowds. Not being a Roman citizen, he was prepared for crucifixion. He claimed he was not worthy to die like his Lord and insisted on being crucified upside-down. After Peter expired in the shadow of the obelisk, his limp body was ignominiously buried in the hillside. Nero hoped he was gone and forgotten.
Nero had no idea what he had started when he buried Peter in the necropolis—the “City of the Dead.” Peter was <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/st-peter-ceo-of-the-catholic-church">not just a fisherman</a> from Galilee; Jesus had chosen him to be the head of his Church, and now he became a martyr and a hero. The early Christians wrapped his bones in purple cloth sewn with golden thread. The believers flocked to pray at his rustic burial site, which soon became a shrine. Others who died wanted to be buried near his bones. No one forgot where his precious relics were preserved.
After the Protestant “Reformation,” many tried to deny the primacy of Peter by claiming he was never in Rome. “Show us in the Bible where it says he was in Rome!” One can ask this question only if he insists on “Bible alone” and fails to find any explicit verses. But a careful study of Scripture and the historical record leaves no doubt. Peter arrived in Rome after years of leading the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4, 7) and as bishop of Antioch, as affirmed by the early Church Fathers. It appears he evangelized much of Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1) before arriving in Rome. In my book <a href="https://www.steveraysstore.com/upon-this-rock-signed-by-author/">Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church</a>, I provide forty-seven pages of documented archaeological and historical evidence, and the matter is put to rest.
In Rome, Peter exercised the authority of the keys that Jesus had delegated to him. Rome was established as the See of Peter, the mother church of the world, and the circular medallions on the façade of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/st-john-lateran-pray-for-us">St. John Lateran</a> still declare that fact today.
<img class="size-full wp-image-150139 alignright" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/lateran-medallion.jpg" alt="St. Peter Necropolis lateran" width="332" height="208" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/lateran-medallion.jpg 332w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/lateran-medallion-300x188.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 332px) 100vw, 332px"/>Though he was murdered and buried, Peter’s fame and authority long outlasted Nero. In 313, Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, and to honor “the Rock” upon which the Church was built, he undertook one of the most significant earth-moving projects of ancient times, moving Vatican Hill over the tomb of Peter, upon which he built the first magnificent church—the Old St. Peter’s Basilica. Everyone remembered that one sarcophagus containing the remains of Peter. This shrine in his honor secured and protected the knowledge of the site for future generations.
In the 1500s, the new and grand St. Peter&#8217;s Basilica was built over Peter&#8217;s tomb. If you dropped a plumb line from the center of the main dome, it would pass through the papal altar and right down to the bones of Peter.
In the 1940s, while shoring up the foundation of the church, archaeologists discovered a well preserved necropolis, a city of the dead, containing burial places, paintings, sarcophagi, and urns from the first century. They found the marble sarcophagus of Peter with some bones still intact and wrapped in purple fabric. Pope Paul VI announced that the bones of Peter had been rediscovered.
Several excellent books have been written on this subject, and the subterranean necropolis can be visited today under the basilica, with reservations made in advance.
In 2026, we will all be invited on a cinematic tour, spearheaded by <a href="https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-12/a-documentary-film-about-peter-s-tomb-guided-by-chris-pratt.html">actor Chris Pratt</a>, of the archaeological discoveries under St. Peter’s Basilica. We will experience this ancient wonder. This film will doubtless demonstrate definitively how the Church has proved and documented Peter’s presence, martyrdom, and burial in Rome.

Yes, Peter Was Really There

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

Does the Bible actually allow abortion?

There’s a scene in the 1979 comedy The Jerk in which a madman has randomly targeted dim-witted gas station attendant Navin Johnson (Steve Martin) for assassination. The madman’s aim is off, and he ends up shooting the oil cans directly behind Navin, prompting his memorable line, “He hates these cans! Stay away from the cans!”
Navin persists in this confusion until his boss Harry (Jackie Mason) corrects him: “He doesn’t want to put holes in the cans, he wants to put holes in you!” Until that point, Navin couldn’t see past the cans to understand what was going on. The cans were just an inadvertent symbol of the madman’s rage.
I’m reminded of that scene in reading the 1927 talk (and later, essay) <a href="https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html">Why I Am Not a Christian</a>, in which the British philosopher Bertrand Russell argued that Jesus was not, in fact, “the best and the wisest of men.” To be sure, Russell accepted certain of Christ’s teachings, even claiming to ”agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do” on teachings such as not judging, turning the other cheek, and so forth. But in particular areas, Russell found Jesus’ morals lacking. To wit:
<blockquote>Then there is the curious story of the fig-tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig-tree. “He was hungry; and seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came if haply he might find anything thereon; and when he came to it he found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: “No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever” . . . and Peter . . . saith unto him: “Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered away.” This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above him in those respects.</blockquote>
In other words: “He hates this fig tree! Stay away from the fig tree!”
I cannot help but wonder how Russell would have approached a passage like 1 Kings 11:26-40, in which the prophet Ahijah tears a garment into twelve pieces and instructs the king to pick up ten of them, foreshadowing the division of the Israelites into the ten northern tribes (Israel) and the two southern tribes (Judah). Reading this, would he seek to understand why the prophet was mad at a garment and object that the garment had done nothing wrong? Or would he understand (as he apparently failed to in his objection to Jesus’ conduct with the fig tree) that the action here is symbolic?
In the case of Jesus and the fig tree, the symbolism of Jesus’ action should have made immediate sense, for before cursing the fig tree Jesus gave the Parable of the Fig Tree, making the symbolic meaning clear (Luke 13:6-9):
<blockquote>And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure. And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”</blockquote>
This imagery is nothing new. As the prophet Isaiah declared, “[T]he vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry!” (Isa. 5:7).
Jesus gave the parable of the fig tree “on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem” (Luke 13:22), and it’s at the culmination of this journey that we see him cursing the fig tree. Here’s how St. Mark describes the scene:
<blockquote>On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it. [&#8230;.] As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, “Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered” (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21).</blockquote>
The fig tree isn’t a moral agent. It’s not self-aware. And it’s not being punished. Rather, the fig tree is an obvious reference to Israel’s spiritual sterility. You may have noticed an ellipsis in the above passage: that’s because between Jesus cursing the fig tree and Peter remarking on it the next day, Jesus went into Jerusalem and drove the money-changers out of the temple while saying “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17). Rather than interrupting the cursing of the fig tree, this action draws out its meaning more clearly: judgment is being visited upon Israel, and particularly Jerusalem.
It would be easy to view this simply as judgment upon fruitless Israel, but Jesus makes clear that the lesson also applies to each one of us. At the Last Supper, he put it in these terms:
<blockquote>I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned (John 14:1-6).</blockquote>
Spiritual fruitfulness is required in the Christian life. Like a bicycle that either moves forward or falls over, there’s no place for stagnant spirituality. In the parable of the talents, the spiritually sterile Christian is depicted as an unprofitable “worthless servant” and cast out of paradise (Matt. 25:30). We are called to abide in Christ, and through him, to bear much fruit.
This leaves one mystery. Mark specifies that Jesus “found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs” (Mark 11:13). But if that’s the case, why curse the fig tree? <a href="http://www.escrivaworks.org/book/the_way-chapter-15.htm">St. Josemaría Escrivá</a> understood it this way: “Don’t tell me you have excuses. It availed the fig tree little, relates the Evangelist, that it was not the season for figs when our Lord came to it to look for them.” By way of further explanation, <a href="http://www.escrivaworks.org/book/friends_of_god-point-51.htm">he said</a>:
<blockquote>Our Lord comes to pick [figs], knowing full well that he won’t find any at this time of year. However, when the tree proves to be barren in spite of its apparent fertility and luxuriant leaves, Jesus commands, “Let no man ever eat fruit of yours hereafter.”
Hard words, indeed! May you never more bear fruit! How must the disciples have felt, especially if they considered that it was the Wisdom of God who had thus spoken? Jesus curses the fig tree because in it he has found only the appearance of fruitfulness — many leaves. Let this be a lesson to us. There is no excuse for being unproductive. Some might say “I don’t know enough&#8230;” But that is no excuse. Or else, “I am unwell, I haven’t much talent, the conditions are not right, my surroundings&#8230;” These aren’t excuses either. How pitiful the man who adorns himself with the foliage of a false apostolate, who has all the outward appearance of leading a fruitful life, but is not sincerely attempting to yield fruit!</blockquote>
Everyone who neglects to bear spiritual fruit can point to some excuse: I’m not a priest or religious; I don’t know the Faith well enough; I’m not a good enough person; my friends don’t want to hear about the faith; I’m too busy right now, etc. Each of us can find some reason why it’s not our season to flourish, why we should wait until later. In cursing a tree that also seemed to have an “excuse” for not flourishing, Jesus is showing us what he thinks of this excuse-making.
This also explains why both Matthew and Mark specify that the tree was a fig tree with “nothing on it but leaves only” (Matt. 21:19). The first mention of fig leaves in Scripture is back in the Garden of Eden. At the moment of the Fall, “the eyes of both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). This is where we get the English idiom <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fig%20leaf">fig leaf</a>, referring to “something that conceals or camouflages, usually inadequately or dishonestly.”
When Jesus arrives at the tree, he finds no fruitfulness, just fig leaves. Let the same not be said of each of us on Judgment Day.

Why Does Jesus Curse the Fig Tree?

When Protestants say that they have a “<a href="https://youtu.be/rRMgYS1Taes?si=2BX51uJzZfeEjKTF">fallible list of infallible books</a>,” they run into disaster. How so?
If the canon list of Protestants is “fallible” or “potentially wrong,” then it’s also technically possible that Protestants have books in their canon that God didn’t inspire. Thus, they can’t even say that they have “a fallible list of infallible books,” as that would be presumptive. They should instead say, “We hope to only have infallible books in this fallible list.”
This is a disaster. Many protestants, for example, use 1 Timothy 2:12 against women being pastors: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” Most biblical scholars today, however, do not think Paul wrote 1 Timothy and the other two Pastoral Epistles (2 Timothy and Titus).
Philip H. Towner, who spent his academic career responding to the arguments of the scholarly majority, ultimately <a href="https://www.eerdmans.com/9781467423663/the-letters-to-timothy-and-titus/">admitted</a> that “it is not possible to prove the authenticity of the letters to Timothy and Titus.” To be clear, Towner did not deny Pauline authorship. He just stressed that the case against the skeptical side isn’t a knockout. In other words, the available evidence allows for valid and reasonable disagreement among Protestants.
But a Protestant might respond that I’ve misrepresented them. They too affirm that the Church has an important, albeit fallible, role in giving us the canon. A Protestant might argue that the general consensus of the Church or God’s people throughout history has affirmed the canonicity of the Pastoral Epistles, and so the matter is basically settled.
This won’t work. Since the Church’s process for determining the canon of Scripture is still fallible, according to <a href="https://youtu.be/06ItjoHCp28?si=fPnqMqz2JGcE-PC5&amp;t=46">Protestants</a>, it can be questioned on evidential grounds. In other words, the consensus is only as good as its reasons. This is in fact how some Protestants argue against the consensus of Christians before the Reformation on matters like the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jews-and-the-saints">veneration</a> of Mary and the saints.
Consider 2 Peter. There are even conservative Protestant scholars today, like <a href="https://www.logos.com/product/1316/jude-2-peter">Richard Bauckham</a>, who don’t think Peter wrote 2 Peter. If the historical consensus on the canonicity of 2 Peter rested on the assumption that Peter wrote the text, then that consensus can be dismissed if that core assumption is debunked.
So why should Protestants keep 2 Peter in their canon? They might try to appeal to Christian consensus, but why treat consensus as though it were infallible when Protestants affirm that consensus is fallible? Adding that God guided the process doesn’t really help their side when they still admit that the process is potentially wrong.
There is a better Protestant alternative: God guided the Church to the canon without error, but we just have fallible knowledge that this is true. This is almost indistinguishable from Catholicism. Although we are fallible as human beings, Catholics nonetheless affirm through faith that God has protected the Church from error in, for example, ex cathedra statements from the pope. Protestants would just distinguish their position by saying that infallibility isn’t something the Church can invoke on command. or even regularly.
This is still a massive concession, because it reveals that Protestants need the Church to be infallible through divine protection on certain matters. Catholics happily agree! Strictly speaking, then, sola scriptura is wrong, or at least it needs to be significantly nuanced: Scripture is the only infallible authority for Christians, except when the Church gave us the canon.
If a Protestant chooses this alternative, then he needs to stop saying that the canonization process is fallible. The humans involved in that process were fallible, but God providentially protected them from error when they presented us the canon. It is God who ultimately made the process’s conclusion infallible. Similarly, the pope in his ordinary life is fallible, but Catholics believe that God providentially protects him from error when he irreversibly settles a matter.
At this point, Catholics can press on when exactly Protestants think the Church “gave us” the canon. Protestants can’t just assume their own canon and then cherry-pick moments where it appeared. But they’ll eventually have to admit that the Church “invoked infallibility on command” at least one time. They can’t say that the Church “gave us” the canon and then never specify when.
Catholics can also begin pressing Protestants to accept more instances where God protected the Church. It would make good sense for God to do so. Thus, the debate is no longer whether the Church can be infallibly protected, but how many times this has happened.

A Bible Disaster!

One hundred years ago, on July 21, a Tennessee jury convicted John Scopes of violating a state law banning the teaching of evolution. That case—especially as memorialized in the play and movie “Inherit the Wind”—is taken as a symbol of religiously fundamentalist ignorance allayed by “science.”
A century after Scopes, what lessons should Catholics draw?
Religion and science are not opposed. The Scopes trial helped cement a caricature of religion as opposed to “science,” a bastion of obscurantism. That may have been true of the biblical literalists in Dayton, Tennessee—but not of the Catholic Church.
It’s not just that the Church founded universities and hospitals—two places where science is rather active. It’s that Catholicism birthed science. In order to have a “scientific method,” you have to believe that
<ol>
<li>the universe functions according to certain laws, which make it</li>
<li>intelligible and</li>
<li>repetitious—i.e., under similar conditions, similar things happen.</li>
</ol>
Without those presuppositions, you can have no science. That’s why you should pick up books by Fr. Stanley Jaki (Science and Creation, The Road of Science and the Ways of God, The Savior of Science) and read about Catholicism’s hand in science as we know it.
Allied to this was the Church’s rejection of the so-called “double truth” theory—i.e., something could be true for science but false for religion (or vice versa). That might work for Protestantism, with its <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-protestant-roots-of-the-pronoun-wars">nominalist roots</a> (right and wrong are what they are because God said so, not because they are inherently good or evil), where everything’s a label. But if there’s one God, he doesn’t teach X here and lie over there. If there’s a supposed contradiction, it’s a challenge to dig deeper to find the underlining unity (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).
The Bible teaches that God created, not how he did it. Genesis is a theological text. It makes theological points. It is not the textbook for Biology 101.
The idea that God created establishes certain basic theological truths that are beyond science’s capacity to refute. Among the truths we hold is that the world is personal and designed and that God remains active in it.
Catholicism does not regard creation as some impersonal and maybe even accidentally serendipitous confluence of events that just so happened to produce the relatively orderly cosmos we know and love. Science may propose a Big Bang, but it cannot—one way or another—say anything about the one who made the Big Bang. Creation didn’t just happen—it happened out of love.
Those who grew up in the Anglophone thought world are perennially at risk of some form of deism—i.e., the idea of splitting the loaf by saying, “Yes, God created, but then—on the seventh day (or sometime thereafter) just disappeared.” Deists usually portray God as a clockmaker. He made the clock, wound it up (so well that it never needs subsequent rewinding or adjusting the time), and left to let it run by itself.
What’s wrong with this picture? Four things:
<ol>
<li>The world is not self-sustaining. Catholic teaching on creation is that God created and continually sustains Without God’s sustainment, everything would fall back into nothing, because nothing is self-caused, is self-sufficient, or can give itself life. So God is not out of the picture.</li>
<li>God created man to be his “co-creator,” to have dominion in his image over the world (Gen. 1:26-28). I like to say God made the world like IKEA: assembly required. God didn’t build houses. He gave man a brain and trees: figure it out! Responsible co-creation—fiduciary care of our common home—is man’s duty.</li>
<li>When parents let their child venture out independently, they usually don’t do it as “sink or swim.” While preserving a degree of autonomy, they also remain in the background to step in as needed. The same can be said—against the deists who denied the possibility of divine intervention—regarding God. Christianity is a faith that recognizes that God was and is active in history. That’s called <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-you-believe-in-providence">Providence</a>. His is not the Real Absence.</li>
<li>Man’s co-creatorship in God’s image and likeness makes a value judgment about man that pure biology cannot (and which I suspect haunted the background of the Scopes trial): the uniqueness of man. Man is part of the created world, but not just a part. He is part of the “circle of life,” but not just one species among many. Whether that “flattening” of human distinctiveness is a function of caricatures about evolution (man as overgrown monkey) or now about <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/baptize-the-environmentalist">environmentalism</a> (man is an ecologically hazardous species), the result is the same: in the name of “science” (which trespasses beyond its domain), man is treated as just another living thing.</li>
</ol>
Those who thought they were doing “God’s work” in prosecuting John Scopes may have wrongly believed that we have to read Genesis literally. The trial’s consequence has been to disparage the whole idea of creation, including ideas that “science” itself is incompetent to address. Those ideas include the distinctive nature and value of man and the supposed “closedness” of creation to ongoing divine intervention. I suspect that no small number of Catholics take a schizophrenic approach here, imagining God having an active role in history maybe up until the Acts of the Apostles (or more nebulous “ages of faith”) but certainly not being so gauche in our own “scientific” times. But the Catholic truth is that man is distinctive—even if he has one foot in a material world and developed according to steps—and Providence is real.
With the anniversary of the Scopes trial this week, let’s adopt a more nuanced approach to the issues it raised.
Want to read more? Two suggestions: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 282-301, and a short book by Joseph Ratzinger, <a href="https://ignatius.com/the-divine-project-dvpp/?searchid=2595375&amp;search_query=divine+project">The Divine Project</a>.

IKEA and the Monkey Trial

<div>Doesn’t the precious blood make the chalice pure? Why does it get "purified"?</div><div>“Purification” refers to making sure no eucharistic elements remain in the sacred vessels, whether under the appearances of bread or wine. This is done out of great reverence for Christ’s sacred body and precious blood.
After the Communion rite, a priest or deacon gathers and consumes any fragments remaining from the consecrated hosts. Then, using his hand, a priest or deacon transfers to the chalice any small particles of the hosts remaining in the ciborium or on a paten.
Water is then added to the remaining eucharistic elements in the chalice, typically with the assistance of an altar server, purifying in the process the priest or deacon’s fingers that have handled the consecrated hosts. A priest or deacon then consumes the remaining eucharistic elements in the chalice.
Then the priest or deacon uses a purificator to remove any eucharistic elements that remain in the chalice. The purificator is cleansed after Mass, often by a sacristan, and the diluted elements, which no longer contain the Real Presence, are poured down a sacrarium that takes the solution directly into the ground rather than the local sewage system, a further homage to the substantial Real Presence that once existed under the appearances of bread and wine. 
For more information on the purification of the sacred vessels, see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/purification-of-the-vessels-after-mass">this answer</a> by Fr. Charles Grondin.
</div>

Why ‘Purify’ the Chalice?

Overcoming the Struggle with Impurity

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

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

Is Halloween Pagan?

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

Is the Church hiding Scripture?

One size doesn’t fit all Protestants.

<div>Should I avoid patronizing a business if I know it supports Planned Parenthood?</div><div>It’s certainly laudable, if possible, to avoid patronizing businesses that contribute to Planned Parenthood (PP), support same-sex “marriage,” and promote other intrinsic moral evils. But typically it’s not morally obligatory.
In the case of a company that donated to PP, you’d be materially supporting PP in a remote way but not formally cooperating with them as you would if you made a direct contribution to PP. Formal cooperation with morally evil endeavors is never morally justified. Unfortunately, you will likely find boycotting businesses with any supportive connection to same-sex “marriages” rather difficult, because many secular businesses accommodate such relationships in their benefit plans.
Typically, material cooperation isn’t prohibited because of the remote nature of it. And it’s often very hard to avoid, e.g., paying taxes and not being able to control how your tax monies are used by the government for “family planning” that includes contraceptives and abortions, including for Third World countries. Also, you may end up “majoring in the minors” by becoming preoccupied with self-imposed boycotts that aren’t morally necessary.
Further, it’s often hard to avoid some businesses with problematic philanthropy. For example, it’s hard these days to find a grocery store that doesn’t sell condoms and possibly abortifacient contraceptives (if they have a pharmacy), whereas it’s typically easier to avoid a particular coffee shop. If you do choose to boycott, charitably let the business owners know why you’re doing so and that you’d loved to patronize them anew.
For more information on the Church’s perspective on formal and material cooperation, see these <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/explaining-ratzingers-proportionate-reasons">two</a> <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/moral-investing">articles</a> by Jimmy Akin, as well as a related question I answered <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/no-need-to-boycott-google">regarding the boycotting of Google</a>.
</div>

Material and Formal Cooperation with Evil

Learn To Spot This Common Logical Fallacy...

Catholic teaching on <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/faith-and-works-0">faith and works</a>, and the role they play in salvation, is misunderstood by many Protestants and even some Catholics. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin gives an overview on what the Bible and the Church actually teach about salvation.