Manage Account

Abortion for Any Reason…Including Sexism?

Discover

This Christian Teaching SOUNDS HERETICAL (but it’s why God made us…)

Where Is The Pope In The Bible? — EVERY Objection to the Papacy Answered!

In this episode Trent refutes anti-natalism (the view that having children is immoral) in both popular environmental literature and more advanced philosophical arguments.

Is it Immoral to have Children?

How can the Catholic Church teach that we need to worry about losing our salvation through mortal sin when the Bible teaches that we have been sanctified once and for all? Karlo Broussard tackles another Protestant challenge.

Are Your Future Sins Forgiven?

Episode 54: Year B &#8211; 1st Sunday of Advent
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we start a new Liturgical year, Year B. There are three details that we focus on for this upcoming First Sunday of Advent, each coming from a different reading. The detail from the first reading, taken from Isaiah 63:16b-17, 19b; 64:2-7, relates to the apologetical topic of the problem of God’s permission of sin. The detail from the second reading, taken from 1 Corinthians 1:3-9, is related. It deals with God’s freedom in distributing the grace of final perseverance. The detail from the Gospel, Mark 13:33-37, relates to knowledge of the day and hour of the final judgment.
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/120323.cfm">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
&nbsp;
Hey everyone,
&nbsp;
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
&nbsp;
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
&nbsp;
In this episode, we start a new Liturgical year, Year B. There are three details that we’re going to focus on for this upcoming First Sunday of Advent, each coming from a different reading: the first reading, taken from Isaiah 63:16b-17, 19b; 64:2-7, the second reading, taken from 1 Corinthians 1:3-9, and the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 13:33-37. The detail from the first reading relates to the apologetical topic of the problem of God’s permission of sin. The detail from the second reading is related. It deals with God’s freedom in distributing the grace of final perseverance. The Gospel detail relates to knowledge of the day and hour of the final judgment.
&nbsp;
Let’s get started with the first reading. I’m only going to read the relevant verses.
&nbsp;
Isaiah 63:17 reads, “17 Why do you make us wander, LORD, from your ways, and harden our hearts so that we do not fear you?” Then, in 64:6-7, Isaiah laments, “For you have hidden your face from us and have delivered us up to our crimes. 7 Yet, LORD, you are our father; we are the clay and you our potter: we are all the work of your hand.”
&nbsp;
There are basically two complaints that Isaiah makes here: 1) he complains that God makes the Israelites wander from his ways and “hardens” their hearts, and 2) he laments that God hides his face from them.
&nbsp;
There are a few apologetical topics that these details relate to. One is the problem of divine hiddenness, the problem of God allowing honest inquirers to fall short of arriving at knowledge that he exists. I’m going to pass over this one and simply refer you to my CD set Why Doesn’t God Show His Face? Making Sense of Divine Hiddenness, and the relevant chapters in book Prepare the Way: Overcoming Obstacles to God, the Gospel, and the Church.  
&nbsp;
The other apologetical topic is God’s causality relative to sin and the hardening of heart. The question here arises, “Does God actually make them sin and harden their hearts?”
&nbsp;
Concerning whether God makes them sin, the answer is no. The authors of the Old Testament understood that God is ultimately in control of everything, subjecting everything to his divine providence. Consequently, they ascribe everything to his divine agency. And they do so without making clarifications as to what is subject to his providence by way of permission and what is subject to his providence by way of his direct causality. The sins of the Israelites were permitted by God, but not caused. As to why God cannot cause sin, see my article “God Does Not Cause Us to Sin” at catholic.com.
&nbsp;
Now, concerning the “hardness of heart,” as Aquinas explains in his Summa Theologiae (I-II q.79 a.3), it depends on what we mean by “hardness of heart.” If, for example, by “hardness of heart” we mean the human cleaves to evil and turns away from God, we must say God is not the cause of such hardness, just as he is not the cause of sin.
&nbsp;
However, if by “hardness of heart” we mean the heart’s lack of softness to be moved to desire and in fact live rightly, which is an effect of a withdrawal of grace, then we may say God causes such “hardness of heart.”
&nbsp;
By “withdrawal of grace,” Aquinas means God doesn’t assist the person to avoid sin. When he treats this question in his Summa Contra Gentiles (Bk. 3, Chap. 162), Aquinas identifies two ways in which God may withhold such assistance: either by withholding the infusion of grace, whether habitual (sanctifying) or actual, or by withholding external protections from the occasions of sin.
&nbsp;
Of course, this raises the question, “Is God’s withholding of such aids contrary to God’s all-good nature?” In other words, is the concept of an all-good God incompatible with the concept of a God who permits people to fall into sin as opposed to ensuring by his grace that they choose the good?
&nbsp;
The answer is no. And the key is seeing why such permission is not contrary to justice. There two paths that we can take here.
&nbsp;
The first comes straight from Aquinas. For him, God is not unjust for withholding such aids because God does so on account of some obstacle in man. Aquinas writes, “God, of His own accord, withholds His grace from those in whom He finds an obstacle: so that the cause of grace being withheld is not only the man who raises an obstacle to grace; but God, Who, of His own accord, withholds His grace” (Summa Theologiae I-II, q.79 a.3; emphasis added).
&nbsp;
What does Aquinas mean by an “obstacle”? The answer is sin. This becomes clear in his reply to Objection 1, where he writes, “Hardheartedness, as regards the withholding of grace, are punishments.” And act of punishment can only be justly administered if there is a proportionate crime. Since “hardheartedness,” and the withholding of grace that brings it about, is conceived of as “punishment,” it follows that Aquinas conceives of the obstacle in man as sin. He confirms this in unequivocal terms in the next line of the same reply: “It is because he is already worsened by sin that he incurs [hardheartedness], eve as other punishments” (emphasis added).
&nbsp;
Now, someone might counter, “Well, Aquinas’s argument here just kicks the can down the road, since the sin in man on account of which God withdraws grace is there in the first place ultimately because God permitted it. God’s permissive will in relation to sin is a sine qua non—that’s to say, that without which the sin would not be. So, the skeptic could argue that God is unjust for permitting this sin, the sin on account of which he withholds aids to help man avoid sin?”
&nbsp;
To be honest, I agree with this counter. The question of God’s justice remains. So, what should we say in response?
&nbsp;
In our first reading, Isaiah provides his response: “Lord, you are our father; we are the clay and you our potter: we are all the work of your hand.” In other words, to question God’s justice for permitting his create rational creatures to be harden in their sin and even to permit them to sin in the first place is unjustified because God is sovereign. He’s the Creator and is free to create whatever order of providence he wants.
&nbsp;
My response, similar to Isaiah’s, is that God is not unjust for permitting sin because the grace to preserve man from sin is not owed. Such a grace is precisely that, a grace—a gift that is over and above man’s nature as a rational animal. Since God is not bound to give what is above and beyond what is natural to man, to not give such a grace is thereby not a violation of justice. As Aquinas writes, “In things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice” (Summa Theologiae I:23:4 ad 3). Therefore, there is no conflict between God permitting sin and his goodness and/or justice.
&nbsp;
Okay, on to the detail from the second reading, which is taken from 1 Corinthians 1:3-9. Starting with verse 4, Paul writes,
&nbsp;
I give thanks to God always for you because of the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you were enriched in him with all speech and all knowledge—6 even as the testimony to Christ was confirmed among you—7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ; 8 ¶ who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 ¶ God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
&nbsp;
The detail that I want to highlight for our purposes here is Paul’s statement that God will sustain the Corinthians “to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v.8). This relates to the topic of final perseverance.
&nbsp;
There are two related questions: 1) Can a person merit such a gift?, and 2) If a person can’t merit it, is God unjust for not giving it?
&nbsp;
To the first question, “Can a person merit such a gift?” If by “merit” we mean de condigno, then the answer is no. Merit de condigno refers to an equivalence or proportion that exists between a good action and the reward such that the reward is due to the good action. No such merit is possible for the grace of final perseverance.
&nbsp;
In the first part of the second part of his Summa Theologiae, question 114, article 9, Aquinas explains this is so because the grace of final perseverance is a principle in virtue of which we can merit eternal life—the term of the movement that God causes within us. Since principles don’t fall under the category of what can be merited, but only the term of a movement, Aquinas concludes that the grace of final perseverance can’t be merited de condigno.
&nbsp;
However, the grace of final perseverance is said to be merited de congruo. Merit de congruo refers to a reward that is given on account of some good action not because the reward is due to the good action but on account of the generosity of him who rewards.
&nbsp;
So, as Aquinas argues in his reply to objection of the same article 9,
&nbsp;
We impetrate in prayer things that we do not merit [de condigno], since God hears sinners who beseech the pardon of their sins, which they do not merit, as appears from Augustine on Jo. ix. 31, Now we know that God doth not hear sinners, otherwise it would have been useless for the publican to say: O God, be merciful to me a sinner, Luke 18:13. So too may we impetrate of God in prayer the grace of perseverance either for ourselves or for others, although it does not fall under merit [de condigno].
&nbsp;
Now, if the grace of final perseverance is cannot be merited de condigno, then such a grace is pure gift. As Aquinas writes, “God freely bestows the good of perseverance on whomsoever He bestows it.”
&nbsp;
This, of course, raises the question, “Is God unjust for not giving such a grace to some?” Like for our answers above, the answer is no. The reason is that such a grace is just that: a grace—a free gift that is over and above our nature. Since God is not bound to give what is over and above our nature as human beings, he’s not required in justice to himself or to us to give us this grace.
&nbsp;
But what about the soul that ends up in hell? Wouldn’t that entail that God is unjust?
&nbsp;
The answer is no because such a person would end up in hell on account of dying in a state of mortal sin—a definitive rejection of God. Thus, the imposed punishment of hell would be in proportion to that grave offense and thereby just. God’s permission is simply a sine qua non for the sin to be committed—that’s to say, a necessary condition for the sin to even be committed in the first place.
&nbsp;
The last detail that we’re going to focus on in this episode comes from the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 13:33-37. The key line is Jesus’ statement, “Be watchful! Be alert! You do not know when the time will come.”
&nbsp;
This line is apologetically significant for two reasons. First, there have been Christians and there are currently some Christians who claim to know when the final coming will occur. Given our Lord’s teaching here, we know such preachers are false prophets.
&nbsp;
Second, the verse right before this line, verse 32, Jesus says, “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
&nbsp;
This is a go-to passage for some to try and show that Jesus was ignorant of the timing of his final coming. And if that’s the case, then he isn’t God.
&nbsp;
How should we respond?
&nbsp;
We don’t have time to give a full response here. So, I’ll just sketch a two-fold response.
&nbsp;
First, given that Jesus had two natures—human and divine—he could still be God and not know the timing of the final coming if he lacked such knowledge only in his human intellect. Having a human nature Jesus experienced many limitations that go with being human, like confinement to a particular spatial location, pain, sorrow, etc.
&nbsp;
Now, unlike the above response, a second possible response is that Jesus had the knowledge in his human intellect it’s just he didn’t have it there by way of normal human cognition. In other words, he had it in his human intellect but not from his human intellect. It would have been a knowledge that was infused within his human intellect by divine power.
&nbsp;
On this view, Jesus could rightly attribute “ignorance” of the day and hour to himself because he wouldn’t have known it as man—that’s to say, he wouldn’t have known it in a way that humans normally know things, i.e., taking in information from our sensory experience, abstracting the essences/forms of things, formulating propositions, and then reasoning to conclusions based on those formed propositions.
&nbsp;
So, there’s no need to doubt Jesus’ divinity based on his ascription of ignorance to himself concerning the timing of his final coming.
&nbsp;
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The content of the Gospel reading for this upcoming First Sunday of Advent, Year B, doesn’t sell us short when it comes to apologetical material. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on several topics:
&nbsp;
<ul>
<li>The problem of evil,</li>
<li>God’s freedom in granting the grace of final perseverance, and</li>
<li>Jesus’ knowledge concerning the timing of the day and hour of his final coming.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
&nbsp;
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
&nbsp;
I hope you have a blessed First Sunday of Advent. Enjoy the beginning of Year B for the Liturgical Year. Until next time, God Bless!

Why God Lets Us Sin

Apologist Trent Horn responds to a student who asks for proof of humans have souls. In this video, Trent defines what the soul is and presents three key arguments for its existence, drawing from philosophy, reason, and Catholic teaching.
Transcript:
We&#8217;ll start with Lucas. Welcome, Lucas!
Thank you.
You&#8217;re from Maryland?
I go to a school in Maryland, but I&#8217;m from Virginia.
Okay. Very good You got a question for Trent?
Yeah. So my question is, how do we know, or is there any proof that we have a soul? Because I got taught by my religion and by my teachers and stuff like that, that we all humans have a soul. And I believe that we all do, but how do we know?
You can&#8217;t feel the moving around in the morning?
Okay. All right. That could just be indigestion Cy.
I got a soul right now.
That&#8217;s what soul food will do to you. That&#8217;s why they call it soul food. You feel it deep in your soul when you&#8217;re trying to digest it.
Yeah.
So Logan- sorry, Lucas, Logan was a previous caller. Lucas, I would say we have to first understand what the soul is.
So the soul in classical philosophy and theology, that&#8217;s just a principle of life. And the soul is not exclusive to humans. We would say that the soul is just a principle of life. So anything that is living has a soul. It is what makes living things different than dead things. Even if you have the same matter. So the soul is the form of the body.
I mean, have they taught you about the four causes yet? Like the material, formal, efficient cause, final cause?
Yeah.
We&#8217;re going to get into that.
Okay. So the material, formal, efficient, final cause. Right. So you make a statue, right? And the material cause, like, what is the cause of the statue? Michaelangelo&#8217;s David. Well, the material cause is the marble. But you can&#8217;t just have marble into the David. That&#8217;s to say, the marble has to be arranged in a certain way to be David. But the marble doesn&#8217;t arrange itself. So Michaelangelo&#8217;s the efficient cause.
And we&#8217;ll, okay. Well, why did he make the statue that way? Well, there&#8217;s a final cause. Well, to get paid and to glorify his biblical figure and make great art and all that stuff? So, you know, we have the material, formal, efficient, final cause. This soul is the formal cause of a living thing. So even if you have a dead thing and a living thing, they could have the same exact matter constituting them. But it&#8217;s not arranged in the right way. There&#8217;s a problem with the arrangements of the soul. And it&#8217;s not just the parts themselves put together. The soul is the invisible principle that arranges the body, that arranges it in a way to make it alive or dead. So all living things have a soul.
But as Christians, we believe that God created human beings in his image, and he gave man an immortal soul. He gave man a soul that, so when living things perish, when they die, they die. They sort of, like when a plant dies, it decomposes.
Okay, so like the thing, you know, we think about why do we say it decomposes? It was together and it starts coming apart. Okay, human, you know, when things die, they come apart. They decompose. Whereas like a rock, if it gets shattered, it just gets disassembled, right? Or a cloud dissolves. But living things decompose; they have a kind of organic unity to them.
And so when a living, when a non-human living thing dies, its soul also dies with it. Okay? And God can maybe resurrect both. That&#8217;s a question about, you know, whether my dog is in heaven, that&#8217;s for another show. But typically, humans have immortal souls, so the principle of what arranges our bodies to be living continues on. And the soul is also the seat of knowledge and is able to engage in rational abstract thought beyond what non-human material things can do.
Like a dog can understand, this is a toy; I play with it, this is fun, I enjoy this, but not the concept of what a toy is. You know, or a monkey can make a tool, but does not grasp the abstract concept of a tool, for example. But humans do that.
So some of the arguments for human beings having a soul are unique human abilities that we are able to grasp immaterial abstract things. So like a monkey finds a thing and it serves the function of a tool, and it gets that. Or a dog knows his favorite toy is this square thing. But out in the world, there is no such thing as the idea of a square. You don&#8217;t just bump into the idea of a square. You bump into square things, but not what a square is or a perfect circle. I don&#8217;t know, a perfect circle is out there. But our mind can abstract and comprehend these abstract universes that don&#8217;t exist. So there must be something about us that is not just purely material. There&#8217;s something about us that is immaterial that is able to engage these abstract concepts. That&#8217;s one argument.
Another argument is that human beings have free will. Other material things just behave in accordance with laws of nature. The humans are held morally responsible for our actions. So there must be something about us that guides our actions that is not purely material and subject to the laws of nature. And many people say that would be the soul.
And the final argument is, by authority, you know, Jesus Christ. It&#8217;s God. He rose from the dead, demonstrated his divinity. And he tells us that we have souls. He tells us that it&#8217;s not worth it to gain the whole world and lose your soul. And if a guy can walk out of his own tomb, tells me I have a soul, and I don&#8217;t want to lose it. I need to follow him. I&#8217;m going to do what he says.
So a lot of different arguments there.
There is a good book actually. If you want to go deeper, the Catholic philosopher Ed Faser has a new book out on the soul. That book is called, it&#8217;s in stock here, it&#8217;s called Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.
So that&#8217;s his new big book on the soul. It&#8217;s a great book on God called Five Proofs for the Existence of God. Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature. You might find that to be helpful.
So, all right. I threw a lot on you there. Is that helpful?
Yeah, no, that&#8217;s very helpful.
Do you know who the queen of soul is?
The Virgin Mary.
No the Virgin Mary is The Queen of Heaven Aretha Franklin is The Queen of Soul.
You should watch a great movie Blues, called Blues Brothers.
Oh, I have seen this.
You&#8217;ve seen the Blues Brothers?
Yeah.
Good.
Lucas is like, we watched it in my film study on movies from the 1900s.
(Laughter)

Do We Have Souls—And Can We Prove It?

Will there be a Rapture, and how should Catholics respond to popular “rapture” theology?

Will there be a literal thousand-year reign (the “millennium”)?

What is the Catholic understanding of the Three Days of Darkness?

What is the Illumination of Conscience or Warning, and when might it occur?

What is “Antichrist”?

&#8220;Will there be a Rapture?&#8221; This episode dives into the Catholic perspective on popular rapture theology and explores key topics such as the concept of a literal thousand-year reign, the Catholic understanding of the Three Days of Darkness, and the nature of the Antichrist. Join us for an examination of these important eschatological questions.
<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>

What is The Rapture? Eschatology, the Antichrist, and More

Trent Horn&#8217;s new book explores the many ways Christ is falsely presented. He discusses these &#8220;counterfeit Christs” and why the real Christ is so much better.

Counterfeit Christs (Part 1)

A standard go-to Bible passage for Catholics in rebutting the Protestant argument that Jesus forbids calling religious leaders “father” (Matt. 23:9) is 1 Corinthians 4:15. There, Paul says, “Though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” If Matthew 23:9 forbade calling religious leaders “father,” so Catholics argue, then Paul would be disobeying Jesus’ express command. Since Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4:15 are divinely inspired and, therefore, can’t contradict what Jesus says, it follows that Jesus isn’t forbidding calling religious leaders “father.”
For most Catholics who dabble in apologetics, the above argument is “old hat.” However, what’s not “old hat” are the Protestant comebacks.
Consider, for example, how some Protestants might counter and say that Paul doesn’t say “father” (Gk., pater) in this passage. Rather, the Greek is gennaō, which means &#8220;to become a parent of.” Since Paul isn’t using the term “father,” it can’t be used as evidence for calling religious leaders “father.”
In response, Paul juxtaposes gennaō with the previous pateras in the first half of the verse—“you do not have many fathers [Gk., pateras].” The implication, therefore, is that he is their “father.” And if that’s his role, then the title of that role can appropriately be applied to him.
Another counter to our appeal to 1 Corinthians 4:15 is that Paul is merely describing a familial relationship he has with the Corinthians. Protestant author Todd Baker makes this argument in his book Exodus from Rome, Vol. I. Here’s what he writes:
<blockquote>Paul is merely describing the familial relationship he has with Corinthians because he fathered their conversion. . . . Paul fathered their conversion through the gospel he preached to them, which they believed for salvation and spiritual rebirth. Therefore, Paul was not demanding that all Christian ministers be called “father.” . . . Paul was not claiming an ecclesiastical title for himself, but rather he was stating a fact about his relationship with the Christians at Corinth.</blockquote>
For simplicity’s sake, we can summarize Baker’s argument as follows:
P1: If Paul never demands an ecclesiastical title for himself, then we shouldn’t use that title.
P2: Paul doesn’t demand the ecclesiastical title “father” for himself.
C:  Therefore, we shouldn’t use the ecclesiastical title “father.”
My first response is that Baker seems to think the issue is whether the title is “demanded.” But that’s not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is whether it’s appropriate to call Paul and priests “father.” That’s why Matthew 23:9 is appealed to in the first place.
Given that Paul has in fact fathered the Christians in Corinth spiritually, it’s appropriate for him to label himself, and for the Corinthians to call him, accordingly.
Secondly, Baker wrongly assumes that we need a “demand” from Paul to justify the Catholic practice. But we don’t need a “demand” from Paul to ask the Holy Spirit to intercede for us because he reveals that the Holy Spirit in fact intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26-27). Similarly, we don’t need a “demand” from Paul to call him “father,” because we know in fact that he spiritually fathered the Corinthians.
So the “call no man father” objection and response might be “old hat” for some, but the comebacks to the Catholic response are a new hat that Catholics might want to examine.

Protestants Fight Back on ‘Call No Man Father’

The Bible teaches that Jesus is “the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). This is the heart of the Christian message: Christ made satisfaction for our sins (paid a debt) through his death on the cross.
But the question is, “Was this necessary?” Did Jesus have to die on a cross to expiate our sins? Or could God have done it some other way?
Some Christians say it was necessary (absolutely speaking—i.e., it couldn’t be any other way, regardless of what God willed). But others say it wasn’t (i.e., redemption could have been accomplished some other way). What should we think?
Christians who say it was absolutely necessary often appeal to passages like the one quoted above. “The Bible says Jesus satisfied for our sins,” so it’s argued, “therefore, it was necessary.”
But the mere affirmation that Jesus’ death satisfied for our sins doesn’t logically entail that it was the only way to satisfy for our sins. It’s true that if Jesus wills to order his death for the satisfaction for our sins, then our sins will be satisfied. But to conclude that our sins wouldn’t be satisfied if Jesus didn’t die would be to commit the fallacy of negating the antecedent (if A, then B; not A; therefore, not B).
Now, concerning the positive reasons for why Jesus’ death wasn’t absolutely necessary for our redemption, we can turn to St. Thomas Aquinas for help. Here are three reasons that he gives in a variety of his works.
Reason #1: God is omnipotent.
Given his omnipotence, God can bring about anything that doesn’t entail a logical contradiction. As Mary says, “Nothing will be impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). The idea of God remitting the debt of sin in some way other than Jesus’ death doesn’t entail a logical contradiction. Therefore, as Aquinas concludes, “it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the passion of Christ” (Summa Theologiae III:46:2).
Reason #2: Sin is ultimately against God alone and not some other.
One might think God couldn’t remit the sin of the human race without satisfaction (imposed suffering) lest he act unjustly. A judge, for example, can’t justly pardon fault without penalty when such fault has befallen another (another man, the State, etc.).
But, as Aquinas points out, sin has “the formality of fault in that it is committed against [God] himself” (ST III:46:2 ad 3, emphasis added). In other words, it’s a personal trespass against God. David captures this nicely in his psalm of repentance: “Against you, you alone have I sinned” (Ps. 51:6).
So for God to forgive sin without willing satisfaction he would in no way act against justice. Rather, his forgiveness would simply be an act of mercy. Such forgiveness would be no more unjust than me forgiving my friend’s offense without willing that he pay for it.
Reason #3: The dignity of Christ’s person is infinite.
In question two of his Quodlibet II, Aquinas appeals to the infinite dignity of Christ’s person as a reason why Jesus’ death wasn’t absolutely necessary. Given that Jesus is the Word of God, and thereby divine, any act that he performs has infinite power. Aquinas focuses merely on acts of suffering in this text. But the principle applies to any act Jesus performs. Thus, Jesus could have ordered any of his acts to the redemption of the human race and thereby accomplished it.
Now, if Jesus’ death wasn’t absolutely necessary to satisfy for sin, then why did the Father ordain it? Here are eight reasons.
First, sacrifice is understood by both Jews and all humans as that which brings about good relation between man and the divine (see Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense, Day 4).
Second, sacrifice has a particular meaning for the Jews, given that they were delivered from slavery in Egypt through the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. Since Jesus is revealed to be the new Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7; see also John 1:29), it’s fitting that Jesus be sacrificed (see Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense, Day 4).
Third, Jesus’ death on the cross manifests certain truths about God. It manifests God’s justice because Jesus’ death on the cross did in fact satisfy for sin, paying a debt that the human race could not pay (ST III:46:1). But Jesus’ death also manifests God’s mercy, since “man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature” (ST III:46:1; Cf. I:2 ad 2). Finally, Jesus’ death manifests how much God loves us (ST III:46:3). As Jesus teaches, “greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Jesus speaks a language that we all understand—sacrificial death equals love. Paul concurs, writing, “But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
Fourth, Jesus’ death on the cross helps us progress on the path of holiness and conform our lives to his. It gives us an example of virtue—in particular, the virtues of “obedience, humility, constancy, [and] justice” (ST III:46:3). As Peter writes, “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” Jesus’ death also gives us an example to die to sin spiritually and our carnal desires (ST III:50:1; cf. Quodlibet II.2), for Paul teaches, “The death he died he died to sin . . . so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin” (Rom. 6:10). Finally, the ugliness of Jesus’ death inspires us to refrain from sin (ST III:46:3).
Fifth, Jesus’ death fittingly counters the devil’s combat tactics. Through Adam’s sin, which was brought about by the temptation of the devil, man experiences death as a penalty for sin. Christ takes on death to deliver us from death (ST III:46:3, 50:1). Jesus also counters the devil with his humility. It was the devil’s pride that prompted him to tempt Adam, which brough about the de-redemption of man. Jesus counters such pride with humility to redeem mankind (ST III:46:3 ad 3). Finally, Jesus redeems through justice (satisfying for sin) to counter the devil’s unjust assault on man (ST III:46:3 ad 3).
Sixth, Jesus’ death confirms three truths. It confirms the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Aquinas writes, “how could Christ’s victory over death appear, unless he endured it in the sight of men, and so proved that death was vanquished by the incorruption of his body?” (ST III:46:3 ad 2). The truth of Jesus’ humanity is also confirmed because a phantom cannot suffer and die (ST III:50:1). Finally, it confirms the ugliness of sin (ST III:46:3).
Seventh, given that the Word assumes to himself a human nature and redeems the human race through that nature, a certain dignity is bestowed upon man by incorporating him into the Father’s providential plan to overthrow Satan (ST III:46:3).
Eighth, it was fitting that Jesus merit the glory of exaltation through lowliness (ST III:46:1). Jesus says of himself, “Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:26). Christ’s exaltation is threefold: his resurrection, the manifestation of his divinity, and the reverence shown to him by every creature (Phil. 2:8-10).
In 1 John 4:8, St. John tells us that God is love. It’s no surprise, therefore, that Jesus’ death on the cross, which is an expression of God’s love, would exclude absolute necessity, since love is an expression of the greatest freedom. God’s freedom to have done otherwise gets to the heart of the Christian message: God loves you!

Did Jesus Have to Die for Us?

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

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

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

What Catholics REALLY mean by the Eucharist:

How can Mary and the Saints hear our prayers?

If this doesn't bother you, it SHOULD!

<div class="page" title="Page 96">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 86
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The burden of proof is on those who believe in God. Atheists don’t have to prove God doesn’t exist; believers have to prove he does.”
DEFENSE
This misunderstands the burden of proof.
The concept is borrowed from civil law, where it refers to the obligation a party has to provide sufficient evidence for a claim or lose his case. U.S. law establishes a presumption of innocence, according to which a prosecutor must prove the accused is guilty of an offense or the accused will be acquitted and be legally treated as innocent. The presumption of innocence is a choice our society has made to favor the accused, lest prosecutors use the power of the state to falsely convict large numbers of innocent people and bring about a reign of terror.
However, the burden of proof works differently in other settings, such as philosophical or religious discussions.
From a logical point of view, it does not matter whether one is arguing for a proposition (P) or for its denial (not-P). In the absence of evidence, neither is more probable than the other. Consequently, as long as things remain in the abstract, nobody has a burden of proof.
The burden is created when one person begins asserting either P or not-P. If he wants to convince a person of a proposition or its denial, then he needs to offer that person reasons why. The philosophical burden of proof thus does not intrinsically fall on either party. It is something that you assume when you try to convince someone else of a position.
All of this applies to situations where one is making a claim about whether something exists. Until you consider the evidence, neither the proposition “X exists” nor the proposition “X does not exist” can be deemed more probable than the other, and it doesn’t matter what X is. As long as you have no evidence favoring the existence or non- existence of X, both propositions are equally probable.
Thus if a theist wants to convince a non-theist that God exists, he needs to provide arguments for his position, and if an atheist wishes to convince a non-atheist that God does not exist, he similarly needs to offer arguments for his position. The burden of proof is assumed by whoever is trying to convince the other.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

God and the Burden of Proof

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

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

Does the Catholic Mass re-sacrifice Jesus?

I believe in the apostolic Church and don’t think Catholicism holds to the original form.

I’m in OCIA. How is Catholicism not a works-based salvation?

I was raised JW. How and where do I start if I want to become Catholic?

&#8220;Is Catholicism a works-based salvation?&#8221; This question leads to a discussion on the nature of salvation in Catholicism, addressing concerns about the apostolic Church&#8217;s teachings. Other topics include the journey of someone in OCIA seeking clarity on salvation and guidance for those raised as Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses looking to convert to Catholicism.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Is Catholicism a Works-Based Salvation? Why Aren’t You Catholic?

With grace and humor, author Matthew Arnold shares his story of conversion, including his time as a Catholic Traditionalist. Without recrimination or resentment toward anyone, he shares the beauty of the Catholic life he has discovered, and gives insights into some of the still-simmering controversies of our times.

Confessions of a Traditional Catholic

When was the Church born: Cross or Pentecost?

Do you like fish tacos?

Did Jesus know the day/hour in Matt 24:36?

Reformation?

What does divine simplicity mean?

Has the Roman Canon always been the same?

Thoughts on Futurama?

How can I return to the Church?

Can ashes be mixed with a pet’s?

&#8220;When was the Church born: At the Cross or at Pentecost?&#8221; This episode dives into this question while also exploring diverse topics such as whether Jesus knew the day and hour in Matthew 24:36, the evolution of the term &#8220;Christianity&#8221; since the Reformation, and the meaning of divine simplicity. Tune in for a rich discussion on these aspects of faith.
<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>

When Was the Church Born When Christ’s Side was Pierced?

Is "tradition" bad? Do Catholics follow "man-made" traditions?

Did a Gay Jew Change Catholicism? (Redeemed Zoomer Response)

Can God’s will for us change over time?

Have you seen the recent images from the James Webb Telescope? Catholic convert and Harvard astrochemist, Karin Öberg joins us to examine the recent images and what they tell us about God, the beginnings of our universe, and bug people.

What the Webb Telescope Tells Us About God’s Creation

Did Jonah actually get swallowed by a whale?

Is there some part of the bible I should study to prepare to speak to Muslims?

When the Israelites entered the holy land they fought giants. Why are there giants after the flood?

Can we as Catholics personally hold the belief that the Orthodox canon is divinely inspired?

Romans talk about being a slave to sin. What did Jesus actually accomplish if we are slaves to sin?

New research suggests that no human should consume alcohol because of how bad it is for humans. How could God create and make water into wine at the wedding of Cana knowing how harmful it is for humans?

Does the bible mean the same thing when it refers to the mind, heart, soul and spirit?

Did Jonah really get swallowed by a whale, or is the story symbolic? In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Catholic Answers apologists tackle this question along with several others about Scripture and theology. They discuss how to prepare for conversations with Muslims using the Bible, why giants appear after the flood, and whether Catholics can accept the Orthodox canon as inspired. The conversation also explores what St. Paul means by being “slaves to sin” and what Christ truly accomplished through redemption. Additional questions address modern concerns about alcohol in light of the wedding at Cana and clarify how the Bible uses terms like mind, heart, soul, and spirit. A wide-ranging discussion on biblical interpretation and Catholic teaching.

Did Jonah Really Get Swallowed by a Whale? Bible Questions

How does the Jubilee Year and forgiveness apply to my divorce and financial situation?

How can Catholics believe Genesis is an allegory and a genealogy at the same time?

How can I better defend against the claim “Catholicism is too complex”?

The Vatican suppressed the Miles Christi order recently. What does that mean for the order and the faithful associated with them?

Could pursuit of knowledge of the faith ever be an idol?

What is the difference between the particular judgment and general judgment?

How can God forget sins forgiven in Confession if He is All-Knowing?

I’m cradle Orthodox; what is the best, concise argument against Eastern Orthodoxy? Why should I become Catholic?

I’m in OCIA, my spouse is attending a Protestant Church. Am I allowed to continue attending Protestant services with him?

I heard that God allows us to go to Hell because we would not be able to stand the beatific vision if we had mortal sin on our soul. Is this true?

How did the Lord atone for our sins?

If God is omniscient, how can He &#8220;forget&#8221; sins forgiven in Confession? Jimmy Akin explains this theological mystery and answers more questions on Genesis, Catholic complexity, and divine judgment.

Does God Really Forget Our Sins If He Is All-Knowing?

Did the Protestant Reformation invent a new gospel?

Can Christians Believe in Ghosts?

Mormons and Catholics believe in two different Gods. Both call God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but each means a totally different thing from the other.
In Catholicism, God is three persons in one divine nature. God is immaterial and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-divine-simplicity">absolutely simple</a>. In Mormonism, the three persons are <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity">distinct in substance and essence</a>. They are made of material and exist in a material world.
There are many issues we could focus on, like the “three gods or one God” issue, or how Christ must be equal to the Father, but if we did, we would simply be talking past Mormons. The differences are not semantic. If we want to break any ground with Mormons, we must look to the roots of reality; Catholicism and Mormonism explain existence in completely different ways.
In Catholicism, God created everything <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/creation-ex-nihilo">ex nihilo</a> (from nothing). He brings everything into existence, and all existence is contingent on him. God is the uncaused cause—the ultimate explanation of all things.
In Mormonism, God does not bring all things into existence from nothing. Instead, he organizes eternally existing matter. This matter has existed forever, and all things, including god, are made by it (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng">Abraham 3</a>). This view, Mormons argue, gives us a more realistic grasp on reality. It is concrete. It avoids the confusing idea of creation from nothing and explains reality in a way we can more easily understand.
Regardless of how concrete an idea is, the question remains: is the Mormon view a sufficient explanation for why anything exists at all? It is not. Eternal matter cannot explain its own reason for existence, let alone existence itself. Only a theology where God is the very act of being can explain reality fully.
<h2>Existence as Act</h2>
This is precisely what the Thomistic framework <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/what-is-god/?searchid=12728832&amp;search_query=what+is+god">describes</a>. It begins with the distinction between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is). A circle has a definable nature—it&#8217;s a circle. A human being has an essence. But neither must exist; their existence does not explain itself.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that whatever does not have existence of itself must receive it from another. Thus, if everything has a finite essence distinct from its existence, then something else must be the cause of its existence (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm">Summa Theologica</a><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm">, Prima Pars Q2</a>). A causal chain cannot regress infinitely while providing any satisfactory answers about existence. There must be a being whose essence is the same as its existence—a being that is existence itself.
This, Aquinas says, is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/actus-purus">actus purus</a>, pure act. This is the trinitarian God, a being without composition, limitation, or dependency. He is the cause of all existence, not merely one being among others. All existence ultimately depends on him.
Thus, creation from nothing is necessary. All things are radically dependent on God for their existence. He didn&#8217;t create us, then forget about us or let things happen. He is the source of all things.
This means, when compared to Mormon theology, something like matter cannot be uncreated. It must receive existence from somewhere.
<h2>Mormon Material</h2>
Mormons disagree. They posit an entirely different system of reality. Matter is eternal and does not depend on anything for its existence (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng">D&amp;C 131</a>). God does not create or sustain matter, but organizes and structures it.
From an Aristotelian standpoint, eternal matter is the material cause, whereas God is the efficient cause, shaping pre-existing matter into the forms we see today.
Mormons tout this as a <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng">far more understandable</a> and realistic explanation for existence. Afterall, Mormons are right to say that creation from nothing and a God without parts or passions is difficult to comprehend. We cannot comprehend a being who exists outside time and has no parts or passions, but we can comprehend a sculptor who forms David out of marble.
But comprehensibility does not mean likelihood. Mormonism&#8217;s explanatory adequacy is dependent on whether organization from eternal material can suffice as the ultimate explanation for existence.
<h2>Insufficient Explanation</h2>
From a Catholic perspective, eternal matter does not explain existence, but postpones the question of why this material exists at all. Mormonism&#8217;s answer is that it is necessary.
But simply declaring something material as necessary does not make it so. Since material cannot explain its own existence, an explanatory demand persists.
This is what&#8217;s known as the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-the-universe-must-have-a-cause">principle of sufficient reason</a>: whatever exists must have a sufficient explanation for its existence. Mormon theology rejects this, and ultimately looks toward brute facts (facts that exist without further explanation) at the foundation of existence.
The problem with allowing brute facts to be the fundamental answer for existence is that explanation itself becomes arbitrary. If reality is at bottom unexplained, why do any explanations matter at all? Why bother looking for answers?
Although brute facts give Mormonism internal consistency, it is an insufficient explanation for existence. It leaves many questions unanswered. It also opens the door for worrying consequences: if God is ultimately not the source of all existence, how can we trust that he will sustain ours?
We can&#8217;t—at least not in the same way we can in Catholic theology. If we accept the brute fact that matter must exist without further explanation, we must blindly trust that existence will continue in that substrate. There is no real explanation for why it must.
<h2>The Trinity Is True</h2>
Catholic theology leaves no such door open. Since God is existence itself—and is all good—we have fully explained reasons to trust him to continue our existence.
Ironically, the lengths to which Mormons go to make God knowable create a less succinct and less understandable existence.
Though we can&#8217;t say Mormonism is impossible, just as many strange ideas aren&#8217;t, we can ask which explanation of reality is more likely: a fully material existence where one must accept the brute fact that that&#8217;s simply how things are, or a God who is the cause of all creation and the ultimate explanation for all things?
The Trinity is far more likely. It requires far fewer assumptions to accept, and it results in a God we can absolutely trust without deferring blindly to brute facts. All existence must be accounted for. If there is to be a complete answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, it can be found only in that which is existence itself.

How Mormons Explain Existence

3 Facts Sola Scriptura CANT explain🤯👇

Returning again to the issue of church music, we build upon <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-tell-if-your-church-music-is-ugly">our last article</a>, which touched on official Catholic guidelines for liturgical music, to explore specifically why the piano is not a desirable liturgical instrument.
It may seem odd to exclude an instrument that is a touchstone of the musical West, and a king of instruments among the musical tradition that grew organically out of Christendom. The piano is so universal an instrument that many pedagogues consider it as specifically representative of the Western musical system, and music students must all practice theory on the piano and learn to be competent keyboard players. Being a crowning achievement of Western musical and technological development, the greatest composers have composed a wide and dazzling array of repertoire for this instrument.
Yet it is the acoustic nature of the instrument, along with contemporary cultural considerations, that renders it unfit for use in the Mass.
For most of the Church’s history, the development of instruments was pursued to support the singing voice, culminating in that centrally important liturgical instrument, the pipe organ. Where piano is concerned, there is record of a few small chapels and mission churches using piano as a pitch source when organ was not available in the later nineteenth century, though Church teaching at this time declared the instrument profane and not fit for the sacred liturgy (Pope Pius X, Tra le Sollecitudini). It is important to point out that churches lacking the money for an organ did not automatically turn to the piano at this time, especially as the Church’s foundational (and, according to Vatican II, still primary) musical expression—Gregorian chant—requires no harmonic accompaniment. The Church’s guidance, its tradition, and a mature sense of the sacred naturally set healthy limits on music for the Mass.
By way of illustration, we can consider the piano as akin to the modern guitar. Proponents of guitar in the liturgy point out the many mentions of plucked string instruments in the Bible, or the fact that “Silent Night” was originally premiered in a mass using guitar accompaniment. What is missing from this surface-level argument is context: those ancient Davidic-era instruments were gut strings strung over primitive resonators. Therefore, they were by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnPsE61hC4s">nature very quiet</a> and would require the near absolute stillness of a congregation to be heard. Even then, they would not be able acoustically to fill large spaces. Likewise with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7WMnJoauL8">the modern classical guitar</a> on which “Silent Night” was premiered: these are very quiet instruments, entirely meant for chamber performance. Furthermore, the playing style of these instruments generally supported harmony and melody and was not primarily for rhythmic drive. They therefore belonged to an involved classical style with which most modern Church players are entirely unfamiliar.

Context, therefore, is quite important in this conversation. Very few people attending a modern Catholic Mass have heard the classical guitar being performed, let alone the old European lute or the types of plucked instruments that would have dominated in antiquity. Rather, today, the guitar is a ubiquitous symbol of pop culture.
Similarly, while the piano is a great cultural accomplishment, most people do not come to mass with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZh-dbDgjnQ">Chopin preludes</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccyHT1sFmsg">Beethoven sonatas</a> echoing in their collective memory. For most people in our culture, the piano, like the guitar, is a bright and rhythmic accompaniment instrument for popular song. It is the instrument of “salons” (to use a papal term) and is tied more to entertainment than contemplation.
Piano is furthermore technically a percussion instrument, which lacks the sustain necessary to adequately support voices without playing in a consistently loud and repetitive manner. With its rapid onset attack (again, percussive) and rapid diminution, devoid of a true voice-like sustain, it is further not suitable for the accompaniment of the Church’s pre-eminent music, Gregorian chant, nor for much vocal accompaniment in general.
That being said, a fair examination of the use of piano in the Western classical tradition in solo song witnesses a variety of ingenious approaches, many of which require a virtuosic touch to effectively execute. Take, for instance, the varied accompaniments in Schumann’s masterwork, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaaBlfBdBO8">Dichterliebe</a>:
<iframe title="R.Schumann - Dichterliebe, Op.48 (Bostridge)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SaaBlfBdBO8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""/>
Another striking example is the simple but penetratingly profound modern masterwork by Orthodox composer Arvo Pärt, “<a href="https://youtu.be/jvXy69eF__Y">Für Alina</a>.” Coming out of eight years of self-imposed creative silence, Pärt drew on the nature of Gregorian chant to craft a new musical style. The resulting work is haunting in its simplicity, but it also demands a fine technique to deliver effectively. In the end, though not liturgical, it is nothing if not a profoundly sacred work. And yet as a purely instrumental expression, it is not fit for the liturgy, and this music would lose its particular character if a sung voice were added.
Now compare that with the accompaniment style of that perennial post-conciliar favorite (or not-so-favorite, depending on the audience): “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZ4YkZ0FdY&amp;list=PLQPAnQzxVsFP1fApYHkxzaxG9se7yqmkO&amp;index=7">Gather Us In</a>.”
<iframe title="gather us in - closer view" width="500" height="375" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AEZ4YkZ0FdY?list=PLQPAnQzxVsFP1fApYHkxzaxG9se7yqmkO" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""/>
The accompaniment to the latter is considerably simple and yet also entirely percussive and pop-adjacent in its execution. This is an appropriate and functional compositional choice, given the setting: to support any congregation —indeed, to not only support, but also urge them forward—musically requires a transparent, boisterous, and (here is that word again) percussive style of playing, reminiscent of pop music. (Anyone familiar with the technical aspects of music production in the pop realm will not be surprised by this, as the bright onset of a piano must frequently be artificially boosted in mixes in order for the instrument to be effectively heard.)
When used in churches large or small, the technical subtleties that make up fine piano playing—the kind of highest expressions found in the masterworks written for the instrument—simply cannot translate or even be heard. What you have left, then, is the musical equivalent of a modern pop guitar, struck loudly, repeatedly, and without nuance, which renders it sonically unsuitable for Catholic liturgical composition.
We must admit that the ears of modern men hear guitar and piano as instruments of popular music. The more our popular culture devolves into profanity, the more inappropriate these instruments become for the liturgy, whereas the traditional sacred music and instruments of the Church simply sound even more sacred to us as a matter of cultural contrast. For instance, the flowing metrical nature of Gregorian chant is foreign to our modern rhythmic sensibilities, making it arguably even more transcendent and spiritually contemplative than back in the early centuries of the form’s emergence, therefore becoming therefore even more spiritually potent and liturgically necessary. The organ, in turn, has no popular style to claim it, and therefore—like Latin itself—it remains a means of communication free from profane pollution.
Finally, there is the nature of percussive instruments in reverberant spaces. The piano generally is intended to be a chamber instrument. Concert halls designed to host great pianists are surprisingly acoustically dry for buildings of their size (this to allow for the clear perception of the musical detail that is the hallmark of the tradition). The piano, in any truly reverberant space, loses the characteristic acoustic details that render it such an expressive and powerful instrument in certain contexts. This is because the reverberant nature of a cathedral, which helps sustained instruments like voice and organ blend and bloom, instead swallows up the dynamic life of the piano. It simply does not work.
Conversely, although one might make a begrudging (and temporary) allowance for a piano in a small or dry church that cannot afford an organ, to do so is still to invite mediocre playing in support of a pop-adjacent musical style that has never been fit for the liturgy.
In an era that encourages us always to turn to experts, we can see that the musical experts of history have spoken conclusively on the topic of the piano with choral writing. Mozart completed seventeen Mass settings and over 200 keyboard works, and a single one of his Masses or sacred choral works includes the piano. Indeed, before 1900, we are hard pressed to find successful works by the great composers where piano is used as an accompaniment to the choir. Starting in the twentieth century, there are some famous examples of composers including the piano in large-scale choral works, but only as percussive support to the accompanying organ or orchestra (Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms comes to mind, or Orff’s Carmina Burana, or Britten’s War Requiem). If piano is employed anywhere in a choral work, it is primarily as a percussion instrument.
If we are to take the greatest composers as our guide, then the use of piano in sacred spaces and for accompaniment in sacred choral works is almost entirely absent. The reason for this is simple: acoustically, it is a clumsy pairing, by its nature an instrumental combination that yields subpar and unsatisfying musical results.
The reason our modern ears desire this combination at all is because of our being suffused in pop culture, and per church teaching, pop (profane) culture is to have no place in our liturgical expression. Taken in turn with an honest consideration of what the Church has traditionally asked for in liturgical music, it seems that a general conversion of cultural preference is in order.

No Piano in Church

Both Mormons and Catholics believe that Jesus Christ established a visible Church and tasked Peter to lead her. Both also believe that Peter&#8217;s successor still has authority over that Church. Catholics, however, believe that Peter&#8217;s line has continued unbroken from Peter until today. Mormons believe in a Great Apostasy: an 1,800-year gap when Peter&#8217;s authority, and the very institution of Christ&#8217;s Church, was removed from the earth and didn’t return until it was <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/youth/learn/yw/apostasy-restoration/joseph-smith?lang=eng">restored by their first prophet, Joseph Smith</a>.
For the prophet, rather than the pope, to be the authentic leader of Christ’s Church, Mormons must show that both Scripture and history indicate the Great Apostasy and necessitate a restoration. They cannot do this. Indeed, both Scripture and history point to an unbroken line of apostolic succession from St. Peter to <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/we-have-a-pope-leo-xiv-in-brief">Pope Leo XIV</a>.
<h2>Scripture</h2>
The New Testament constantly indicates that Christ established the fullness of truth in his Church and that the Church will endure until the end of time.
<ul>
<li>&#8220;And behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/28"> 28:20</a>).</li>
<li>&#8220;I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/14">John 14:16-17</a>).</li>
<li>&#8220;To him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever, Amen” (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/ephesians/3"> 3:21</a>).</li>
</ul>
These verses support Catholicism&#8217;s claim that Christ&#8217;s presence endures both in the Church&#8217;s authority (the Magisterium) and in the Eucharist (the authority to consecrate).
Mormons don&#8217;t disagree that the Church endures; they simply place an 1,800-year apostasy break before ultimate endurance. They also use scriptures to indicate their claim:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;I know that after my [Paul&#8217;s] departure fierce wolves will come in among you&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/acts/20">Acts 20:29-30</a>).</li>
<li>&#8220;Let no one deceive you in any way&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2thessalonians/2">2 Thess. 2:3</a>).</li>
</ul>
Mormons correctly identify these verses with apostasy. The Ephesians (the people Paul was talking to in Acts) were led astray by false preachers soon after he left (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/revelation/2">Rev. 2:4</a>). The wolves Paul speaks of in Thessalonians are necessary before the Second Coming; many of the faithful will fall.
However, small apostasies do not necessarily entail a large one. The question isn’t whether Christians sometimes fall away, but whether Christ allowed his Church and its authority to be completely taken from the earth.
The broader scriptural context of Christ promising endurance means small apostasies are more plausible than a large one. Historical evidence adds more support to this idea.
<h2>History</h2>
If there were a Great Apostasy, you would expect to see an early, radical shift from what the apostles taught to what the Church teaches now. This would plausibly be accompanied by a visible structural collapse and evidence that doctrine was lost. Yet history shows the opposite.
There’s lots of evidence showing that the Catholic Church, along with the pope’s primacy, began with Christ and has persevered for 2,000 years. The early Church Father St. Irenaeus of Lyons gives a list of bishops descending directly from the apostles to fight Gnosticism in the second century (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm">Against Heresies</a><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm">, III.3</a>). St. Clement, in his first epistle, discusses apostolic succession at length in the first century (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm">Clement I</a>). The evidence shows the visible Church growing, not shrinking or apostatizing, quickly following Christ’s resurrection.
Additionally, history shows that theological ideas like the Trinity and the Real Presence were widespread as early as the first century A.D. St. Ignatius of Antioch (110), for example, strongly affirms that Jesus is both human and divine—a teaching that wouldn&#8217;t be formalized until Nicaea I in 324 (<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/ephesians.html">Eph. inscr, 15:3, etc.</a>). Other of Ignatius’s writings, along with the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/071https:/www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm4.htm">Didache</a> (late first, early second century) treat the Eucharist as Christ’s literal flesh and blood.
<h2>Doctrinal Development</h2>
Since then, the Church has developed her understanding of these and other ideas but never changed them. The entire deposit of faith was revealed by Christ and his apostles. All doctrine can be traced in an organic development from principles present in the Apostolic Age. (St. John Henry Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine shows this well.)
Mormons do not reject the evidence of early Christian beliefs in the Trinity and the Eucharist. Instead, they believe that the Trinity is a result of prideful men infusing Greek philosophy into the pure gospel and tarnishing God’s identity beyond recognition. The Eucharist is merely symbolic—just as Christ intended. The early prevalence of these ideas only proves the rapidity of the Great Apostasy; early Christians fell so deeply into apostasy that Peter&#8217;s authority was taken from the earth and didn’t return until Joseph Smith in 1830 restored Christ’s original teachings and received the authority to lead the church.
In other words, Mormons tacitly accept doctrinal development’s positive historical evidence, and they place the burden of proof on their theology. On this, they have even less evidence: the philosophical probability of the Trinity is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-mormons-explain-existence">much higher</a> than Mormonism’s theology of an embodied, material god.
<h2>Need for a Prophet</h2>
Although there are some scriptures that indicate a Great Apostasy, and historical evidence that shows certain Christian areas falling away, the culmination of all evidence points away from Mormonism and to Catholicism—particularly if you include theology. Yet Mormons reject the evidence.
Instead, they appeal to the Holy Spirit assuring them that the prophet is correct, and so believe whatever their prophet says and whatever the church teaches. Although the Holy Spirit does reveal truth through feelings, private spiritual experiences cannot overturn public historical evidence, apostolic continuity, or prior revelation. Catholicism affirms that faith transcends reason but never contradicts it; as St. Thomas Aquinas <a href="https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles1.htm">taught</a>, since God is the author of both reason and revelation, a genuine contradiction between faith and reason is impossible.
For a Mormon to reasonably believe in a prophet, they must reject all evidence in favor of feelings. But that is not how God directs us to find him.
The good news for Mormons is that they’re right that Christ established his Church on Peter. The evidence shows that their prophet does not have Peter’s authority, but they can become part of the Church whose papal office has possessed it in continuous succession since Christ gave it to his chief apostle.

Mormon Prophet vs. Catholic Pope

Excommunication is widely misunderstood. Probably the most common misunderstanding is thinking that it means you can’t go to Communion. That is part of excommunication, but only a part.
Another common misunderstanding is that excommunication means being kicked out of the Church. It used to mean that, but it doesn’t anymore.
Today, excommunication is a penalty with very specific and clearly stated effects—that almost nobody knows.
So what is it, and why is it so often misunderstood? Let’s talk about that.
The two common misunderstandings both have the same source: trying to figure out the word excommunication <a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Etymological-Fallacy">based on its word origins</a> instead of its current usage.
People have the idea that ex- means things like “former” (an ex-wife as opposed to a current wife), “out” (to export rather than to import), or “deprive” (to expropriate rather than appropriate).
Communion is understood in terms of either receiving the Eucharist (sacramental communion) or being part of the Church (ecclesiastical communion).
To excommunicate would thus mean to deprive someone of the Eucharist or kick him out of the Church.
Or so you’d think. The actual way to figure out what excommunication is and does is by looking at canon law, and this has changed dramatically over the centuries.
For much of the twentieth century, canon law was embodied in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (CIC), but that was replaced by a new code in 1983. In 2021, Pope Francis replaced Book VI of the Code, which deals with penalties, including excommunication.
So what is excommunication? In the first place, it’s a penalty, which is why it’s dealt with in Book VI of the Code (“Penal Sanctions in the Church”).
People often think of penalties as punishments intended to satisfy justice by inflicting pain on someone who deserves it. But there is more than one kind of penalty, and excommunication is what’s known as a censure.
Censures are mainly medicinal; they are meant to wake up a person to his wrongdoing so he can repent and return to normal functioning within the Church. Penalties that go beyond the medicinal and are primarily focused on achieving justice rather than healing are known as expiatory penalties.
<blockquote>The primary, but not exclusive, purpose of medicinal penalties, or censures (e.g., excommunication), is breaking contumacy [stubbornness], or contempt of Church authority, and reintegrating the offender within the community.
In contrast, expiatory penalties such as deprivation of office primarily envision restoring justice and repairing the ecclesial damage done by the offender (Beal, et al., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, at can. 1312).</blockquote>
If excommunication’s function is primarily medicinal, what effects does it have?
Under the 1917 Code, a person was kicked out of the Church. It provided that “excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful” (can. 2257 §1).
However, this was not repeated in the 1983 Code, and so it lapsed (CIC [1983] 6 §1), so today, being excommunicated does not mean one is no longer in the Church.
Instead, the current (2021) revision prohibits an excommunicated person from doing a variety of things (can. 1331).
Thus, he is prohibited “from celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments.” This means that an excommunicated priest could not celebrate any of the sacraments, and a layperson could not baptize anyone or get married.
Excommunicated clergy and laity are equally prohibited “from receiving the sacraments,” so it’s true that you can’t receive Holy Communion if you’re excommunicated, but that’s not what excommunication is. If it were, every time a person commits a mortal sin, he’d be excommunicated, and that’s not the case.
Clergy are called upon to administer sacramentals (e.g., blessings) and participate in non-sacramental liturgies (e.g., the liturgy of the hours). Laypeople can administer some sacramentals and take active parts in the liturgy of the hours, but when excommunicated, both clergy and laity are prohibited “from administering sacramentals and from celebrating the other ceremonies of liturgical worship.”
This does not mean that excommunicated people can’t be present at liturgies. In fact, they are still required to fulfill their Sunday obligation. But they are prohibited “from taking an active part in the celebrations listed above.”
They also are prohibited “from exercising any ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions.” In the case of laypeople, this would mean not functioning as catechists, altar servers, lectors, and so forth.
Finally, excommunicated people are prohibited “from performing acts of governance”—something that normally applies to clergy, as typically only they can perform legislative, executive, or judicial acts within the Church’s internal system of governance.
These are the basic effects common to all forms of excommunication, but there can be additional effects.
Currently, there are two types of excommunication: latae sententiae excommunication, which takes place automatically upon the commission of a particular crime, and ferendae sententiae excommunication, which is imposed after the bishop has warned a person but he keeps offending anyway.
If a bishop imposes a ferendae sententiae excommunication or declares that a person has automatically excommunicated himself, then canon 1331 has additional effects.
For example, an excommunicated person might want to defy the prohibition on celebrating the sacraments, receiving the sacraments, administering sacramentals, or being only passively present at such celebrations. If he seeks to violate these prohibitions, then he “is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary.” In other words, he is to be escorted out of the church, and the service may be suspended if he won’t go quietly.
Although all excommunicated people are prohibited from performing acts of governance, these acts can still be valid even though they aren’t lawful. However, if the excommunication has been imposed or declared by the bishop, the excommunicated person “invalidly exercises any acts of governance”—meaning they are null and void.
Similarly, a person in this situation “is prohibited from benefiting from privileges already granted.” A privilege is a special favor granted by the competent authority. For example, if the bishop has created a diocesan tax, a person might benefit by being granted a privilege so he doesn’t have to pay it—but not if that person goes on to have an imposed or declared excommunication.
If the person has been deriving an income from the Church, this also can be impacted, for the Code provides that he “does not acquire any remuneration held in virtue of a merely ecclesiastical title.”
And, finally, he “is legally incapable of acquiring offices, duties, ministries, functions, rights, privileges or honorific titles.”
Does excommunication still occur today? Yes, though bishops are hesitant to impose it.
Probably the most common way it happens is through the handful of canons that provide for automatic or latae sententiae excommunication, such as knowingly, deliberately, and directly participating in an abortion (can. 1397 §2). Such automatic excommunications may never come to public attention.
However, even when the Code provides for such an excommunication, it may not take effect. There is an extensive list of factors that may stop an automatic excommunication from happening (can. 1321-1325). Not the least of these is being unaware that the excommunication exists (can. 1323 °2).
Since bishops don’t like imposing excommunications ferendae sententiae, they will often announce that a person has excommunicated himself in latae sententiae manner. This helps make it clear to the public that the excommunicated person is responsible for what happened to him and that the bishop isn’t being cruel or capricious.
For example, in 2020, Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento declared that Fr. Jeremy Leatherby had incurred excommunication latae sententiae by placing himself in a state of schism (cann. 751, 1364 §1) since he refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Pope Francis.
However, there are cases when bishops warn people and then excommunicate them ferendae sententiae. Thus, in 2008, then archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis excommunicated a woman for simulating the sacrament of holy orders (can. 1379).
Even when such imposed excommunications take place, their purpose is medicinal. The Church prays for excommunicated people to repent and longs to welcome them back into normal Catholic life.
As Jesus said, “I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7).

The Truth About Excommunication

The Jewish Roots of “Christ Is King”

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent reveals the real reason we have summer vacation and PE class as well as new studies on “black markets” in schools.

FFAF: Secrets of U.S. Public Schools

Evangelization, the Papacy, and My Journey of Faith (Interview)

I recently stumbled upon a disturbing pro-abortion TikTok video. It was simply a photo with text over it stating: “When a mother during pregnancy knows that her child will be born with some malformation or incurable disease and still decides to have it, it is not an act of nobility, it is an act of selfishness.” If that wasn’t bad enough, the video had over one million likes with thousands of supportive comments. 
This reaction is no surprise, however, since many people in modern society assume that those with disabilities live unhappy lives filled with constant suffering. But is this assumption true?
In my response to the video, I discuss <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110224121911.htm">a study</a> of people with locked-in syndrome (LIS), which is a medical disability that leaves people paralyzed completely – except for movement in their eyes. In the study, researchers assessed the mental and emotional wellbeing of those with LIS. Although we might assume their lives are filled with suffering and sadness, most respondents (72%) reported being happy, and only a small percentage reported having suicidal thoughts.
So the assumption that those who live with NIL (and similar conditions) have miserable lives is not aligned with scientific findings. Not only this, but encouraging abortion to prevent these so-called “miserable” lives is nothing but closeted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism">ableism</a>. In an age where discrimination is condemned widely and loudly, such beliefs should be firmly rejected. Nevertheless, because of our society’s rampant diminishment of the sanctity of life, many people do not think twice about supporting eugenics (disguised as mercy) for those with disabilities. It is up to us to recognize this disguise, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-if-the-babys-going-to-die-anyway">expose it</a> with the charity and light of Christ.

When “Pro-Abortion” Is Just “Pro-Ableism”

If you’ve been following the news coverage of Pope Francis’s health, you might have noticed something: there are no photos of the holy father in his hospital bed. Or, more accurately, there are no real photos: <a href="https://spotlight.ebu.ch/p/wave-of-content-purporting-to-show">viral pictures</a> currently circulating on Catholic social media, purporting to be of Pope Francis in a hospital bed, on a respirator, are AI-generated fakes. (As are the “videos” that show <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47aMPfaiDig">Jesus and Mary are visiting him in the hospital</a>, but I assume you knew that!)
But you might be wondering why we’re not seeing photos of the sick pontiff. Is there some kind of coverup? Nope. The simple answer is that photos of the pope on his deathbed are actually forbidden, according to a 1996 apostolic constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II. “No one is permitted to use any means whatsoever,” it reads, “in order to photograph or film the Supreme Pontiff either on his sickbed or after death, or to record his words for subsequent reproduction” (Universi Dominici Gregis 30).
Why, you might ask? Likely to avoid sensational exploitation of the pope’s condition. That motive may have stemmed back to 1958, when Pope Pius XII&#8217;s doctor, Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi, tried to sell photos of the dying Pius XII to the papa-razzi. For such a violation of his role as the papal physician, he was forced to resign and was barred from the Vatican.
There are photos of JPII recovering in his hospital bed after he was shot by Mehmet Ali Ağca in 1981, as well as photos of his sitting in his hospital room (in papal garb, including red shoes!) near the end of his life. But to protect the tiny bit of privacy the pope has, and out of respect for the high dignity of his office, we have no photos of him (or any other pope) in a hospital gown, connected to medical machinery, or unconscious near or at the moment of death.
And it’s for this same reason that Pope Francis has been (and, hopefully, will continue to be) treated with the same dignity. It’s a reminder that Francis is not only the Roman pontiff, but also a man like us, facing all of the same weaknesses—including mortality—that we all face. And it’s in these moments that we all need the prayers of the other members of the Body of Christ. So let us pray not only for the holy father, Pope Francis, but for our ailing brother Jorge.

Don’t Fall for Fake Pope Photos

Last week, late-night host Steven Colbert became an unemployed late-night host, recording his final show on CBS after weeks of encomia from the entertainment elite (including Jesuit-at-large Fr. James Martin, who <a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/ideas/2026/05/20/colbert-late-short-final-episode-catholic/">praised Colbert</a> as one of the “best Catholic evangelists” despite the latter’s… <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYpGsQmxH0P/">unorthodox take on the afterlife</a>). 
But a more interesting Colbert story (to me) got snagged by my algorithms a couple of months ago, when it was announced that the Tolkien uber-fan had been tapped to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5760799/stephen-colbert-lord-of-the-rings">co-author the screenplay for a planned Lord of the Rings sequel film</a>.  
The news spurred unease from the Tolkien faithful, already shell-shocked from Hollywood’s abuse of the IP in the Hobbit trilogy and Amazon’s Rings of Power series. But what none of the chatter seemed to mention was this: Tolkien already thought of a sequel idea, but passed. 
In a <a href="https://chrome-extension//efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/static1.squarespace.com/static/59d68c02c534a5079b390c38/t/5c2d3e3f575d1f37b45d4750/1546468936692/the_letters_of_j.rrtolkien.pdf">letter to a friend</a> dating to 1964, Tolkien explained an idea he’d entertained but rejected as “sinister and depressing”: a century after the events of The Lord of the Rings, a “secret Satanistic religion” corrupts the kingdom of men, with even the children “playing at being orcs.” 
Fans of the Professor’s work will find this theme familiar. For Tolkien, life on earth is a cycle of decline, conflict, and temporary renewal: a “long defeat,” punctuated by moments of redemption, that will not end until Christ’s return. The evils of history will repeat, or at least rhyme, until the final victory. 
It’s not hard to look at the news today and find examples of this repeating cycle of evil. I can think of four areas where old enemies, once subdued, are growing in power again—as the men of the West look on with approval, playing orc. 
1. Communism. For a century this ideology has been an intractable enemy of Western civilization. Blood-soaked persecutor of Christians; hostile rival to the family; eraser of history, tradition, and the transcendent; hater of everything that is naturally (because it denies natures) human and beautiful. As backward on the theoretical principles of liberty and property as it has been on the practice of delivering material prosperity.
Yet more than a third of young Americans today now <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/young-americans-socialism-too-much-thats-problem-libertarians-must-fix">declare a favorable view</a> of Marxism, with nearly two-thirds approving softer terms like “Democratic Socialism.” The election of an openly socialist mayor of New York, the world’s most nominally capitalist city, has punctuated a swell of Gen Z support for state ownership, forced equity, radical secularization, and other Marxist concepts. 
2. Sexual deviance. Among the revolutionary accomplishments of early Christianity was the replacement of pagan sexuality—in places predatory, infecund, deeply misogynistic, and generally unrestrained—with a new ethic tied to marriage, fidelity, exclusivity, and respect for life. No longer was the body for pleasure alone, because it was a temple of the Spirit. No longer could women be used and abused, because they deserved to be loved as Christ loved the Church.
Fallen human nature being what it is, of course history is full of failures to live to the new Christian standard. But today the standard itself is threatened from within. False prophets on pulpits and <a href="https://x.com/jamestalarico/status/1449100589380538377">political soapboxes</a> proclaim that they support <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/6396678095112">abortion</a>, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/prominent-christian-leader-proclaims-support-same-sex-marriage-n782556">sodomy</a>, <a href="https://iowagop.org/blog/daily-wire-democrat-candidate-says-christians-who-oppose-trans-ideology-are-racistfox-news-average-tax-refund-tops-3700-midway-through-filing-season-treasury-says/">transsexual mutilation</a>, and other atrocities not in opposition to faith in Christ, but because of it. 
3. Paganism. Chesterton famously observed that “Paganism was the biggest thing in the world, and Christianity was bigger, and everything since has been comparatively small.” But the pagan gods—demons, as some Church Fathers thought—haven’t gone away. And Westerners, despite being baptized, are increasingly looking back at them with longing.
Some of them are doing this under the guise of New Age spirituality in all its varied forms: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/24/nature-spirituality-religion-climate-change/">worshiping the earth</a>, <a href="https://www.elephantjournal.com/2019/07/divine-self-worship-as-a-form-of-maitri-self-care-alison-kate/">the self</a>, nebulous concepts of <a href="https://kripalu.org/living-kripalu/six-ways-work-universe-create-life-you-want">universal energy</a> or higher beings. But some are now skipping homemade spirituality and <a href="https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/43242/1/the-pagan-boom-young-people-non-traditional-religions-druids-witchcraft">jumping right back to invoking the old gods</a> by name: Zeus and Athena, Odin and Thor, druidic nature-spirits and Celtic goddesses. 
4. Islam. The Church’s great enemy, the followers of Mohammed, have more than once come within a hair of snuffing Christian civilization for good. Yet even as they have escalated their historic antagonism through militant depredations in Africa and Asia—and cultural encroachment mixed with terrorism in Europe and North America—somehow they have garnered a new measure of sympathy and even admiration.
Anti-Christian leftists reflexively side with Muslims (as the enemy of their enemy?), or <a href="https://socialistproject.ca/2019/05/muslims-under-attack-solidarity-or-left-secularism/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">pity them as oppressed victims</a>.  Right-wing influencers <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/05/01/rise-islamo-christian-right/">speak glowingly of Muslim culture</a>; some even imagine a <a href="https://x.com/Nero/status/2040255933092376994">coming alliance of Catholicism and Islam</a> against Protestants and (natch) the evil Zionists. Within the Church, <a href="https://acmcu.georgetown.edu/">progressive pastors and activists</a> who gush over interreligious dialogue with Muslims find themselves strange bedfellows with tradition-minded Catholics who <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/1248rny/why_i_appreciate_muslims_as_a_polish_catholic/">admire</a> what they <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Christendom/comments/xsa4rm/i_am_a_catholic_who_has_embraced_islam/">perceive</a> as Islam’s strict moral and theological discipline. 
Four old orcish foes, newly rehabilitated. The long defeat continues. May God grant us more redeeming moments before the end.

Playing Orcs

I have a weird appreciation for Naomi Wolf, the feminist author and activist who achieved breakthrough notoriety <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/11/02/gores-alpha-adviser/2f67b61c-fb4a-4aaf-9a1e-21453e57fc94/">as an advisor to Al Gore</a> during the 2000 presidential campaign. I don’t appreciate her for making the then-Veep wear power ties, however, but for her later dissent from certain core feminist dogmas.
When abortion enthusiasts were holding the rhetorical line on “my body, my choice” and “terminating the product of conception,” Wolf had the thoughtfulness and audacity to <a href="https://lib.tcu.edu/staff/bellinger/abortion/wolf-our-bodies.pdf">warn against dehumanization of the unborn</a>—even to suggest “mourning” rituals that acknowledged that someone was in fact being killed. And while the left was tolerating pornography as a necessary corollary of sexual freedom (or lauding it as “sex work” that empowered women), she presciently saw—as a liberal Jew without any religious moral doctrine forming her—that porn was a <a href="https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/index1.html">threat to true feminism</a> and to society.
If those transgressions weren’t enough to make Wolf a pariah, she would complete her disaffection from her erstwhile tribe during the Covid years, when her outspoken vaccine skepticism left her branded, whatever else she might have been, as a <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/162702/naomi-wolf-madness-feminist-icon-antivaxxer">kook</a>.
But I have kept my soft spot for her. Which is why I noted with interest her <a href="https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1780385997416497153">series of tweets Tuesday</a> in which she detailed her recent experience studying an English translation of the New Testament alongside a “literal” Greek translation, sharing what she seemed to think was the groundbreaking discovery that “so much of the NT has been mistranslated.”
As an example, she says that at the Sermon on the Mount, “Jesus was not approached by his ‘disciples’” but by his “learners.” And the Beatitudes, she says, should be “happy are they,” not “blessed are they.”
What follows in the replies is, unsurprisingly, a lot of commentary to the effect that Ms. Wolf should just stay in her lane and leave the Bible to the Bible experts. And although I think it would be a mistake to gatekeep biblical truth, denying people the right to their own insights unless they have a Ph.D., these commenters do have a point.
The word disciple, for example, comes from the Latin discipulus, which just means “student” or . . . “learner.” And the Greek word in question from the Beatitudes (or from the Greek translation of Old Testament passages such as Psalm 1:1) can equally mean “blessed” or “happy,” just as the Latin word beatus, from which we get “beatitude,” does.
Those aren’t “mistranslations,” then, but good examples of the translator’s art. Words in any language have different meanings and senses, and translators must choose which sense serves the meaning best according to context.
In our first case, the English word disciple, referring to Jesus’s close listeners, has a shade of meaning that goes beyond mere student, touching something like “devoted follower.” (On the flip side, the Jewish word rabbi can mean “teacher” but also “master.”)
And doesn’t the condition of those who experience Beatitude according to Jesus’ words surpass the comparatively weak sentiment of the English word happy? We wish for birthdays and holidays to be “happy”; we say that we’re “happy” to hear a bit of good news or do a favor for a stranger. But to be “blessed” indicates a more profoundly satisfied state, and moreover a state of giftedness and favor from God.
And so in these instances at least, and others she hints at, maybe Wolf hasn’t actually stumbled upon a new Da Vinci Code of hidden biblical truths that will upend Christianity as we know it. And she would be assured of this, rather than relying on her homespun readings and crowdsourcing exegesis on social media, if she were a Catholic.
The Church doesn’t definitively endorse a single translation of any given Greek or Hebrew phrase, of course. But it is the authoritative interpreter and steward of the Bible’s truths and meaning. And in its members, through the centuries, it has a record of pondering the biblical texts and working out their seeming kinks, always in ways consistent with its truths and meaning as guarded by the Church.
Yes, even Catholic biblical scholars can disagree about fine points sometimes. But generally, Catholicism frees us from the doubts and confusions that—as Naomi Wolf is discovering—inevitably go along with personal Bible study disconnected from tradition and authority.

Naomi Wolf and DIY Bible Scholarship

The Catholic Church’s celebration of and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints">prayer to the saints</a> is an evergreen topic of apologetics. I find myself addressing it in a variety of contexts when I teach theology to high school and undergrad students. The upshot of continually returning to this same well of living water is that it forces apologists to <a href="https://youtu.be/Zm4RwawV4Lo?si=NIvIcPq1jnVO3NZV">get more creative</a> in our presentations. It also forces us to reflect more deeply on the Christo-centrism of these apparent “churchy” elements of Catholicism, contra those Christians who disregard the importance of the “capital C’ Church.
Here’s one line of argument for <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/the-saints-pray-for-you-how-the-christians-in-heaven-help-us-here-on-earth/">the intercession of the saints</a> that I find accessible and at least digestible by Catholic and non-Catholic Christians alike.
No Bible-believing Christian denies that St. Paul, on numerous occasions, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/where-does-the-bible-say-the-church-is-the-body-of-christ">refers to the Church</a> as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Col 1:18, 24; and Eph 1:22-23). Let us grant for the sake of argument that “Church” could mean something as watered-down as “any person who believes in Jesus.” This definition at least allows for the possibility of including most saints of Catholic history. Even a staunch anti-Catholic would still have to accept the Apostles as saints and part of “the Church” so defined. Great! We now have actual people that we can all agree are part of the Church and therefore, according to St. Paul, make up the “body of Christ.”
Next, every Christian agrees that Jesus is no longer dead, but alive. This is kind of an important part of calling oneself a Christian! St. Paul hinges one’s entire faith in Jesus on belief in his Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:14.
Now, I am no medical expert, but I am fairly confident that a man’s head must remain attached to his body for him to stay alive. Better still, it must not only be attached but united to his body. A head can still be attached to a dead person, but to describe the head as united implies there is still a wholeness to the living person. The body and the head are still working together.
Now consider the man, Jesus. We believe that Jesus is alive. If he is alive, his head must be united to his body. If his body is the Church, then the Church must always be united to Jesus. That Church must, at the very least, include those faithful Christians of the Bible we call saints. Those saints, because they are part of a living body that is united to its head, must also be alive just as the head is. Those living saints must also include people like Peter, Paul and, yes, Mary! 
All this is to say that when the Church holds up models like the saints, prays with them, and acknowledges their power to intercede for us, it is simply recognizing the unity the saints share as a body with the head, Jesus Christ. The Church, in praising the saints, is actually praising Christ’s body. This is not only acceptable for a Christian, but necessarily follows from his faith in a living Jesus. 
The need to explain and defend “basic” doctrines like the Church or the communion of saints is not new. But when we preach the Gospel, we need to adjust our approach when we recognize the specific focus that will resonate with our audience. The modern world is starved for relationship—union with another real, living person. So let’s use this opportunity to show how the communion of saints lives right now in real relationship with Jesus—so closely united that they are the body to his head.

Living Jesus, Living Saints

In some traditional Catholic circles, it is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e7slbAugBQ&amp;t=1009s">argued</a> that it is “incumbent on” mothers to be stay-at-home moms, under pain of mortal sin, unless there is a “sufficient reason” necessitating their work outside the home, like the husband’s death. On the other hand, <a href="https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/g19966761/celebrity-egg-freezing/">feminist celebrities</a> encourage women to freeze their eggs so they can “take control of their future” and not worry about their career being infringed upon. (<a href="https://edubirdie.com/blog/heart-or-hustle-gen-z-women-on-love-life-and-ambition">Now, nearly one in three Gen Zers</a> has expressed a desire to freeze her eggs.) So we find ourselves surrounded by extreme takes on women’s place in the workforce.
But when we look to the Church, we see a more moderate take: a mother’s primary vocation is motherhood, and the call to work must be integrated with it—not neglected or placed above it.
The Church first began discussing women’s roles in the workforce beginning in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries:
<blockquote>Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity (Quadragesimo Anno 71).
A woman is by nature fitted for home work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family (Rerum Novarum 42).</blockquote>
Although these quotes seem to endorse the extreme traditionalist view—limiting a mother’s role strictly to tending the home and the children—they are usually taken out of context.
When Pope Leo XIII penned Rerum Novarum in 1891, he was responding to the inhumane conditions produced by the Second Industrial Revolution: men, women, and children being forced to work in dangerous, dirty factories, <a href="https://www.historyextra.com/period/industrial-revolution/womens-lifes-roles-industrial-revolution/">for as many as eighty hours per week</a>, without being properly fed or permitted breaks. When it comes to what an employer can reasonably expect, Leo discusses how “work which is quite suitable for a strong man cannot rightly be required from a woman or a child.” He concludes that women are best suited for work inside the home, not the harsh labor awaiting them in factories, which also threatens their modesty and prevents them from properly educating their children.
We see something similar in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, which he wrote to commemorate Rerum Novarum, published forty years prior. The context of the above quote begins with Pius urging that a worker “be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family” (71). He continues by encouraging the rest of the family to contribute to the father’s work, which is embodied especially in the life of a farmer or craftsman, but also warns against abusing for labor’s sake the years of childhood and the limited strength of women. He condemns it as an “intolerable abuse” for employers to pay their workers so little that their wives are forced to work outside the home and neglect the education of their children.
Thus, both popes condemn systems that force mothers into the workforce (especially when the job is dangerous and abusive) due to unjust and unfair wages for fathers. They also establish that there are certain forms of work mothers should not do, whether by force or by choice, such as work that is harshly laborious or interferes with household duties and the upbringing of their children.
The Church teaches that “work is a fundamental dimension of man’s existence on earth” (Laborem Exercens 4). This applies to both Adam and Eve, to both men and women. But what does “work” entail for mothers? Does it entail literally nothing but bearing, raising, and educating children? No. Does it mean getting a nine-to-five corporate job to serve their families and fulfill their vocation? Absolutely not.
Historically, mothers worked and contributed to their household income. But they worked at home, or in its vicinity, cooking, cleaning, weaving clothes and blankets, tending to animals and the garden, and of course raising and educating their children. They helped on the farm. They helped in craftsmanship. The family unit worked together, and children, too, contributed to the family’s livelihood in ways appropriate to them.
Both the home and the world have always benefited from mothers’ contributions, in the market square in the past and in myriad other ways today. In 1995, Pope St. John Paul II <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html">addressed a letter</a> to women throughout the world:
<blockquote>Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life—social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery,” to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity (emphasis mine).</blockquote>
He insists that women’s involvement in education beyond the family—such as in schools and parishes—is highly valuable, since women naturally serve the weakest and most vulnerable people in a generous and motherly spirit.
But in each text that praises women’s desire for work, the popes also caution against the absence of mothers from home life:
<blockquote>While it must be recognized that women have the same right as men to perform various public functions, society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family. Furthermore, the mentality that honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. . . . Society should create and develop conditions favoring work in the home (Familiaris Consortio 23, emphasis mine).</blockquote>
So it is a good thing that women have equal opportunities for education and a career—to add their feminine touch to the world—but it is not good when motherhood is put on the back burner for a career or when young children are deprived of their mother’s steady presence. Thus, the Church urges the societal establishment of “protection for working mothers” and “fairness in career advancements” so that women’s careers are not jeopardized by motherhood, which is their first and foremost priority (Dignitas Infinita 45). John Paul II expresses this most clearly:
<blockquote>There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women&#8217;s access to public functions. On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions should be harmoniously combined, if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human (Familiaris Consortio 23, emphasis mine).</blockquote>
The saintly pope is clear: women’s unique role as mothers, and their callings to work, need to be integrated, not eliminated. The temptation for women to indefinitely postpone or sacrifice motherhood altogether for the sake of a career must be rejected. In the same vein, the temptation to forbid mothers from pursuing any kind of outside work must also be rejected.
But this has its boundaries. Any career that causes moms to forfeit their steady presence and availability to their families must be carefully reconsidered. Likewise, any job that requires an early return to work postpartum—which will certainly diminish moms’ and their children’s health, both <a href="https://policycentermmh.org/the-interconnection-of-paid-family-and-medical-leave-and-maternal-mental-health/#a675b24a-544e-46e6-990e-e80a5b74b759">mental</a> and <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2812877/">physical</a>—must also be scrutinized. All in all, families must prudentially decide on these matters with the consideration that a mother’s presence to her young children is invaluable and cannot be sacrificed lightly.
You may be wondering what options this actually leaves moms. What we must first acknowledge is that not all motherhood looks the same. Some families can have only one or two children, and send them to Catholic school, resulting in Mom having much free time—time she could spend serving her family, perhaps through a freelance job or side hustle. Other families have seven or eight children, and Mom chooses to homeschool all of them, dedicating her full time and attention to teaching. Or perhaps Mom chooses to get a flexible part-time job so her husband’s work schedule becomes less demanding, and he can be more present for their kids, too.
Thus, it is reductionist to say all moms must stay at home and keep out of the workforce. Instead, our response should be that all moms must have the choice to stay home, and that moms who choose to work do so to better serve God and their families—and not their own glory.

The Church on Moms in the Workforce

Dartmouth provost and former Notre Dame dean Santiago Schnell recently <a href="https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/higher-ed-leader-urges-bishops-to-protect-catholic-identity-at-universities">made headlines</a> for urging the U.S. bishops to better safeguard universities’ claims to Catholic identities. I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his message—and reliving some of my own wild journey at a so-called Catholic university, when I was a new convert unacquainted with the ideological war waging in Catholic higher education.
The anti-Catholic indoctrination started small and was practically unnoticeable. I was in my freshman biology class when my professor began sharing how science doesn’t really prove anything—since certain proof would require an infinite number of experiments, and that was, of course, impossible. At the time, in my naivety, I thought this was ground-breaking. Little did I know that my professor was regurgitating the untenable philosophy of David Hume, promoting a skeptical worldview.
I found myself in my next semester’s biology class, listening to another professor explain how biological sex and species are both social constructs (hello, nominalism!). He continued that since homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom, homosexual relations among humans must be “normal.” At least this time around, I immediately realized his philosophy was poor.
Then came the theology professors. I had heard from some theology-major friends that the theology department was, to say the least, questionable. The professors encouraged students to refer to God by any pronoun, and some even argued that they or she was most fitting. One claimed that Jesus’ call for Lazarus to “come out” of the cave reveals that Jesus was part of the “LGBTQ community.” When Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade, the theology department responded with a lecture series endorsing so-called reproductive rights. (The university itself even materially cooperates with abortion by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/catholic-university-chicago-covers-abortion-care-services-through-student-health-plan">covering it in student health plans</a>.)
So, when I discovered that I was required to take a theology class to fulfill my core requirements, I seriously debated taking a class on Islam or Hinduism, which was sure to be less cortisol-inducing than the courses being taught by wolves in sheep’s clothing. Instead, though, I landed on “Jesus Christ in History,” thinking no one could seriously mess history up. How naive was I again.
On the first day, the professor taught that neither the Gospels nor any early Christian until the Council of Chalcedon endorsed Jesus’ divinity. A fellow student in the class told me that the lecture strengthened his faith—his Muslim faith. After class, I confronted the professor, knowing full well the early Christians believed Jesus was God, since I had read their writings myself. He dismissed my objections, simply responding that he keeps his Christian faith and his history separate.
I dropped the class.
Anti-Catholic propaganda wasn’t limited to the classroom. The student life experience included annual drag shows (<a href="https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/students-protesting-annual-drag-show-at-catholic-university-threatened-with-violence">including ones that mock nuns</a>), weekly <a href="https://www.studentsforreproductivejustice.com/">“Free Condom Fridays,”</a> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DXKQMorEaw7/">LGBTQ masses</a>, and <a href="https://loyolaphoenix.com/2024/12/the-pro-life-league-comes-to-loyola-prompts-counter-protests/">assaults on pro-life students</a>. Even more demonic: the only dormitory with a connected chapel was said to have chapel hours restricted after students were caught having sex in the chapel.
Despite around thirty priests living on campus, the Faith was practically dead. I think this was a trickle-down effect: from priests who preached “queerphobia” as a sign of the times, to those who didn’t properly absolve sins in the confessional, to the Jesuit Superior who said drag shows could be done tastefully, the Faith seemed lacking among clerics, too.
Although I survived my undergraduate years with my new faith intact (<a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/youth-losing-their-religion/">most Catholics do not</a>), my soul was left extremely scandalized and disheartened. Worse, I discovered my school was not the exception to Catholic colleges, but was the norm: many Catholic universities host drag shows (<a href="https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/news/2026/05/lavender-lgbtq-events-at-catholic-universities-to-include-drag-show">among other LGBTQ-endorsing events</a>), <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/cna/catholic-universities-among-dozens-of-schools-with-links-to-abortion-industry-study-finds">have ties with the abortion industry</a>, and leave their students <a href="https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/UCLAStudy.pdf">to be more supportive of abortion, gay “marriage,” and fornication</a> following graduation.
Thankfully, Pope Leo also seems to recognize the Catholic university crisis, as he recently <a href="https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/pope-calls-catholic-universities-to-be-authentic-instill-passion-for-the-truth">urged Catholic schools</a> to ensure that all academic disciplines are permeated by the Christian vision. Although I wholeheartedly endorse his message, I fear it doesn’t extend far enough. Many schools are not simply neglecting the Christian vision—but are directly attacking it. It’s difficult to find a Catholic school that does not host LGBTQ events, and it’s even harder to find ones that are boldly outspoken against LGBTQ ideology. Conversely, it’s easy to find schools that endorse this ideology and promote it everywhere—even in the chapel.
I am convinced that until the Church begins rigorously enforcing John Paul II’s <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae.html">Ex Corde Ecclesiae</a>, Satan will remain a tenured professor at many so-called Catholic universities, and we will continue to see souls not only become apathetic to the Faith, but directly hostile to it.

Catholic Colleges Are Leading Souls to Satan

Last Tuesday night, as I watched the Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/abortion-infanticide-lies-trump-harris-debate-rebutted">I was struck</a> by how both Harris and the moderators downplayed Trump’s claim that Democrats want abortion to be legal in the seventh, eighth, and ninth months of pregnancy. When asked about limits on legal abortion, Harris said she supported “Roe [v. Wade].&#8221; If you were unfamiliar with the details of Roe v. Wade, you might have assumed she was saying it prohibited late-term abortions. But it didn’t.
Roe said that in the first two trimesters (up to when the fetus is twenty-two weeks old), states could not outlaw abortion. Roe also did not require states to ban abortion in the third trimester. They could keep it legal if they wanted. But if they did ban it in the third trimester, they had to allow an exception for abortions to protect a woman’s health.
The problem with this exception is that Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, said that “health” included any factor that was “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, [or related to] the woman’s age.”
Last year one million abortions occurred in the United States, according to the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher institute. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/#when-during-pregnancy-do-most-abortions-occur">And 1% of them happen after the child is 20 weeks old.</a> That means 10,000 children are killed in late-term abortions every year. That’s close to the number of people killed by guns in this country every year. If that’s a big problem, then surely late-term abortion—not even abortion in general, just late-term abortion—must also be a big problem.
But to act like late-term abortion doesn’t happen is an obviously disprovable lie. Trump said, “You can do abortions in the seventh month . . .” to which Harris said, “That’s not true.” But you can find places online like <a href="https://dupontclinic.com/abortion-from-25-31-weeks-6-days/">the Dupont clinic in DC</a> that offers abortion from 25-31 weeks and <a href="https://www.drhern.com/abortion-services/">Warren Hern’s in Colorado</a> that offers second- and third-trimester abortions. Remember, Roe said states could ban abortions in the third trimester, but they didn’t have to; and if they did, they had to leave a meaningless health exception.
Now, some people will say that late-term abortions are only for exceptionally rare cases like when a woman’s life is in danger or when there are severe fetal handicaps. But you don’t do a late-term abortion after twenty weeks, because that takes longer than an emergency c-section; and with a c-section, the child at least has a chance to live. Furthermore, we don’t kill two-year-olds who are dying from a disability, and since the unborn are equally human we shouldn’t kill them for the same reason.
But it’s also simply not true that late-term abortions are obtained just for those reasons. <a href="https://abortiondocs.org/abortionists/william-mudd-martin-haskell/">Martin Haskell</a>, a late-term abortion provider, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1996-03-27/pdf/CREC-1996-03-27-pt1-PgH2895.pdf#page=1">testified before Congress saying</a>: “I’ll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective in that twenty- to twenty-four-week range. . . . In my particular case, probably twenty percent are for genetic reasons. And the other eighty percent are purely elective.”
<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24188634/">A 2013 study</a> said the most common reasons women delayed abortion past twenty weeks included things like the inability to raise funds for the procedure or failing to recognize they were pregnant. It said, “Most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment”
And let’s be clear about what happens in these procedures. The Supreme Court said in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124/">Gonzales v. Carhart</a> of late-term abortions that the abortionist may “kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’s body will soften, and its removal will be easier.” Warren Hern says in his medical textbook Abortion Practice: “A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus” (142).
The facts are clear. Late-term abortion is not a myth. It is murder, and anyone who is simply a decent human being should oppose this evil.

Is Late-Term Abortion a Myth?

St. Thomas Aquinas’s <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm">Five Ways</a> are well-known paths we can take to prove that God exists. The first way of the five argues from motion.
Imagine a stone that’s being moved by a stick in my hand. There’s nothing about the stone itself that explains its motion. It’s in motion only because the stick is moving it.
Likewise, there’s nothing about the stick itself that explains its action of moving the stone. The stick is only doing that because of my hand—and not just as it begins to move the stone, but at every moment it moves the stone.
So we have a thing being moved—a stone—and a series of movers simultaneously working together to move it: a stick, my hand, and me.
Now let&#8217;s ask a question: can every mover in this series be like the stick? This may seem like a random question, but our pursuit of the answer is going to guide us to the heart of St. Thomas&#8217;s argument.
Remember there’s nothing about the stick itself that explains its action of moving the stone. Philosophers would say there’s nothing about the stick itself (its nature) that explains the actuality of it acting as a mover. (By actuality we simply mean the stick is actually acting as a mover rather than only having the potential to act as a mover.) But if nothing about the stick itself explains its actuality as a mover, then the stick must receive that actuality from something else—another mover.
Likewise, if every mover were like the stick, then no mover would have of itself the actuality needed to act as a mover. Each one—the stick, my hand, me—would need to receive such actuality from another mover. And if that’s the case, then the stick would never actually act as a mover, nor my hand, nor I, and so on, because there’d ultimately be nothing for any mover to receive its actuality from.
But the stick is actually acting as a mover, since we posited that at the start. So we’ve answered the question, “Can every mover in this series be like the stick?” with a definitive no.
Therefore, there must be a different kind of mover, something unlike me, my hand, and the stick, that has the actuality needed to act as a mover simply by nature, and not because it receives that actuality from something else.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Such a mover is pure act. Otherwise, as we’ve seen, there’s no explanation for why anything else has the actuality needed to act as a mover at all.
Such a being, for Aquinas, is what we call God.

The First Way to Prove God Exists

Most of San Diego’s attractions are close to sea level: the beaches, the taco joints and surf shops, the Mission and the Midway. Unless it’s to admire the pleasant rolling ridges, generally there’s little reason for tourists to lift their heads to look at anything.
One exception is the Mormons’ <a href="https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/san-diego-california-temple/">San Diego California Temple</a>, which towers over the 5 freeway just north of downtown like an origami Chartres. Its gleaming white façade and angular spires never fail to crane the necks and draw the eyeballs of passers-by.
Ordinarily, that’s all that non-Mormons ever get to see, as admittance to temple interiors, once they are officially dedicated, is permitted for the faithful only. But after a comprehensive interior renovation, before the space is re-dedicated, San Diego’s temple has been opened for public tours for a few weeks this summer. I secured a ticket and visited yesterday.
The experience was a mix of the expected and the surprising.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints enjoy a reputation for wholesomeness and good cheer, and on this score, the countless smiling volunteers who processed the throngs of visitors (both local and bussed in from afar) did not disappoint. Everyone—from the young boys in dress shirts and ties who affixed white booties to our shoes at the entrance, to the bright-eyed teens who lurked with greetings around every corner, to the kindly elders leading the tour groups—was uniformly welcoming, helpful, and upbeat.
And, though there was no overt proselytism, they matched their friendly manner in the sincerity with which they testified to Mormon faith and practice. (More on that in a moment.)
The surprising? Well, here I’ll try my best to be diplomatic but direct. Anybody expecting an interior to match the ambition of the exterior would be in for a letdown. A Catholic who thought he would find a mildly Mormonized version of a Western-style cathedral would be shockingly disappointed.
Inside that massive structure, we tour-takers discovered, there is no great central worship area evoking awe and transcendence. There is neither the vaulted airiness of the Gothic nor the sumptuous sensual abundance of the Baroque. As far as I could tell, there is no attempt at all to convey sacredness, that is, set-apartness from ordinary worldly experience. Rather, it’s a labyrinth of prosaic meeting spaces and comfy sitting zones: all deep carpeting, crushed velour, padded seats, mirrored walls, and gold-lamé bunting, ringed by shiny bronze and chrome accents and lit by prismatic crystal chandeliers.
The corridors and atria linking the main areas—rooms for the main Mormon <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/ordinances?lang=eng">“ordinances,”</a> flex spaces for group instruction and wedding parties, large his-and-hers changing rooms for donning ceremonial white worship garb, and an expansive contemplation lounge called the <a href="https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/san-diego-california-temple/photographs/#Official-37">“Celestial Room”</a> that I believe we were to take as the high point of the tour—gave the practical, multipurpose vibe of a parish hall built to the latest code. The white walls were broken up every few yards with framed paintings, in that earnest, colorful style recognizable from Mormon literature, depicting familiar biblical scenes, Jesus embracing ancient native Americans per their own ersatz revelation, and various LDS believers in peaceful, prayerful poses.
We were not permitted to take photos or video, but you can see professional shots of the renovated interior <a href="https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/san-diego-california-temple/photographs/">here</a>.
Like I said, everyone was awfully nice. I won’t judge taste. I will just say that almost nothing inside that temple resonated with what I know and have experienced of traditional Christian sacred architecture. And, given the intense LDS desire to be viewed as full members of the Christian tradition, that was unexpected.
Although there was no hard sell on Mormon doctrine, there were two areas where our tour guides did press a bit: first, a short apologetic, claiming St. Paul as an authority, for the Mormon practice of baptizing dead ancestors into the faith; and second, a witness by a married couple to the Mormon belief in an everlasting marriage bond. The latter was punctuated by an invitation, inside the wedding chamber, to gaze into a set of opposing mirrors that produced an “infinity” effect.
In my moderate experience with Mormon missionaries, I have found this to be their most attractive claim, this appeal to natural bonds of family. Christianity says that our forebears have been judged and their fates crystallized, and that there will be no marriage in the hereafter. But Mormonism offers a warmly appealing alternative: all your past family can be retroactively brought into divine communion, and your present family will endure forever.
If we are to witness to our LDS brothers and sisters in order to bring them to the orthodox Christian faith, I think we need to be ready to speak to this subject. And also to invite them, with matching hospitality, to visit our beautiful churches and cathedrals—no ticket required.
(Image credit: Pam Burt, via https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/.)

I Went Inside the Mormon Temple

Yet Another Abomination in the Catholic Mass?

Episode 84: Year B &#8211; 13th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode, we focus on three details for this upcoming Sunday Mass Readings. Two of the details come from the first reading, taken from Wisdom 1:13-15, 2:23-24, and both have to do with theological questions concerning death—God’s causal relation to it, and its relation to the fall of Adam. The third detail is Jesus’ raising of Jairus’ daughter in the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 5:21-24, 35b-43, which is the shorter version that leaves out the story of the hemorrhaging woman. The apologetical topic is the historicity of the story itself, which provides rational grounds for someone to believe Jesus&#8217; claims to be divine.
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/063024.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
</div></div>

Did God Make Death?

Today marks the 750th anniversary of the death of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/thomas-aquinas-saint">St. Thomas Aquinas</a>. Saint Thomas is famous for his (literally) encyclopedic knowledge: between the Summa Theologiae and Summa Contra Gentiles, there are <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Aquinas_s_Summa/aHU6asH8TgsC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;pg=PA74&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;bsq=%22citations%20from%22">some 38,000 citations</a>, including 25,000 biblical citations, 8,000 references to Christian authors (usually the Church Fathers), and 5,000 to non-Christian authors like Aristotle. In an age before typewriters or the internet, the sheer volume of Thomas’ output (to say nothing of the structured and thoughtful way in which he presented deep theology) is mind-boggling.
But while we may never match Thomas in his brilliance or his literary output, we can strive to be a bit more like him. After all, Thomas gave us <a href="https://aquinas.cc/la/1263/~Puer">a four-step roadmap</a> for how to grow in wisdom. In a reflection he gave (probably in January 1271) on Luke 2:40, he remarked that “the growth of Christ was fourfold, namely years, wisdom, grace, and in human fellowship.” He then asks how it is that we can grow in wisdom, and he concludes that four things are needed: that we should “listen willingly, seek diligently, respond prudently, and meditate attentively.”
So how do we do that? Let’s consider each step in turn. First, we listen willingly according to the counsel of Sirach 6:32-33: “If you love to listen you will gain knowledge, and if you incline your ear you will become wise.” But that’s only possible when we have the humility to realize that we’re not wise yet: we have much to learn from others. Thomas points out that when Mary and Joseph find Jesus in the Temple, they find him listening: “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (Luke 2:46). So before we try to set other people straight, we need first to cultivate an openness to listening to and learning from others.
But passively listening isn’t enough: we should be actively seeking out wisdom. And where should we seek it? Thomas suggests several answers. The first two are (1) those we know to be wiser than us, and (2) the writings of “the ancients” (like the Church Fathers). This matches Deuteronomy 32:7, which counsels us to “remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.” But Thomas’ third teacher is surprising: creation itself, which is “telling the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1). And finally, Thomas argues that we grow in wisdom by sharing it with others: there’s no better way to learn a topic than to try to teach it!
Of course, sharing wisdom requires us to know how to “respond prudently” to what we’ve learned. A prudent response is one which corresponds to the intellectual ability of the respondent (that is, you) as well as the listener, and which isn’t needlessly long-winded. In other words, know when a topic is beyond you, or beyond the person with whom you’re sharing it. And don’t speak just to hear yourself talk!
Thomas then presents the Virgin Mary as a model of what it is to both “respond prudently” and “meditate attentively.” After all, “Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). Thomas quotes “a certain Greek” who pointed out how “Mary, the most prudent of women, truly the mother of wisdom, becomes the scholar of her child, and furthermore she does not perceive him as a boy nor as a man, but as God, so that as she had conceived the Word itself in her womb, so she then conceived all his deeds and words in her heart.” Let us turn, then, both to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Blessed Virgin Mary as models to show us how to grow in “wisdom, grace, and in human fellowship” as we grow in years!

How to Be Wise Like Saint Thomas

Please pray for me.
Few words come so easily to Christians, aware as we are of our absolute reliance on God. Thanks to social media, we now hear it ten times as often as we used to. Praise God for that! St. Paul tells us that it is “good, and pleasing to God our savior,” when we pray for each other (1 Tim. 2:3).
And yet, the adversary just can’t leave well enough alone. Our Lord <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A1-18&amp;version=RSVCE">warned</a> that pious acts like prayer, fasting, and almsgiving can be corrupted by impure intentions; so too, a mere prayer request, so innocuous on its face, can sometimes be a cover (conscious or not) for a sneaky indulgence in vice.
Whether it’s the stalking horse money ask (“We need your prayers most of all, buuuuuuut if you’d also support us . . .”) or the Christian-flavored “vaguebooking” (“It’s all just too much . . . you think you know a person . . . pray for me to have the strength”), we can probably all think of some type of online prayer request that makes us raise our eyebrows.
Here are two that I want to discuss:
<ol>
<li>The (not-so-) secret boast</li>
</ol>
Leaving for my two-week Europe vacation today! Pray we have a safe flight!
Happy anniversary to the greatest husband/wife in the world! Asking you all to pray for another blissful ten years of marriage!
You’ve been blessed. Awesome! Genuinely happy for you. There’s nothing wrong with openly rejoicing in the Lord’s blessings. But is that all you really wanted to tell us? If so, why attach a prayer request at all? Are you sure you’re not laminating on a spiritual veneer, for optics?
On the flip side, if you really are genuinely seeking divine aid, why attach that request to a cheery sentence about how great everything is going? A friend might reasonably wonder, “Is anything actually…wrong?”
I can imagine some legitimate motives for the examples I gave. Maybe you’re terrified of flying across the ocean. Maybe you’re profoundly aware of how God’s grace sustains your marriage in spite of your personal flaws. What I’m saying is: if such a motive inspires your prayer request, that should accompany it instead of—or at the very least, in addition to—the sunshine and rainbows.
<ol start="2">
<li>Gossipy</li>
</ol>
I heard from my friend that so-and-so’s marriage is REALLY rocky, so she needs our prayers.
This one we all kinda know. It&#8217;s a longstanding Christian meme, which means it happens often enough in real life to be joked about. Let’s examine ourselves: are we really bringing this up out of wholesome, unselfish concern for so-and-so’s marriage? Or are we just hoping that our friends will ask, “Oh no, what happened??” It shouldn’t be difficult to discern.
But here&#8217;s a subtler version:
Can you pray for so-and-so who seems SO determined to hate me?
I’ve made this very request myself. Our Lord tells us to love and pray for our enemies, so simply asking my friends to pray for this person instead of fuming felt like a win. And yet . . . see how just a little bit of fuming still slipped in? Looking back on that request, I can honestly say now that I was hoping, at least a little bit, that my friends would commiserate about this person’s behavior. Fortunately, they had more sense than I.
I want to emphasize that I am not claiming it’s necessarily a sin to make prayer requests that are worded similarly to these examples. I don’t want to make anyone scrupulous about asking for prayers, of all things! I am saying that whenever we speak in public (and yes, that includes social media), we should be examining our motives and staying honest with ourselves—even when we’re asking for prayers. The tempter has a sneaky way of hijacking pious actions with just a pinch of vice. If you can honestly say that you’re motivated by charity, send out that supplication.
If not . . . well, that’s another thing to pray for.

Don’t Post that Prayer Request

Young people are listening to exorcists. The endless need for content in Catholic media, especially on podcasts, has led to a host of newly-minted celebrity exorcists—many of whom are <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/the-truth-about-exorcism">humble, helpful priests</a>, and some of whom seem, frankly, nuts.
People love to hear about evil. Mafia movies and shows do great business. True crime—at least since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Cold_Blood">In Cold Blood</a>—has been its own industry. And like the Bugsy Siegels or Charles Mansons of this world, demons need their chroniclers. Exorcists fit the bill.
This trend presents obvious problems.
Young people need faith. And exorcists, by sharing stories of the love of God, can help them come to faith. But when they become, essentially, performers, telling spooky stories while the cameras roll, exorcists can make the Church look ridiculous.
Young people need truth. And exorcists, by inviting people to take the spiritual world seriously, to consider God again, and to avoid evil, can help them to the truth. But when an exorcist <a href="https://youtu.be/pXhvzX-0-jo?si=E3l6_ESxvJZkQemm&amp;t=1094">sets himself up as an authority</a>—especially when he uses his supposed authority to criticize Church teaching and discipline, or to lay burdens on people that the Church does not—he can wall people off from the most urgent truth: that the Church, not any one priest, is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth">the sole trustworthy teacher</a> of the way of salvation.
Young people need meaning. And exorcists, when they draw people away from dull materialism and into the high stakes of the spiritual life, can help them find meaning. But when the exorcist upsets people, acts as a prophet, or implies that the only “real” Catholicism is some dramatic life of extravagant spiritual feats, rather than a <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/spiritual-battle-isnt-flashy">simple and sober</a> life of love, they can lead people toward the false meaning of grandiose obsessions.
Evil spirits are powerful, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-demons-put-thoughts-in-our-minds">they prey on us where we are vulnerable</a>. Celebrity is a vulnerability. It makes normal people weird. It can turn helpful people problematic. While exorcists have grand stories, we should not lead them into temptation by conferring too much celebrity on them.

The Rise of the Exorcists

I’m a sucker for romance films. I love classics like Pride and Prejudice, British accents, and grand gestures to win the girl. Stories about conflict, perseverance, and love conquering all tug at my heart. That’s what drew me to <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2674426/">Me Before You</a>, a movie recommended “for me” on streaming platforms. With its charming cast and intriguing premise, I gave it a shot, expecting an uplifting tale of love overcoming adversity. What I found instead was a chilling endorsement of euthanasia wrapped in a sentimental love story.
The film centers on a wealthy young man who becomes a quadriplegic after a tragic accident. Consumed by bitterness, he alienates everyone—until a cheerful young woman enters his life as a companion. Through her resolve and kindness, she helps him rediscover joy and purpose. Their budding romance is beautiful, a testament to the power of selfless love. But the story takes a dark turn when he ultimately chooses physician-assisted suicide, despite her protests and commitment to him.
What could have been a story of love triumphing over despair instead becomes a disordered celebration of autonomy at all costs. Chillingly, the title Me Before You takes on a literal meaning, reflecting a worldview that prioritizes personal preference over the dignity of life itself. The message is clear: suffering is intolerable, and if life doesn’t meet our standards, ending it is not only permissible but noble.
This cultural narrative—which Hollywood has played a big role in shaping—is deeply troubling, especially as lawmakers across the country consider policies that echo its premise. In Illinois, lawmakers are pushing to legalize “Physician Assisted Suicide” (PAS), while in Montana, where it is already legal, legislators are debating its ethical and legal implications. Meanwhile, Delaware is revisiting a bill that could make PAS an option for terminally ill patients. These conversations underscore a cultural shift that prioritizes personal autonomy above the inherent dignity of life.
Proponents of PAS argue for “death with dignity,” but true dignity is not found in eliminating <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/suffering-with-no-clear-purpose">suffering</a> by eliminating the sufferer. As Catholics, we recognize that every life, even when marked by suffering, has profound value. True love calls us to sacrifice, not to abandon. By embracing the cross, we discover the purpose in suffering and love that transcends even the deepest pain.
Hollywood may glorify euthanasia, but the gospel shows us a better way: putting others before ourselves, even when it’s hard. True love demands nothing less.

Me Before . . . Everything Else

Catholic young adults have never had more ways to meet a potential spouse. There are <a href="https://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-and-other-dating-websites/">dating apps</a>, <a href="https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/us/speed-dating-seek">speed-dating events</a>, <a href="https://nationalcatholicsingles.com/">conferences</a>, <a href="https://catholicaffinitas.com/">mixers</a>, <a href="https://nationalcatholicsingles.com/relationship-coaches-spiritual-directors/">matchmaking coaches</a>, and even <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/young-catholic-professionals_marriage-ycp-vocationstory-activity-7391505783588552704-6svN">organizations that now advertise the successful marriages they’ve inadvertently orchestrated</a>. 
And yet, the National Catholic Register recently published an <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/news/catholic-dating-inside-growing-divide">article</a> on how many young Catholic men and women are struggling to connect. The article pinpointed something most young adult Catholics have experienced firsthand: dating feels like a “future spouse” interview. Women feel scrutinized, men feel misunderstood, and everyone seems to be carrying around a secret checklist of must-have and deal-breaker attributes. 
It’s no wonder many young Catholics are lonelier and struggling more to connect than ever. 
Part of the problem is that we’ve become obsessed with the idea of marriage while simultaneously neglecting the kinds of relationships that make successful marriages possible. 
Somewhere along the way, many Catholics began viewing every single interaction with the opposite sex through a dating lens. Every conversation becomes a possibility. Every social event becomes an opportunity. Every new face is evaluated as a potential spouse. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/CatholicDating/comments/t8snmz/the_pretty_girl_in_my_parish_who_returns_my_gaze/">Some have even convinced themselves</a> that prolonged eye contact is a sign from God that this person is their future spouse, instead of what it probably is: basic human acknowledgement. 
Instead of getting to know one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, we assess: Could this person be “the one”? Would I marry him or her? Could she be the mother, or could he be the father of my future children? 
And then there’s the LARPing…
The cringey theatrical performance of “traditional” marriage that has taken over a large group of young adult Catholics. Everyone wants a traditional spouse, a traditional family, a traditional home, and a traditional marriage. People are entitled to their preferences, of course—but a lot of what passes for “traditional” today seems to be cobbled together from ultra-patriarchal online apologists and a vague idealization of the 1950s. 
Some men want a wife who submits, stays home, dresses femininely, raises a small village of children, mills her own flour, and never questions their authority. Meanwhile, the same man works a remote finance job, answers emails for a living, and thinks paying rent makes him the lord of the manor. (He doesn’t tend livestock, or manage the estate passed down by his father, or fight in war. He uses Microsoft Teams.) 
Women are certainly not immune to fantasy either! We build our own imaginary husbands: perfectly masculine, “in touch with his feelings,” wealthy, spiritually mature, attractive, communicates with the efficiency of an AI Chatbot, and has an intense prayer life…and somehow available at the Theology on Tap this Thursday night. But obviously, finding all these traits in one person is relatively rare, and takes time. 
This is not to say that traditional family life is bad. It isn’t. Marriage is good. Motherhood is good. Fatherhood is good. Sacrifice is good.  
But LARPing and cosplay are not the same thing as virtue. A husband is called to sacrificial leadership, not domination. He is called to serve and love his wife, not boss her around like a &#8220;smart teenager.&#8221;  
Similarly, a wife is called to self-giving love, not simply to curate a beautiful life, secure a permanent best friend, or maximize earthly pleasures. Marriage is not just companionship with a ring on it. It is a vocation ordered toward sanctification and salvation. 
Ultimately, everyone is looking for a spouse. But far fewer people are asking whether they are becoming the kind of person who can actually love a spouse well, or be loved by one—the one question worth reflecting on to prepare for marriage. 
Instead, many Catholics are preparing for an imagined marriage. They’re looking for a character who fits the script they already wrote; someone who fits their plan and won’t require them to grow much or change. The <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/news/catholic-dating-inside-growing-divide">National Catholic Register article</a> agrees: many young Catholics think they know exactly what they want, but they don’t always understand what marriage is really for.  
This confusion has consequences. After years of hearing secular culture mock marriage as oppressive or unnecessary, many Catholics have swung in the opposite direction. They want marriage badly, but the desire itself may not be ordered properly. So instead of learning how to love another person well, they scan every possible suitor for signs that this person can deliver the life they have imagined—or for ways this person will fail to.  
Marriage is a beautiful vocation. But it was never meant to be an idol or a self-centered pursuit. Paradoxically, only when we stop obsessing over finding the perfect spouse and start pursuing Christ, friendship, virtue, and community, will we become far more capable of forming the sincere relationships that healthy marriage requires.

The Fantasy Spouse Is Keeping Catholics Single

<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-refute-moral-relativism">Moral relativists</a> think moral absolutes don’t exist because cultures differ in their moral beliefs.
But is this a rational inference? No; here are some reasons why.
First, it confuses the accurate knowledge of moral truths with the existence of moral truths. Differing moral opinions have to do with knowledge (or lack thereof) of moral truths, not their existence.
Second, if we say absolute moral truths don’t exist because cultures disagree on them, then we must deny the existence of absolute cosmological truths because scientists across different cultures have disagreed about them. But we don’t want to do that because we might end up denying the objective <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-flat-earth-belief-biblical">shape of our planet</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy">its relation to the sun</a>.
Third, this argument begs the question, assuming that cultural agreement is a condition for moral truth. But if there were such a thing as absolute moral truth, then it doesn’t matter whether cultures agree or not.
Finally, in many cases what appears to be a disagreement between cultures on moral principles is actually nothing more than a disagreement on their perception of facts.
Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl give this example in their book Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air: in India killing and eating cows is immoral. At first glance it would seem we have conflicting moral principles (unless you think hamburgers are products of murder). In reality, however, it’s merely a difference in what we think about cows. In India they don’t eat cows because they consider cows sacred. In Western cultures we do not. So, the moral principle is the same—respect what is sacred—but our understanding of the facts is different.
For these reasons, therefore, different moral beliefs don’t undermine the existence of moral absolutes.

Morals Are Real Even If We Disagree

Fr. Andrew Younan, a holy priest and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/advice-from-aristotle">friend</a> of Catholic Answers, has a superb Sunday homily posted on YouTube with the title “God Works Slowly and Quietly.” In it, he examines the contrast in Matthew 7 “between God’s works and the works of evil,” and in doing so unearths some solid gold nuggets of practical advice for the spiritual life. I implore you to listen to the <a href="https://youtu.be/OVouit48ZjI">full eleven minutes</a>.
Broadly, Fr. Younan’s point is that the life of God in us, as illustrated by our Lord, grows like a tree—slow, boring, and needing persistent and mundane cultivation. In contrast, the enemy loves to distract us from that work with drama and bombast: &#8220;Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” (Matt. 7:22). Here’s the part that resonated with me most:
<blockquote>“Spiritual battle!” People love the idea of spiritual battle. And there is spiritual battle, absolutely. You know what spiritual battle is? You’re mad at your brother, and your temptation is to, y’know, get into a fight, and you resist that temptation. That’s spiritual battle. It’s so boring. And that’s how God works: in these little, tiny, boring things.</blockquote>
Dead on. The language of “spiritual battle” or “spiritual warfare” can be misleading to modern ears. It makes sanctification sound like a flashy sword duel against cackling demons, with a tongue of fire on your head; but Fr. Younan and our Lord illustrate it quite differently. It’s a slow, steady, interior grind against your weaknesses. Praying every day, resisting temptation, and pursuing virtue. Taking up your cross. It bears repeating: that’s boring.
The devil is there, for sure, but for the 99.99 percent of us who aren’t as holy as a Padre Pio, John Vianney, or Teresa of Avila, he doesn’t need to do anything bombastic. In fact, he probably knows that tormenting us with Exorcist-like horrors would send us sprinting into the protective arms of our heavenly Father! No, it’s so much simpler: he just pokes and prods us at our weak points. As Fr. Younan says later, “You need to worry about your gossip and your envy and your pride. That’s where the devil’s attacking you.”
This resonates with me deeply for two reasons. First, I’ve experienced it. By the grace of God and solid spiritual direction, I pray almost every day now; but forming and maintaining that habit is hard. Every morning, it demands a new “Yes” to God and “No” to myself. I have to battle my enslavement to Twitter and YouTube. On the days I win the battle and enter prayer, I’m usually <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/distracted-in-prayer-no-worries">pestered by mental distractions</a>. And nearly every time, there’s no warm fuzzies or audible divine voice to immediately reward me. I enter, I sit with God, and I leave.
In the moment, it’s boring and I don’t “feel” like I’m getting anything out of it. But Jesus says that’s how the spiritual life grows, so I keep showing up; and every now and then, I look back at where I used to be, and I see how the tree has grown. It’s a humbling reminder of God’s slow, silent, tremendous power.
And that leads to the second reason: God renews the Church by raising up saints, which is why becoming a saint is the single most important thing any of us can do with our lives. But becoming a saint is intensely personal. It requires constant, regular self-reflection and self-denial. It requires asking God to let us see ourselves as he does. It requires total surrender to his will. It requires a hundred more things I don&#8217;t know yet. But how on earth can we do any of that if we spend all our time looking for a sword to fight the devil with instead of a grindstone?

Spiritual Battle Isn’t Flashy

Some claim that certain passages in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, such as paragraphs 1821 and 1058, seem to support the thesis that it’s possible to believe that humans will not end up in hell.
For example, paragraph 1821 reads,
<blockquote>We can . . . hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.” She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven.</blockquote>
In a similar manner, paragraph 1058 states,
<blockquote>The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).</blockquote>
Since the Church exhorts to pray that everyone perseveres unto the end and that no one enter hell, it follows that we can reasonably hope for all to be saved.
First, I think the context of paragraph 1821 reveals that the prayer that all men will be saved is meant for men who are still alive on earth. Right before its statement about the Church’s prayer that all men be saved, it speaks of the necessity to persevere to the end and the good works accomplished with Christ’s grace. Persevering unto the end and accomplishing good works through grace can only refer to man’s life on earth. Therefore, the prayer that all men be saved most likely refers to all men who are still alive on earth, striving to persevere and accomplish good works by grace. This doesn’t bear on all the departed souls prior to this current day, who may very well be in hell.
Second, paragraph 1058 is a part of the “In Brief” section and seems to be a summary of paragraph 1037, which speaks of the Church’s prayer to implore God’s mercy that none should perish, but come to repentance. The Catechism states,
<blockquote>God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621 (162; 1014, 1821; 678–679).
Father, accept this offering
from your whole family. 
Grant us your peace in this life, 
save us from final damnation, 
and count us among those you have chosen.
</blockquote>
Like in paragraph 1821, the prayer that none should be lost comes immediately after a statement that has to do with men still journeying on earth. The paragraph says that only someone who willfully turns away from God and persists in this until the end goes to hell. It’s after this that we have the statement about the Church imploring God’s mercy that none should perish. The implication is that there is always hope for someone in this life to repent from his mortal sin. And insofar as there is hope for repentance, the Church prays, “Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.”
Again, hope for repentance for those who can repent has no bearing on hope for those who no longer can repent, like the damned.
In conclusion, by showing that these paragraphs do not prove the hope for universal salvation, we have not thereby proven the hope for universal salvation to be false. There are other lines of support that many offer. But at least we know that this line of support can be rejected.

‘No One in Hell’: Catechism-Approved?

On February 25th U.S. Airman Aaron Bushnell <a href="https://time.com/6821425/israel-embassy-air-force-protest-fire-self-immolation-aaron-bushnell-latest-updates/">committed suicide</a> by lighting himself on fire in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. Bushnell died while shouting “Free Palestine” and intended his death to be a form of protest against the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
In an attempt to normalize suicide as “political protest,” <a href="https://time.com/6835364/self-immolation-history-israel-hamas-war/">Time Magazine described the history of self-immolation</a> and said, “Self-immolation was also seen as a sacrificial act committed by Christian devotees who chose to be burned alive when they were being persecuted for their religion by Roman emperor Diocletian ​​around 300 A.D.” Time cited <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-terrible-act-of-reason-when-did-self-immolation-become-the-paramount-form-of-protest">a 2012 article</a> from The New Yorker in defense of this claim which said that “around 300 A.D., Christians persecuted by Diocletian set fire to his palace in Nicodemia and then threw themselves onto it—presumably, to express their objections to Roman policy and not to the emperor’s architectural taste.”
But this is false.
The fourth-century Christian historian Eusebius describes the fire in Nicomedia (not “Nicodemia” as The New Yorker wrote) <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250108.htm">in book eight, chapters five and six</a>, of his work The Church History. He says of the fire&#8217;s cause that &#8220;a false suspicion was laid to our people,&#8221; i.e., Christians. He is not aware of Christians purposefully starting it. He then writes,
<blockquote>Entire families of the pious in that place were put to death in masses at the royal command, some by the sword, and others by fire. It is reported that with a certain divine and indescribable eagerness men and women rushed into the fire. And the executioners bound a large number of others and put them on boats and threw them into the depths of the sea.</blockquote>
This is not an example of suicide done to protest the Emperor’s actions. These Christians had been sentenced to death and some of them joyously accepted their impending <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/martyr">martyrdom</a> knowing they would receive the “martyr’s crown” in heaven as a reward (Rev. 2:10). Early Christian writers like Origen (Commentary on Matthew), Lactantius (Divine Institutes 3:18), and Augustine (City of God, 1.16-27) all condemned suicide as gravely sinful and made no exception for suicides done of out of protest towards unjust rulers.
The Church <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-the-church-really-teaches-about-suicide">teaches</a> that suicide is gravely evil but that “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide” (CCC 2282). This means we should pray that God has mercy upon anyone who commits suicide, including Airman Bushnell.

No, Christians Didn’t Light Themselves on Fire

One of the biggest “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill">red pills</a>” behind my conversion was realizing that the vast majority of Protestants (including myself) had virtually the same theology of history as the Latter-day Saints church (the Mormons), and we didn’t even realize it. I found the consequences of this to be extremely disturbing.
<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-restoration/the-great-apostasy?lang=eng">The LDS church teaches</a> that after the death of the last apostle, the authority of the priesthood and the keys was lost. As a result, Christians fell into deeper and deeper error, and the true faith was lost. They call this the “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/in-search-of-the-great-apostasy">Great Apostasy</a>.”
Many Protestants—often prevented from realizing it by historical ignorance—believe basically the same thing. This was one of the most sobering conclusions I came to in my final days as a Protestant, and it helped lead to my conversion.
Here’s why.
To have any religion whatsoever, you must, at minimum, have three doctrines:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">How you join the religion (initiation)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">How the members of the religion govern themselves, who has authority, etc. (government)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">How the religion worships whatever deity/deities it acknowledges</li>
</ol>
Without these three, it’s arguably impossible to claim you even have a religion.
On these three matters, the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/who-were-the-church-fathers">Church Fathers</a>—the Christian leaders of whom we have any record from the earliest days of the Church through roughly the first millennium—are UNANIMOUS.
They UNANIMOUSLY believed in:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-necessity-of-baptism">baptismal regeneration</a> (how we become Christians),</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession">apostolic succession</a> (how the Church is governed), and</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass">the sacrifice of the Eucharist</a> (how Christians worship).</li>
</ol>
Giving as much credit as possible, Anglicans and (some) Lutherans are the two biggest sects who believe in items one AND two. However, even if we say ALL of them believed in both (which is not true), together, they constitute only about twenty percent of worldwide Protestantism.
All Protestants reject item three (some Anglicans and Lutherans will quibble with this, but that’s for another article).
Thus, the vast majority of Protestants reject all three of these fundamental Christian doctrines upon which the ancient Church was unanimous and which are absolutely essential to having a religion of any kind whatsoever.
That means the vast majority of Protestants (including myself at one time) must necessarily believe—whether they realize it or not—that from the very first generation after the apostles forward, all Christians got it wrong on how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how Christians worship. In other words, they must believe that Christians got the essence of their religion wrong, that it got worse and worse through time, and that this began right after the death of the last apostle, since every Church Father of which we have any record is squarely opposed to Protestantism on these three fundamental doctrines.
While these Protestants do not claim to believe this is what happened, this is nonetheless the necessary conclusion if their doctrines are true, making their theology of history virtually identical with that of the LDS Church.
This is absurd for various reasons, but here is where it gets very disturbing.
If this is true—that the fundamentals of Christianity were essentially lost from the first post-Apostolic generation, but have been available in one form or another for the 500 years since the Reformation—then this conclusion necessarily follows: what God in the flesh established in the first century was weaker than what men like Luther, Calvin, and others re-established in the sixteenth century.
I made the same objection to Mormon missionaries who visited me for several weeks. “If your religion is true,” I said, “then what Christ himself established was weaker than what Joseph Smith re-established.”
As disturbing as I found this conclusion about the nature of my own Protestantism, it was nonetheless true in light of the facts of history.
I realized I had been deceived by a religious system that had surreptitiously claimed to achieve something greater than even the apostles.
I explore this subject in greater detail in <a href="https://www.joshuatcharles.com/blog/2023/8/18/becoming-catholic-38-protestantisms-mormonism-problem">this article</a>.

The Protestant-Mormon Problem

Studying one doctrine in <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/the-early-church-was-the-catholic-church-softcover/">the ancient Church</a> unexpectedly showed me I’d likely have to become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
It wasn’t the Eucharist, Our Lady, the priesthood, or any of the doctrines Protestants perhaps more frequently object to.
It was baptism.
In the ancient Church, we see unanimity on a doctrine most Protestants reject: baptismal regeneration.
As a Protestant, I was open to the possibility that baptismal regeneration was true. I knew smart people who affirmed it and smart people who denied it.
Baptism in general is an issue upon which most Protestants agree to disagree. We’d have separate denominations over it (which bothered me), but didn’t necessarily deny that those who disagreed with us were Christians. I knew most Protestants rejected baptismal regeneration, and I did too–but only very softly. Baptism in general was one of many subjects I felt fairly agnostic about, given that good, educated people took different positions on it.
But when I opened the Church Fathers, the situation could not have been more different. I was stunned at <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/what-the-early-church-believed-baptismal-regeneration">the unanimity they exhibited</a> on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It’s absolutely everywhere.
In baptism, they said, we are:
<ul>
<li>reborn/born again/made new creatures,</li>
<li>cleansed of/forgiven all our sins,</li>
<li>given the Holy Spirit, and</li>
<li>justified/made righteous.</li>
</ul>
Seven years into studying the Church Fathers, I have yet to find a single one who denied any of these.
This was very disturbing for me, because I knew most of us Protestants rejected precisely what ALL the Fathers were affirming. And while we treated baptism as a non-essential issue (though apparently essential enough to divide denominations), that never made sense to me either.
Baptism is one of the three basic commands of Christ in the Great Commission to the apostles before he ascended into heaven. How could this be a non-essential issue? Likewise, baptism comes up constantly in Scripture. Indeed, however you interpret it, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/necessity-of-baptism/1peter321">St. Peter flat out says</a> “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21). How can something that “saves you” be non-essential?
Again, I held all these doubts at bay for many years because good, educated men disagreed, so I assumed they had figured something out that I hadn’t.
But that all changed when I read the Church Fathers. They were completely consistent on baptism century after century; east and west; in Europe, Africa, and Asia; pre-Constantine and post-Constantine, etc. I was shocked not only at their doctrinal position, but also at their doctrinal unity! Truth be told, I had all but given up on doctrinal unity as a Protestant, despite it being commanded in the strongest terms in Scripture, and obviously necessary given the nature of truth, which cannot contradict itself.
While the topic of baptismal regeneration is raised in many different works, here is a very short list of them from the first century to St. Augustine if you want to dig deeper:
<ul>
<li>The Shepherd of Hermas</li>
<li>Letter of Barnabas</li>
<li>Tertullian, “On Baptism”</li>
<li>St. Justin Martyr, “First Apology” and “Dialogue with Trypho”</li>
<li>St. Irenaeus of Lyon, “Against Heresies” and “On the Apostolic Preaching”</li>
<li>St. Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor”</li>
<li>St. Hippolytus of Rome, “Discourse on the Holy Theophany” and “The Apostolic Tradition”</li>
<li>St. Cyprian of Carthage, many letters, “Treatise 4: On the Lord’s Prayer,” and “Treatise 8: On Works and Alms”</li>
<li>St. Methodius, “Banquet of the Ten Virgins”</li>
<li>St. Aphrahat the Persian, “Demonstrations”</li>
<li>St. Athanasius, “Discourse 3 Against the Arians”</li>
<li>The Nicene Creed</li>
<li>St. Pacian of Barcelona, “On Baptism”</li>
<li>St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lecture 3”</li>
<li>St. Gregory Nazianzen, “Oration 40: On Holy Baptism”</li>
<li>St. Basil the Great, “Concerning Baptism” and “The Holy Spirit”</li>
<li>St. Ambrose of Milan, “The Holy Spirit” and “On the Mysteries”</li>
<li>St. John Chrysostom, “On the Priesthood” and “Catechetical Lectures”</li>
<li>St. Augustine, “City of God,” “Faith, Hope, and Charity” (and many others)</li>
</ul>

Ancient Church Fathers Agree: Baptism Saves

Last week, X (formerly Twitter) gave me this pearl of wisdom:

The implication is that [bad thing] is not a big deal, so why does the Church remain so hung up on it? And we can refine this complaint in an age where sexual continence is under attack even at the highest ecclesiastical levels: “Why are those mean old fun-hating conservatives so hung up on it?”
Let’s clear a few things up. First, the loathsome term premarital sex. How can we be so confident as to declare this sex “pre-marital,” preceding marriage? “Extra-marital” might be more accurate, though that is a euphemism for something else, now euphemized even harder as “irregular circumstances” or, worse, “<a href="https://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/24336-canon-official-couples-in-irregular-marriages-can-receive-sacrament-only-if-there-s-desire-to-change">an irregular marriage</a>.” So the classic term, fornication, seems most sensible. It’s still called that today, but no one wants to admit it, nor that it is a mortal sin—meaning the sort of thing that will send <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-do-i-know-if-its-a-mortal-sin">unrepentant and fully-knowing</a> practitioners <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-hard-is-it-to-commit-a-mortal-sin">to hell</a>. I suppose the Church is still “in denial about” it in that way, albeit quietly and with some embarrassment.
Next, “denial.” Is anyone really in denial that the vast mass of Americans of marriageable age are fornicating? At the very least, every television show and movie and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/09/12/1121999705/sex-education-school-kindergarten">elementary-school curriculum</a> throws it at us daily. Even C.S. Lewis, a towering icon of “mean old conservative” Catholics, declared to his 1940s-ish “conservative” 88-percent-fornicating readership that “the sins of the flesh . . . are the least bad of all sins.” Tell that to <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/blog/on-july-13-1917-our-lady-of-fatima-showed-a-vision-of-hell-and-taught-us-how-to-avoid-it">Sr. Lucia</a>, Clive—but suffice it to say that I’m not sure anyone’s been in denial about the prevalence of fornication for a long, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+5&amp;version=DRA">long time</a>.
Next, the stats. How does a voyeuristic pollster go about ascertaining that “95 percent of Catholics have premarital sex”? Does he ask them, and expect them to tell the truth? More likely, he skates by with a “representative sample.” What does such a sample look like? Does it include people like me, and then the innumerable categories of people better-looking than me? Does it include the elderly, the socially awkward, the cloistered nuns? I could go on and on.
Suffice it to say that when we break down this tweet, and the sentiment it represents, we see that people really aren’t in denial about an ill-defined thing that in fact may or may not be happening to a greater or lesser degree. In short, it means nothing. It’s smoke, in elaborate, meaningless designs, all translating to the basic and brute phrase “I WANT.”
But finally, let’s take the smoke for granted, if only to attack the WANT. Maybe, stats or no stats, (almost) everyone really is fornicating just beyond your field of vision, like in that movie Amélie. If that’s the case, it is a grave evil, the sort of thing holy people weep over. If it’s true, millions are at risk of eternal damnation, and deepening their commitment to that risk, making themselves ever more entrenched in it, every day. To put it bluntly, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-m9WgAdflY">that’s a bummer, man</a>.
But here’s where the dumb premise of a dumb tweet can be right: we should be “in denial about all this,” in the sense that we should be in denial about all dubious sweeping polls and their foul output. The guy who wants more fornication uses them as base propaganda. We, who want less fornication, do best to shrug our shoulders. Our lot is not to fix the (possible) fornication problem of (maybe almost) the whole mass of the United States. Not now, and not in the 1940s, though that would make for an entertaining time travel movie. Our power lies in reforming our own discrete lives. I can’t make X stop fornicating, but I can stop myself . . . and from lying, and defaming, and contracepting, and reading X.
Should the Church change its position on fornication because everyone’s fornicating? No, not any more than it should change its position on murder because <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/11/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/">everyone’s murdering</a>. Nor should you. Rather, let’s remember that 2,000 years of wisdom probably has something to it. Then we can recommit ourselves to that wisdom, and not worry so much about the throes of social media.

Are You a Fornication-Denier?

Gotta love the Catholic interwebs. There never seems to be a shortage of brothers and sisters arguing about the important things, like whether to go see a movie or not. If you are on the fence about seeing the new film Cabrini, I would like to share with you three reasons I think it’s worth your time.
<h2>Girl Power</h2>
Back in my day, when someone was trying undeservedly to claim the moral high ground, it was not uncommon to respond by saying “You’re no Mother Teresa.” I don’t recall anyone ever saying “You’re no JPII.” That’s not because St. John Paul II was not viewed by many as a particularly holy man. It’s simply because stories of Mother Teresa and her mission to help the poor and sick in India made news around the world. It’s also worth pointing out that EWTN was <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/motherangelica">founded by a woman</a> who persevered against the odds to create a literal Catholic media empire. In a similar vein, the story of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini is a shining example of the tremendous witness one woman can provide for our Faith even if she can’t be a priest or bishop. You simply can’t tell her story without this element.
<h2>Fighting Bigotry</h2>
Cabrini is set around 1889 when Pope Leo XIII sends Mother Cabrini to New York to care for the poor Italians who immigrated there. An unfortunate fact of our country’s past is that certain ethnic communities have been disparaged and oppressed. Mother Cabrini was Italian, female, and Catholic; all three were strikes against her in 1880’s New York. She fought back hard against all of these obstacles and achieved great things in her life. That alone is inspiring—which brings me to my third reason.
<h2>Evangelization</h2>
Most of the criticisms over Cabrini that I have seen focus on a lack of clear Catholic piety. This likely has to do with the purpose of the film.
Catholic Answers was asked by the producers to host a viewing of Cabrini (before it was finished) here in San Diego. I spoke to one of them in the hallway afterwards. He told me that Cabrini’s story was chosen because of its value for evangelization. If that is the case, then it doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t try to pepper the film with a lot of images of explicitly Catholic devotion.
Imagine a scene showing Mother Cabrini praying silently in Eucharistic Adoration. Who besides you and I, dear reader (assuming you’re Catholic) would understand what is going on in that scene without some amount of explanation? It’s possible that the filmmakers went too far in this regard, but that still doesn&#8217;t mean you should avoid the film, in my humble opinion.
Or, putting it another way (as <a href="https://x.com/ethan_stueve/status/1767285743905280068?s=20">this tweeter does</a>):

Furthermore, before my conversion, the thing that attracted me most to Catholicism was the heroic missionary work of a Mother Teresa or a Mother Cabrini. It wasn’t how much time they spent praying the rosary that caught my attention, but how selflessly they gave their lives to the poor and downtrodden. If the creators of Cabrini want to evangelize, then focusing the bulk of the film upon that facet of a saint&#8217;s life is a perfectly acceptable and effective way to achieve that goal.
When it comes to entertainment and Catholic storytelling, there’s simply no way to please everyone. If you have not seen the film already, my recommendation is to stop reading reviews and go see it for yourself.

Three Things I Enjoyed About ‘Cabrini’

Today, the Church celebrates Saint Junípero Serra. But I&#8217;m certain most of the people who now inhabit the land he founded do not.
Is it overstating things to call Serra the founder of California? The principal cities of the Golden State started as Spanish Missions, the first nine of which he founded. Interstate 5, or “The Five” in Southern Californian dialect, essentially traces the path of the Camino Real. The Spanish “Laws of the Indies”—under which he operated—codified a vastly more humane treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific coast than anything the Eastern Seaboard natives had ever experienced. Indeed, Serra himself penned his Representación, which Pope Saint John Paul II called a “bill of rights” for California’s natives.
<a href="https://lakotalaw.org/news/2015-01-23/controversial-canonization-the-decision-to-make-junipero-serra-a-saint-is-a-bad-one?token=162">The charges</a> now flung at Serra are more histrionics than history. They pile on him all the sins of the Spanish empire, making the implausible claim that Serra abandoned a good career as a department head at the University of Mallorca to face the perils and privations of a transatlantic voyage and the hardships and uncertainties of the California wild—to say nothing of walking over the course of a lifetime (on a wounded leg no less) roughly the circumference of the earth—all for the pleasure of enslaving and exploiting natives. In fact, Serra was the Indians’ chief defender against unscrupulous and cruel soldiers and politicians. He came to give, not take. He exhausted his body to bring the people of California the thing they needed most: baptism.
It’s fitting that Serra’s feast should fall so near Independence Day, and this year to our semi-quincentennial. The Franciscan friar whose bones rest today at the Carmel Mission never saw Philadelphia. Nonetheless, when Spain entered the war against Britain, he rallied the citizens of California’s missions to pray for American victory. The Spanish Crown levied a war tax, but this Serra paid from the Mass stipends. The natives were never assessed.
From the opposite shore, from impoverished adobe churches and struggling settlements, came aid for a fight for liberty, the fruits of which Serra would not live to see. As we mark two hundred and fifty years, let us make room in our memory for this Catholic founding father of the West who planted the cross in California and helped prepare a corner of the republic before the republic even knew its name.

The Saint Who Built California

The leadup to today’s opening of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_Day">Disclosure Day</a> has been quite an exercise in hype, hasn’t it? Coinciding with peaking interest in what old people call UFOs (now “<a href="https://www.intelligence.gov/publics-daily-brief/publics-daily-brief-articles/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-preliminary-intelligence-assessment">UAPs</a>”), and government declassification of some records concerning same, the movie seems to have caught the crest of a massive cultural wave that it will surely ride all the way to the pleasant shoreline of Cash Beach.
Director Steven Spielberg has masterfully nurtured that connection with a series of interviews that seem to <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/steven-spielberg-disclosure-day-ufos-aliens-truth-video/">treat his movie as a documentary</a> rather than a bit of summerweight popcorn fiction. Indeed, his musings about the effect of alien “disclosure” on human society and on <a href="https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15885713/steven-spielberg-disclosure-day-christians.html">religious belief</a> have led to speculation that he is part of a master plan to soften up humanity for a coming real-life alien revelation—or maybe a still-<a href="https://x.com/InterstellarUAP/status/2064810732706021775?s=20">more sinister purpose</a>.
I don’t know if mankind is being set up for disclosure; I do know that it wouldn’t disintegrate the basis of Christian faith <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6iF5sINVns">like Gort’s death ray</a> if it happened; and I’m not sure whether such beings, if disclosed, would be natural or preternatural (and <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/cna/archdiocese-of-washington-removes-prominent-exorcist-over-remarks-linking-ufos-to-demonic-activity">it’s probably better if I don’t venture an opinion</a> on that question, either).
Whatever the truth about extraterrestrial life turns out to be, I don&#8217;t think that Spielberg and his new film are simply shills for some disclosurist cabal in government, tech, and media.
One reason is that Spielberg is a showman and a businessman—arguably the greatest combination of these traits in movie history. This means, firstly, that his primary motive is always to entertain and to make a buck while doing it. There’s no reason to watch his promotional interviews and conclude they have any other purpose.
Secondly, it means that, like a thousand other such celebrities, Spielberg has an inflated sense of the value of his opinions in other areas and believes the world needs to hear them. The phenomenon of entertainer know-it-all-ism is familiar enough to us normies. Why should we conclude that, in this one case, when Spielberg pontificates it’s because he actually possesses secret gnosis?
But the bigger reason why I don’t think the Jaws director is blazing a trail for our new alien overlords to destroy the foundation of Christianity is this: he has been playing that same note in his movies for decades. Connect the dots in his filmography and there emerges a clear picture of a man trying to heal his God-wound with his imagination.
Spielberg was raised a Jew, and as a teenager he had been wrestling both with cultural antisemitism and with internal conflict between his received beliefs and modern secularization when his parents divorced. Though the cause was his mother’s infidelity, he blamed his father and became estranged from him for decades. He would go on to speak candidly about the ways he sought to work through the pain and loss in his art.
One theme that emerges repeatedly in those films is that of parental loss combined with (and often healed by) the intervention of powerful other-worldly figures exercising, in God’s apparent absence, divine agency.
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial">E.T</a>. features an alien who literally heals the heart of a boy who lost his father to divorce. The creature assembles a ragtag group of followers, is captured by authorities, dies, is resurrected, and then ascends back to the heavens. (After telling them to &#8220;be good&#8221; and assuring them he&#8217;ll remain within their hearts.)</li>
<li>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind">Close Encounters of the Third Kind</a>, a single mother is reunited with her fatherless son through the intervention of benign celestial creatures who exhibit godlike power over time and space. Another character loses his family over his alien obsession but finds peace when he is allowed to board the mothership.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.I._Artificial_Intelligence">AI: Artificial Intelligence</a> features a lonely android boy who yearns for but is denied real familial love—until powerful alien/evolved robotic beings allow him to simulate it and die happy.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Worlds_(2005_film)">The War of the Worlds</a> turns the classic H.G. Wells story about alien invaders into a tale of reconciliation between an estranged father and his children, banding together to face the alien threat.</li>
<li>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BFG_(2016_film)">The BFG</a>, the magical uber-character is a giant, not an alien—but his appearance introduces an orphan to paternal love and to hidden fantastical truths.</li>
</ul>
It seems clear enough that we should view Disclosure Day as part of the same pattern. Spielberg isn&#8217;t dutifully spoon-feeding alien disclosure to the masses; but he is still exploring the idea of a cosmic God-substitute that will bring fulfillment where his religion and his family life, for reasons ultimately known only in the depths of his soul, have left him wanting.

Steven Spielberg’s Alien Gospel

Anyone who regularly discusses the Faith with unbelievers knows there are many kinds of unbelief. One kind that can drive the believer nuts is the “endless objections” kind. Rather than engage with the Faith, the endless objector will rehearse again and again the many “foolish” things that a life of Faith would compel him to accept. After all, “How could I accept a religion that would want me to believe in <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/does-symbolism-undermine-biblical-authority">talking snakes</a>/<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction">Noah’s Ark</a>/<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/for-goodness-sake">old-fashioned sexual ethics</a>/<a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp/an-evil-and-good-view-of-the-cross">God’s punishment of his own son</a>/[<a href="https://shop.catholic.com/hard-sayings-a-catholic-approach-to-answering-bible-difficulties-softcover/">fill in the blank</a>]?”
The Christian in this conversation can feel compelled to respond to each and every particular objection. But the overarching problem he senses is getting the objector to stop rolling his eyes long enough to consider the actual content of the Faith.
What to do?
Online, recently, I saw <a href="https://x.com/WWUTTguy/status/1747035780130951357?s=20">an evangelist suggest</a> that we simply tell the person, “You’re making excuses . . . attempting to justify yourself rather than bending the knee to Christ.”
This strikes me as a pretty good diagnosis accompanied by a hazardous prescription.
Even if (as seems likely) the person is using objections as excuses, that doesn&#8217;t mean the objections are “just excuses.” They are also actual questions. Accusing the person of refusing Christ, without giving him a reason to accept Christ, and without patiently addressing objections in a respectful way, seems unlikely to bear fruit.
Perhaps, by answering objections with good humor, the one sharing the Faith can build up trust. And as this trust is built, the Christian can ask questions, including, “Are you sure you are not just treating all of this as foolish to give yourself an excuse not to love God and neighbor as the gospel would require?”
Building relationships, establishing rapport, listening more than talking so the real obstacles can be discovered and removed—<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/winning-the-person-not-the-argument">these are the hard work</a> of sharing the Faith. We might want to offer our diagnosis of what is wrong with the other person, but, really, how likely is that to help?
What we want is an opening to share our Faith, rooted in what Christ has done for us. We can’t force the other person to accept it. Most don’t. We, ourselves, mostly didn’t, until the day we did.
Another evangelist, replying to the one mentioned above, <a href="https://x.com/ronstauffer/status/1747038642986758172?s=20">said he might ask</a>, “Are you saying you would become a Christian except for that one, single objection?”
This seems to me a better strategy. At least it requires the Christian to listen rather than accuse. Listening in such a way might provide, in time, an opening for a real discussion about <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/but-jesus-never-said-he-was-god">who Christ is</a> and what he means.
At the moment the discussion moves away from the endless objections and on to the person of Jesus, the Christian is evangelizing.

Answer Endless Objections With this One Weird Trick!

In the aftermath of the Olympics’ opening ceremony last Friday, at which a flamboyant troupe of dancers in drag performed a burlesque of the Last Supper, the inevitable and entirely just Christian uproar has been met with its own backlash. Christ-haters and online know-it-alls (many of them the same people) have been posting and sharing on social media that, ackshully, the scene was not meant to evoke the Last Supper but the Greek god Dionysius and his hard-partying pals. And that you would have known this if you had studied art history instead of praying to your imaginary God.
Some Christians are calling this “gaslighting,” and whether that’s the right name for it, I’m not sure—but without a doubt there’s a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/29/olympic-last-supper-scene-based-painting-greek-gods-art-experts">popular effort</a> underway to install an Official Version of this event that exculpates the ceremony organizers and makes Christians look stupid. And any future mentions of this blasphemy will be invalidated. That’s a myth, didn’t you know? Fake news. Just Christians and homophobes being hysterical.
Put that way . . . yeah, that’s totally gaslighting. Here are some points to fight it:
1. It doesn&#8217;t have to be an either-or. Art (to use the term loosely) is often multivalent. The organizers could have set out to capture different aspects of, or combine, both the Dionysius scene and the Last Supper. And if you think about it, doing a mashup of one of Christianity’s most sacred moments with a scene of Bacchanalian debauchery isn’t really any less gratuitously provocative, offensive, or inappropriate for a ceremony intended to promote the unifying power of sport, is it?
2. Indeed, the painting that the ceremony’s creative director Thomas Jolly is <a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/paris-olympics-last-supper-controversy-2517433#:~:text=%E2%80%9CClearly%20there%20was%20never%20an,International%20Olympic%20Committee%20news%20conference.">widely presumed</a>—including by his defenders—to be riffing on, Jan van Bijlert’s Feast of the Gods, was itself a deliberate play on the Last Supper as it is often composed in art, most famously in Leonardo da Vinci’s painting. Christians didn’t imagine this connection in a fever dream or invent it out of thin air, so stop being coy. (One Facebook commenter <a href="https://www.facebook.com/johnathan.dwayne.35/posts/pfbid02USUtrxnkGeKympb32FA6mwJhy5cMDXaL3qrSozBe2Aan6cSM1enfW1zJuNmcCChpl">snarked</a>, “I&#8217;m surprised they didn&#8217;t use a manger with a baby and a woman next to it [and say] it was Aphrodite and her son Cupid.”)
3. Notwithstanding Jolly’s protest, comments made by other producers of and participants in the event say flat-out that the Last Supper was at least one of the elements they were going for. Representatives of the Olympic organizing committee reportedly <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/07/30/sports/paris-olympics-admitted-opening-ceremony-drag-show-was-based-on-last-supper/">owned up</a> that “Thomas Jolly took inspiration from Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting to create the setting.” At least two of the performers involved in the performance that some reports are calling a “vogue”—a form of gay performance art—said <a href="https://catholicherald.co.uk/drag-queen-confirms-it-was-a-parody-of-last-supper/">they were aware</a> that it was a Last Supper parody, with the woman occupying the central Jesus position calling it a “new gay testament.”
Furthermore, multiple reports have <a href="https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/what-la-cene-sur-la-scene-sur-la-seine-mean-netizens-refute-dutch-historian-s-paris-olympics-mock-the-last-supper-claim">claimed</a> that the official name for the segment supplied to the media was La Cène sur un Scène sur la Seine—a triple homophone that means “The Last Supper on Stage on the Seine.” I haven’t found official confirmation of this, so perhaps it’s not true; or perhaps it has since been scrubbed, as the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13679885/olympics-paris-2024-opening-ceremony-video-deleted-account-backlash.html">whole video of the incident</a> has from the Olympic website. But it’s certainly plausible.
4. There are details of the actual performance that pertain to the Last Supper scene more than the Greek myth. Note the blue dress on the central woman, matching the blue robe worn by Jesus in the da Vinci painting. The halo over her (what one secular outlet dismissed as a “star crown”) is curiously shaped more like a monstrance than the halos you see in most religious art or angel Halloween costumes (or the faint one over the central figure of Apollo in the van Bijlert painting). No artist would leave that detail to chance, not when veering so close to the biblical event at which Jesus instituted the Eucharist.
5. There are standing historical and cultural conflicts that cast doubt on the claim that this was an innocent misunderstanding (albeit of an undeniably perverse scene, with garishly dressed drag queens and one performer partially exposing his genitalia with a child performer—of course—just inches away). The gay activist movement and its elite allies are currently engaged in a war, not against ancient Greek myths, but against the one religion that still seeks to oppose and temper their activism. Thomas Jolly claims that his intent was to promote “community tolerance,” but we have been at this long enough to know what that code word means.
And the nation of France, for which I have special respect and affection, has produced some of the Church’s greatest saints as well as, in modernity, some of its most vicious enemies. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_France">eldest daughter of the Church,</a> in modern times turned hotbed of atheism, heresy, subversion, anticlericalism, and laïcisme, has in its cultural bones a complicated impulse of love and loathing for the Faith. In context, it makes far more sense for that scene to have been principally aimed at evoking the Last Supper than some old pagan figures that ninety-nine percent of Frenchmen, or global TV viewers without an art degree, would never recognize.

Gaslit By the Olympic Torch

Catholics may think of abortion as <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-discuss-abortion-without-invoking-religion">simply a political issue</a>, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that advocating for the unborn is also a spiritual battle. Take for instance <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@catholic.converts/video/7385882889566604574">this</a> video clip I addressed of pro-abortionist workers harassing a group of Catholics praying peacefully outside an abortion clinic. In the full video (which has since been deleted), the workers got in the faces of the peaceful protestors and seemed to bring some of them to tears. At one point, a pro-abortionist begins to mock their rosary prayers, yelling into a megaphone, “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, the abortions are done!” 
It is hard to watch videos like this without thinking Satan is really at work in the pro-abortionist movement. Not content merely to legalize the murder of innocent babies, abortion advocates must mock and blaspheme God in the process. This is unsurprising, however, considering just how much God hates abortion—and how much <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-devil-must-advertise">Satan must love it</a>. According to Proverbs 6:16-17 “There are six things which the Lord hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood” (emphasis added). 
Only by the work of Satan could billions of people be deceived into supporting the shedding of innocent blood. And it is clear they are deceived, since many abortion advocates are unable or unwilling to have a respectful conversation about why they support abortion. Instead, like the woman in the video, they mock, harass, and scream over the words of those who disagree with them. It is reminiscent of the mocking and harassment Jesus faced during his trial and crucifixion. 
But with that sorrowful image comes the hope of the Resurrection. Catholics need not fear insults and harassment on the battleground. Instead, they can peacefully look towards the hope of new life that Christ promised us while he was on earth by remembering his words: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:10).

At War with Satan for the Unborn

I can’t stop thinking about a conversation I just had with my sister, a therapist. She poured out her heart to me about an encounter that began as one of the most challenging moments of her career—and ended as a profound example of how God works through us.
She became a marriage and family therapist to help people through their darkest times—addictions, post-traumatic stress disorder—and to provide a safe place for those in need. Sometimes her work tests how well she can balance her Catholic faith with her professional ethics and responsibilities. This was one of those times.
Her client—let’s call her Jane—was facing an unimaginable situation. She was planning to end the life of her unborn son, who had been diagnosed with Down Syndrome and water on the brain. Jane’s anguish was heartbreaking. Through tears, she explained that she didn’t want to have the abortion but felt she had no other choice. She believed it was an act of love to spare him from suffering, but her doubts were palpable.
My sister was deeply moved. She knew this was a moment of mission, one she hadn’t expected but to which she had been called. She silently prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide her words, to give her client clarity and courage, and to bring about a miracle. Within the constraints of her profession, she gently advocated for life, focusing on the emotional and psychological toll an abortion could bring.
After their session, my sister felt a mix of hope and helplessness. She had done all she could, but the decision ultimately rested with Jane. So, she continued to pray, trusting that God could work even where her influence seemed to end.
Then, the miracle came. The next morning, Jane told her that she and her husband—after hours talking, crying, and searching for answers—had canceled the abortion. Her relief and newfound hope were overwhelming. My sister saw the fruit of her prayer and cooperation with God’s grace. She had responded to his call, and a human life was saved.
In moments like this I’m reminded that love isn’t about avoiding suffering—it’s about embracing life and trusting that God will provide the strength to carry our crosses.
It is also a powerful reminder to me that we are all God’s agents in the world, often in ways we don’t expect. We might not see ourselves as capable of great things, but God uses us in small, situational missions to carry out his work. Whether we’re counselors, teachers, students, apologists, or parents, God will give us opportunities to be his partners, his instruments, in his good works. When we respond to his call, even in ways that seem minor or are constrained by circumstances, we become part of his plan.
For those of us engaged in apologetics and evangelization, this is the heart of our mission. We are called to be ready, to listen for God’s voice in the moment, and to act in cooperation with his grace. Just as my sister did not, we may not immediately (or ever!) see the effects of our choices, but in those moments, lives can be changed—and even saved.

We’re Always God’s Agents

When it comes to biblical evidence for Purgatory, Catholics <a href="https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/purgatory/1corinthians315">know to turn to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15</a>. There, Paul writes,
<blockquote>For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.</blockquote>
Paul describes a saved Christian on the day of judgment being purified by “fire” after death in a state of existence that’s neither heaven nor hell. <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/purgatory">That’s got to be Purgatory</a>, right?
Well, some Protestants argue, “Not so fast!” There’s nothing here, so they say, about suffering that discharges the debt of temporal punishment, which is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/are-indulgences-a-scam">part and parcel</a> of the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
For example, the late Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholics-Evangelicals-Agreements-Differences/dp/0801038758/ref=sr_1_1?crid=174A574X9Y98Z&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Aukvl2JfzDONJyHQIlzbk5Abvfc6a4bF1_JbUkh8tDrGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.0bVFcj7im9Lq0Qb3v4mdh3Leylm7yNgjC3aP_74YiRc&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=geisler+and+mackenzie&amp;qid=1733332522&amp;sprefix=geisler+and+mackenzi%2Caps%2C141&amp;sr=8-1">state</a>, “There is absolutely nothing here about suffering for our sins or their consequences after death.” For Geisler and MacKenzie, Paul’s comment “he will suffer loss” merely refers to “a loss of reward [in heaven] for not serving Christ faithfully.”
How should we respond?
Notice how, for Geisler and MacKenzie, “there is absolutely nothing here about suffering for our sins.” Yet Paul makes it clear that the individual who “suffers loss” (v.15) suffers loss because his works, represented by wood, hay, and straw, are “burned up”—that’s to say, he suffers for his sins.
The suffering may be caused by the distress of losing a reward in heaven. But that’s beside the point. The individual still suffers on account of past sins. And to suffer on account of sin, even if the suffering is due to a deprivation of some good, is the meaning of punishment. That the punishment is temporary, or not everlasting, is evidenced by the fact that the soul in question is saved.
We can also look to the Greek for evidence of a punitive dimension to this passage. The phrase “he will suffer loss” translates the Greek word zēmiōthēsetai, which is a future indicative of the Greek verb zēmioō. The <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-New-Testament-Semantic/dp/0826703437">definition</a> of zēmioō is “to be punished, with the implication of suffering damage.” Zēmioō can be understood without a punitive character, in the sense of simply losing something (Phil. 3:8). But even if we understand it that way in 1 Corinthians 3:15, the context reveals that the loss is on account of the bad works, thus punitive in character.
It’s interesting to note that in the Septuagint, zēmioō (corresponding to Hebrew anash) is used in several places as a monetary fine (Exod. 21:22; Deut. 22:19; Prov. 17:26) and punishment for an evil deed (Prov. 19:9, 21:11, 22:3).
Finally, the punitive character can be seen in that the individual is temporarily detained from receiving the reward of heaven on account of his bad works. He has to go through fire in order to be saved. As mentioned above, deprivation of a good on account of sin is an essential aspect of punishment. And since this is a temporary deprivation, it’s a temporary form of punishment.
So 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 supports not only the purification of the individual, which would involve the purging of any moral defilement remaining in the soul, but also suffering on account of venial sins, which by its nature discharges the debt of temporal punishment.

Biblical Evidence for Purgatory

“If I had to pick between my two degrees and my husband, I’d choose my husband any day. Being his wife is my greatest accomplishment.”
I recently found myself in a minor internet war with other women over this comment I made.
Here is a list of some of the not-so-nice replies I received from it:
“I’m so embarrassed for you.”
“This is the saddest thing I have heard in a while.”
“Setting women back.”
“Seek help.”
For many Gen Z women, being married and starting a family is less likely to be seen as an accomplishment and more likely to be seen as a hindrance to true success. In a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-gen-zs-gender-divide-reaches-politics-views-marriage-children-suc-rcna229255">recent NBC News Decision Desk Poll</a>, females aged eighteen through twenty-nine were asked to rank what is important to their personal definition of success. The number-one choice was “having a job or career you find fulfilling,” and number two was “having enough money to do the things you want to do.” Marriage ranked eleventh.
To them, if something gets in the way of a great career and financial success (which marriage and children can do), then it’s something to be avoided at all costs. If it assists in accomplishing these goals, it should be pursued.
That’s where we find these women who believe graduating with a Bachelor’s degree is a much greater accomplishment than finding a good husband. But as a Gen Z woman, I could not disagree more.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m grateful for my college education. But the value of education can’t be compared to the value of a good spouse and marriage.
Like many people, my decision to go to college was an investment made for a future career—a career that was not intended to change the world or save millions of lives, but to pay the bills and leave me contented at the end of the day.
When I decided to get married, however, I didn’t see it as an investment opportunity, but as my path to heaven. A path that not only I could walk, but also my husband and all the subsequent generations created from our union.
This is what makes marriage so invaluable: not only will it transform you, but it can lead to the existence of an entirely new generation. A generation that, if formed with love, will do far greater good for the world than any college degree could. (Because let’s be honest: most people will not make Nobel-prize worthy discoveries with their college degrees.)
If I were asked to forfeit my degree for my husband, and that meant working a minimum-wage job in a fast-food drive-thru, so be it. I vowed, “for richer, for poorer.” Many of my Gen Z peers would hesitate though—since true success for them is not found in the loving embrace of a good spouse, but in a fulfilling career and overflowing bank account.
As for me, I’ll stick to the wisdom of Scripture: “A good wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels” (Prov. 31:10).

Is Marriage Really Less Valuable Than a College Degree?

My heart sank when I saw Monday’s news of the Vatican&#8217;s <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/260129/meet-luce-the-vatican-s-cartoon-mascot-for-jubilee-2025">unveiling of Luce, a cartoon mascot</a> intended to promote the upcoming Jubilee Year. After decades of attempts to make church cool and relevant had failed to reverse Christianity’s hemorrhaging of young people, Vatican leaders decided this was a perfect time to . . . try to make church cool and relevant.
In their own words:
“Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the Vatican’s chief organizer for the jubilee, described the mascot as part of the Vatican’s goal to engage with ‘the pop culture so beloved by our young people.’”
Everybody say the line!

This was my gut reaction.
And yet!
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143626" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-e1730418440502-300x181.png" alt="" width="326" height="197" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-e1730418440502-300x181.png 300w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-e1730418440502-768x464.png 768w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-e1730418440502-662x400.png 662w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-e1730418440502.png 1282w" sizes="(max-width: 326px) 100vw, 326px"/>
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143627" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-300x81.jpg" alt="" width="394" height="106" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-300x81.jpg 300w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-768x206.jpg 768w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1-1200x322.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-1.jpg 1284w" sizes="(max-width: 394px) 100vw, 394px"/>
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143630" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture1-1-300x258.jpg" alt="" width="390" height="335" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture1-1-300x258.jpg 300w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture1-1-768x659.jpg 768w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture1-1-466x400.jpg 466w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture1-1.jpg 827w" sizes="(max-width: 390px) 100vw, 390px"/>
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143628" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-095715-e1730418597171-300x137.png" alt="" width="307" height="140"/>
At least some Catholics—across age groups!—are embracing Luce. Scores of <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/luce-the-vaticans-anime-mascot">fanart variants and memes</a> have exploded into the zeitgeist. Of course, the outcry against Luce has been just as loud and passionate. But that’s not surprising; it is surprising to see this many young Catholics voice such full-throated approval for Luce, rather than roll their eyes at the umpteenth attempt by these old men to “appeal to the youth.”
So what’s going on here? As a Gen Z staffer at Catholic Answers whose job is literally to be online, I observe the following.
First and foremost: as an anime character, Luce instantly appeals to an obsessive demographic that overlaps with a significant portion of online Catholics (the “anime profile pic trad” is a well-known archetype). I have never taken interest in anime, so I couldn&#8217;t say why other fully-grown adults find it so captivating; suffice it to say that this subculture is a major driver in Luce’s initial positive reception. But I don’t think it’s the only one.
Second: Luce is undeniably adorable. Maybe you disagree, but I have to hand it to the creators: they nailed the look of childlike faith and innocence. And the pilgrimage symbols embedded in her character—muddy boots, Camino de Santiago shells in her eyes, pilgrim’s cross, and World Mission rosary—are subtle. Nothing evokes the overbearing “Jesus is COOL, kids!!” lunkheadedness of, say, <a href="https://christchurchusa.org/questministries/blog/what-a-tripp-mascots-revealed-quest-kids-ministry/">VBS mascots</a>.
Finally, I take these folks at their word: they think Luce is fun.
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143631" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-091117-300x57.png" alt="" width="553" height="105" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-091117-300x57.png 300w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-091117.png 737w" sizes="(max-width: 553px) 100vw, 553px"/>
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143632" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture2-300x238.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="340" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture2-300x238.jpg 300w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture2-503x400.jpg 503w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Picture2.jpg 667w" sizes="(max-width: 429px) 100vw, 429px"/>
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143633" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-105916-300x91.png" alt="" width="544" height="165" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-105916-300x91.png 300w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-105916-768x232.png 768w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-105916-1200x363.png 1200w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-105916.png 1462w" sizes="(max-width: 544px) 100vw, 544px"/>
I find myself agreeing more as the days pass. If nothing else, a cute Catholic mascot makes great <a href="https://i.imgur.com/0LYdOvf.png">meme fodder</a>—and the <a href="https://i.imgur.com/YQ8YonY.png">memes</a> have been <a href="https://i.imgur.com/IBDJJ7e.png">fantastic</a>. But I think it runs deeper.
Most of the time, Catholic social media (especially X) is just not fun. People accuse each other of heresy, bicker and squabble over nonessentials, post and re-post vain platitudes, popesplain, refute the popesplainers, refute the refutation of the popesplainers, say unthinkable things about “the Jews,” and generally conduct themselves with a degree of arrogance that would make a saint convulse. Gongs clash and cymbals clang. Meanwhile, news breaks every day about another church scandal, another confusing statement from the pope, another example of why everything is too trad or not trad enough and why the Church is therefore doomed; and if that wasn’t enough, election season is coming to a head.
<a href="https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/486/992/0f8.png">It’s all so tiresome.</a>
Enter a wide-eyed child with a Vatican-yellow raincoat and an unflinching smile:
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143634" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-110334-261x300.png" alt="" width="406" height="466" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-110334-261x300.png 261w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-110334-768x882.png 768w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-110334-348x400.png 348w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-31-110334.png 1297w" sizes="(max-width: 406px) 100vw, 406px"/>
I get it. Luce is <a href="https://i.imgur.com/dRP4QOK.jpeg">above it all</a>. Our Lord tells us we must “change and become like little children” to enter the kingdom of heaven, and she portrays that in a disarming way. That’s why Luce has won me over.
However, memes, trends, and hype are fleeting. The buzz will die down, probably sooner than we expect. And then it will be time to face the real question: did this help save souls?
Well…
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143635" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-090727-300x59.png" alt="" width="514" height="101" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-090727-300x59.png 300w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-090727.png 737w" sizes="(max-width: 514px) 100vw, 514px"/>
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143636" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-2-291x300.jpg" alt="" width="366" height="378" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-2-291x300.jpg 291w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-2-768x792.jpg 768w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-2-388x400.jpg 388w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-2.jpg 1284w" sizes="(max-width: 366px) 100vw, 366px"/>
Maybe!
I mean, with God all things are possible, right? And he likes to work through the simple and the unexpected. We talk a lot in apologetics about the importance of planting a seed and letting God water it. I see no reason why this mascot, paired with an unusual outburst of online Catholic joy, can’t be a seed to outsiders.
But that&#8217;s speculation. Unfortunately, I have a more concrete reason to be pessimistic about a cartoon mascot&#8217;s salvific potential. You may be thinking about it already.
This move, like every move the Church makes these days, takes place in the shadow of a looming specter that hasn&#8217;t gone away since 2002. The institutional Church has yet to fully reckon with it and make complete restitution, and until such time, I can&#8217;t help but feel that a child cartoon mascot is just poor optics.
Father Paul Hedman puts it well:
<img class="aligncenter wp-image-143639" src="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-092346-248x300.png" alt="" width="447" height="541" srcset="https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-092346-248x300.png 248w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-092346-331x400.png 331w, https://cdn.catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2024-10-29-092346.png 740w" sizes="(max-width: 447px) 100vw, 447px"/>
Luce is a hit for some, but Vatican leaders can’t rest on their laurels. After the hype dies off, the stench of scandal will remain, still warding off souls. It takes more than a mascot to overcome that.

Live, Laugh, Luce

As Catholics, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-workable-part-i">we sometimes point</a> to the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/on-the-different-kinds-of-protestants">doctrinal chaos</a> within Protestantism as evidence for the need for an infallible Church. As fallible humans, we tend to err, even when trying our hardest. And so it’s unsurprising that the various denominations of Protestantism come to wildly <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/one-question-protestants-cant-answer">different conclusions</a> on doctrine, including questions like “Does God love everyone?” “What must I do to be saved?” and so forth. But some Protestants will respond to this objection by pointing out that, for members of a supposedly-unified body, Catholics sure do spend a lot of time fighting amongst themselves.
This objection is nothing new. Back in 1850, <a href="https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/lecture10.html">St. John Henry Newman pointed out</a> that “it is a well-known point in controversy, to say that the Catholic Church has not any real unity more than Protestantism,” and to claim that “the greatest alienation, rivalry, and difference of opinion exist among the members of the Catholic priesthood.” And as Newman points out, this objection is half-true and half-false.
The true half is that there are opinionated and strong-willed Catholics. After all, Newman said, “the children of the Church are not of a different nature from the Protestants around them,” and left to himself, “each Catholic likes and would maintain his own opinion and his private judgment just as much as a Protestant.” Nor is this a bad thing, of itself. Your intellect is a gift from God, after all. As Newman put it:
<blockquote>The intellect of man is active and independent: he forms opinions about everything; he feels no deference for another&#8217;s opinion, except in proportion as he thinks that that other is more likely than he to be right; and he never absolutely sacrifices his own opinion, except when he is sure that that other knows for certain. He is sure that God knows; therefore, if he is a Catholic, he sacrifices his opinion to the Word of God, speaking through His Church.</blockquote>
But the situation isn’t all good. Due to original sin, “each mind naturally is self-willed, self-dependent, self-satisfied; and except so far as grace has subdued it, its first impulse is to rebel.” And so, on all of those issues upon which the Church hasn’t spoken infallibly, “there ever has been, and ever will be, a vast exercise and a realized product, partly praiseworthy, partly barely lawful, of private judgment within the Catholic Church.”
So there are areas within Catholicism that are left to private judgment, and over which Catholics can and will disagree. This always has been, and always will be, the case. But there are also areas upon which the Church has <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Enchiridion-Symbolorum-Compendium-Definitions-Declarations/dp/0898707463">spoken definitively</a>, and this is where we see how the equation to Protestantism is a false one. There’s no binding creed within Protestantism, no infallibly settled doctrines upon which all Protestants must agree. There are good and bad Catholics: those who accept or reject the Church’s dogmatic teaching. But there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” Protestants in this sense, since there’s no set of dogmatic teaching. The objection makes it sound as if it were “difficult or impossible to ascertain what it was that the Roman Communion taught,” when we know the opposite to be true.
Finally, Newman points out that the remarkable thing isn’t that Catholics often disagree. We should expect as much from a Church spanning the globe, two millennia, and untold numbers of ethnicities and nationalities. Of course we have a lot of disagreements. The remarkable thing is that we have a coherent creed to which all faithful Catholics assent, no matter their culture or background or natural inclinations.

“But Catholics Are as Divided as Protestants!”

One prominent online Evangelical—Ryan at <a href="https://www.needgod.net">needGod.net</a>—uses cartoons to depict Christians who believe their actions affect their salvation as struggling for salvation, while those who adhere to salvation by faith alone as having perfect, peaceful assurance of their salvation.

But those cartoons contradict Ryan’s message.
In the cartoon featuring the man paddling to safety, paddling represents good works. The cartoon paints salvation by faith alone as never having to do any good works at all. You can even gravely sin through inaction—such as by never praying to God—and you’ll still be saved.
But Ryan’s theology, like most Evangelicals’, says good works are an essential sign or proof that you’re saved. That means the cartoon should really depict “faith alone” as identical to “faith plus works,” but with the other guy in the raft saying, “Paddle hard because that’s a sign you’re truly saved and if you don’t paddle hard enough, that proves you weren’t saved in the first place!”
When put this way, this Christian will not rest peacefully, but will likely become robbed of his assurance of salvation because if he gravely sins, this leaves him doubting that he was ever saved in the first place.
In reality, salvation is not a matter of doing enough good work to earn heaven. It’s a matter of receiving God’s grace and not permanently forsaking it. That’s the only “good work” we must do to enter heaven. And the Bible clearly teaches our salvation depends on things we do. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:
“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’” (Matt. 7:21-23).
This should terrify us. Even if we do good works that please God, that won’t matter if we live a hypocritical life and gravely disobey God without repenting before death. That’s why Paul says in Romans 2:6-8 that
“[God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (emphasis added).
In the Bible, “faith” is not merely the act of acknowledging Jesus has done something for us and thanking him for what he’s done, which is how many Evangelicals (like Ryan) define faith. Instead, a significant part of Paul’s conception of faith derives from the concept of faithfulness. Faith is not just trust or confidence in someone; it is obedience to that person because he is so trustworthy. John 3:36 puts it well: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”
Our faith, like our lives, is not of our own doing. It is a gift from God. However, we can choose to deny this gift and forfeit our salvation if we disobey God. This is why the Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of drawing near to God, so that we may faithfully persevere to the end (Matt 10:22).

Floating to Safety by “Faith Alone”?

Why do Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead? After all, there are several other possibilities: (1) that Jesus didn&#8217;t REALLY die; (2) that Jesus&#8217; Body wasn&#8217;t really buried in the Tomb, but was left up on the Cross to be eaten by animals; (3) that the biblical language of &#8220;resurrection&#8221; was just meant as a metaphor; (4) that the story of the Resurrection is a later Christian legend; or (5) that the Apostles were knowingly lying about the Resurrection. So what&#8217;s the case against all of those denials of the Resurrection&#8230; and where does that leave us?

A Simple Case for the Resurrection

<div class="page" title="Page 163">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 153
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Why should we reject the gods and goddesses that are worshipped by many cultures? Why should the Christian God be the only one?”
DEFENSE
Divine revelation makes clear there is a single God who created the world.
God is infinite and uncreated, but there are also finite, created spirits known as angels (CCC 328–29). They are God’s servants and messengers (the word “angel”—Hebrew, mal’akh, Greek, angelos—means “messenger”). Some serve God but others have fallen and oppose him (CCC 391–93).
The Christian faith thus envisions a heavenly hierarchy with the in-finite, uncreated God at the top and created, finite spirits under him— some of whom have become evil. The good angels may be venerated as such, but they are merely servants of God and so are not to be given the worship owed to God (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10, 22:8–9).
By contrast, many in the Greco-Roman world acknowledged the existence of a single, supreme God but did not worship him. Instead, they worshipped lesser, created beings, such as Zeus (Jupiter) and Apollo. They also acknowledged the existence of inferior spirits, which could be good or evil and which were not worshipped (Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire, 12–13). In Greek, the term “god” (theos) applied to both the great God and the created ones, while the term “demon” (daimonion) applied to the inferior, potentially evil spirits.
Christians agreed there is a great God and that there are lesser spirits who could be called demons. The main issue was how to treat the middle category of finite “gods.”
Divine revelation made it clear only the true God is to be worshipped (Exod. 20:2–6; Deut. 5:6–10), and there are no other beings equal to him (Isa. 43:10, 44:6, 8). Therefore, Christians reasoned, the term “god” (theos) should not be applied to the pagan deities. To the extent they even exist, they would be inferior spirits or “demons” (daimoniōn; cf. 1 Cor. 10:20, MacMullen, 17–19).
The Christian critique of pagan deities thus is not that there aren’t finite, created spirits, but that they are fundamentally different from and inferior to God and not worthy of worship.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

God and “the Gods”

On April 19, Taylor Swift unleashed her highly anticipated eleventh studio album, entitled The Tortured Poets Department. Within twelve hours, it was the first album in Spotify history to achieve 300M streams in a single day.
From a postmodern worldview, it would be difficult to find someone who more perfectly represents the culmination of the feminist movement than this self-made billionaire. She has masterminded a successful sound, and her increasingly loyal fan base has the potential to sway an upcoming presidential election.
Despite her accolades at the pinnacle of worldly success, Swift’s new album unveils a raw, angry woman grappling with her own emptiness. Swift’s power has always been in her willingness to tell her own story. In Tortured Poets, she is at her most vulnerable. Here we find her slightly unhinged, raging at the world that has placed her on this pedestal. Reflecting on her “Eras” tour, an international phenomenon so successful that it catapulted her to billionaire status, she sings, “You know you’re good when you can even do it with a broken heart . . . and I’m good ’cause I’m miserable! And nobody even knows!”
A consistent theme through all eleven of Swift’s critically acclaimed albums is the craving for marriage, family, and unconditional love. As time slips away and her success has intensified, that desire has grown from the fantasy of a twenty-two-year-old singing, “We could get married, have ten kids and teach them all how to dream” to a point of painful desperation twelve years later: “You swore you loved me, but where were the clues? I died on the altar waiting for proof.” In the emptiness of her own success, Swift seems to have discovered the truth that Pope Francis articulated in Evangelii Gaudium: “Our infinite sadness can be cured only by an infinite love” (265).
This core reality of human existence is hardly a new discovery among the rich and famous. The Beatles famously sang, “Don’t care too much for money, money can’t buy you love,” and Tom Brady, possibly the most successful quarterback of all time, expressed it in his <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=vK3gD9DZCiUKIMo1&amp;v=-TA4_fVkv3c&amp;feature=youtu.be">haunting 2005 interview with 60 Minutes</a>: “It’s gotta be more than this. This can’t be all it’s cracked up to be. I’ve done it. I’m twenty-seven, and what else is there for me?” In her own documentary, Ms. Americana and the Heartbreak Prince, Swift openly discusses her loneliness as she reflects that she has achieved everything she has ever wanted but has no one to call and celebrate with.
What makes Taylor Swift unique? Why, if so many instinctively understand this core truth, do thousands of people spend thousands of dollars in adoration of this particular celebrity?
I think there are a few reasons. One of them is that Swift has a brilliant mind for marketing herself, but beyond that, it’s that she has been sharing the intimate details of her journey with her fans for over fifteen years. As Taylor has experienced coming of age, love, freedom and heartbreak, so have we. As Taylor has achieved international recognition and subsequent disillusionment, we grapple with our own disillusionment. She is the voice of a generation (actually a few generations at this point) because her lyrics speak openly about the darkness and cravings that people face in their daily life.
I, a thirty-three-year-old woman (Swift is thirty-four), have followed her career for many years. However, as time has passed and our lives have gone in wildly different directions (no screaming fans here—just four screaming kids), my fascination with Swift’s music has taken a turn from relatability to feeling as though it’s a book that I can’t put down. Tortured Poets is not my favorite album and pretty obviously isn’t her best work, but it is striking in its rawness. At one point, Swift sings, “Is it a wonder I broke? . . . I was tame, I was gentle till the circus life made me mean,” and later in the same song, “I want to snarl and show you just how disturbed this has made me.” Among other things, Swift compares herself to an albatross, a deranged weirdo, a modern idiot, a doll on a string, a petulant teenager, the victim of a conman, and a wrecked Aston Martin. She talks about drinking alone with a ghost, needing a priest to exorcise her demons, and being raised in an asylum. Through all this pain and brokenness runs the consistent deep longing to be loved and live the simple life of marriage and motherhood: “Talking rings and talking cradles. I wish I could unrecall how we almost had it all.”
Taylor Swift is celebrated as the ultimate feminist, the It Girl whom every girl can look up to. Ironically, this woman, who could be seen as the antithesis of the Christian life, is desperately telling the world that all her success is empty, and what she wants is to be loved by a man and have his children.
In her previous album, Midnights, Swift sings, “It must be exhausting always rooting for the anti-hero.” I’m rooting for you, Taylor. In my quiet home with my happy children and loving husband and little flock of ducks, I’m rooting for you to become a different kind of anti-hero—the kind that’s just a happy wife and mother, whom the world rolls its eyes at, wondering why she threw her life away.

Taylor Swift and the Tortured Modern Woman

Finding Your Perfect Catholic Wife w/Anna Sutton – Cup o’Joe LIVE

Last year, I wrote a piece for Catholic Answers called “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-find-a-husband">How to Find a Husband</a>.” Here is the belated companion piece for men who are looking for a good Catholic wife.
Much of the advice is the same: expand your social circle by attending both Catholic and not-necessarily-Catholic events that attract single adults, then challenge yourself to actually speak to at least one single woman at each social event. Have a “wing man” hold you accountable to this goal if needed.
However, I have some specific tips for men, too, based on what I liked when I was looking for a husband a couple of years ago, and what I heard from other women as I researched for my book, <a href="http://prettygoodcatholic.com">Pretty Good Catholic</a>.
Many Catholic women complained that the devout Catholic men they met were . . . well, boring. They tended to have fewer hobbies and interests than non-Catholic men and didn’t joke or flirt as much. So you can take three concrete steps to make sure you stand out from the crowd.
1. Develop or rekindle some interests so that you’re well rounded. Ideally, you should do something physical that keeps you fit and doubles as a social activity, where you can meet women who share the interest. (I know a married couple who met through a casual Ultimate Frisbee group, and plenty of Catholic women love partner dancing!)
Intellectual and creative pursuits are great, too: play an instrument, learn a new language, or read some great works of literature. Basically, do things that women also do, so that you have something to talk about with them, and somewhere to take them on dates besides coffee or dinner. If you find that you and she are both into art, inviting her to a museum comes naturally.
If you’re using a dating app or website, showcase all these interests on your profile, via words and pictures, so women can really see who you are.
2. Lighten up a little bit! You should have a good prayer life and know your faith well, but you should be capable of talking about less serious things and joking around. Women love a man who can make them laugh, and they usually don’t love a man who obsesses over the finer points of the liturgy. Serious discussions about the Faith have their place, but these should come a little later. As a friend of mine says, “don’t mention the Fourth Lateran Council on a first date!”
3. Related: Learn the art of appropriate flirtation. That is, show a woman you are interested in her in a confident, yet playful and non-pushy way. Compliment her, tease her mildly in a way that makes her laugh (if you know her well enough to know she won’t be hurt), ask her questions about herself, and generally give her attention and observe how she responds.
If she’s responding well—laughing, smiling, keeping the conversation going rather than trying to find a polite exit—ask her out! Most Catholic men need to ask for dates more boldly and more quickly than they think they should. A matchmaker I know says that if you talk to a woman for more than ten minutes, you should ask for her number, and if you ask for her number, you should call her (yes, call!) within a few days to ask her for a date.
If this scares you a little, remember that a date doesn’t mean you have to commit to being her boyfriend and actively considering marriage right away. It’s just a chance to get to know her a little better, to see if you want to go on a second date, and so on. Step by step, you’ll learn more about her, and you’ll have plenty of time to decide whether to propose to her or not.
Every date can help you discern better who would make a good spouse for you and vice versa. Plus, dates are fun! Although we shouldn’t date just for fun, without thoughts of marriage, we should enjoy dates and see them as time well spent, regardless of whether the relationship continues. After all, getting to know another image of God is always a gift.
Once you’ve secured that first date, it’s your job to continue pursuing her for as long as you’re still interested. Keep planning thoughtful dates based on your shared interests, or trying new experiences together. Ask her questions about herself, progressing slowly from more surface-level topics to deeper things over the course of several months. When you’re more seriously interested in her (and no one else), ask her to be your girlfriend, and talk about what that means. Also, ask her before attempting any <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/chastity-in-dating-not-just-no-sex">physical gestures</a>. They might not do it in the movies, but saying, “May I kiss you?” is actually very romantic!
All these conversations take courage, but courage is attractive. Plus, they are good practice for your eventual proposal, and for many important discussions that will come up during marriage.
Being the one to initiate all these important steps in a relationship means risking rejection. On behalf of all women, thank you for being brave enough to risk rejection! All the times you heard “no” will be completely worth it when the right woman says “yes.”

How to Find a Wife

I have been looking into the Catholic Faith for a while. I have struggled with the Marian dogmas, especially the Assumption.

How do you discern whether or not the Orthodox or Catholics are correct, specifically whether or not Peter is first among equals or infallible?

Why is it that Catholics say you can’t spread ashes, but when it comes to saints you divide up their body parts?

Can you explain the Catholic teaching on the death penalty? Did it change with Pope Francis?

I am sympathetic to Catholic traditions and have tried to go through OCIA. But my husband has decided that our family is not going to be Catholic. I want to be a respectful spouse.

I’m trying to love my wife back into the faith. She was raised Catholic but stopped practicing. She goes to a Protestant church where the sermons are peppered with anti-Catholic remarks. I think this creates a major barrier for a lot of people to becom...

&#8220;Can you explain the Assumption?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the Marian dogmas, addressing common struggles with understanding them. The episode also touches on discerning the differences between Orthodox and Catholic beliefs regarding Peter&#8217;s role, as well as the Catholic teaching on the death penalty and its evolution under Pope Francis.
<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>

Explain the Assumption, Death Penalty, and Orthodoxy – Why Aren’t You Catholic?

Who received the first eucharist? Which scripture is the best to show as evidence for the real presence?

How do we respond when a Catholic says they are getting more out of going to a Protestant church? How do we bring them back?

How is the death penalty an immoral thing, and why is it changed for the first time in history?

What is the response to the justification that the reformation is valid because the reformers followed the example of the apostles being kicked out of the temple?

I see a lot of inconsistencies in the Catholic Church. I have an issue because if Doctrine can change how can I agree with what will change in the future?

Why do Catholics pray the hail mary so much during the rosary? Isn’t it against scripture?

&#8220;Who received the first Eucharist?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the significance of the Eucharist and the scriptural evidence for the real presence of Christ. Other topics include how to address Catholics who feel more fulfilled in Protestant services, the morality of the death penalty, and the rationale behind the Hail Mary prayer in the rosary.
<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>

Who Received the First Eucharist? Real Presence and Prayer

If Catholicism is in the Bible, where do you see the sacraments in the bible?

I hear a lot of Protestants use say “take it to the foot of the cross and lay it down.” What exactly does that mean and does it square with Catholicism?

I’m a recent convert. I have not been successful in convincing my friends and family about the Catholic Church. How do I convince them that it matters to belong to the Catholic Church as opposed to another church.

Where do we find Cardinals in the Bible?

Can we prove Catholicism and the papacy just by using logic and reason? How can people condemn the Church with the bible if the Church canonized the bible?

Sin clouds our mind and makes it harder for us to express our true free will. Mary was protected from sin so always had the clearest use of her free will. If God desired all of us to go to Heaven, why didn’t he give us the same grace he gave to Mary?

Former Catholic, looking into Orthodoxy… What is some proof for the papacy?

&#8220;Where are sacraments in the Bible?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the biblical foundations of Catholicism, including the presence of sacraments. Other topics include the meaning behind the phrase “take it to the foot of the cross,” the role of Cardinals in Scripture, and how logic can support the papacy.
<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>

Where Are Sacraments in the Bible? Papacy and Logic

DEBATE REVIEW: Redeemed Zoomer vs Doug Wilson on SCHISM

What obstacles keep people from being marriage ready?

&#8220;What obstacles keep us from healthy relationships?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the challenges individuals face in becoming marriage-ready, alongside insights on how media representations can influence perceptions of relationships. Other topics include the moral considerations of premarital intimacy for older couples and the implications of annulment on family planning.
<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>