Manage Account

Every pope since Pope John Paul II has made God’s mercy a hallmark of his pontificate. Pope Leo XIV, who leaves today on an eleven-day journey to Africa, is just getting started.
After greeting pilgrims in St. Peter’s Square, the Holy Father briefly referenced Divine Mercy Sunday in his Regina Caeli message, noting that it was founded by John Paul II. “The Sunday Eucharist is indispensable to the Christian life,” he continued. “It is through the Eucharist that our hands become the hands of the Risen One, giving witness to his presence, mercy, and peace.”
Leo has not been shy about invoking God’s mercy. When he closed the Holy Doors of St. Peter’s Basilica at the end of the Jubilee Year on January 6, he noted that “the gate” of God’s mercy will never be shut; God “will always sustain the weary, raise up those who have fallen,” and offer “good things” to those who place their trust in him.
<h2>God’s Eternal Mercy</h2>
Divine Mercy isn’t new, but the Catholic Church’s emphasis on it is. God has always loved us with an incomprehensible passion. He is always ready to forgive us if we only turn to him with our whole heart, especially when we trust Jesus with fearless abandon.
Catholic teaching holds that mercy is God’s greatest attribute. We can’t fully understand who God is without reflecting on his mercy—his radical love, forgiveness, and kindness toward those who don’t deserve it, which is to say all of us! Justice means giving us what we deserve. The truth is that we all deserve hell. However, mercy goes further, offering what we truly need: second chances, healing, and hope.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “God reveals his fatherly omnipotence by the way he takes care of our needs . . . above all by his mercy” (270), and more directly, that “the gospel is the revelation in Jesus Christ of God’s mercy to sinners” (1846).
Scripture teaches that God forgives those who truly repent and turn back to him: “If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing” (1 John 1:9). This promise is echoed in Acts 3:19, which calls us to “repent . . . and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away,” showing that conversion opens the door to God’s mercy and forgiveness.
The Catechism emphasizes that no sin is beyond God’s forgiveness if we turn back to him with a sincere heart. It states, “There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. . . . There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest” (982), underscoring that God’s mercy is always greater than our sin.
A Time for Mercy
This message took on special importance in our time through a young Polish nun named St. Faustina Kowalska. From 1931 to 1938, the young mystic experienced powerful visions of Jesus, who spoke to her about his mercy and asked her to share that message with the world. He entrusted her with a remarkable mission: “You will prepare the world for my final coming.”
Faustina didn’t travel the world or preach to the masses. Instead, she followed Jesus’ instructions to commission a painting of him as she saw him—with red and pale rays coming from his heart—with the words “Jesus I trust in You” at the bottom. Faustina wrote about her experiences in a diary, describing her conversations with Jesus and his call for people to trust him. Her diary has become one of the most important spiritual works of modern times.
Faustina’s message may not have gained traction without Pope St. John Paul II. As the archbishop of Kraków, he opened her cause for sainthood in the 1960s. Later, as pope, he continued to shepherd her cause, finally canonizing her on April 30, 2000, as the first saint of the new millennium.
In a despairing world, John Paul declared, no one is too far from God to be forgiven. “There is nothing that man needs more than Divine Mercy,” he said in 1997.
Following in his footsteps, Pope Benedict XVI taught that God’s mercy and justice are not contradictory, but complementary aspects of divine love, with mercy as the supreme, crowning attribute that fulfills justice. In his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi, he taught that “grace does not cancel out justice. It does not make wrong into right. . . . Both justice and grace must be seen in their proper relationship to each other” (44).
Then came Pope Francis, who surprised many by how forcefully he focused on mercy. During his Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, churches around the world opened special Holy Doors as a sign that God’s mercy is open to everyone. Francis also encouraged people to go to confession so they could personally experience God’s mercy.
When Francis canonized Mother Teresa during the Year of Mercy, he hailed her as an “icon of the Good Samaritan,” calling her a model and “generous dispenser of divine mercy.”
With Pope Leo, it’s clear that the Church’s focus on mercy isn’t going away. In fact, I believe that it will grow stronger, because Jesus has made it clear that the Magisterium is to play a central role in preparing the world for his final coming.
Leo mentioned Faustina’s apparitions in his address to Polish pilgrims to Rome in February, and in last year’s apostolic letter on the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, he wrote, “In the face of disasters, wars and misery, we bear witness to God’s mercy to those who doubt him only when they experience his mercy through us.”
It’s fair to expect that the American pope will continue to emphasize Divine Mercy because, as John Paul II taught, it’s what the world needs most.
<h2>Justice vs. Mercy</h2>
Some Catholic pundits believe that the world needs more of God’s justice. Justice will come. We must first try to wrap our minds around the fact that God’s love for his people is simply beyond us. The Lord’s love for us—demonstrated by his death on the cross—is simply not logical. It’s a supernatural love.
Divine Mercy, in a sense, refutes <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/pelagianism-old-heresy-still-attractive">Pelagianism</a>, the heresy named after Pelagius, a fifth-century monk who taught that human beings can achieve holiness and salvation through their own efforts, without the need for God’s grace. The Church rejects this idea because it contradicts core Christian teaching about sin and grace. Pelagianism denies the reality of original sin and the absolute necessity of grace. Catholic teaching holds that we are wounded by sin and depend entirely on God’s grace, especially through Jesus Christ, for salvation.
Divine Mercy challenges us to ponder God’s mercy more deeply, to abandon ourselves to it, and to incorporate it into our own lives. As we forgive, we will be forgiven.
In the end, the message Jesus gave Faustina is one of hope. It reminds us that no matter how far we’ve strayed, Jesus longs for us to come back. No one is beyond God’s love.
If we can incorporate this teaching into our own lives, even in small ways, it will transform us and the whole world.

Pope Leo and Divine Mercy

Discover

Where did Jesus appear alive between his resurrection and ascension? And who were the witnesses, beyond just the holy women and the apostles? It can be very confusing. So we will lay it out in an orderly manner.
Jesus had repeatedly informed his disciples in advance of his death and resurrection, “And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise” (Luke 18:33).
Luke summarizes Jesus’ activity before his ascension into heaven. “Jesus presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).
We will start with a brief summary of the twelve places and events. We will continue with more detailed information.
<h2>Short Summary of Resurrection Appearances
Summary of Places and Events</h2>
<ol>
<li> At the Tomb — To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2">
<li> Leaving the Tomb — To Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (Matt. 28:1, 9-10)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="3">
<li> To Simon Peter — Unspecified location (Luke 24:34, 1 Cor. 15:5)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="4">
<li> Road to Emmaus — Appeared “under different form” to Cleopas and his companion (Mark 16:12-13, Luke 24:1-35)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="5">
<li> Upper Room in Jerusalem — All the apostles “and those with them,” excluding Thomas (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33, 36-43; John 20:19-23)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="6">
<li>Upper Room — Eight days later with Thomas (John 20:24, 1 Cor. 15:5)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="7">
<li> To Galilee, 90 miles north — “Tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me” (Matt. 26:32, 28:10; Mark 14:28)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="8">
<li>Shore of Galilee — Peter and six disciples go fishing (John 21:1-24)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="9">
<li> Mount Tabor (Transfiguration) — The Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="10">
<li> 500 brethren — Probably around Capernaum, where he had lived, taught, and healed and fed 5,000 men (1 Cor. 15:6)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="11">
<li> To James, probably in Galilee — “James the Lord’s brother,” kinsman of Jesus, and the first appointed bishop of Jerusalem (Matt. 13:55; Acts 12:17, 15:13; Gal. 1:19)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="12">
<li> Mount of Olives — Ascension (Mark 16:19-20, Luke 24:50-53, Acts 1:6-12, 1 Cor. 15:7)</li>
</ol>
<ol start="13">
<li> Road to Damascus — To Paul—“as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (Acts 9:1-6, 1 Cor. 15:8)</li>
</ol>
<h2>Resurrection Appearances 
People, Other Witnesses, and Sites</h2>
<ol>
<li> Jesus’ Mother Mary</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>It is a pious and worthy tradition that Jesus’ mother was the first witness of his resurrection.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Pope St. John Paul II echoes many others in saying the Gospels’ silence “must not lead to the conclusion that after the Resurrection Christ did not appear to Mary.” And “it is legitimate to think that the Mother was probably the first person to whom the risen Jesus appeared.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, <a href="https://archive.org/details/TheSpiritualExercisesIgnatius">we read</a>, “He appeared to the Virgin Mary. This, although it is not said in Scripture, is included in saying that he appeared to so many others” (160)</li>
</ul>
<ol start="2">
<li> God the Father and the Holy Spirit</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Acts 2:24: “God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Galatians 1:1: “Paul, an apostle . . . through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Romans 8:11: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="3">
<li> Angels at the Tomb</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Matthew 28:1-2: “After the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Matthew 28:10: “The angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay’.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="4">
<li>Mary Magdalene and the “Gardener”</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Mark 16:9: “When he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>John 20:11-16: “Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. . . . She turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?’ Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, ‘Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned and said to him in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means Teacher).”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="5">
<li>Roman Soldiers</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Matthew 28:2-4: “An angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Matthew 28:12-13 “They gave a sum of money to the soldiers and said, ‘Tell people, “His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="4">
<li> Souls in Hades</li>
</ol>
Editor’s note: Granted, not strictly after he rose from the dead.
<ul>
<li>Apostles’ Creed: “Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day, he rose again from the dead.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>1 Peter 3:19-20: “He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>1 Peter 4:6: “This is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>CCC 632: “Presuppose[s] that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. . . . Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the good news to the spirits imprisoned there.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="5">
<li> Satan</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Satan did not understand the Resurrection beforehand, or he would not have participated in Christ’s crucifixion.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>1 Corinthians 2:8: “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Though Scripture is silent on Satan and the Resurrection, he was surely and instantly aware of it. At that moment, he was utterly surprised and horrified to learn that the crucified one had risen. Satan realized he had lost. Through Jesus’ death and resurrection, the works of the devil were destroyed (1 John 3:8).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Scripture uses a metaphor taken from a Roman military triumph. Having stripped the devil and his minions of their power, Jesus made a public spectacle of them by leading them as captives in his victory procession. Colossians 2:15: “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="8">
<li> Peter and John running to the tomb</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>John 20:6-8: “Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="9">
<li> Thomas the Doubter</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>John 20:24-28: “Thomas . . . was not with them when Jesus came [the first time]. So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.’ Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.’ Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="10">
<li> Cephas, then to the Twelve</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>1 Corinthians 15:4-5: “That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Paul omits the resurrected Christ’s appearance to the holy women, mentioning only men, since by Jewish law, only men’s testimony was accepted as valid in legal matters.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>“The Twelve” had become an official title for those chosen as Apostles, and it was used even after Judas&#8217;s death.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The Apostles would not willingly suffer horrific martyrdoms for a lie. Being convinced of the truth, they gave their lives as their final witness to the resurrection.</li>
</ul>
<ol start="11">
<li> 500 brethren at one time (probably over 1,500, including women and children)</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>1 Corinthians 15:6: “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The 500 men who saw Jesus are not identified.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Likely, they were his followers in Galilee for whom he multiplied the loaves and fish for 5,000 men “besides the women and children” (Matt. 14:21), probably totaling 20,000 in all. So, with the resurrection appearance, there were probably 2,000 people, including women and children.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>News spread rapidly in Galilee, and those to whom he had preached, whom he had fed, and whom he had healed rushed to see Jesus alive, after hearing he had been crucified and risen from the dead.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Some of the younger children present may have still been living witnesses to the Resurrection until the end of the first century.</li>
</ul>
<ol start="12">
<li> James, the brother of the Lord</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>1 Corinthians 15:7: “Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>We are not told where or when Jesus appeared to his relative James, though it was probably while in Galilee, since they lived in Nazareth.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The appearance to James is significant since he is one of “the brothers of the Lord” (Matt 13:55; Gal 1:19). Until the end of Jesus’ life, “not even his brothers believed in him” (John 7:5).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Due to the Resurrection—and likely because of this appearance to James—the brothers experienced a profound conversion and became believers. They were present in the Upper Room praying with the 120 before Pentecost. Acts 1:14: “All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="13">
<li>Two Men on the Road to Emmaus</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>A disciple named Cleopas, with his unnamed companion, is joined by Jesus on the way to Emmaus. This appearance took place on the morning of the resurrection.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In Luke 24:13-35, “their eyes were kept from recognizing him,” and in Mark 16:12, “he appeared in another form.” They eventually recognized him in “the breaking of the bread,” when Jesus took, broke, blessed, and gave. These four verbs are used in the multiplication of loaves and in the institution of the Eucharist (Matt 26:26, Mark 6:43, Luke 24:30).</li>
</ul>
<ol start="14">
<li>Matthias (the eyewitness who took Judas’s place)</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Acts 1:21-26: “‘One of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.’ . . . And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="15">
<li>Resurrected bodies come out of their tombs</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Matthew 27:52-53: When Jesus “yielded up his spirit” on the cross, “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”</li>
</ul>
<ol start="16">
<li> St. Paul on the Road to Damascus, about three years after the Resurrection</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>1 Corinthians 15:8: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”</li>
</ul>
And so we join this happy throng of original witnesses! He is risen! We are a resurrection people, and “Hallelujah” is our song!

Jesus’ Post-Resurrection To-Do List

How can Catholics ask Protestants to be in communion with the Pope, when there have been so many schisms?

I don’t understand the teaching of no salvation outside the Catholic Church?

How do I explain Papal Authority? When should we listen to the Pope?

What do Catholics believe are necessary beliefs to be Christian?

I struggle with the teaching of Mary’s Virginity based on Matthew 1:24-25?

Is Catholic doctrine found in the Bible?

I’m confused by the belief in Sacrament of the anointing of the sick? I’ve heard different perspectives on going to Heaven with last rites?

What Catholic Doctrine Troubles You?

My non-Catholic friend asks how can the Catholic Church be infallible when it has flip-flopped on issues. The issue he cites is the Church endorsement of burning heretics, and then later saying we shouldn’t.

I’ve heard you say that worship is sacrifice. But my Protestant friend says they do sacrifice — sacrifice of praise.

I’m not Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox because it is so confusing. So I just identify as a Christian.

I’m considering Catholicism but I have some concerns. My SDA friend sent me a document saying the papacy was the beast of Revelation. Also I feel like the Catholic Church is not as welcoming to the LGBT community.

&#8220;How can the Catholic Church be infallible?&#8221; This question addresses concerns about the Church&#8217;s historical positions, including its past endorsement of burning heretics. Other topics include the nature of worship as sacrifice and the confusion some feel about identifying as a Christian amidst various denominations. Additionally, there are discussions about the papacy and its perception within the context of modern issues.
<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 the Catholic Church Be Infallible? Heresy and Worship

<div>What do you tell someone who says they don't feel the presence of Jesus in the Holy Mass?</div><div>Is the person you talking to a non-Catholic Christian or a Catholic Christian?
If a non-Catholic Christian, he obviously has years of formation of one sort or another in which he&#8217;s been taught and reaffirmed that the Mass is, at the very least, not what the Catholic Church says it is, namely, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass">making present anew the one Paschal Sacrifice of Jesus Christ</a> that culminated in everlasting glory in the heavenly sanctuary.
Perhaps then start with what we have in common with him, namely, the proclamation of God’s word from Sacred Scripture during the Liturgy of the Word, i.e., the first and second readings, the responsorial psalm, and the Gospel. Remind him too that Jesus says, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20), which we know is true by faith, even if we don’t always feel it, e.g., experience God&#8217;s consoling peace.
And then encourage him to read more about Catholicism in general and the Mass in particular, such as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or continue to come to Mass. And continue to pray for him in any event. His not feeling Christ’s presence at Mass likely stems from his long standing aversion to things Catholic.
If the person is Catholic, I’d encourage him to spend some time in quiet prayer before <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-real-presence">Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament</a>, asking him to help him grow in his awareness of Christ&#8217;s eucharistic reality in particular and the sublimity of the Mass in general. In addition, tell the person that even the most faithful Catholics won’t always feel God’s presence during Mass, but that we need to persevere anyway, because we know it’s true.
Encourage him also to cultivate good fellowship with good Catholics, because that’s a key way the Lord loves us and deepens our faith—by providing us with good brothers and sisters in Christ to help sustain is along the journey to heaven.
</div>

Not Feeling the Presence of Jesus at Mass?

In this episode Trent takes a look at how LGBT ideology and its views of sex harm the good of friendship.

How LGBT Ideology Ruins Friendship

<div>Can a layperson have a permanent key to the tabernacle in order to get hosts to take to homebound people?</div><div>The Code of Canon Law:
<blockquote>The person responsible for the church or oratory is to take care that the key of the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is safeguarded most diligently (can. 938 §5).</blockquote>
General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
<blockquote>The one tabernacle should be immovable, be made of solid and inviolable material that is not transparent, and be locked in such a way that the danger of profanation is prevented to the greatest extent possible (314).</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.romanrite.com/nullo.html">Nullo Unquam Tempore</a>
<blockquote>The key of the tabernacle, in which the Most Holy Sacrament is kept, should be guarded with the utmost diligence, its custody resting as a grave burden of conscience on the priest who has charge of the church or oratory.
The key of the tabernacle must be most diligently kept by a priest. All the cautions mentioned up to the present will be in vain, if the chief caution, namely, the safe-keeping of the key of the tabernacle be neglected. . . . The key must be kept by the rector at home, or always carried about by him, care being taken against losing it; or let it be kept in the sacristy in a safe and secret place, under lock and key, the second key being kept by the rector as above. . . .
If he leaves the key in the sacristy under another key; he can give this latter to the sacristan during such time as he is absent and the key of the tabernacle may be needed.</blockquote>
The documents of the Church are very clear that there are not to be other keys to the tabernacle floating around. The actual key to the tabernacle must always be kept at the church. If someone has need of the tabernacle key, then it should be kept in a location under another key or code that the individual can have access to rather than keeping the tabernacle key. After all, if the person holding onto a key were to lose it, it is easier and simpler to change where the tabernacle key is kept than to change the lock for the tabernacle.
</div>

How Should the Tabernacle Key Be Handled?

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

What Should I Do if My Spouse Is Abusive?

The first time I tried to see the Shroud of Turin was in 1992, but I forgot my x-ray specs, so I caught only a glimpse of a stone box tucked in a badly lit chapel of that city&#8217;s Cathedral of St. John the Baptist. I fared better in 1998, when the Shroud was exhibited for the first time in two decades. As I stood in front of the yellowed cloth, stretched and lit in its bulletproof case above the altar, I had a strong and perhaps absurd urge, which at first I resisted. Then I gave in.
I genuflected.
If, as some modern researchers have concluded, the Shroud is a medieval forgery, then I committed gross idolatry that day. On the other hand, and happily for my immortal soul, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/">a 2013 study</a> by Italian scientists called into question the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin#Official_announcement">1988 carbon-dating</a> that placed the Shroud’s origin sometime in the Middle Ages—confirming a long suspicion among Shroud-watchers that residue from a 1532 fire had contaminated those findings—and suggested instead that the cloth dates to a time between 300 B.C and A.D. 400.
Even if the Shroud were not Christ’s burial linen, its origin would still be one of the world’s great mysteries. Its image of a body bearing the marks of torture and crucifixion was not painted on or burned in; it’s not berry juice or coffee or Sharpie. Indeed, we’re not sure how it was created; all we know is that no known ancient technique can account for it. The best modern effort to reproduce it used high-powered UV lasers to create faint radiation burns in strips of cloth.
Medieval artists didn’t have laser guns. Neither did they have cameras—and yet the Shroud image is essentially a photographic negative. Long tradition had identified the Shroud as Christ’s burial cloth, but not until the invention of photography in the mid-nineteenth century, which let us look at a negative image of it, were all of its stunning details revealed: front and rear impressions of an adult male laid out in a burial posture, evidence of traumatic wounds at his face, forehead, wrists, feet, and back.
Over the past few decades, forensic analysis has turned up other tantalizing links between the Shroud and the Crucifixion. The weave of the cloth, remnants of bloodstains, traces of stone, soil, and pollen, perhaps even impressions of first-century coins over the figure’s eyes, if accurate, all support or at least do not contradict the Shroud’s identity as a 2,000-year-old burial cloth from the region of Judea.
Now, there is no shortage of Shroud websites (there’s even <a href="http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/31/new-high-def-app-offers-view-of-shroud-of-turin-58581">an iPad app</a>) and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=shroud+of+turin+&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=shroud+of+tu&amp;aqs=chrome.0.59l4j60l2.1576j0&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8">no great trick</a> to finding them. The intricacies of Shroud study can exhaust even the most obsessive information hounds. So rather than multiply hyperlinks and factoids, I will leave you to your own curiosity.
But I do want to muse for a moment on how a good Catholic ought to think about the Shroud.
The Church, characteristically, takes no official position on it—just as it takes no position on the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, or on <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/doubt-the-real-presence-try-a-blood-miracle">Eucharistic miracles</a>. But the Shroud has enjoyed a place of honor for centuries, and recent popes have approved and even <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone_en.html">encouraged devotion</a> based on it. Even if it is not Christ’s burial cloth, even if it is not a relic but just an icon, it’s still a compelling mystery and a spiritually profitable reminder of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Our faith is in things unseen, after all; we believe what the Lord revealed because he first opened our eyes and because the Church he founded attests to that revelation—not because Exhibit A contains the DNA proof of it.
But what if it is Christ’s burial cloth? Then it is nothing less than the most singular and splendid thing on earth. Then it is a magnificent sign of God’s mercy, not only because it depicts his greatest act of mercy, but because, even though our faith is in things unseen, he gives us something we can see anyway. This is in keeping with his past M.O. He gave us prophets, miracles, the Incarnation, the Church; many times he has sent his mother and his saints to renew our belief. Salvation history is chock-full of these aids to faith, both for the whole Church and in our own little lives.
But just in case we still didn’t get the message, he gave us “Exhibit A: Resurrection,” too. A huge, glowing neon arrow pointing to the good news. Isn&#8217;t that what a God of perfect love and inexhaustible mercy would do?
This is why I choose to believe in the Shroud: not because of what scientists say about it but because of what it says about God.

Making Sense of the Shroud

Once upon a time, there was a Twitter thread of atheists and theists going back and forth that gained a bit of attention. An atheist asked, “Dear theists: What is the mass of God?”
A priest responded, “What is the circumference of red?” To put it another way, to demand measurements of God’s physical qualities is, in the words of the priest, “asking about a property of something that doesn’t possess that property.”
Seeing a gotcha moment in his grasp, another atheist retorted, “Then how did God wrestle with Jacob if he has no physical body?&#8221; (Gen. 32:22-32).
The priest left the conversation with, “I’m sure the Creator can figure out a temporary thing.”
Genesis 32:24 tells us about “a man” who wrestled with Jacob all night. But verse 28 seems to identify the “man” as God. The “man” tells Jacob that Jacob’s new name will be Israel because Jacob had “striven with God.” Jacob seems to believe he wrestled with God, for he says, “I have seen God face to face” (v. 30).
So how does Jacob wrestle with God if God is immaterial? Is this a gotcha moment for the atheist?
No, it’s not! There are several ways we can respond to this challenge.
One possible response is that of the priest: “I’m sure the Creator can figure out a temporary thing.” God is omnipotent, which means he can do anything that doesn’t involve a logical contradiction. Manifesting himself in a material form doesn’t involve a logical contradiction. Therefore, it could be that God temporarily manifested himself as a “man” and wrestled with Jacob.
This is not out of bounds for his omnipotence. Nor would it contradict the claim that God is immaterial.
In order for there to be a contradiction, God taking human form would have to logically entail the claim that God in his divine nature is both immaterial and material at the same time and in the same respect. But God temporarily creating a physical body that he takes on to wrestle with Jacob doesn’t entail that God’s divine nature is both immaterial and material at the same time and in the same respect.
The temporary material form that God creates and uses to manifest himself is entirely on the side of creation and has no bearing on God’s divine essence, which is immaterial. God’s divine nature is infinite being, and the body he creates and takes on is finite being. The finite can’t possibly affect the infinite. Therefore, the temporary material form that God creates and uses to wrestle Jacob doesn’t entail that God in his divine nature has mass.
St. Thomas Aquinas offers another possible take. In response to the claim that we can see the divine essence in this life, which some support with Jacob saying, “I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:30), Aquinas states,
<blockquote>A man is said in the Scriptures to see God in the sense that certain figures are formed in the senses or imagination, according to some similitude representing in part the divinity. So, when Jacob says, &#8220;I have seen God face to face,&#8221; this does not mean the divine essence, but some figure representing God (ST I:12:11 ad 1).</blockquote>
Aquinas then explains this event as a form of prophecy—it’s possible that Jacob didn’t actually physically wrestle with a material figure. Rather, he experienced a vision in which he wrestled with a man and he received what Aquinas calls the “prophetic current” (ST II-II:174:1 ad 3). On this reading, the “Does God have mass?” question becomes irrelevant.
But what about Jacob’s thigh that was put out of joint (v. 25)? We’re told that Jacob was “limping because of his thigh” when the sun rose (v. 31). Well, God can make Jacob’s thigh be out of joint without an actual physical wrestling match, just as he struck Zacharias dumb shortly before Jesus&#8217; birth (Luke 1:20).
Another response that makes the “Does God have mass?” question irrelevant is that the “man” was not God, but an angel—a created intelligent being that’s pure spirit. Aquinas is sympathetic to this reading (see ST Appendix 2:3; ST Suppl. 15:3 ad 1). For support, some appeal to Hosea 12:4, which reads, “He [Jacob] strove with the angel and prevailed, he wept and sought his favor.”
Now, a glaring obstacle to this reading is that the passage in question (Gen. 32:22-32) identifies as God the “man” who wrestles with and speaks to Jacob. How can an angel speak in the place of God?
It’s not uncommon for the Bible to speak of an action as being performed by someone even though the action was really performed by a representative. Consider, for example, Moses’ reception of the Commandments. Moses tells the Israelites that he received the Commandments from God: “God spoke all these words saying . . .” (Exod. 20:1; cf. Deut. 5:5). Yet Paul says in Galatians 3:19 that the Law was “ordained by angels through an intermediary,” the intermediary being Moses. Stephen addresses the Jewish council as “you who received the law as delivered by angels” (Acts 7:53). The same idea is found in Hebrews 2:2 and in Josephus’s Antiquities (15, 136).
The same principle is found elsewhere in the Bible, too. Stephen says Moses built the tabernacle in the wilderness (Acts 7:44), but Moses didn’t actually build it with his own hands. Other Israelites did. Similarly, Stephen says just a few verses later in the same chapter, verse 47, that Solomon built the temple, knowing that Solomon didn’t actually build it himself.
That the Bible speaks of actions being performed by someone even though those actions were really performed by a representative provides a possible explanation as to why the author of Genesis describes what the angel does as the actions of God.
There’s yet another possible response, which is very ancient: the “man” is a pre-incarnate Christ.
It differs from our first response in this article only in that it specifies God the Son as the one who acts in and through the temporary material form that he creates and manipulates to wrestle with Jacob.
Recall from above that Hosea 12:4 identifies the “man” who wrestled with Jacob as “the angel.” “Angel” translates the Hebrew word malak and the Greek word aggelos, both of which simply mean “messenger.” Since Christ is the Father’s messenger (John 8:38-42), so it’s argued, Christ can be described as an “angel” without any implications of him being a created being (as Jehovah’s Witnesses believe).
This doesn’t mean the Second Person of the Trinity permanently united to himself a human nature, as he did when he was conceived in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb. Theologians call such a permanent uniting the “hypostatic union”—the union of two natures, human and divine, to the one divine person, the Second Person of the Trinity. Rather, this “pre-incarnate” view states the Second Person of the Trinity simply manifested himself temporarily by creating and using a material form, without uniting the material form to his divine nature in his person.
Augustine doesn’t adopt this view, but he does indicate that it was understood this way during his time. In <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160372.htm">Sermon 72</a> on the New Testament, after referring to the individual whom Jacob wrestled with as “the angel” four times, he writes, “So then that angel, who is understood to be the Lord Jesus, says to Jacob.” This view has a robust <a href="https://taylormarshall.com/2015/01/is-the-angel-of-the-lord-the-pre-incarnate-christ.html">pedigree</a>.
But what about the Incarnation? Don’t we say the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity united to his person a human nature? And doesn’t that mean that God ends up having mass while also being immaterial?
Our explanation here is similar to the one above, but also a little different. It’s true that God the Son permanently made a human nature his own, such that we can say God the Son has two natures: divine and human—unlike the case above, where God creates and takes on a material form to manifest himself.
Having a human nature, God the Son can do and experience things that go with being human. And we can say such things about him—for instance, “God the Son suffered, died, and rose from the dead”—and they’ll really be true. Similarly, we can say, “God the Son has mass,” and that statement will really be true, too.
But these things are true only by virtue of the human nature that God assumed to himself, which can’t affect his divine nature any more than any other creature can affect infinite divine being. Therefore, to speak of God the Son having mass via the Incarnation doesn’t entail that God the Son is both material and not immaterial in the same respect at the same time.
Regardless of which explanation you take, each one plausibly escapes the atheist’s trap. There’s no inconsistency between what the Bible says about God and what we know from reason. Contrary to what an atheist might think, there’s no gotcha moment here.

How God Can Wrestle Without a Body

Why Did the church kill off weekly fasting?

I have heard the Church banned jousting. Does that mean we can’t do that at Medieval Times?

Is it acceptable for Catholics to believe in the limbo of the infants?

How do I articulate the Catholic position that it is not faith alone that saves, without sounding like our works save us?

Modeling Jesus in Dating Before Marriage

I’ve been going through some ongoing stalking, hacking, and financial fraud. I thought I could go to the Church for help but they don’t seem to be able to offer me support. What are the pastoral duties of a priest? I’ve been thinking of leaving the Cat...

Why is it the norm in the US to receive communion in the hand and standing? Why did it change from what seems to be a more reverent posture?

How can the Church hold up Mary and Joseph as an ideal marriage, when they did not consummate and therefore it would not have had a sacramental marriage?

When should you leave your parish for another parish based on your priest teaching false things? My priest is very loving and kind, but is not on board with some doctrines and some sexual teaching of the Church?

&#8220;Why did the Church end weekly fasting?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the evolution of Church practices, alongside inquiries about the Church&#8217;s stance on jousting, the concept of limbo for infants, and the pastoral duties of priests. These topics reflect the diverse concerns and curiosities within the Catholic faith today.
<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>

Why Did the Church End Weekly Fasting? Communion and Mary

James White’s Gish Gallop (Debater’s Tactic)

<div>When did our Catholic Church first start formal confessions?</div><div>Following his Resurrection, Jesus instituted the sacrament of reconciliation (confession), giving his apostles the power to absolve the faithful of their sins (John 20:21-23).
As we note in <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/confession">our tract on the subject</a>:
<blockquote>Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed. In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in silence to God alone, but something done &#8220;in church,&#8221; as the Didache (A.D. 70) indicates.</blockquote>
For more on this subject, see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/confession">our aforementioned tract</a>.
</div>

The Sacrament of Confession Began with Jesus?

Islam teaches that Jesus was not crucified. Instead, Muslims believe he was raised bodily to heaven by God. You may encounter this objection to the Christian faith when you engage in discussions with Muslim apologists.
This argument finds its roots in the Quran:
<blockquote>That they said (in boast), &#8220;We killed <a title="Christ" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ">Christ</a> Jesus the son of <a title="Mary (mother of Jesus)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)">Mary</a>, the <a title="Messengers of Islam" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messengers_of_Islam">Messenger</a> of <a title="Allah" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah">Allah</a>&#8220;; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise (4:157-158).</blockquote>
Opinions vary, but generally you will encounter one of these three conclusions when speaking with Muslims about the Crucifixion:
<ol>
<li>Jesus survived the Crucifixion.</li>
<li>God made someone else look like Jesus.</li>
<li>The Crucifixion simply did not occur.</li>
</ol>
As we will see, there is no good evidence to support any of these conclusions.
<h2>1. Jesus survived the Crucifixion.</h2>
In the Islamic view, Jesus’ death on the cross would have meant triumph for his enemies, but as the verse from the Quran states, “for of a surety they killed him not.” If the Crucifixion did happen, then Jesus must have survived the ordeal. This is not supported by the available evidence. All four Gospels describe the events in such a way that there can be no doubt Jesus died as the result of having been crucified.
In Matthew 27, Joseph of Arimathea asks for the body of Jesus in order to provide a proper burial, and Pontius Pilate grants his request. The Romans who handled the transfer would have known for sure that Jesus was dead. Even the Pharisees knew this and requested that the tomb be guarded so the disciples could not steal the body and falsely claim he had risen (vv. 45-66).
Mark and Luke record the event in much the same way. Mark, however, reveals another detail: in Mark&#8217;s Gospel, Pilate specifically asks for confirmation that Jesus is dead before handing the body over to Joseph of Arimathea  (15:44-45).
John’s Gospel also reveals a critical detail. According to him, Roman soldiers came to break the legs of the crucified. When they had seen that Jesus was already dead, they instead pierced his side with a spear. Then, consistent with the other Gospels, his body was given to Joseph for burial.
<h2>2. God made someone else look like Jesus.</h2>
This is also known as the Crucifixion Substitute Theory. Most Muslims believe that Jesus was raised to heaven by God and that another person made to look like him was crucified in his place. Muslim scholars have debated the identity of the substitute, with the most popular contender being Judas Iscariot.
One popular source that some Muslim apologists point to is the so-called “Gospel of Barnabas.” This document claims to have been written down by the disciple Barnabas at the request of Jesus himself. In it, the author claims that Judas was transformed by God into the likeness of Jesus and then crucified.
The only problem for the Muslim apologist is that scholars are virtually unanimous in their agreement that the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-the-gospel-of-barnabas-is-a-medieval-fake">Gospel of Barnabas</a> is a medieval forgery. The list of anachronisms and historical blunders it contains is expansive, and evidence for it prior to medieval times is virtually non-existent.
<h2>3. The Crucifixion simply did not occur.</h2>
The third and most popular objection to the Crucifixion among Muslim apologists is the argument that it never happened. In their view, the Gospel accounts of the event were corrupted and are laden with errors and falsehoods.
But the evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross can be verified by sources outside the New Testament. The early Church Fathers were unanimous on this point. Ignatius of Antioch, writing early in the second century, tells us,
<blockquote>He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that he was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in his flesh. Of this fruit we are by his divinely blessed passion, that he might set up a standard for all ages, through his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his Church (Letter to the Smyrneans, chapter 1).</blockquote>
Ignatius tells us that Jesus was certainly nailed to the cross. The term “through his resurrection” implies that he did die.
Another example from the early second century comes to us from St. Polycarp, who wrote,
<blockquote>For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. . . . Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree (Letter to the Philippians, chapters 7, 8).</blockquote>
There are many more quotes like these from early Christian writers. If the Muslim apologist is not willing to accept these quotes because they are from Christian sources, then consider this account from the Jewish historian <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/josephus-the-ancient-historian-gets-a-little-touchy">Josephus</a>:
<blockquote>Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first ceased not so to do; and the race of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct even now (J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 55).</blockquote>
Tacitus, a Roman historian and senator, also confirms the historicity of the Crucifixion:
<blockquote>Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular (Annals, 15.44, translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb).</blockquote>
These two accounts from non-Christian sources have nothing to gain by propagating a falsehood. The Quran, on the other hand, does stand to gain by denying the Crucifixion.
Muslims reject the Christian Trinitarian view of God, and consequently that Jesus was God incarnate.  They also reject the idea that Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind when he suffered on the cross by denying the Crucifixion altogether. But as I have demonstrated here, the evidence for the historicity of the Crucifixion is overwhelmingly on our side.

Refuting Muslim Arguments Against the Crucifixion

<div>Is Matthew 20:25-26 a contradiction to Matthew 16:18?</div><div>No. Actually, the passages are harmonious. In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus makes clear that Peter is the visible head of his Church. And in Matthew 20:25-26, Jesus explains to Peter and the other apostles what kind of leaders they should be. That is, regarding their authority, they should not “lord it over” their brothers and sisters, as do Gentile rulers. Instead, they should have the attitude of a servant in exercising his authority, looking out for the genuine good of those whom he serves.
Consequently, one of the titles popes have long embraced is <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13737a.htm">“Servant of the Servants of God.”</a>
</div>

No Contradiction in Matthew

We couldn&#8217;t get him to name any names, but we did get Jimmy Akin to explain what the Bible has to say about the nature of the anti-Christ. Without doubt many will be surprised by just how little the anti-Christ is mentioned in the Bible, and that it is probably more accurate to talk about &#8220;anti-Christs.&#8221;

Who Is the Anti-Christ?

Daybreakers (2009) was the most expensive movie I ever watched. It was on a flight I had to rebook because I had missed the original one. It is a gem of wisdom—an apologetic for the Church&#8217;s attitude toward perversion of all kinds and a horror movie that features hope front and center.
It has at least three important Christian themes:
<ol>
<li>Sin makes us hypocrites as we despise those who go farther than us, without admitting that we are guilty of the same thing.</li>
<li>Dying to ourselves, though painful, is better than the living death that is sin.</li>
<li>Grace can be painful to experience, but ultimately, it gives the ability to live the full life we want but that we cannot live just by our own free will.</li>
</ol>
As a movie, Daybreakers is most spectacular in the beginning, opening with a montage of scenes that gradually establish the horror: a strange disease has caused almost everyone in the world to become a vampire. More horrible still, &#8220;humanity&#8221; has taken it in stride. Chrysler makes Chargers with proprietary day-driving technology. Busy vampires in crowds go to work, attend school, and do their shopping at night, and the remaining humans live either in sinister, &#8220;humane&#8221; blood-milking farms or hide in scattered rebel bands. As the blood supply dwindles, vampire hematologists race to develop an adequate blood substitute. The stakes are higher than satiation, or even survival, since blood-starved vampires become &#8220;subsiders&#8221; who feed on other vampires.
Many, including the actors and others involved in production of the movie, seem to think of it as <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PostPeakOil">a fable about fossil fuels</a>—but it is so much more powerful as a story about sin, the inevitable lack of real satisfaction that it gives, and the hypocrisy it engenders. The &#8220;normal vampires&#8221; rationalize their profoundly warped existence while expressing contempt for the ones who &#8220;go too far.&#8221; For example, in one scene, a vampire cop looks at a dead subsider and spits out, &#8220;Animals!&#8221; There is a similar phenomenon in the reality we live in now, most clearly seen with regard to sexual sins, such as when men and women who justify various kinds of perversions express disgust for pedophiles. It&#8217;s a false comfort to look down on people who take your own sin uncomfortably farther.
Indeed, few modern metaphors for sin are as precise as vampirism. Vampires, for instance, cannot see their reflections, just as serious sin alienates us so much that it even separates us from ourselves, to the point of forgetting what we really are. Sin, as the great novelist Sigrid Undset says through one of her characters, is <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1370150-kristin-lavransdatter">trampling on other people</a>. This antisocial character of sin is most clearly personified by a vampire, whose life depends on taking away the life of others. It is the most horrific illustration of the glutton, who lives to eat instead of eating to live. Similarly, even the most refined vampire is ultimately a being whose highest aim is satisfying his appetite. This last fact is particularly well captured in the movie&#8217;s depictions of normalcy in a regime of vampires: there&#8217;s still Starbucks; there are still crowds on the streets; high schoolers idle together outside; TVs are still on in lobbies; major news networks feature well-dressed vampire journalists interviewing politicians. Yet the yellow eyes of each person reveal the lust for blood uppermost in each mind.
Even more compelling than the psychological probing of sin is the implicit consideration of the role of grace. Its necessity is emphasized first. There are vampires who recognize the perversity of their situation and even make noble decisions from time to time. The protagonist, a scientist developing a blood substitute, loathes the fact that he has become a vampire and refuses to drink human blood. He exhibits good will, braves pressure from his vampire peers, and even shows heroism in helping and protecting the persecuted humans. Nevertheless, he cannot free himself on his own. Furthermore, it is significant that his attention in the first half of the movie is on developing  a &#8220;substitute&#8221; for human blood. It is similar to the way in which modern Western society obsesses over creating more and more ways of indulging the passions for violence and sex &#8220;without hurting anyone.&#8221; No one is prepared to dream of the possibility of curing the sickness itself.
As the movie progresses, something similar to grace emerges. In the most desperate hour, it is discovered that there is a way to reverse the transition to vampire. The transition is not made by mere self-help. Instead, it is by exposure to light and water. The scenes depicting these transformations are redolent of the Christian associations with both of these essential realities. Transformation comes with a great deal of pain—pain that is rewarded with being truly human again. Like Eustace peeling of his dragon skin in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, shedding evil hurts, but it also means becoming what we are meant to be.
Like any good movie, Daybreakers is not an allegory, but rather an example of how real art tends to &#8220;rhyme&#8221; with the deepest realities, which are supernatural. One of the &#8220;rhymes&#8221; is seen in a twist at the end of the movie. Like how the way in which grace, in some mysterious way, produces a new creature, as St. Paul says, so are these renewed humans endowed with a new ability. The tables are turned; it is now the vampires who must fear the humans, especially when they are prepared to offer their lives.
The gore in the film, rather than being gratuitous, accentuates the hidden theme: that, indeed, the wages of sin is death, even it is living death. Although one does not need to watch this movie to learn that, and though it may not be worth the price of a plane ticket, it is an example of a vigorous horror movie, invigorated by truth, that is worth watching.

Vampires and the Wages of Sin

<div>Who has the authority to interpret the Bible? Where is the proof of this authority?</div><div>Jesus gave authority to interpret his teachings—i.e., God’s word—to the apostles and their successors. This is first seen in the Great Commission, where Jesus directs his apostles to make disciples of all nations, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Here we see that long before any of the books of the New Testament were written, Jesus gives the apostles authority to faithfully teach his unwritten teachings—and by extension those contained in the written Old Testament.
The apostles’ God-given authority is affirmed elsewhere, as Christ’ teachings are referred to as “the apostles’ teaching” in the early Church (Acts. 2:42). The authority of the Church and thus the apostles is also affirmed by St. Paul (1 Tim. 3:15). Consequently, it is the apostles and their successors who have the God-given authority to interpret the New Testament when its books are first written and then ultimately compiled.
Jesus appointed Peter and his successors as the head of the apostles. For more on this topic, please see my article <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/pentecost-and-the-papacy">“Pentecost and the Papacy.”</a>
</div>

Who Has Authority to Interpret God’s Word?

The Catholic world is atwitter this week with the news that, in July, Pope Francis responded to five dubia (official questions seeking clarification on matters of faith or morals) posed by several cardinals. Shortly after word of this transpired at the beginning of October, Cardinal Victor Fernandez—prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) and widely presumed main author of the pope’s responses—<a href="https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/pope-francis-responds-to-dubia-of-five-cardinals.html?fbclid=IwAR2I6svclh9a2GULSNjXy0n8qgj79J3wiAWhgqCqk1EihPtkquNGlWf8zRU">published</a> the whole thing.
The dubia concerned topics familiar to anyone following debates within the Church: doctrinal change, the Synod on Synodality, women’s ordination, etc. But the one regarding official Church blessings for same-sex couples (to which question the DDF just two years ago <a href="https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/210315b.html">delivered a “negative” response</a> that has since been flouted in <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253842/german-synodal-way-approves-same-sex-blessings-lay-preaching-and-reexamination-of-priestly-celibacy">Germany</a> and <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/blog/bishop-bonny-same-sex-unions#:~:text=Bishop%20Bonny%20and%20the%20other,on%20the%20Family%2C%20Amoris%20Laetitia.">elsewhere</a>) is getting most of the press, with news outlets around the world <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203170334/pope-suggests-blessings-for-same-sex-unions-may-be-possible">teasing that a major change may be close</a>.
After outlining Catholic teaching on marriage and confirming that only a union between a man and a woman can fulfill that definition, the response says that “the Church avoids any type of rite . . . that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.” It then adds that we must “discern” whether there could be a kind of blessing for same-sex couples that “does not convey a mistaken concept of marriage.”
This kind of language, though perhaps perfectly fine in a vacuum, continues a trend I&#8217;ve been noticing in Catholic commentary on same-sex unions: an emphasis on bracketing off marriage—or even more narrowly, “the sacrament of matrimony”—from such unions, whatever else we may call them.* As if the main or even the only important thing we have to do is keep the word or concept of man-woman Christian marriage separate from same-sex couplehood.
As if to say: There’s a raging debate over homosexuality and same-sex unions? As long as we don’t call them “marriages,” mission accomplished.
Why do we <a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:i2iMfgrwrnIJ:https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/10/23/bishops-pope-francis-civil-union-change-catholic-church-teaching-marriage&amp;cd=24&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us">keep</a> <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252640/cardinal-hollerich-church-blessings-for-same-sex-unions-not-a-settled-matter">hearing</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/flemish-catholic-bishops-defying-vatican-approve-blessing-same-sex-unions-2022-09-20/">variations</a> of this <a href="https://www.newwaysministry.org/2020/01/03/german-cardinal-key-bishop-endorse-church-blessings-for-lgbtq-couples/">line</a> from Catholic leaders? Maybe because they find it a strategically safe place to retreat to? It keeps us on the secure home turf of religious freedom and distinctive Catholic dogma. This is just a special thing that Catholics believe, see? Please let us keep it.
But it’s such an inadequate response, from a pastoral perspective and even the strategic perspective.
From a pastoral perspective, I think, because by refusing to come out from behind the ramparts of religious doctrine, this response fails to meet people on the front lines. It is there we face the question: do same-sex relationships of the pseudo-conjugal kind (that is, marriage-like relationships: with sexual intimacy, common living, unity, fidelity, even parenting) represent morally and spiritually healthy paths to human flourishing, according to God’s commandments and the natural law? Or to put it more crisply, are they ordered to happiness?
If they are not, if same-sex mimicry of marriage (we just won&#8217;t call it marriage) doesn’t lead to flourishing, even where it may exhibit certain laudable qualities of friendship or charity, then our main concern shouldn’t be whether blessing such relationships sows confusion about marriage. Our concern should be whether those blessings harm the people who receive them. For, although the dubia response claims that the purpose of such blessings would be to ask God for help “to live better,” everybody and his cat knows that their effect, both for the persons blessed and for the watching world, would be to affirm both the union and the (ultimately unhappy) lifestyle. No doubt, for some proponents of such blessings, this is the goal.
No middle ground here. Bestowing the sacramental of ritual blessing upon same-sex couples as couples, however much you want to nuance it, will be taken as a sign of Catholic approval of their pseudo-conjugal union, and of homosexuality itself. In no universe can we reasonably say that this is actually a form of pastoral accompaniment, part of a long-term plan to lead them out of that union and toward fidelity to Catholic teaching and the correct, healthy, happy ordering of their sexuality.
From the strategic perspective, retreating to the borders of “marriage” while conceding the field of same-sex blessings might buy time and temporarily make the world like us more, but longer-term, it will only encourage those who want nothing less than full surrender from the Church.
What person in a same-sex relationship would be satisfied with the half-a-loaf solution of blessings?
How cruel and schizophrenic would it seem to persons in same-sex unions to bless those unions with one hand while withholding marriage, which alone justifies sexual activity, with the other?
What outside observer with any powers of reason would not ask why, if the Church can bless (affirm as good) same-sex relationships as seemingly marriage-like in every way, it cannot take the final step and just call them marriages?
The cognitive dissonance would be stark, people would notice, and something would have to break.
Conjugal love, which has its sole expression in marriage (CCC 2360), requires sexual complementarity. Same-sex unions aren’t parallel versions of marriage (except for the name!) or necessary accommodations for sexual minorities who are just made differently. For natural reasons stemming from our human design and revealed reasons that stretch from Eden to Calvary, the conjugal relationship—that exclusive, intimate thing that is different from friendship, different from family ties, different from universal charity—is achievable only between one man and one woman.
With all necessary gentleness and care, our defense of traditional marriage and Christian sexuality must affirm this reality. Otherwise, we will embolden the Church’s enemies and fail those who have a right to the truth with love.

Dubious Defenses of Marriage

<div>Is it true that many aspects of the religion Zoroastrianism influenced and created many stories that are found in Judaism, that were influenced during the time of the Babylon Captivity?</div><div>First, it’s important to get our bearings re: biblical chronology. The Babylonian Captivity began in 597 BC with the deportation of the king, the royal family, the nobles, the warriors and the artisans. It culminated in 587/586 BC, when Jerusalem, including the Temple, was destroyed. The implicit claim is that the Jews were influenced by the Babylonians, Persians who would’ve been Zoroastrians, then a relatively newly minted religious people.
However, “the vast stretch of Jewish and Christian tradition credits” the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible, include Genesis) to Mosaic authorship and being written during the lifetime of the patriarch, according to The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible—Genesis. That would mean “either the 1400s 1200s B.C.” (p. 7).
In contrast, modern scholars put the beginning of the composition at about 900 B.C. and a finish date of about 400 B.C. Yet even “most who adopt this view acknowledge that the stories in Genesis are often much older than their written form, and some would allow that certain parts of its contents may indeed be Mosaic in origin.” Indeed, “Studies of the Book of Genesis within its Near Eastern context tend to confirm both the antiquity and the authenticity of its traditions” (Ibid.).
So, at the outset, we can see that there’s solid evidence for the taking place of major biblical events long before the Babylonian Captivity began, and that would include the Virgin Birth (Isa. 7:14).
In addition it’s true that, according to Zorastrianism, the birth of Zoroaster or Zarathustra was foretold long in advance. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births">And a later tradition has him born of a virgin</a>. And that he overcame all evil opposition. These similarities with Christianity do not mean that Jewish Old Covenant prophecy and Christian New Covenant fulfillment borrowed from Zoroastrian. That would erroneously imply that they were manufactured stories, myths, instead of presenting actual God-ordained realities.
In summary, “the magi [or wise men] from the East who came in search of the newborn King of the Jews were priest practitioners of Zoroastrianism or something like it. So its teachings did dispose them to be open to the Good News of the birth of the Savior God of the Most Pure Virgin,” as my colleague Father Hugh Barbour, OP, says (see Matthew 2). But that doesn’t mean that the Israelites or subsequently their spiritual descendants—Christians—borrowed from Zorastrianism.
For more on Zoroastrianism’s alleged influence, <a href="http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=301632&amp;Pg=&amp;Pgnu=&amp;recnu=">see Dr. Matthew Bunson’s brief overview on the subject</a>, which illustrates that Zoroastrianism is more akin to certain Christian heresies, not authentic Christianity.
</div>

Did Zoroastrianism Influence Jewish and Christian Belief?

It seems to me that modern science substituted mathematics for formal cause. Do you have thoughts on that?

I was taught that with atoms, it is somewhat inexplicable how they are held together since the protons naturally repel. In bible study I was taught that the only explanation is that God holds it together. Is this correct?

If atomism is too bottom-up, is aristotelianism too top down?

How do infinity and eternity go together?

Have you read Ed Feser’s The Last Superstition and what do you think of it?

Who came up with that time could somehow be subject to gravity? Is that for real? That seems so off to me.

The bible says “let there be light” and that was the beginning. I think that proves that there was a beginning.

I’m a convert and had been taught creationism my whole life. How do Catholics view the age of the earth?

&#8220;Can Catholics Believe in Young Earth Creationism?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the relationship between faith and science, addressing topics such as the role of God in holding atoms together, the balance between atomism and Aristotelianism, and the implications of biblical statements on creation. Other questions touch on the nature of infinity and eternity, as well as the age of the earth from a Catholic perspective.
<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>

Can Catholics Believe in Young Earth Creationism?

The saints’ attempt to intercede for us in Rev. 6:9 seems to have failed. What other biblical evidence is there for intercession?

How can you reconcile Rev. 22:9 with the practice of offering dulia to the saints?

If the Eucharist is required for salvation, then why did Jesus tell the good thief he would be in paradise that day. Why was it good enough for him but not the rest of us?

It doesn’t make sense because we don’t know which saints are in heaven and if we pray to one that isn’t there, does that mean we are praying to a demon? The saints pray for you.

Religions are man made and are all imperfect in particular the Catholic Church?

I don’t understand where annulments fit into scripture?

What sin did Mary not have? What is a dark intellect?

&#8220;Can saints intercede for us?&#8221; This episode explores the biblical basis for intercession, addressing questions like the reconciliation of Revelation 22:9 with the practice of honoring saints and the significance of the Eucharist in relation to salvation. Tune in as we also delve into the complexities of annulments and the nature of Mary’s sinlessness.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Can Saints Intercede for Us? Eucharist, Annulments, and Mary

In this episode Trent shows how rhetoric about repealing the 19th amendment is inconsistent and even harms Christian social activism.
Transcription:
Trent:
After socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral race with the support of 82% of young women. Some people on the right have talked about repealing the 19th Amendment that gives women the right to vote. They say this is the only way to restore goods, like the true meaning of marriage and legal protection for the unborn. But in today&#8217;s episode, I&#8217;ll show why this kind of rhetoric has the opposite effect and will make it harder to push back against evils like sodomy and abortion. First, let&#8217;s take a look at a common argument in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment. Here&#8217;s Protestant Pastor Dale Partridge in a clip that has been seen over 4 million times on X.
CLIP:
Is it good that women can vote in America? I don&#8217;t think so, and here&#8217;s why. Nearly every legalized moral atrocity of the last a hundred years was made possible by the female vote. Abortion and homosexuality would likely still be illegal if not for the female vote. Mass immigration and the welfare state wrote on the backs of the female vote. Nearly every modern Democrat, including Obama and Biden were elected because of the female vote. Even last night, the new Muslim, New York City Mayor Mond won specifically because of the female
Trent:
Vote. However, many people who make this argument against women voting aren&#8217;t consistent. They say women tend to vote for bad things like pro-abortion, liberal politicians, and so they shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to vote. However, young people as a whole are much more likely to vote for these bad things than women as a whole. Mamdani won because of his support among young people, not women in particular. Two thirds of men under the age of 45 voted for him on par with the rate of women between the ages of 30 and 45. Women under 30 went from Mamdani at a higher rate, but they aren&#8217;t a very large voting block. We can also see this in previous presidential candidates, including Donald Trump who did not win the youth vote in any of his elections even in 2024, young men under 30 were basically split between Harrison Trump.
So by that logic, should we repeal the 26th amendment and raise the voting age to 45 or 60 to make sure liberals don&#8217;t win? African-Americans are much more likely than women to vote for pro-abortion. Liberal politicians, the racial gap is way more prevalent than the gender gap in elections. So by that logic, should we repeal the 15th amendment and only allow whites to vote? Now, there are anonymous online accounts who would say yes, but who cares what anonymous trolls think. What&#8217;s more interesting are people like Dale Partridge or Joel Wein who publicly say, we should repeal the 19th Amendment. So I message them the following question, since people under the age of 40 and African-Americans support liberal pro-abortion politicians at higher rates than women, do you support repealing the 15th and 26th amendments to eliminate their right to vote? Webb didn&#8217;t reply to me, but Partridge answered my question and said, this men of every color should have the right to vote and represent their household within a republic.
So he didn&#8217;t support repealing the 15th amendment when it comes to age. Partridge said this, as for the 26th Amendment, I believe age alone is a poor standard for determining voting eligibility. A wiser approach would consider factors such as marital status, children land ownership, education years as an American citizen, and ideally religious affiliation. So unless you&#8217;re willing to be a full-blown racist who denies black people the right to vote, you can&#8217;t consistently say that women should be denied the right to vote simply because in the past few decades, their demographic tends to vote for liberal policies. You need an argument based on applied principles, not an argument from estimated outcomes to show women should not be allowed to vote. I cover some of those arguments in a previous episode I&#8217;ll link to below, including the claim that men risk more for society and dangerous jobs, and so only they should be allowed to vote. But this doesn&#8217;t explain why men with cushy jobs should still get the right to vote or why women who take on bodily risks like giving birth shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to vote when they&#8217;re the ones who allow society to perpetuate over time at all. When it comes to arguments I didn&#8217;t cover in that episode, Andrew Wilson has claimed feminism is incoherent when it says rights don&#8217;t really exist and that women have the right to vote. Here&#8217;s how we put it on the whatever podcast back in May.
CLIP:
Forced doctrine is a doctrine which I came up with, which tries to describe a phenomenon which you yourself are going to have to concede is true that half of the world right now, if men decide to, they can basically exterminate every single woman inside of their nations and there&#8217;s not a damn thing women can do about it. And because of this forced doctrine application, women&#8217;s rights all come from men not inherently from themselves. Therefore, feminism is a lie, complete lie that&#8217;s forced doctrine.
Trent:
And just to be clear, Wilson is not saying he endorses men, annihilating women. He&#8217;s making an internal critique of feminism. His argument is that if we don&#8217;t have inherent rights, then rights come from the state. Specifically, they come from the men who protect the state in law enforcement in the military. Therefore, feminists can&#8217;t complain if the source of their rights takes away their rights. Now, I agree with Wilson that it&#8217;s incoherent to say we have no natural rights, and that outlawing abortion violates the presumably natural right to control one&#8217;s body. But a feminist could just tell Wilson that unlike natural rights, social rights don&#8217;t have to come merely from a bureaucracy or rule by the strong. They can be part of a collective social contract that everyone, even the strong recognizes better than bureaucracy. For example, in a true bureaucracy, the rights of the weak come from the will of the strong regardless of sex in such a society, the rights of physically weaker men like the elderly, the disabled, or even men who aren&#8217;t in the top tier of strength and can&#8217;t open a random pickle jar like Wilson, their rights would come from stronger men who can do things like open a random pickle jar.
But the strongest 10% of society couldn&#8217;t unilaterally control the weaker 90% because even if you are individually weak, there&#8217;s still strength in numbers. As noted in this great scene from the 1998 film, A Bug&#8217;s Life,
CLIP:
Those puny ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life.
Trent:
Given this reality, everyone might prefer a social contract where more people have a say in government, which reduces the need to have to constantly threaten force over other people to get your way. So neither the argument from bad voting outcomes nor the internal critique argument show women shouldn&#8217;t be allowed the right to vote. What about a more principled argument? Some who advocate for Christian nationalism say women shouldn&#8217;t vote because there is a natural order where only households can vote and households are represented by husbands and fathers. Well, the Bible doesn&#8217;t have a teaching on voting rights since those are a recent part of history. Likewise, the Catholic church was originally wary of voting at all, be it for men or women since male voting is also a recent phenomenon in human history. But once women gained the right to vote, this was something that church supported as can be seen in Pope Pius, the 12 who said in 1945 that it is a strict obligation on all entitlement and women to take part in elections. Household voting would be something you&#8217;d have to support with a prudential argument. It&#8217;s not something from divine revelation or church authority. Partridge tries to support this argument by saying men must lead because women are more susceptible to making bad decisions.
CLIP:
Women are twice as likely to men to be seduced into an affair. They are 26% more likely to be financially scammed online. They&#8217;re three times more likely to fall prey to psychics and tarot card readings and astrology and mediums. The same emotional vulnerability that shows up there also shows up in politics,
Trent:
But you can make the same argument against men being trusted with the right to vote. Some studies say that men and women get equally scammed while others show that men are more likely to be scammed. Other studies show that because men are bigger risk takers, when they are scammed, they lose more money than women. Men being more likely to take risks is a good thing. It fosters exploration and discovery, but it&#8217;s a bad thing when men are more likely than women to end up in the ER or the morgue because of their risk taking. So the argument for men and women&#8217;s capabilities also isn&#8217;t persuasive, but even if you did implement household voting, it wouldn&#8217;t change much. Married women are only slightly more liberal than married men. The real problem with Western countries is that unmarried women and unmarried men are both more likely to support wicked policies and politicians.
However, if only households are allowed to vote, then what is the difference if these unmarried households still vote? This is why I asked Partridge the following question. Do you believe an unmarried man or an unmarried woman living on their own outside their parents&#8217; home would qualify as a household that is allowed to vote? To which he responded? No, I do not believe an unmarried man constitutes a household. However, I do think that there should be an exception for unmarried qualified men serving in the military as their service demonstrates duty and responsibility worthy of representation. And of course, partridge thinks unmarried women don&#8217;t constitute a household either. My point though is that it&#8217;s ironic that nearly all the unmarried men who supported partridge&#8217;s video online would be unable to vote under his ideal system of government. But here&#8217;s my bigger concern. How do you convince 50% of the population or probably 80 to 90% under partridge&#8217;s plan to vote to give up their right to vote?
Partridge says, if we can overturn Roe v Wade, we can repeal the 19th Amendment. But while over 200 Supreme Court cases have been overturned in history, only one constitutional amendment has ever been repealed. Specifically the 18th Amendment, which banned alcohol sales. It was overturned 14 years later because the law couldn&#8217;t be enforced at organized crime, and the government really needed tax revenue from alcohol sales during the Great Depression. Realistically, you&#8217;d have to spend several generations converting people to a traditional view of Christian society until a super majority, at least 80% would vote for it. But by that point, you would need to take away people&#8217;s right to vote because most people, men and women could be counted on to vote for the right thing. The problem with repealing the 19th Amendment to address our social problems is that it cannot be implemented when its defenders say that it&#8217;s needed and when it could be implemented, it&#8217;s no longer needed to achieve its defenders goals.
So I&#8217;m asking online Christians, please stop saying stuff like this. It&#8217;s not going to lead to the social change that you want. All it does is give ammunition to our ideological opponents. Christians who talk about repealing women&#8217;s right to vote are like liberals who talk about abolishing the police or abolishing prisons. Their practically impossible proposals make it easier for critics to write off the more practical proposals that are out there and say they&#8217;re all just rantings of a lunatic fringe group. Also, it just makes us look like a bunch of whiners. I can&#8217;t win in the marketplace of ideas, so I need to outlaw the competition. The most practical thing we can do as Christians is to encourage men and women to get married and have children because this naturally moves people towards conservative positions on issues related to life and sexuality. But it&#8217;s hard to do that when you spread rhetoric online about how women are too dumb to be a public part of society.
This stuff makes men and women think that their lives are better off without each other. When God made men and women to be complimentary reflections of his divine love through their matrimonial bonds. So instead of trashing other people made in the image likeness of God as Christians, we should trash the lies that our culture has been feeding us. This includes the lies pedal to women that men in marriage inhibit their happiness. As I cover in my previous episode on the Real Problem with Childless Cat Ladies and the Lies pedal to men, by far right grifters, that marriage will lead them to a life of misery, as I showed in my debate with Pearl. Thank you so much for watching, and if you want to be part of a great event for Catholic men and women who want to build up our culture, then register today for the Council of Trent Conference in Dallas. On April 11th, we&#8217;ll have speakers like Brian Holdsworth, myself, Joe Hess Meyer, Evan Ragga, Lila Rose, and over two dozen Catholic creators who will equip you to evangelize a world in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Register today@conferenceoftrent.com. Thank you so much for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.

Should Women Lose their Right to Vote?

Some are surprised that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption was not defined until 1950, using little biblical support. Pope Pius XII decreed that all Catholics must hold and believe as divinely revealed “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, completing the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus 44). Yet Tim Perry, an evangelical Protestant, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mary-Evangelicals-Toward-Understanding-Mother/dp/083082569X">reminds us</a> of the “doctrine’s ancient roots” (239-240).
Although the Bible says nothing directly about the Assumption, it also says nothing about Mary’s life after Pentecost or her death, just as it doesn’t say anything about St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s deaths. But Protestant evangelical Scot McKnight <a href="https://archive.org/details/realmarywhyevang0000mckn">notes</a> that God has the power to assume a person into heaven, and although
<blockquote>we find nothing about Mary’s death or her assumption in the Bible, [does] that mean Mary wasn’t “assumed” into heaven? Obviously not. None of us believes that everything was recorded in the Bible, so we are left to examine the evidence (133).</blockquote>
Jesus addressed similar issues, too—for example, the resurrection from the dead. This was a highly debated topic in his day, especially for the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection from the dead, and the Sadducees, who did not (see Matt. 22:22). When Jesus addressed their disagreement, he used the Bible, but in an indirect way:
<blockquote>“As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching (Matt. 22:31-33).</blockquote>
Notice how Jesus used the books of the Bible that the Sadducees accepted—the Torah—and made an inference from them to clarify the question . . . and all were “astonished.”
Later, when Jesus rose from the dead, as the disciples “did not [yet] know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead” (John 20:9), he appeared to them to explain Scripture to them. He did it first with the disciples traveling to Emmaus:
<blockquote>“O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:25-27, 31-32).</blockquote>
He had to do it with the apostles, too, to open “their minds to understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45). But he seems to quote not just one or two passages to them, but “all the scriptures” “beginning with Moses and all the prophets.”
This is how the ancient Church approached Mary’s assumption—not looking for a proof text, but looking to discern whether this teaching was consistent with all the scriptures and with other Christian beliefs. And why wasn’t this teaching “defined” by the Church until the twentieth century? Perhaps the Holy Spirit had waited to counteract the materialistic and mechanistic view propagated by some in the name of science. Mary’s assumption reaffirms the Christian hope in bodily resurrection, attesting to man having a spiritual dimension that endures unto eternity (see also <a href="https://archive.org/details/TheWorldsFirstLove">here</a>, at 130-141, and paragraph 974 of the Catechism), which modern science finds absurd. As St. Paul writes,
<blockquote>the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. . . . Then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Cor. 15:52-55, quoting Isa. 25:8 and Hos. 13:14).</blockquote>
This certainly applied to some Old Testament saints who were assumed into heaven: Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24, Sir. 49:14, Heb. 11:5-6), Moses (Jude 8-10, Deut. 34:5-6, 10-12), and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-13). If any woman or man ought to be taken into heaven, body and soul, it would be Mary, the holy Mother of God.
Examining the evidence, prefigured in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to conclude that Mary—the mother of the Messiah, the Ark of the New Covenant (Rev. 11:19-12:5)—is a woman in heaven, clothed with the sun’s glory, crowned with twelve stars, and with the moon under her feet. This means she is certainly alive, body and soul, in heaven. As Pius XII says:
<blockquote>The revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ . . . immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences . . . [was granted] that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb (Munificentissimus Deus 40).</blockquote>
Twice I have been on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where we were able to visit many of the places where events of our Lord’s life and of his blessed mother’s life took place. One special one was the Cenacle and alongside it the Church of the Dormition.
We know that St. John the Apostle took care of Mary, the Mother of God, after our Lord’s ascension. John remained in Jerusalem with Mary until Herod’s persecution, detailed in Acts 12:1-3. Then John took the Virgin Mary with him to Ephesus. The two returned to Jerusalem after the death of Herod and supported the Church as she grew in number and extension. Likely she was back there with John at the Council of Jerusalem in the year 50, described in Acts 15.
In Jerusalem, Mary often would do the Way of the Cross and pray in front of the Holy Sepulcher as a way of uniting herself to her son. This reinforced her desire to be like him in dying for love. The Eastern churches celebrate the feast of Mary’s dormition, describing the fulfillment of her desire to die with Christ more like falling asleep than as dying.
Church Fathers and sacred writers, beginning in the second century with Bishop St. Melito of Sardis (who died around A.D. 200), give us details of Our Lady’s dormition and assumption. These traditions tell us that Mary, knowing she was about to leave this world, called together the apostles, except St. James, who had been martyred.
All the apostles (except for St. Thomas, who had yet to arrive from distant India) gathered around Mary while she lay on her bed. As she gave them encouragement in their apostolic endeavors, Jesus appeared to her. She looked up and said his name. Then she closed her eyes, entrusted her soul to her son, and breathed her last.
Large crowds of faithful gathered around Mary’s body as the apostles carried the funeral bier in solemn procession from the house of the Dormition on Mount Zion to the tomb just a stone’s throw north of Gethsemane. As they carried her bier up the Kidron Valley (Valley of Josaphat), a Jewish priest named Athonios was filled with anger and jealousy and tried to topple the bier with the body of the Mother of God. When Athonios touched the bier with his two hands, an angel cut off both hands instantaneously. Repenting of his misdeed and declaring the greatness of God and of Mary, he was healed.
They arrived at the tomb near the Garden of Gethsemane, in the same plot where her parents Joachim and Anna were buried. Upon sealing the tomb, many of the Christian faithful remained outside praying. Some described hearing the sound of angels singing, which is associated with Mary’s assumption and the source of her title “St. Mary of the Angels.”
Tradition has it that St. Thomas arrived to Jerusalem from India three days later and was quite disappointed that he had not been able to accompany Mary in her last moments. So the apostles took Thomas to Mary’s tomb, where he prostrated himself. Opening the tomb for him, they found it empty except for the burial clothes that had wrapped Our Lady’s body. Again, celestial music could be heard.
Mary’s assumption reaffirms our faith in the resurrection of the body, giving us hope in eternal life with Christ, and with our heavenly Mother, in heaven.

Must We Prove the Assumption from the Bible?

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent compares and contrasts American and British styles of comedy.

FFAF: American Humor vs. British Humour

If we had technology that could let us live forever, would it be immoral to use?

How should I interpret Romans 10:13?

How do the nihil obstat and the imprimatur work in terms of Church authority and infallibility?

What is the etymology of the word meek? Someone claimed it to mean “equipped for battle”.

Our cardinal retired and they’re going to install a new bishop. What do cardinals/bishops do after they retire? Are they excluded from the College of Cardinals?

Are there any examples of Jesus asking someone would please, or did he command people to things?

Why is extending life not immoral? I have some objections.

It looks like Joseph Biden has been appointed an Honorary Mason. What’s the difference between the Knights of Columbus and the Freemasons? See also our related article on President Biden, which illustrates the problematic religious aspects of Fre...

Jimmy Akin explores the surprising etymology of &#8220;meek&#8221; and answers more intriguing questions on faith, morality, and Church authority.

Does ‘Meek’ Mean ‘Equipped for Battle’? And More Questions

<div>According to John 14:23, Jesus says anything of the Father is His name and He will grant it to you? Does that mean He will grant us Heaven without first going to Purgatory if we ask Him?</div><div>Alas, getting into heaven is not that easy. We must read John 14:13 in proper context:
<blockquote>“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:12-14, emphasis added).</blockquote>
In addressing his apostles, Jesus continues, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15), adding further:
<blockquote>“He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?”Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me (John 14:21-24, emphases added; see John 4:3).</blockquote>
Believing in Jesus means authentically loving him, which in turn means keeping his commandments and thereby becoming more like him: holy. If we love Jesus and our neighbor well, and do appropriate penance when we fall short through sin, we won’t have attachments to sin that keep us from perfect communion with God when we die (CCC 1471-73), and thus we can avoid the purification of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/purgatory">Purgatory</a> (CCC 1030-32).
So Jesus is kind of like the mechanics in the old TV commercial for oil filters, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNAt3n5pLh8">“You can pay me now. Or you can pay me later.”</a>
</div>

John 14:13 and Bypassing Purgatory

One reason why skeptics don’t believe in the God of the Bible, the argument goes, is that he’s a slayer of the innocent. As one example, Exodus 12:29 reads, “The Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt.” So, the question becomes, how can God be all-good and all-just when he kills innocent human beings?
I think all of us, theists and atheists alike, feel the force of this objection. After all, we can’t take an innocent human life . . . but apparently, God can.
But is this a reason to reject the God of the Bible? I answer no.
Let me start with a disclaimer: I’m not advocating for a pure voluntarism—that is, God simply wills whatever he wants without any intelligible reason. Rather, no matter what evils are found within God’s order of providence—even including the death of innocent human beings—he orders those evils to some greater good. What that good is, we might not know precisely. It might be a supernatural good, against which the loss of the temporal good of physical life pales in comparison (cf. Rom. 8:18). But we do know, even if it’s very difficult or painful to accept, that there is a greater good.
Of course, this can be hard to accept, especially for the grief-stricken and for those non-believers who hunger for justice. Someone might have a good reason for doing an unjust thing, they might argue, and it would still be unjust. But what we’re trying to show is that God can will the death of the innocent and still be an all-good and all-just God.
Let’s start with the question, “What is death?” Metaphysically speaking, death is the separation of body and soul, whether for a non-rational animal or a rational one, like us. This separation occurs, as St. Aquinas explains, when “[the body] loses that disposition by which it prepared to receive life [from the soul]” (De Anima, Art. 14, ad 20, emphasis added). In other words, there is a “cessation of the requisite dispositions” of the body and a loss of vital metabolic functioning.
Now, what is God’s causal role in all this? It’s definitely not creative, because God gives no being or actuality in death. As emphasized above, death is a loss of being, or a loss of the actuality needed for the perfection of human life. That loss of actuality is the loss of the requisite bodily dispositions and vital metabolic functions.
God’s causal role here is one of ceasing to give such actuality. We know this because, at the end of the day, God (as the primary cause) is the one who’s ultimately responsible for whatever actuality we have, be it our operations or even just our existence. He’s the one sustaining it. Aquinas puts it this way: “Every operation of a thing is traced back to [God] as its cause” (Summa Contra Gentiles 3.67). There can be no created actuality—in this case, no life—without God causing it to be.
So, where there is actuality, as is the case when a human being is alive, with his vital metabolic functions actually functioning, God is ultimately causing such actuality. Where there is no longer actuality, as is the case when a human being dies and his vital metabolic functions are no longer actually functioning, God is not causing such actuality. Rather, he wills the actuality that he had once sustained to no longer be.
That said, however, it’s true that God at one time caused the actuality, and now he does not. Death is not accidental (or at least it’s not relative to God, even if it is accidental relative to secondary causes). The divine willing that the relevant actuality for physical life no longer be given is intentional on God’s part, since the duration of the physical life, from its beginning to end, is part and parcel of God’s willed providential plan.
This intentional non-giving of the relevant actuality applies to any and all occurrences of death, whether it comes about through some secondary cause, like natural degeneration or a bullet to the head, or some accidental cause, or immediately and directly (“miraculously”), like in the case of the firstborn Egyptians. But even in this last case, it’s not as though God “slaying the Egyptians” manifested in dramatic physical fashion, like Zeus throwing a thunderbolt. Or at least it didn’t have to. God willed to stop maintaining the actuality of these Egyptians’ lives, and so they died. That’s all it took.
At this point, the skeptic might interject, “What difference does it make how God kills? The innocent person is dead either way, and that’s an injustice.” And so we come to the question that lies at the heart of our inquiry: “Is God bound in justice, to himself or to us, to give the actuality needed for a human being to continue living?” In other words, is it unjust for God to intentionally will the death of innocent human beings by no longer giving the actuality needed for the sustaining of physical life?
The objection considered here operates on the assumption that God is bound in justice to give us the actuality needed to continue living, and that it would be unjust for him to intentionally stop giving such actuality.
But I think we can challenge this assumption.
One possible route touches on the reason we die at all, whether through natural or unnatural means. As Aquinas reminds us, death is a form of punishment. Throughout his corpus, when the topic of God inflicting death comes up, Aquinas argues that the punishment for original sin takes the form of death, and so God can justly inflict death on humans. Here’s one example:
<blockquote>Now the withdrawal of original justice has the character of punishment, even as the withdrawal of grace has. Consequently, death and all consequent bodily defects are punishments of original sin. And although the defects are not intended by the sinner, nevertheless they are ordered according to the justice of God who inflicts them as punishments (Summa Theologiae I-II: 85:5).</blockquote>
This may be a hard pill to swallow, but it makes sense in light of Christian doctrine. The innocent Egyptian firstborn were afflicted with original sin (see Rom. 5) and thus “deserving,” along with the rest of humanity, of the punishment of death. Even now, when we have baptism to infuse sanctifying grace within us, which removes “original sin” in the sense of removing the condition of the soul lacking sanctifying grace, we still experience the consequences of original sin, one of which is death. Baptism opens up heaven for us after we die, but thanks to original sin, we still must die.
But maybe it’s the Christian doctrine that’s wrong. After all, the skeptic doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible, so he doesn’t have to be bound to God’s rules. Maybe we shouldn’t believe that God can slay the innocent, period, regardless of whether death can be thought of as a punishment or not.
As much as this line of thinking resonates with most people’s intuitions, I don’t think it’s sound. And here’s the reason why: physical life is a gift. God is not obligated it to give it. And so if God’s not bound to give us the actuality needed for physical life to begin with, then it seems he’s not bound to continue giving such actuality. The life God gives us is like the dessert a mother gives her child: eventually, she will cease giving it (for a good reason, we assume), even if the child would rather continue eating ice cream forever.
But the skeptic might counter, “The gift of human life is different from dessert. Physical life is part and parcel of existing as a human being. If God gave it, wouldn’t it be unfair for God to go back on his agreement and take it away?”
Well, here is where the physical nature of a human being comes into play. God made us out of matter, which is susceptible to corruption and death. This is why Aquinas argues that in one sense, death is “natural to man” (ST I-II:85:6). And God cannot be bound in justice (or bound to his wisdom) to preserve man from what is natural to him.
Given that God’s intentional non-giving of actuality needed for the continued sustenance of physical life (<a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/857794/pdf">a divine non-upholding</a>) is consistent with the nature of a human being (as a corruptible being), such cessation of giving the relevant actuality is not a violation of what is due to a human being, and thereby not an injustice, and consistent with God’s goodness.
Perhaps someone might counter that this line of reasoning works only for death through natural degeneration or some other natural cause within this world. It might be argued that the potential we have to lose physical life by virtue of our matter fits only with those things that can naturally bring about the cessation of vital metabolic functions. Miraculously ceasing to give the actuality needed for physical life, so it seems, is not consistent with such potential.
But even death brought about through natural causation, whether natural degeneration or accidental causes, is ultimately subject to God’s providence, the divinely willed plan that includes the limited duration of a corruptible being’s physical life and the means by which such life will be brought to an end. As Aquinas writes, “life is God’s gift to man, and is subject to his power, who kills and makes to live. . . . It belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life” (ST II-II:64:5).
If God can will that the effect of death be brought about through particular causes, then he can also will, given his omnipotence, that the effect be brought about without such causes. Just as he willed the effect of Jesus’ conception within the womb of Mary without the cause of the sexual act, or, to parallel more precisely our current issue, the effect of a fire that keeps burning while causing no heat in the case of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 3).
We can summarize our argument as follows:
P1: God can justly will whatever effect is consistent with human nature.
P2: Death is an effect that is consistent with human nature.
C: Therefore, God can justly will the death of a human being.
Given that the effect of death is consistent with human nature, we can answer our above question in the affirmative: God can justly will the death of an innocent human being, regardless of whether death is considered as punishment or not.
And so, to sum it all up, although the death of the innocent Egyptian firstborn might provide an emotional roadblock to belief in the God of the Bible, it ought not be an intellectual obstacle to such belief.

God and the Death of Innocents

<div>In Matthew 16:17-19, the famous text about “the keys of the kingdom,” Peter is not “the rock” upon which Christ builds his Church. The true rock is the revelation Peter (and all Christians) received that Jesus is the Son of God. Thus, the Church is not built upon Peter; rather, it was Peter’s faith.</div><div>There is partial truth here. The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:
<blockquote>Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church (424).</blockquote>
It is true that Peter’s confession is essential. The Church is built upon <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-the-rock">St. Peter’s confession of faith</a>. The error lies in separating St. Peter from his faith. In so doing, one does violence to the text. It is only after St. Peter’s confession that Christ promises the keys to Peter. But he promises the keys and the power of binding and losing to Peter. Peter’s faith is crucial, but it is the faith of St. Peter!
The Catechism completes the picture for us. The<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/yes-peter-is-the-rock"> rock is both St. Peter and the faith</a> of St. Peter:
<blockquote>Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living stone,” thus assures his Church, built upon Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep his faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it (552).</blockquote>
</div>

Is Peter “the Rock” upon which Christ Builds his Church?

In this clip, Cy Kellett talks with apologist Jimmy Akin about the concept of the &#8216;rapture&#8217; and whether or not it has biblical roots. Jimmy clarifies the meaning of the term, tracing it back to St. Paul&#8217;s writings in 1 Thessalonians, and discusses the historical context that shaped these teachings.
Transcript:
Cy: We&#8217;re gonna talk about the eschaton. Is the rapture part of it? Like, is that a real thing? And how should we respond to this rapture theology that&#8217;s all around us?
Jimmy: Well, it depends on what you mean. So there is an event that St. Paul describes in 1st Thessalonians 4:17 that has been called the Rapture. Now, raparemur in Latin means to be caught away. And so that&#8217;s where the idea of that&#8217;s where the term rapture comes from. This is not a term that&#8217;s in the Bible. It&#8217;s a Latin term. And it actually can also mean to kidnap, but it also means to catch away.
And there is a passage in 1st Thessalonians 4 where St. Paul is talking about how at a certain point in time in the future, believers in Christ will be caught up to be with Christ and meet him in the air. The context in which St. Paul is saying this now, you gotta understand a little bit of the backstory of St. Paul&#8217;s history with the Church of Thessalonica. He did go to Thessalonica, and he founded a church there. You can read about this in the Book of Acts.
But he only got to stay there for three weeks because the Jews in the city had a riot and he had to get out of Dodge. And he ended up going down to Athens, which is on the same peninsula that Thessalonica is, just down the peninsula from Thessalonica. He was very anxious about what&#8217;s going to happen with his converts that he was with for only three weeks. I mean, can you imagine how much of the Christian faith you would have learned in three weeks if you had not been a Christian?
Well, he was concerned about them and their faith, and he was afraid they were going to fall away since he didn&#8217;t have the chance to stabilize them in their faith. And so he was overjoyed when he got word that, hey, they&#8217;re sticking with the faith, they still believe in Jesus and so forth.
And he thus wrote 1st Thessalonians when he got this word that they&#8217;re doing okay in their faith, but they had some misunderstandings because he hadn&#8217;t been able to teach them very much. One of the things they had was apparently the idea, because, you know, you need to repent before Jesus comes back if you want to participate in his kingdom. Remember, that&#8217;s the gospel. You need to repent and turn back to him.
And the Thessalonians had gotten this idea that you need to do that before you die. They&#8217;d gotten the idea that in order to participate in Jesus&#8217; Kingdom, you need to be alive at the time he comes back. And they were concerned because at least somebody, maybe several somebodies in the Thessalonian Church had died after Paul&#8217;s visit. They were afraid that, oh man, you know, Bob and Alice died. They&#8217;re not gonna get to be part of Christ&#8217;s kingdom. They&#8217;re not gonna be alive when he comes back.
And so St. Paul was writing to comfort them and say, no, no, no, no, no, no. Don&#8217;t worry about Bob and Alice. It&#8217;s gonna be okay for them. And so he tells them in 1st Thessalonians 4 that actually when Christ returns, the dead in Christ will rise first, and only then will we living Christians be caught up to be with Jesus in the air. And then we&#8217;ll always get to be with Jesus. So we&#8217;re not going to be left abandoned. We&#8217;re always going to be with him. It&#8217;s going to be great. Don&#8217;t worry. And don&#8217;t worry about Bob and Alice and anybody else who&#8217;s died. Now, Ted and Carol, they might be a different matter, but Bob and Alice, they&#8217;re gonna be okay.
Cy: 1970s film reference. In case anyone&#8217;s wondering.
Jimmy: A film I&#8217;ve actually never seen.
Cy: I don&#8217;t think I have either.
Jimmy: Yeah, but. So that&#8217;s what he&#8217;s doing here. What he does not do is say, well, once we get caught up and we&#8217;re always going to be with the Lord, what happens next?
And according to that school I mentioned at the top of hour number one, dispensationalism, what&#8217;s gonna happen is Jesus is gonna do a U-turn. He&#8217;s gonna come down, the dead Christians are gonna be raised, the living Christians are gonna be caught up with him, and then he&#8217;s gonna do a U-turn and go right back to heaven and stay there for a number of years, commonly seven years, sometimes three and a half years.
And while he&#8217;s doing that, all hell&#8217;s gonna break out on Earth. This is a period called the Tribulation. Tribulation is just a fancy word. It means trouble. So this is the time of great trouble. And the Antichrist is gonna be doing bad stuff and so forth. And then finally, at the end of the tribulation, Jesus is gonna come down out of heaven and squash the Antichrist and reign on Earth for a thousand years, physically present on Earth for a thousand years before the actual end of the world.
And then at the end of the thousand years, there&#8217;s gonna be a final unleashing of the forces of evil, and then we&#8217;re gonna get the general resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment and the beginning of the eternal order. So the people who actually use the word Rapture for this event in 1st Thessalonians are viewing it as part of a larger complex of events where after the Rapture, people go back up to heaven and stay there during the tribulation, and then they come back for a thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth, followed by the final unleashing of the forces of evil and the Last Judgment and all that stuff.
So people who use the term rapture for this event are presupposing this whole complex of events. And so I can understand it if someone who does not believe the whole complex wants to say, yeah, I don&#8217;t believe in the Rapture.
Cy: I see, yeah, because you&#8217;re using a shorthand for the whole thing.
Jimmy: Yeah, for the whole thing, yeah. Whereas you&#8217;d be confusing someone into thinking you believe all this big complex model when really you don&#8217;t. But I can also understand someone, and I tend to do this myself, saying, well, yeah, there&#8217;s this event in 1st Thessalonians 4 where believers get caught up to be with Jesus. And if you want to call it the Rapture, that&#8217;s fine with me.
And so I would say I don&#8217;t have a problem saying there&#8217;s a Rapture; we just need to understand it correctly. And then I&#8217;ll go on to explain how I think we need to understand it. So I always like to follow St. Paul&#8217;s instructions to Timothy where he tells Timothy to remind his congregations not to fight about words because it only ruins the hearers.
And so if you don&#8217;t have time to explain, then I&#8217;d say, yeah, or if you don&#8217;t have the knowledge needed to explain, then yeah, you could just say, I don&#8217;t believe in the Rapture. But if you do have time to explain, I tend to want to embrace people and say, yeah, I don&#8217;t have any problem with the idea of the Rapture; we just need to understand it correctly.
So what&#8217;s the correct understanding? Well, as I mentioned, dispensationalism is only about 200 years old. So previous Christians, including the Protestant reformers, did not believe that whole theory I just sketched out about there&#8217;s going to be a Rapture and a tribulation and a thousand. They didn&#8217;t buy that whole theory. Some would believe pieces of it. Like some thought that there would be a future earthly reign of Christ for a thousand years before the final end. But nobody had this specific sequence.
And what everybody historically understood the Rapture to be was what was going to happen at the second coming. And that&#8217;s clear from 1st Thessalonians and it&#8217;s clear from 2 Thessalonians where Paul goes into the same events in more detail. He talks about, because they didn&#8217;t, after 1st Thessalonians, they had three weeks of instruction plus one letter, they still weren&#8217;t really solid on a bunch of stuff.
And so he talks about the same issue again in 2 Thessalonians. He makes it really clear that this event where we&#8217;re caught up to be with is going to be at the end of the world at the second coming at least. And so it&#8217;s not going to be what&#8217;s called a pre-tribulation Rapture where he takes Christians out of the world before the tribulation.
Cy: Got it.
Jimmy: We&#8217;re going to go through the tribulation, and then Jesus is going to come back and rescue us. So what happens after the tribulation? Well, Jesus is not going to do a U-turn. He&#8217;s going to inaugurate his reign. Whether you understand that as an earthly millennium or as the eternal order, he&#8217;s going to inaugurate his reign when he comes back.
And you might say, well then why get, if he&#8217;s just going to come down to Earth and reign, you know, whatever reign it&#8217;s going to be, why does it talk about us being caught up to be with him and meet him in the air? And this is something that relies on a piece of first-century culture that moderns know nothing about.
Today, when a, let&#8217;s say a world leader visits a place, you know, they&#8217;ll fly in on an airplane and they&#8217;ll land at the airport, and then there will be some kind of party there of dignitaries to meet them. You know, the President goes somewhere, the Pope goes somewhere, there&#8217;s going to be this party of dignitaries to meet them.
Well, they had something like that in the first century, only they didn&#8217;t have airports. So what they would do, and this was a well-established custom, if you had someone like a king or a visiting general or something like that who&#8217;s visiting your town, you&#8217;ve got a really important person coming. What you do is, since there&#8217;s no airport to meet him at, you go out on the road to meet him.
And so you might even go two, three days down the road in order to meet him, to show how much you care about him coming to visit you. The farther you go to meet him, the more it indicates you care. And then when he comes, you escort him back to town.
Classical Bible scholars, Protestant and Catholic alike, agree that&#8217;s what Paul&#8217;s talking about here, that the dead who are buried in the earth and the living who are on the surface of the earth will be caught up to meet Jesus as he&#8217;s coming back to reign. And then they escort him back to Earth.
And so a historical and I would say correct understanding of the Rapture is it&#8217;s something that happens at the Second Coming, where both the living and the dead Christians get caught up to meet Jesus and then escort him back to where he&#8217;s going to reign. There is still a difference of opinion among Christians about, well, is he going to reign for a thousand years on Earth before the end, or is this the end, and he&#8217;s going to reign on the new heavens and the new earth? But that&#8217;s the basic, correct understanding of the Rapture.
Cy: That takes us to a break. So we will depart momentarily. Come back. I want to find out about the three days of darkness and the illumination of conscience and some of the things that lots of people talk about, particularly in Catholic circles&#8230;

Is the Rapture Real? Here’s What Most People Miss

Who Is the Antichrist?

Some Protestants distinguish Catholic apologists from Catholic scholars or Catholic theologians. According to them, apologists gather any kind of evidence, no matter how flimsy, in order to convince people Catholicism is true. Scholars, on the other hand, aren’t interested in polemics or apologetics. They just want to understand a certain field of study, and so their conclusions are more modest than those of Catholic apologists.
So when Catholic apologists make a biblical case for Mary’s perpetual virginity, a Protestant might say in response, “Why should I believe that when the renowned biblical scholar <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43720810">Fr. John Meier says</a> that an unbiased historian ‘would most likely come to the conclusion that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his true physical brothers and sisters’”? Or, when Catholics cite 1 Corinthians 3:15 as evidence for Purgatory, a Protestant might point out that study notes in the Catholic New Jerusalem and New American translations of the Bible say this verse “does not envisage the doctrine of purgatory.”
But the problem with this approach is that you can find scholars in any religious tradition who hold unorthodox views or who denigrate the evidence for a tradition they accept only for personal or professional reasons. This includes Protestants who say they’re Christian but also claim there’s no historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection. So if it is bad form to cite liberal Christians as expert witnesses against the evidence for Christianity, then it would be equally bad form to cite liberal Catholics as expert witnesses against Catholicism.
Let’s look at Fr. John Meier, a Catholic priest best known for his four-volume work Jesus: A Marginal Jew. Meier could be classified as a moderate scholar who affirms basic Christian doctrines while expressing deep hesitations about the amount of evidence for them. For example, Meier is skeptical not only of the evidence for Mary’s virginity after Jesus’ birth, but of the evidence for Mary’s virginity before Jesus’ birth (which Catholics and Protestants both affirm).
Meier believes, as a matter of faith, that Jesus was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. However, he disagrees with conservative scholars over how much evidence there is for the Virgin Birth. <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/radicalchristianmillennial/2016/08/the-virgin-birth-is-sexist/">One progressive Christian blogger writes</a>, “As [New Testament] scholar John Meier, who is Catholic and has no reason to deny the historicity of the Virgin Birth (indeed, he doesn’t) puts it: ‘We have no clear evidence that the famous passage of Isa. 7:14 . . . was ever taken to refer to a virginal conception before NT authors used it.’”
Meier is also pessimistic about the amount of evidence for Christ’s resurrection. <a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/noli-me-tangere-why-john-meier-wont-touch-the-risen-lord">He says the Resurrection cannot be proved historically</a> because “the restrictive definition of the historical Jesus I will be using does not allow us to proceed into matters that can be affirmed only by faith.”
There’s no shortage of liberal, self-professed Christians, like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, who critique the evidence for Christianity as fiercely as any apologist for atheism. In fact, the Muslim apologist Shabir Ally routinely cites these scholars in his public debates—a point <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0RvFEDK70&amp;t=2015s">James White mentioned in his own debate with Ally</a> on the reliability of the New Testament. He said, “Mr. Ally has adopted the most radically liberal, skeptical, naturalistic sources as the mainstream in Christian scholarship, while using the most conservative forms of scholarship in defense of the Qu’ran.”
White later <a href="https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/islam/a-post-and-pre-debate-note-to-shabir-ally/">wrote an open letter to Ally</a> saying that his “reliance upon the Jerome Biblical Commentary, Raymond Brown, and other notorious liberals who have no concept of allowing Scripture to speak for itself, no concept of the very unity and consistency you asserted for the Qur’an last evening, remains, and will always be, your Achilles heel.”
Granted, White also routinely cites Brown and his co-authors in the Jerome Biblical Commentary in order to cast doubt on Catholic doctrines related to Mary and Purgatory. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtAkuMs54qM&amp;t=2709s">In one debate on Purgatory, White said</a>, “Hence as Roman Catholic McBrien admits: ‘There is for all practical purposes no biblical basis for the doctrine of Purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it.’”
What White doesn’t tell the audience is that Fr. McBrien was a notorious dissenter to Church teaching. McBrien even said the Church’s opposition to female priests <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-06-07-1994158170-story.html">made being Catholic</a> feel “like belonging to a private club that won&#8217;t admit blacks or Jews.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops <a href="https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=541&amp;CFID=121743&amp;CFTOKEN=22026492">criticized McBrien’s book</a> Catholicism because it “gives very little weight to the teaching of the Magisterium,” and on several moral issues, it “regards the ‘official Church position’ as simply in error.”
But Catholics also need to be careful not to make this same kind of error.
In my book The Case for Catholicism, I often cite Protestant sources in defense of my arguments—but I do so in a way that doesn’t commit the error of relying on “liberal allies” who are barely Protestant in their own right. For example, I cite Reformers like Martin Luther on the subject of baptism and modern conservative Protestants like Jerry Walls in defense of concepts like “mere Purgatory.” I also reference Richard Bauckham’s case that “the brethren of the Lord” (Matt. 13:55-56) were born from Joseph’s first wife rather than Mary because, although Bauckham rejects the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, he does not see references to Jesus “brethren” as proof against that doctrine.
But there are other Protestant theologians whose work is generally considered heterodox by Protestant apologists. Consider this passage from Protestant scholar Peter Enns, who once taught at Westminster Theological Seminary:
<blockquote>When people read the Bible for themselves, they often disagree about what it means. The Bible does not have a good track record of promoting unity among those who read it. Take us back to the carefree days of the papacy and the few who interpreted the Bible for the many. At least you had some order. Now you have chaos (The Sin of Certainty, 48-49).</blockquote>
If you didn’t know better, you’d think Enns was a Catholic apologist, and his former position at Westminster would surely vouch for his theological credentials. The problem is that most conservative Protestants, especially those who engage in criticism of Catholicism, would reject Enns as someone with a low view of Scripture who doesn’t really believe in essential Protestant doctrines like sola scriptura and biblical inerrancy. Matthew Barrett, a conservative scholar I engage in The Case for Catholicism, critiques Enns in an article whose title adequately summarizes its content: “Sola Scriptura in the Strange Land of Evangelicalism: The Peculiar but Necessary Responsibility of Defending Sola Scriptura Against Our Own Kind.”
In conclusion, if an apologist is critiquing another belief system, it can be very effective to cite experts in that system whose scholarship agrees with your points. You just have to make sure the expert you cite is someone your opponents respect, or at least someone they don’t easily dismiss. And you definitely shouldn’t cite that person’s scholarship to support your arguments if you simply dismiss him as a “liberal hack” when his scholarship is used against you. Instead, we should always seek to critique and employ the best scholarship for any position we argue against.

Because Some Scholar Told Me So

&nbsp;
USCCB Statement:
https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/us-bishops-doctrine-committee-issues-statement-proper-disposition-bodily-remains
https://www.usccb.org/resources/On Proper Disposition 2023-03-20.pdf
Transcript:
All right, we&#8217;re going to North Carolina now. Laura&#8217;s in North Carolina watching on YouTube. Laura, go ahead with your question for Joe Heshmeyer.
Thank you. Say Joe, speaking of a celebrity, private jets and environmental impact, I recently heard from the owner operator of an aquamation facility near where I live, that this process returns more bone dust for collection than does cremation. So my question is at this time, how does the Catholic church look upon aquamation as final prep of the body for burial? That&#8217;s a really good question. So for those who aren&#8217;t familiar with aquamation, they use, I believe an alkaline solution to break down the body. And so it&#8217;s a little bit like the way, it means slightly similar to how cremation works, only instead of using fire, using chemicals and water, to break the body down into its constitutive parts. And it&#8217;s like 200 to 300 degree water and well, solution.
And so the advantages that it&#8217;s proclaimed as having are relative to cremation, that more of the physical remains of the body are preserved. You know, then they&#8217;re preserved in a similar manner as cremated remains.
And it&#8217;s less like environmentally destructive. Like there&#8217;s less fossil fuel and everything else. And so people who are worried about kind of the carbon footprint, this is one way that it&#8217;s kind of advertised to reduce that with.
Aquamation to my knowledge, it is so new as a technology that I&#8217;m not aware of anything the church has said directly on it. I would say all of the caution surrounding cremation would apply here as well, which is that the church has historically resisted previously completely opposed, but now just strongly kind of discourages cremation on the grounds that you don&#8217;t want to do anything that upsets the dignity of the body. So to put it as simply as I can. Oh, I&#8217;m sorry. Apparently in March 2023, the USCCB explicitly said, &#8220;Aquamation does not show adequate respect for the human body or hope in the resurrection.&#8221; And that was exactly what I was going to say. That&#8217;s the concern is how is the body being handled? And certainly the way I&#8217;ve seen Aquamation advertised is a return to nature. And that&#8217;s the opposite of kind of the Catholic vision. Now, I mean, to be sure, I don&#8217;t want to guess opposite is too strong of a word. From dust you are made into dust you shall return. But the Christian hope is that that&#8217;s not the end of the story. And so a method of handling the body that treats it as just biological waste or treats it as just something to go back into the earth. And that&#8217;s it.
That doesn&#8217;t do justice to the Christian vision. It&#8217;s for this reason that you wouldn&#8217;t say bury a person without a casket or preparing the corpse or anything like this or, you know, refuse to bury them at all.
Those kind of things would be contrary to the idea that you will rise again on the last day. And so while we recognize that in the bodily resurrection, you&#8217;re not tied to your genes or you&#8217;re not tied to your atoms, even as you are right now, like right now you have a physical body and yet that physical body has skin cells that may shed new cells that multiply and grow and all of this. So you&#8217;re not just a collection of cells, even at a bodily level, even right now. That&#8217;s true when your body is separated from your soul and death.
But nevertheless, anything that appears like the body is just being discarded is contrary to the Christian vision of the body. And so we resist and oppose it kind of on those grounds.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.